Friday, May 4, 2012

Islamists Seek Vengeance

by Michael Rubin

The Obama administration’s reaction to the Chen Guangcheng case is disgraceful, and will taint America’s name among liberty-seeking dissidents for a generation. While all eyes are on China, however, administration fecklessness regarding liberals, friends, and allies is spreading quickly. When it comes to standing up for principle, Obama’s reaction to Chen is the rule, not the exception.

Take Egypt: Adel Emam is perhaps Egypt’s most famous film comedian, sort of a cross between an Egyptian Steve Martin and Leslie Nielsen. Among his most famous films are Al-Irhabi (The Terrorist) and Al-Irhab wal kabab (Terrorism and Kebab). The first—released at the height of Egyptian Islamists’ campaign of terror—skewered the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist terror masters as cynical, hypocritical, and naïve. The latter took potshots at both religiosity and the inefficiency of the Egyptian bureaucracy. Islamists may tell Western journalists and think-tankers they will honor civil liberties, but nowhere do they tolerate satire or ridicule if they themselves are the target. Hence, their targeting of Adel Emam for films made years ago. Emam now faces three months in prison for “defaming Islam.”

In Turkey, too, Islamists are turning their attention to vengeance. In Turkey, accusation rather than evidence is enough to put anyone in prison. Less than 50 percent of those arrested are ever found guilty, but given the absence of bail, most rot in prison for years before their court dates. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Obama’s friend and confidante, has used this to full advantage. He has used the amorphous Ergenekon plot—more fiction than fact—to accuse past political opponents of malfeasance starting with the man who had faced him in mayoral elections in the 1990s. In recent weeks, the government has begun arresting those involved in pressuring the Islamist party of Erdoğan’s late mentor Necmettin Erbakan to resign. Never mind that the reason for Erbakan’s resignation was his efforts to overturn the constitutionalist order, and that those who urged Erbakan to resign were acting within the law at the time.

While European (and American) diplomats have reconciled the crackdown to the fact that many of those arrested were military officers—as if this exempts them fair targets for a venal prime minister—there are clear signals that civilians are now front-and-center and de facto government mouthpieces like Cengiz Çandar are naming civilians for police to target. There are also signs in the Turkish press that Erdoğan, the Putin of Anatolia, will also move against retired generals like Yaşar Büyükanıt for the crime of issuing a statement urging the government to adhere to the constitution. This was against the backdrop of senior aides like Bülent Arınç, now Erdogan’s chief deputy, to dissolve the constitutional court if it continued to rule against his legislation.

Obama’s worldview may have no place for men like Emam, but his crime was simply to use non-violent means to delegitimize the ideas and actions of a violent Islamist fringe responsible for the deaths of hundreds during Egypt’s Islamist insurgency. The world needs more satire, not less.

Nor may Obama like men such as Bir and Büyükanıt, but these generals were staunch allies who stood by the United States during the Cold War and who fulfilled their sworn duties to maintain the checks and balances within the Turkish system. Friendship should mean something; the United States should not simply sit back silently as a megalomaniacal ruler on borrowed time seeks vengeance upon anyone who has opposed him and his increasingly undemocratic agenda. Turkey may be a model, but it certainly is not one that the White House should want any state to follow. Rather than sit silently, it is time the White House speaks up for dissidents, whether they be blind Chinese activists, Egyptian comic actors, or Turkish generals.

Michael Rubin


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Stealing Their Way to Statehood - Part I

by Gil Bringer

This is Part I of a meticulously researched article that describes in detail how Bedouins of the Jordan Valley are used by the Palestinian Authority to take over territory in Area C surreptitiously.

While in Israel they are still talking about renewing negotiations, in the PA they are establishing facts on the ground. The goal, which was declared a long time ago, is to take over areas in the C region and create territorial contiguity. The method: establishing and developing Bedouin settlements with the legal and monetary support of the residents, who increasingly identify with the idea of a Palestinian state. The National Prosecutor's office closes an eye and the civil administration ignores it as well, and conducts a policy of double standards of justice towards the Jews and the Arabs. The Palestinians: Jerusalem is the Gate to heaven and the Jordan valley is the gate to Palestine.

They come from all over, equipped with vehicles and water trailers, they slow down near the Rimonim Checkpoint, pull over and park next to the Mekorot* pumping station. Higher up, in the guard post, a soldier on watch sees them filling the water trailers by means of a water pipe that awaits them at the spot. No one at the guard post stops them. This is the procedure and this is how the soldiers are instructed to act. From here the Arabs continue onward. They return to their small outpost, situated in a bend in the road. During the journey on Vered Road, which stretches from Rimonim to Jericho they wave to a family member traveling in the opposite direction. He is also making his way with an empty water tank, towed behind his vehicle. He is also on his way to a pumping station. He will also return to the illegal outpost that he lives in with a container of water that was filled courtesy of the government of Israel. This is routine in the realm of the Jordan Valley.

The Bedouin outposts are spreading quickly in this area, desperate for water. Without it, they couldn't exist. Until lately, the tribes would drill a hole in the pipe of the Mekorot and steal water. Sometimes, they wouldn't even bother to connect a pipe to the hole that they drilled, so that the water would flow in the direction of their encampment. The result was a continuous and uncontrolled flow of water. Israel, for its own reasons, chose not to fight this phenomenon and instead decided to supply to the illegal Bedouin settlements with the water required for development. The pumping stations, scattered in different locations in Judea and Samaria, supply the Bedouins all the water they need, purposely and legally. However this new method of obtaining water, even though it is simpler and more orderly, enables the Bedouins to extend the limits of their invasive border expansion into areas that have never had Mekorot water pipes and it requires the Bedouins to have equipment that they traditionally wouldn't have - huge tanks, large water containers and trailers. However, there is someone who is interested in the spreading of the Bedouins, and taking possession of new territories. And he understands the demand for water equipment and therefore supplies to them everything that is required, wholesale. An exploration of the sources of the water containers reveals the method, the means and the goal. Who is behind the new Bedouin settlement in the Valley?

First Stop: The Writing on the Tank

While traveling along the Jordan Valley Road, quick glimpses in the direction of the settlements on the sides of the road are enough to create the whole picture. Hundreds of identical water containers are scattered in the area. The same color, the same size, the same shape. It is obvious that they have all been produced in the same factory and it's clear that one hand is directing their distribution. If you get off the road and take a glimpse from up close, it allows you to see clearly the writing in Arabic printed on each of the containers: "The Bedouin Support Program. Funding: PA. Execution: The Ministry of Local Government".

Next to the yellow containers used for water storage, scattered among many Bedouin outposts in the Valley, are water trailers of another type - silver-colored tanks on wheels. The phenomenon repeats itself - exactly the same trailer in each of the outposts that we checked. On every one of the trailers the telephone number of the producer is printed clearly. When we called that number, one of the workers answered and at our request, passed the telephone to Mr. Rushdi Rafet, who presents himself as the owner of a metal-work shop, the name of which is "Barzaliat Haj Rafet", from the village of Arabe, in the Galilee. I present myself as someone who is interested in buying a trailer and request from Rushdi recommendations on his recent work in the area of the Jordan Valley. He tells me that he produced the containers that are towed by tractors during recent years and that they were supplied to the areas of Jericho, Tekoa, Ramallah, Mishor-Adumim, to a quarry in Anatoth and other places. He has a few different models and colors. Some are galvanized and some are not. "It all depends on what you want to spend", he explains. A few of the containers were ordered by the red cross but most of those that he prepared were ordered by the PA. Rafet suggests that I speak with them about his good work. The containers of the other sort were distributed by him as per the request of the PA in the area of Jericho and Mishor-Adumim, the area in which the Bedouin outposts are concentrated.

The brotherhood that was created between the Bedouins and the Palestinian Authority is very strange to anyone who hears about it, because many of the Bedouin leadership abhor the PA and have been complaining for years that they are neglected. A senior source in the Bedouin sector who speaks with us accuses the PA of corruption in every matter that has anything to do with money that passes to it from outside sources who want to invest in Bedouin welfare. Their Bedouin brothers South of the Jordan Valley who live in the Negev have never heard a word about the Bedouin support of the PA. In that area there are no water containers of any sort, not yellow and not silver-colored. Why does the PA have a support program for the Bedouins in the Jordan Valley?

* Mekorot (literally, "sources") is the Israeli Water Authority

Read Part II here.
Read Part III here.
Read Part IV here.

Gil Bringer

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav.

Source: Makor Rishon weekly Hebrew newspaper;

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Beware 'the Radical Center'

by MK Tzipi Hotovely

Elections for the 19th Knesset will be remembered in the annals of Israel's history as an attempted takeover of Israeli society by "the radical center."

Israeli readers are certainly chuckling to themselves. After years of the media warning us about the radical Right, and reality cautioning us against calamities brought on by the radical Left, what do we have to fear from people who position themselves in the cozy and harmless mainstream?

Top strategic consultants are now sitting in the offices of party chairpeople. A single question occupies their thoughts: How can they capture the hearts, and votes, of the typical centrist voter?

A flood of centrist parties are fragmenting the center, from Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid (There Is a Future) party, to the remnants of Kadima (which may itself undergo a further split) to Defense Minister Ehud Barak's Independence party, which is convinced that it embodies no less than Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's vision for Israel's future. This, by the way, is just a partial list of centrist parties, one that does not even take into account additional candidates who may found the next new promising center party.

We must marvel at Israeli politics' unconscious addiction to an illusive center. If we try to understand the main problem with this center, it is that its members aren't fighting for anything in particular, but rather running away from choosing a decisive path.

The center represents a flight from the need to tackle our society's fundamental questions. Bills like that proposed by Yair Lapid -- "We won't draft everyone, but we'll try to please both the ultra-Orthodox and those who serve in the army" -- are a good example.

Israeli society today does not need a center. It needs decision makers on a number of diplomatic, domestic and social issues: whether to attack Iran, whether to annex Judea and Samaria or to divide the land (the option to perpetuate the status quo will not persist over time), whether to break up Israel's economic concentration through forceful intervention, whether to restore the people's army to its original mission or allow the Israel Defense Forces to be the army of half of the people. Each of these decisions requires a clear path forward, not fence sitting.

Therefore, despite the desire of some of today's centrist parties to inherit the legacy of Mapai (the Zionist Socialist precursor to the Labor party), it is important to realize that Mapai was never centrist. Ben-Gurion knew how to make tough decisions. Under his leadership, Mapai was able to take the decision to establish a state against all odds, to embark on a nuclear project despite the risks, and to move the Knesset to Jerusalem as a historical statement of the eternity of Israel's capital.

Menachen Begin also knew how to make decisions. He made a peace agreement with Egypt, chose to attack Iraq's nuclear reactor and made an effort to reduce ethnic and social gaps in a country where the Belorussian Meir Feinstein and Iraqi Moshe Barzani both gave their lives to help establish the state. The two were imprisoned in the Russian Compound in Jerusalem awaiting execution, but committed suicide together by detonating grenades, rather than let the British hang them.

The collapse of Kadima and routing of Tzipi Livni were not the personal defeat of a particular politician. Rather, they represented the collapse of the approach that tried to take leave of ideology and making decisions.

The greatest danger to Israel today is not the messiahs from the Akirov Towers or Caesaria (where Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu own lavish homes), as former Israel Security Agency director Yuval Diskin shamelessly referred to them. Rather, the greatest danger is from the false messiahs of the center who promise a different kind of politics, even though no such thing exists. There is the politics of a clear path and leadership, of making tough decisions, and there is the politics of spin and public relations, leaving behind an empty shell when one's term in office is over.

There is a famous Talmudic story explaining how the Second Temple came to be destroyed and the Jewish people sent into exile. This is the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, who engaged in petty, baseless hatred. The story ends with an odd accusation against a lesser-known sage, Rabbi Zechariah Ben Avkalus, who avoided making a decision at a critical moment. Avkalus was trying to be a centrist, so as not to upset anyone. He wanted to stay on the good side of both Halachah (Rabbinic law) and the Romans. The unhappy, bitter end followed not long after.

Even then, the sages of Israel understood that centrism can lead to destruction.

MK Tzipi Hotovely is a Likud member of Knesset.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Sean Hannity interviews Geert Wilders

by Robert Spencer

[Editor: The whole interview is interesting, but at about five minutes into it, Geert Wilders speaks eloquently about the brotherhood between Western countries and Israel. The entire clip is less than 7 minutes.]

Robert Spencer


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Draft Contempt Order Against Holder

by Alana Goodman

Rep. Darrell Issa’s draft contempt order against Attorney General Eric Holder is the latest attempt to pressure the Department of Justice into complying with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena requests related to Fast and Furious, and whether it works depends on a political calculation by the administration. What’s would be more damaging: releasing these subpoenaed documents, or risking the media circus of contempt procedures?

In the contempt order argument, which was issued to members of the House Oversight Committee today, Issa says he’s still waiting for Holder to release documents for 12 out of 22 categories in the subpoena schedule:

According to the draft contempt order, the department “has yet to provide a single document for 12 out of the 22 categories contained in the subpoena schedule.”

The draft order pointed to three categories in particular. Those categories concerned: who among the department’s top brass should have known about the “reckless tactics” in Fast and Furious; how department leaders ended up figuring out the program was a bad idea; and how a special task force “failed” to share information that could have supposedly led to key gun-trafficking arrests.

The draft, which lays out the case for contempt should a vote be called, is apparently more than just a hollow threat. Fox News reports that Issa likely wouldn’t have issued it publicly unless he knew he had enough votes to get it through the committee, and the blessing of Speaker Boehner. At that point, Holder would have to either cough up the documents or explain himself to a grand jury. After months of DOJ’s stalling and obstructions, it looks like Congress may finally be heading somewhere on this case.

Alana Goodman


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Was U.S. Duped by China on Dissident Deal?

by Rick Moran

A deal negotiated by US and Chinese officials regarding the fate of human rights activist Chen Guangcheng appeared to be unraveling Wednesday night as friends of the dissident claim he was coerced into leaving the US embassy where he had sought refuge for six days after escaping from house arrest nearly two weeks ago. It appears that in the interest of removing a bone of contention between the two countries in advance of bi-lateral talks that start on Thursday, the US may have hastily negotiated an agreement that the Chinese might have no intention of honoring, thus putting the human rights activist’s life — and that of his family — in danger.

The deal would have seen Chen released to a local hospital for treatment of his leg, injured in his daring escape from house arrest. The Chinese would have then allowed him to reunite with his family and move to a university town where he could continue his legal studies. The Chinese also promised that he would face no more legal issues and that the oppressive authorities in his hometown would be punished for their extra-legal detention of the activist.

From his hospital bed, Chen reached out to several news services, saying he had changed his mind and now wanted to leave China, a request he did not make while sheltered by the embassy because he was unaware that he and his family were in danger. He also claimed that an American official had told him that he had been advised by a Chinese government official that if he didn’t leave the embassy, they would beat his wife to death. The State Department strongly denies that charge, saying no American official told Mr. Chen anything except that if he didn’t leave the embassy, his wife would be sent home from Beijing.

The confusion surrounding the deal has the potential to upend the economic and security talks between the two countries that begin on Thursday. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are in Beijing for bi-lateral talks that will touch on security issues like Iran and North Korea as well as economic matters like China’s currency policies and its huge trade surplus with the US.

Shortly after Chen’s release, the Chinese foreign ministry issued a blistering statement, demanding that the US apologize for sheltering Chen and for interfering in the internal affairs of China. And American officials who were staying with Chen at the hospital were ordered to leave, replaced by a cordon of plainclothes policemen who limited access to the activist. It is unclear whether the Chinese will follow through and live up to their end of the bargain, which has caused Chen to change his mind about staying in China and is now pleading with US officials to secure his passage to America for himself and his family.

Chen, who fought government officials in his rural province for years over their forced abortion policy and other outrages, told the Associated Press that he fears for his family’s safety. His lawyer, Teng Biao, told the Washington Post, “He felt his safety is threatened. He feels pressure now,” Teng said. “In fact, from his language, I can tell that the decision to leave the embassy was not 100 percent his idea,” he added.

In an emailed statement to the New York Times, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland denied the claim that Chen was coerced into leaving the embassy:

At no time did any U.S. official speak to Chen about physical or legal threats to his wife and children, nor did Chinese officials make any such threats to us. U.S. interlocutors did make clear that if Chen elected to stay in the embassy, Chinese officials had indicated to us that his family would be returned to Shandong, and they would lose their opportunity to negotiate for reunification.

Chen told Reuters that the reason he changed his mind about staying in China was because, once in the hospital, he was able to speak to his wife, who told him of his family being menaced by authorities. “When I was inside the American embassy, I didn’t have my family, and so I didn’t understand some things. After I was able to meet them, my ideas changed.” He also made a personal appeal in a CNN interview to President Obama to help him escape China with his family because he feared for his life after learning that his wife had been bound and beaten following his escape:

She was tied to a chair by police for two days. Then they carried thick sticks to our house, threatening to beat her to death. Now they have moved into the house. They eat at our table and use our stuff. Our house is teeming with security — on the roof and in the yard. They installed seven surveillance cameras inside the house and built electric fences around the yard.

The fact that the Chen incident threatened to overshadow the bi-lateral talks with China and that the US was desperate to make a deal in order to remove Chen as an irritant prior to the meetings gives credence to the dissident’s charges of coercion — despite the denials by US officials. But it is clear that Chen changed the parameters of the deal himself when he performed an about-face and indicated he wanted US help to leave the country. This was not part of the original bargain and his request has American diplomats scrambling to explain their actions, as well as control the political damage that has exploded back in America.

One outspoken critic of China’s abysmal human rights policies, Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), criticized the Obama administration for not granting Chen asylum. “There are no safe places in China for dissidents,” said Smith. “Going to the hospital is no different from going to the police station.”

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in a statement, “This event points to the broader issue of human rights in China. Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the facts of the Chinese government’s denial of political liberties, its one-child policy, and other violations of human rights.”

Bob Fu, who helped Chen escape house arrest and who heads the ChinaAid Association that assists dissidents in China, said simply, “The U.S. government has abandoned Chen” and that the Chinese government is “using his family as a hostage.”

And Paul Gregory, writing in Forbes, says the US should feel ashamed. “We have sacrificed a fundamental moral issue for commercial and political gain. We should have welcomed Chen in the embassy as we did Fang Lizhi and demanded that Chen’s wife and son be delivered to the safety of the U.S. Embassy, after which negotiations on Chen could begin.”

Indeed, it is not unprecedented for the US to shelter dissidents at our embassies in foreign countries. Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty, a leader of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, took refuge in the US embassy in Budapest when Soviet tanks rolled in to crush the rebellion. He stayed for 15 years. He was eventually permitted to leave Hungary in 1971.

The unseemly rush to deliver Mr. Chen back into the hands of his oppressors was a product of politics, not diplomacy. President Obama can’t afford a foreign policy embarrassment in an election year and the Chinese were very angry that we allowed Chen sanctuary in the embassy. There’s no telling what the Chinese would have done if Chen was still under American protection once the talks started between the two governments.

The statement by the official Chinese news agency hints at how angry Beijing is at what it considers US meddling in its internal affairs. Liu Weimin, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, in comments reported by the state-run news agency Xinhua, called the U.S. activity “interference in Chinese domestic affairs, and this is totally unacceptable to China.” Liu added, “China demands that the United States apologize over this, thoroughly investigate this incident, punish those who are responsible and give assurances that such incidents will not happen again.”

Secretary Clinton spoke to Chen by phone immediately after he left the embassy for the hospital and welcomed the agreement with the Chinese, saying it “reflected his choices and our values.” At that time, as Reuters points out, “What initially appeared to be a foreign policy success for the Obama administration could quickly turn into a liability.”

Given the suspicion of many human rights activists have that the government could easily renege on the agreement with Chen, one wonders what sort of “values” to which Ms. Clinton was referring.

Rick Moran


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The West’s ‘Rational Iran’ Fest

by P. David Hornik

We’ve been treated lately to an Iran-rationality fest. In February it was U.S. chief of staff Martin Dempsey saying Iran’s government was a “rational actor.” In March it was Israel’s disgruntled ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan saying “The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.”

Just last week Israel’s serving chief of staff, Benny Gantz, took up the slack by saying that “the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.” And the next day another disgruntled Israeli, ex-Shin Bet (domestic security) chief Yuval Diskin, suggested who might really not be rational, saying that Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak—both at least verbal hawks on Iran—were “two messiahs” who make decisions out of “messianic feelings.”

The New York Times, one could say, ate it up. A day after Diskin’s pronouncements, it ran a piece called “Experts Believe Iran Conflict Is Less Likely,”claiming that the “threat of tighter economic sanctions,” the “revival of direct negotiations,” and a “growing divide in Israel between political leaders and military and intelligence officials” had led “American officials and outside analysts” to believe that the “chances of war in the near future have significantly decreased.”

And the Los Angeles Times has reported that the U.S. was signaling a “major shift on Iran[s’] nuclear program,” with Obama administration officials saying they “might agree to let Iran continue enriching uranium up to 5% purity, which is the upper end of the range for most civilian uses,” if Iran agrees to strict inspections and safeguards.

As the article notes, such a deal would be anathema to Jerusalem and probably most of Congress, since allowing Iran to continue any uranium enrichment means leaving the door open to clandestine work toward the bomb. Israel’s national security adviser Yaakov Amidror has, in fact, been dispatched to Europe for “extremely sensitive” talks on the possibility of such a deal emerging.

The Los Angeles Times article, however, quotes Michael Singh, former top Iran adviser to President George W. Bush, saying “There have been many signals lately that the red line has shifted and they’re no longer pushing for full suspension” of Iran’s uranium enrichment—a shift that Singh “strongly opposes.”

The problem with the Iran-rationality fest is that Iran refuses to join in.

This week Iran’s English-language Fars News Agency website—regularly scoured by Western Iran-observers—has run a report rather brazenly titled “Iranian Navy Able to Deploy Vessels Three Miles off New York Coasts.”

It quotes from a recent speech by Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Commander Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, who proclaimed: “Our naval forces are so powerful that we have a presence in all the waters of the world and, if needed, we can move to within three miles of New York.” Fadavi’s speech was given on Tuesday, April 24—the 32nd anniversary of the failed U.S. attempt to rescue the American hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

And “on Friday,” the report continues,

IRGC Aerospace Commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said the Islamic republic’s military is also capable of crippling or disabling US aircraft carriers.

“First, sinking an aircraft carrier is not a complicated task,” Hajizadeh said. “Second, an aircraft carrier is equipped with so many advanced, delicate, and sensitive devices…that it could be incapacitated by even the smallest explosion.”

These are certainly unpleasant words at a time when such nice things are being said about Iran, as the world powers gear up for the second round of nuclear talks with the mullahs in Baghdad on May 23. After the first round in Istanbul on April 14, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton glowingly foresaw “a comprehensive negotiated solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program.”

But there is even more unpleasantness on Fars, with Iranian defense minister Ahmad Vahidi—wanted by Interpol for the 1994 attack on a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 and wounded hundreds—chiming in: “The [Iranian] Navy has a strong presence in the Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman, Indian Ocean and international waters and soon it will be present in the Atlantic Ocean.”

Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal has published an important op-ed by Robert Bernstein, Irwin Cotler, and Stuart Robinowitz noting that “Iran’s genocidal anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric…constitutes one of the most serious crimes under international law.” Among other things, Bernstein, Cotler, and Robinowitz quote Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameini calling Israel a “cancerous tumor that must be removed” and declaring that there is“justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and Iran must take the helm.”

Bernstein, Cotler, and Robinowitz also note that Iranian officials regularly characterize Jews as

nonhuman or subhuman: “bloodthirsty barbarians,” “filthy bacteria,” “wild beasts,” “cattle,” “cancer,” “filthiest criminals,” “a blot,” “a stain,” “wild dogs” and the like. Similar slurs were made in Nazi Germany and Rwanda. They are the precursors to genocide.

How strange, then, to find even Israeli security officials publicly describing Iran as “rational.”

Of course, “rational” can mean different things. If one wants to annihilate Jews, it is rational to build Auschwitz and Treblinka. If one wants to annihilate Israel, dominate the Middle East, and eventually bring the West including the United States to its knees, it is rational to build nuclear weapons, a far-flung navy, and intercontinental ballistic missiles as Iran is doing.

It is also rational to realize, and exploit the fact, that one is essentially dealing with the same West that Hitler dealt with in the 1930s—just as weak-kneed, delusive, and eager to be duped.

P. David Hornik


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Women's Rights in Egypt

by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

"This is why women's rights should be codified. Governments should be held responsible for treating men and women equally."

Islamist Members of Parliament in Egypt are trying to deprive Egyptian women of their basic rights by introducing several controversial draft laws that, if passed, will bring Egypt back to the Middle Ages:

-- The website Ahram Online reports that Islamists wants to cancel Law 1 of the year 2000, known as the Khula Law, which acts as an alternative route for women whose husbands refuse to grant them a divorce. Through the Khula Law, courts grant women a divorce so long as they return the dowry paid by her husband prior to the marriage. Law 1 of the year 2000 was considered a step forward in women rights. Before that, Egyptian women did not have the right to divorce their husbands on their own terms.

Khula Law's opponents argue that a woman should not be able to ask for divorce, as it is against Islamic Sharia law. As reported by the news agency AINA, the Islamist lawmaker and main Khula Law's opponent, Mohamed El-Omda, has argued that the process is an offense to the Sharia and that is a poorly hidden attempt to Westernize Egypt.

-- According to media reports, Islamist parties are also preparing a draft law for early marriage that would permit girls to get married at the age of 14 instead of 18. As reported by Ahram Online, in the past few months, Salafist MPs have argued that there should be no minimum age for marriage for either sex, explaining that in the Sharia Law, an age for marriage is not specified.

Women activists are trying to campaign against this draft. "A license to drive, and to even vote, requires you to be 18 years old or older. Are those things more important than being a parent and forming a family?" said Azza Soliman, a legal assistant at the Centre for Egyptian Women. As reported by Ahram Online, she added she believes it is wrong to set the age of marriage below 18, or even "12, as some imply."

-- A controversial statement was instead made by Azza El Garf, a woman and a parliamentarian belonging to the Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of the ruling Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood ruling . Al-Garf clearly points out that she disagrees with the Egypt's 2008 ban on genital mutilation, to which she referred as a barbaric practice as beautification plastic surgery.

- Egyptian media recently reported about a draft law that would allow a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours after her death. Members of the Egyptian parliament said that the draft does not exist and that it was a story made up by the media. However, as reported by Al-Arabiya, the "Farewell Intercourse" is not a new proposal. Last year, a Moroccan cleric, Zamzami Abdul Bari, was the first to state that a husband could have sex with his dead wife. The Moroccan cleric argued that marriage remains valid even after death adding, perhaps implausibly, that a woman can also engage in sex with her dead husband.

-- Ahram Online also reports that Islamists have called for cancelling the implementation of CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women), adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly; they alleged that "it contains articles that contradict Islamic Sharia."

Egypt's National Council for Women is campaigning against the above mentioned Islamist initiatives that are targeting women rights, saying that "marginalizing and undermining the status of women would negatively affect the country's human development."

Amal Al-Malki, a Qatari author, has been arguing on Arabic Al-Jazeera that the Arab Spring has so far failed women in their struggle for equality: "We have no voice. We have no visibility... And I am telling you, this is why women's rights should be codified; they should not be held hostage in the hands of political leaders who can change in a second, right? Governments should be held responsible for treating men and women equally."

Anna Mahjar-Barducci


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Official Palestinian Authority Media Glorifies Jihad Terrorist

by Robert Spencer

Good thing Obama is giving them that $192 million, eh? "PA Media Glorifies Master Terrorist On Anniversary of His Death," by Elad Benari for Palestinian Media Watch, May 2:

During the week of the anniversary of the death of PLO arch-terrorist Abu Jihad, the Palestinian Authority held events and broadcast TV programs celebrating him and his terror attacks.

The programs as well as newspaper articles glorifying Abu Jihad were monitored and translated by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) research organization, which presented them on its website.

Abu Jihad was the name by which the former head of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s military wing, Khalil al-Wazir, was known. 125 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed in terror attacks he planned and directed. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement a few months ago exposed a video which shows Abu Jihad plotting to kill then-Cabinet minister Ariel Sharon.

WAFA, the official PA news agency, glorified his killing of Israelis and his attacks on civilian targets in an article that also appeared in the official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on April 16.

“Abu Jihad was killed by the Israeli Mossad in Tunisia on April 16, 1988... and was crowned the Prince of the Martyrs of Palestine... Among the military operations planned by Abu Jihad: the explosion at the Zohar reservoir in 1955; the operation to blow up the Israeli National Water Carrier in 1965; the operation at the Savoy Hotel in Tel Aviv, which killed 10 Israelis, in 1975; the blowing up of a truck bomb in Jerusalem in 1975; the killing of Albert Levi, the senior sapper, and his assistant, in Nablus in 1976; the Dalal Mughrabi operation (i.e., bus hijacking), in which more than 37 Israelis were killed, in 1978; the shelling of the Eilat Port in 1979; the Katyusha fire on the northern settlements [in Israel] in 1981...”

WAFA lauded Abu Jihad for attacking numerous civilian targets and depicted the killing of civilians and soldiers as positive accomplishments. Because of his successful record of terror, said the report, the anniversary of Abu Jihad's death is celebrated....

If the history of our time is ever written by free people, the fact that we gave these bloodthirsty jihadis money will stand as a particularly large blot on the blot-filled record of early twenty-first century America's stand against the jihad.

Robert Spencer


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Most Israelis and Jews are Under No Illusions

by Isi Leibler

If one reviews the events of the past year and monitors opinion polls, it becomes abundantly clear that despite the mantras chanted by the far left insisting that most Israelis and Jews are opposed to the policies of the current Israeli government, the evidence on the ground suggests the very contrary.

There is neither a groundswell of resentment against the foreign policy and security policies of the Israeli government nor are there indications suggesting that committed diaspora Jews are becoming alienated from the Jewish state.

In fact, it is undeniable that a far stronger consensus prevails amongst Israelis in relation to the government’s approach towards the Palestinians than at any time since the national schism was created in the wake of the adoption of the Oslo Accords.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has effectively charted a centrist course which is endorsed by most of the nation. This amounts to an end of further radical concessions to the Palestinians in the absence of genuine reciprocity and no additional unilateral territorial withdrawals that could lead to a repetition of Sharon’s Gaza disengagement which merely emboldened the jihadists and provided them with additional staging grounds from which to launch rockets and intensify terrorism. At the same time Netanyahu has repeatedly reiterated that in the event of a Palestinian leadership committing to peaceful coexistence, willing to compromise and recognize Israel’s security requirements, he would make every endeavor to achieve an accommodation which would provide the Palestinians with an independent state. Israelis recognize that this will necessitate a change in the current duplicitous Palestinian leadership which is more committed to terminating Jewish sovereignty than achieving statehood.

Despite the appalling Israeli electoral system with its multiple parties and the excessive leverage by small one-dimensional parties, setting aside the extreme left and right and radical Arab parties, there are no basic ideological differences on issues of foreign policy or security between the leading political parties.

The histrionic media opposition from the far-left is neither reflected in voting patterns nor in opinion polls. The circulation and standing of its flagship newspaper, Ha'aretz, has plunged to an all-time low. The reality is that although the trendy “progressive” politicians and far left academicians continue making headlines, in reality they have been effectively marginalized.

Nothing illustrates this more than the humiliating defeat in the Kadima primaries of former leader Tzipi Livni, which was unquestionably linked to her mindless and destructive opposition to every aspect of the government’s foreign policy and her vitriolic personal attacks on the Prime Minister. In contrast, her successor, Shaul Mofaz is somewhat more circumspect in his criticism of foreign affairs and announced that he intends to primarily direct his efforts towards opposing the government on economic issues. Unlike Livni, he made it clear that after the next elections he would be open to joining a broader coalition.

The same applies to the Labor Party which to some extent had been hijacked by extremists from the far-left. Today, leader Shelley Yachimovich is more selective than her predecessors in criticizing security policies and whilst opposed to settlements, has deliberately distanced the party from its former leaders who engaged in demonizing settlers.

One can point to similar trends amongst diaspora Jewry. As was always the case, assimilated Jews are less likely to display strong emotional ties with Jewish affairs and are inclined to be more aloof from Israel. But the repeated assertions that committed Jews and especially younger people are distancing and even divorcing themselves from Israel have no basis in reality. Yes, the generation which witnessed the Holocaust and the struggle for the creation of a Jewish state is being replaced by Jews who take Israel for granted. They cannot identify with the pre-state Jewish powerlessness and do not experience the emotional fears for the security of Israel as endured by their antecedents. But today’s committed diaspora Jews have certainly not turned against of Israel.

When J Street appeared on the scene two years ago, the left liberal media hailed it as the wave of the future, claiming that its “progressive’, “liberal” and “pro-peace” approach was far more representative of American Jews than the established leadership. Yet, it made little headway and to this day continues to represent the hard core far-left and only attracts naïve even well-intentioned fellow travelers.

J Street’s boastful predictions about supplanting AIPAC turned out to be pathetic. Indeed the last AIPAC conference confirmed the strengthening support for Israel throughout the Jewish community. Moreover the desperate efforts by the administration – initially seen to be supportive of J Street - to ultimately distance themselves and curry favor with AIPAC, speaks for itself.

Peter Beinart, hailed as the darling of the left liberal establishment whose frenzied attacks on Israel received extraordinary coverage in the media, also disappointed supporters of the anti-Israeli left by obtaining only miniscule support from the Jewish community. Indeed his much heralded book was panned by virtually every Jewish reviewer and his call for a boycott of settlements was condemned by all, other than the extreme far left. Even J Street was obliged to distance itself from him in relation to this issue.

Indeed if one observes developments in the diaspora and monitors Jewish public opinion polls especially in the US, it is clear that there is a solid sense of loyalty for Israel amongst Jews who understand the realities on the ground. They display support for the current Israeli efforts to achieve security in a region in which it is the intransigent Palestinians who undermine prospects for peace and make a short-term realization of a two state policy virtually impossible.

This was reaffirmed in the results of a recent poll conducted by supporters of President Obama designed to understate the role of Israel as a factor determining how American Jews vote. But even this poll recognized that 73% of all Jews – not merely the committed ones - considered that Netanyahu, the bête noir of left liberals, represented ‘true Jewish values’.

We should not fall prey to propaganda repeating false assertions that today Jews are less supportive of the Jewish state. The reality is the opposite and that the overwhelming majority of committed Jews continue to fervently support Israel. The only major change is that they are no longer deluded by visions of a non-existent Arab peace partner.

Isi Leibler


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

by Professor Moshe Sharon

There is no Fundamental Islam.

"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam

You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam

Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.

But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.

But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible

Let me explain the difference.

The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.

In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam

Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.

When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems

Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.

The Bible versus the Koran

Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad

What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses

The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law

Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws. The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.

These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

Islam and Territory

This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.

This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.

Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace

Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."

Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].

In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice

What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg. When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War

The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration

Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.

One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.

End of Days

It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.

In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.

I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?

The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.

Professor Moshe Sharon teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. This article appeared on the Betar UK website ( .


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Sea Change: Obama's Confirmed Forgeries Are Not Going Away

by Monte Kuligowski

For several years, an Orwellian-type fear of being "marginalized" held reporters and pundits back from questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the presidency. To raise an eyebrow at the bizarre secrecy of Obama was off-limits. To question whether the historic definition of "natural born citizen" applied to Obama was taboo.

The era of fear, however, is happily winding down. It will take some time for this realization to fully take hold. But make no mistake: the tables have turned.

Like it or not, the ground has shifted, and it cannot shift back. The evidence of Obama's forgeries is not going away.

Up until this point, Mr. Obama controlled everything, including the talking points and burden of proof.

Rather than simply produce certified paper copies for state election officials and make the original available for officials to inspect in Hawaii, Obama played games with his purported birth certificate. We were told for three years that Obama's birth certificate had been posted online in 2008 -- though it turns out that it was a scant certification. In 2010, when confronted with the alarming doubts of the American people, Mr. Obama lamented to a sympathetic Brian Williams of NBC: "I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead." The following year, out of left field, on April 27, 2011, Obama "released" the elusive birth certificate by posting a now-discredited file image online.

This time he wasn't teasing. It was "proof positive." Mr. Obama, in his robotic style, barked that it was time to stop the "silliness" and move on.

No one ever wanted Obama to get all crazy and walk around with his birth certificate plastered on his forehead. But many took the reasonable position of wanting the mysterious birth certificate produced, not plastered or uploaded to a computer. Many wanted Obama to produce certified copies for state officials and make the original available for inspection.

But because no authority forced him to comply with basic legal standards, Mr. Obama was able to create a sideshow atmosphere by selecting non-experts to verify his internet postings behind closed doors. His media sycophants were able to make those who questioned Obama's staunch secrecy appear as the unreasonable ones. Somehow the burden of proof was erroneously placed on the citizenry to prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Well, the burden never actually rested with the people to prove anything. That was all smoke and mirrors. No conspiracy theories are needed to demand that Obama comply with basic legal standards -- especially in context of a state with a history of certifying foreign births as Hawaiian.

After Obama "released" the birth certificate in 2011, nonpartisan computer software experts immediately recognized that the embarrassing image had been computer-assembled. Of course, few in the free press dared to report on the "silliness." Fox News quickly summonsed Adobe-certified expert Jean-Claude Tremblayto to conclude, nothing fishy here (but his ORC explanation has been demonstrably debunked by the control-test findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team -- see below).

It's simply unfathomable to the consensus media that the One they worked so hard to elect could be a fraud -- or, at minimum, could have something to hide.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's team of law enforcement and investigative experts were able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that forgeries have been committed. It turns out that the sheriff simply confirmed the "open secret" shared by technical document experts across the country. As with many crimes, if not for their abject carelessness, the forgers might have gotten away with it. But the strength of the evidence is such that local law enforcement was able to conclude that "probable cause" exists to show that the White House uploaded a computer-generated forgery of a birth certificate. Ditto with Obama's Selective Service registration form: it is also a crude forgery.

Who would have thought that Obama's illegal immigration nemesis, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, could turn the tables on Obama?

With the help of his friends in the consensus media, Mr. Obama had been afforded the luxury of effectively remaining silent for years. Obama was able to sit back as a third-party onlooker as the media attacked, maligned, and ignored those who raised valid questions.

But the recent findings are similar to the events of a trial in which the burden of proof shifts from one party to the other. In our context, the burden of proof was absurdly placed on the people, but finally it has shifted to Obama. The six-month investigation by trained law enforcement and forensic experts has resulted in a compelling case-in-chief.

Anyone who views the video presentations of the law enforcement team can plainly observe the sea change which shifted the burden to rebut to Obama.

Even though crimes were allegedly committed, at this point, what is taking place is comparable to a civil trial. As such, it is time for Mr. Obama to produce competent evidence. If he has no evidence to produce, he's in public opinion trouble. If a court or Congress forces the production of his original documents, it's over for Obama.

Simple little mistakes: hastily uploading an assembled image without first printing and scanning, and cutting a "2008" rubber stamp to create the appearance of "1980." And the Selective Service forgery alone is enough to end Obama's presidency.

Sheriff Arpaio is under personal attack, but curiously, the control-test findings of his team are not being refuted. Apparently oblivious of the fact that the White House tried to cover its tracks by quickly replacing its original file image, NPR naively reports: "For the record, we opened the file using Adobe Photoshop and found that [the birth certificate] contained only a single layer of information." Fortunately, thousands have the original White House posting preserved for perpetuity.

The establishment media are trying every way they can think of to discredit Sheriff Joe. As president Joseph Farah recently wrote, "[t]hey are no longer just protecting Obama. They are now protecting their own reputations." The problem, of course, is that after all the attacks on Joe Arpaio are exhausted and after all the dust settles, the evidence of Obama's forgeries will remain.

The problem for Obama and his enablers is that the evidence is objective. And it's there for everyone to see. Generations from now, professors in Adobe Photoshop and journalism classes will be discussing and analyzing the evidence of Obama's forgeries.

The very result that timid conservatives and liberal reporters feared will eventually catch up with them: loss of credibility.

On the flipside, those who questioned Obama's bizarre secrecy eventually will be vindicated.

Monte Kuligowski


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Elections in France, a Country in Sharp Decline

by Guy Millière

France is country where the reports of the inevitable failure of the pension systems were presented to successive governments for over 25 years without a decision being proposed or taken. In the main mosques, Imams have been making explicit appeals to vote for François Hollande.

An observer from North America trying to analyze the French presidential elections would probably be bewildered to discover that among the 10 candidates in the first round, three were Trotskyites advocating a Leninist revolution ; a disciple of Lyndon La Rouche ; a former Norwegian judge who appears to think she is an environmental Robespierre (Eva Joly) ; a populist from the extreme right (Marine Le Pen) ; a moderate who would find his place in the left wing of the American Democratic Party (François Bayrou) ; a Gaullist speaking as if it were still 1965 (Nicolas Dupont Aignan) ; a very « socialist » Socialist (François Hollande), and the outgoing President Nicolas Sarkozy, a Bonapartist who, in the UK, would be to the left of the Labour Party.

The observer would then be appalled to hear that no candidate defended free-market principles ; that all of the candidates harshly attacked the financial world, multinational corporations, and globalization; that, of the two finalists, one is the outgoing President who was rejected by a large proportion of the population, and who for five years ruled without any clear direction; and that the other finalist is a Socialist whose program appears to have been written before the development of the Internet. He would be even more appalled by seeing that, faced with this distressful choice, the French population seemed to want to turn to the Socialist candidate, even knowing that he is supported by the Trotskyists and the Norwegian judge.

Moreover, after learning that the populist (Le Pen)'s program was written by people from the most nationalist wing of the Socialist Party, came in third, he would wonder how this country can still be one of the major world economies. He would not be wrong.

France is very sick indeed. It remains relatively prosperous, but it is a country in sharp decline.

France's problems date from long before the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy. France is a deeply sclerotic country where no budget has been balanced since 1974, and where public expenditures have risen continuously in recent decades to represent a crippling 56% of its gross domestic product -- the highest figure in the developed world. It is a country whose public debt is growing far faster than the public debt of its main economic partners in Europe, and will hit 87% of GDP this year (actually 146%, if what France owes to the European Union is included). It is a country where reports on the inevitable failure of pension systems were presented to successive governments for over 25 years without a decision being proposed or taken. It is a country where the unemployment rate has remained around 10% for 40 years as if that situation were normal ; and where the number of people living in poverty is between eight and ten million out of a population of 65 million. It is also a country where, for over 40 years, more than half of those entering university exited without any qualifications, and where two-thirds of all higher education diplomas are worthless on the labor market. Graduates with Master's degree become fast-food servers or cashiers in a supermarket -- if a position is available. It is a country where intellectual work has gradually lost all substance and feeds only the leftist libraries of the rest of the world. The latest of such French exports consists of «postmodern » theories elaborated by Michel Foucault or Jacques Derrida, and the writings of « specialists on Islam,» who asserted in 2000, that jihadis had disappeared.

Under Nicolas Sarkozy, the situation has worsened. None of the promises he made when he was elected has been kept, an oversight that could explain the feeling of distrust towards him by so many voters. Sarkozy's slogan in 2007 was "work more to earn more": in five years, discouraged by heavy taxation and regulation, labor productivity in France has only stagnated. Hundreds of companies have left the country; the reality now is that there are fewer jobs, and that purchasing power has deteriorated. The only actions taken by Sarkozy were embarrassingly insignificant : the legal age of retirement was increased from age 60 to age 62 -- cementing the current system in place as late as 2010 with just a two-to-three years' respite -- and the name of the social aid for the poorest was changed but not its operating mode.

Nicolas Sarkozy never tried to explain to the French people the economic and geopolitical changes taking place on the planet. He has confessed several times that he never read a book on economics – although you could have hoped that other people in the government might have -- another oversight that became more and more noticeable. A recently published survey shows that while in countries as diverse as China, the United States, Germany and India, the number of people who understand the virtues of the market economy is significantly higher than 60%, the figure for France falls to 31%.

Besides Sarkozy's incompetence, one factor that aggravates the situation in France is the ever more technocratic functioning of the unelected, undemocratic European Union, and, since 2008, the European single-currency's difficulties – exactly the same problems convulsing other European nations.

The « stability pact» developed a few weeks ago under the auspices of Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is supposed to save the system and avoid its implosion. It is based tax increases combined with decreases in public spending. In countries already on the verge of collapse, such as Greece, Spain and Portugal, the « Pact » has only intensified an already strong recession, and caused riots and strikes. The French population, apparently concerned that its fate could soon be the same as its southern neighbors', expressed its revolt by the ballot. Because no relevant explanation was ever given, the French population adheres massively to speeches which say that « Brussels cannot dictate everything from above, » and that increasing state spending, and making the rich pay for it, will solve all problems.

On May 6th, the Socialist candidate, François Hollande, who constantly used this kind of speech during the campaign, will probably be elected President. Voters' disillusionment will soon follow, with consequences impossible to predict. The main Trotskyist candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who received 12% of the votes, has repeatedly called for Chavez-style insurrection.

If, as it seems likely, Nicolas Sarkozy is defeated, his party will probably implode. This is what Marine Le Pen expects; she apparently wants, on the ruins of the President's party, to build a « nationalist right .» She proposes to leave the European Union and the euro, and erect high protectionist trade barriers.

One theme that has been almost absent from the entire election campaign is Islam and Islamization. Only Marine Le Pen has spoken of it. Even though she was always careful to distinguish Islam and « radical Islam, » she was immediately called a « racist. »

Slightly over a month has passed since the worst series of jihadists' crimes -- and the worst anti-Semitic acts since the Second World War -- were committed in France, but this seems already to have been forgotten. In the main mosques in France, and just before the first round of the election, Imams have been making explicit appeals to vote for François Hollande.

The evolution of the rest of Europe was almost never evoked, or only in a very negative way, or only by Marine Le Pen and the Trotskyite candidates.

The day after the first round of the French presidential election, the Dutch governing coalition fell: its fall came from the refusal by Geert Wilders's Freedom Party to accept the recessionary consequences of the « stability pact .»

In Spain, the conservative Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, recently expressed a barely concealed desire to break free of the « pact . » Spain has experienced negative growth for over three years ; its unemployment rate is above 24%, and 52% among workers under 25 years of age.

In Greece, where the situation is far worse than in Spain, elections will also be held on May 6th; the parties that have every chance of winning in Greece also advocate a refusal of the « Pact .»

François Hollande has said he will not ratify the « Pact » and has vowed to tame financial markets and Germany. If distrust of France subsides, the financial markets will remind the Netherlands that they exist and that they are not so easy to tame. Angela Merkel will also remind the Netherlands that she exists, and that the opinion of the German people matters.

No one can answer if the euro will survive to the end of the year, or what will remain in a few years of the feckless, undemocratic, unelected European Union.

Turbulences are emerging throughout Europe; France will likely play a role in worsening them.

Guy Millière


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Share It