Friday, October 4, 2013

Mordechai Kedar: Survival Skills for Israel - 101




by Mordechai Kedar


Read the article in the original עברית
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)
Read the article en Español (translated by Shula Hamilton)


As one would expect, the Israeli media took great interest in Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations Security Council. In the Arabic media, the situation is more complex: the morning after Netanyahu's speech, lines from the speech were cited, even in banner headlines, but Netanyahu's words - despite their importance to the listeners in Israel, Teheran and the White House - were seen in a wider context in the Arab media, because of the complexity of the way the global picture appears to the Arab world, which is naturally centered around itself.

The newspaper "al-Quds al-Arabi", which is published in London, devoted its main headline of the morning following the speech to Israel's options: "Netanyahu: We are ready to act to prevent Iran from having nuclear arms". The newspaper also added later in the article: "The Iranian-American rapprochement worries the Gulf countries". The connection that the newspaper makes between Netanyahu's pronouncements about Israel's willingness to act and the fears of the Gulf countries creates the impression that the last hope of the Gulf countries - since they have given up on the Americans - is that Netanyahu will deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

But Netanyahu's words are put into the wider context of Israeli relations with the United states: indeed, the White House is leading a policy of appeasement and negotiations with Iran, but on the other hand, Obama's statement that "all options are on the table and the United States will demand actions, not only words" is also emphasized. This statement is intended to calm the Israelis and tone down Netanyahu's explicit threats toward Iran. Therefore, it is not at all clear if the United States will indeed support Israeli military action if such action is carried out without the prior agreement of the White House.

In the background, it is also possible that the American Congress with a Republican majority will take a stand against the White House's position. "Al-Quds al-Arabi" tells its readers that the day before Netanyahu's speech in the UN, he visited the American Congress and met with a "small group" of members of Congress. From this, the newspaper assumes that Israel will try to influence White House and State Department policy by using American pressure groups, in Congress and in pro-Israeli organizations, to change the conversation with Iran from an approach of appeasement to that of making specific requirements, from an easing of sanctions to stricter supervision of the nuclear program through crippling sanctions.

"Al-Quds al-Arabi", a newspaper that usually takes clear and radical anti-Israeli positions, lists the four Israeli requirements that Netanyahu raised regarding the Iranian nuclear project - to stop uranium enrichment; to remove all of the enriched uranium from Iran; to close the Fordo enrichment plant and to dismantle the advanced centrifuges in Natanz; and to stop the plutonium reactor in Arak that uses heavy water. The newspaper emphasizes that although there are explicit and well defined Israeli requirements, it is still not clear what Obama and Kerry will demand from Iran.

The newspaper notes that Obama promised the Gulf countries that the United States will consult "with its friends in the Middle East" concerning the negotiations with Iran. The writer of these lines believes that this American statement is meant to calm Israel and the Gulf countries, mainly Saudi Arabia, so that the United States will be able to progress in their contacts with Iran undisturbed, and without the United States having to make difficult demands.

The newspaper "al-Hayat", also published in London, assigned an important place to Netanyahu's speech, and quotes the Israeli prime minister's statement that "Rouhani is nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing and we are ready to stand by ourselves against Iran". The newspaper quotes verbatim a significant parts of Netanyahu's speech. The fact that Netanyahu's speech was given generous and honorable coverage is significant. In Wednesday morning's issue there were still no articles of commentary on Netanyahu's speech, but the fact that many citations from the speech were included may mean that the newspaper's editors - who are guided by the Saudi agenda - understand that Netanyahu's words are important and meaningful, especially because of Obama's and Kerry's intention to come to an agreement with the Iranians at any price, from a position of weakness.

The al-Jazeera channel gave Netanyahu's speech limited coverage, and in its Internet site - which is full of reports about the military revolution in Egypt against the legitimate regime of the Muslim Brotherhood - it is difficult to find any reference to the speech. This is apparently because the channel's content editors do not trust Netanyahu, since they do not believe that there is actually anything credible in the Israeli threat against Iran. For years, the channel has been saying that Israel will not carry out an attack Iran by itself, for a number of reasons: 1) The distance between Israel and Iran, which prevents Israel from transporting bombs and soldiers secretly, so that Israel could mount a surprise attack; 2) To carry out an attack, Israel would have to pass over the territory of enemy countries; 3) The danger that Iran may begin a missile war against Israel; 4) The Israeli fear that Hizb'Allah will launch thousands of rockets over the entire territory of Israel; 5) The fear in Israel that the United States and Europe would object to the Israeli military action and cut it off prematurely, by means of harsh anti-Israeli resolutions of the Security Council before Israel will have succeeded to achieve any of its goals. Therefore it seems that the al-Jazeera channel does not regard Netanyahu's speech and his threats seriously, which explains the limited coverage of his speech.

The Iranian attitude toward Netanyahu's speech was as expected. The foreign minister of Iran called Netanyahu a "liar", although he gave no reason for calling the prime minister of Israel this name. How could he counter the citations that Netanyahu brought from Rouhani's book, in which he boasts that he had fooled the world? Besides, the Iranians do not need to try hard, because the West is in their pocket anyway, owing to a few smiles, interviews and moderate speeches that Rouhani has given lately. The Iranians are laughing all the way to the bomb because they know that the world will not allow Netanyahu to spoil the party when Obama, Merkel, Cameron and Hollande all sit around the campfire together with Rouhani and sing "Kumbaya".

The Israeli Diplomatic Failure

Despite all the well-deserved respect that the Israeli people have for the prime minister on account of the brilliant speech that he gave at the UN this year, and also for the speech that he gave last year, we can not ignore the fact that all of Netanyahu's speeches, all of the messages that prime ministers of Israel have sent to world leaders, all of the delegations that Israel has dispatched throughout the world and all of the briefings that leaders and politicians hosted by Israel have received about the danger that Iran poses to Israel and the peace of the region and the world, all of this could not stand up against a few smiles and pronouncements from Rouhani, including the talk about the phantom fatwa that supposedly cites a religious prohibition against the creation of nuclear weapons. How can it be that after all of these diplomatic efforts and explanatory information, that Iran, in the space of only one month and with a series of smiles and soft talk, manages to change from a Pariah country to the darling of the international community, from a nuclear threat to a partner for negotiations, without giving up one iota of its diabolical plan?

Of course, one could cast blame on the world, saying that just as the world stood by when millions of Jews were led to slaughter in the years of the forties, the same world is not too upset about the possibility that Iran will try to carry out another holocaust on the people that dwells in Zion. Because what is the difference between then and now? Doesn't the same anti-Semitism that existed then still exist today?

We could blame Russia and China as well, who used their veto power in the Security Council to overturn the decisions against Iran, frustrating the efforts of the international community to carry out any resolution against Iran and its nuclear project. We could blame the world's addiction to oil and gas from Iran and say that it's all money, and economic interests take precedence over ethical considerations.

We could also point to the West's eagerness to straighten things out with Iran as an excuse, due to the fear of what Iran might do to the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and the oil Emirates, if and when, as a result of the hardships resulting from the sanctions, the internal situation in Iran gets to the point where the Ayatollahs break down and act irrationally.

It is also possible to view the world's leniency toward Iran as a lack of will and the downright weariness of the West in general and especially the United States, to cope with dictators in the only way that they understand - the use of force, and to conclude that as the situation with Iran shows, the West has become a paper tiger, whom no one in the Middle East takes any account of.

This is all correct, but it is not the whole picture. We must search for the source of the Israeli failure in ourselves as well, not only in others. And when I say failure, I am referring to the fact that Israel apparently has not really convinced the world that Iran is a danger, for several reasons:

One reason is that Israeli spokesmen tend to speak mainly about the existential threat that Iran poses to Israel, not the world, despite the fact that the world does not really care about the fate of Israel, whose residents are about the same number as the residents of a small town in China. Is the world interested in the fate of tens of millions of Chinese who are forced every year to leave their cities and villages because of dams whose water floods fields, cities and villages? Did the world go mad when millions of people were killed in Biafra, in Rwanda, and the Iran -Iraq War, in Algeria and in Syria? So why would the world be moved when a few Jews in Israel yell "Help"?

Israeli spokesmen do not like to tell non-Israelis about the explicit words that Iranian leaders say about imposing Islam on all of the people of the Earth , because it is not "politically correct" to expose the truth about Islam as a religion of conquest and domination, as a culture that aspires to subjugate all of the people of the globe to Islam, which sees itself as the only religion that is "din al-Haq" (the "true religion") while all of the other religions are "din al-Batel" ("false religion").

In his speech, Netanyahu spoke about the Jewish people's historical and religious right to the Land of Israel and related it to the Jewish people's right to defend itself against the Iranians. How many Israeli spokesmen do this on an ongoing basis? Do the professional spokesmen of the State of Israel usually speak about the historical right of the Jewish people on the Land of Israel? About the Bible as the source of this right?

The official spokesmen and the legal consultants of Israel have caved in to the Arab rhetoric and immediately after the end of the Six Day War in 1967, adopted the false catchphrase that the territories of Israel that were liberated in this war are "occupied territory". And since many, perhaps most, of the world leaders do not differentiate between the "occupation of 1948" and the "occupation of 1967" they can accept the Arab idea that the entire State of Israel is actually "occupied land" so it is really not so terrible if the Iranians want to liberate the "occupied territory".

Israel's legal consultants, and especially those who were previously judges in the High Court, have never recognized the right of the Jewish people to all parts of the Land of Israel as it was determined by the founding documents of modern international law - documents from the San Remo Conference in the year 1920, documents of the Mandate in 1923 and the Anglo-American Agreement in the year 1942 - documents that are still valid today, and their power is stronger than any UN resolution. And if Israel does not know how to stand up for these rights, then why does it expect that the nations of the world will be more Zionist than Israel is?

And at least equally as grievous: 20 years ago Israel signed the Oslo Accords and with open eyes, established the Palestinian Authority that, according to the prime minister at that time, Yitzhak Rabin, was supposed to fight Hamas without being bothered by the High Court or human rights organizations. He also promised that there would be no rockets from Gaza. Meanwhile, as a result of these accords, an entity has emerged whose Gazan part is an Islamic terror state, and its other part might also become an Islamic terror state with territorial contiguity from the outskirts of Be'er Sheva to the hills overlooking Afula, and Israel still promotes this idea, which everyone knows might put all of Israel in great danger. So can Israel be believed when she claims that her security is important to her?

Some countries of the world support the Arab effort to establish a Palestinian terror state with money and UN resolutions, and the State of Israel does nothing against the billions that flow into its territory for the purpose of establishing a terror entity as a Trojan horse within its territory (according to Arafat's definition). So if the State of Israel so disregards the security of its citizens and permits its neighbors to establish a terror state on lands within its own territory, then why would the nations of the world take the Israeli cries of existential danger posed by Iran, which is located a thousand kilometers away, seriously?

Israel cannot expect the world to be concerned if Israel does not regard itself, its existence and its rights with urgency and determination. This is the true and profound reason that the Israeli message about Iran did not touch the hearts of the world's leaders, and the guilty party is we ourselves, the collective Israeli, we, the Right and the Left together, each one because of its acts of commission and its acts of omission as well.

There are too many Israelis who go out into the world and spread the idea that the State of Israel is an occupier, is illegitimate and has no right to exist. In Israel we do nothing to those people, and they continue to receive their salaries from the academies or from the Israeli film industry, meaning, from the citizens of Israel. They with their words - even if not explicitly - justify what Iran wants to do to us, and we continue to pay them their bloated salaries. So who is to blame if the nations of the world do not think it so horrible if Iran will have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel with?

And worst of all, Israel's chief negotiator stands in a conference in the United States and defends the idea of establishing a Palestinian state on Israeli land, without her having any promise that this country will not become a Hamas state, whether by means of elections, as happened in January of 2006 or by a violent takeover as happened in June 2007. So with such a negotiator, who calls to establish a terror state within the Land of Israel that will threaten the coastal land and Jerusalem from the hills of Judea and Samaria, is anyone surprised that the nations of the world do not take Israel's security claims seriously?

When Israel relates to its rights and its security more seriously regarding the Arabs, the world might listen more to our security worries concerning the Iranians. Anyway, the world does not think that there is any difference between Arabs and Iranians.



===============

Dr. Kedar is available for lectures


Dr. Mordechai Kedar
(Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.


Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

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

British Education: Creeping Sharia



by Soeren Kern

Many Muslim groups...have been marketing themselves as "inter-faith" schools in an effort to qualify for [free school] government funding. More then 80 free schools -- at least a dozen of which are catering specifically to Muslim students -- are currently operating in Britain and another 200 are in the planning stage.

A taxpayer-funded Muslim school in England has inflamed public anger after it emerged that the institution is operating according to Islamic Sharia law.

Islamic fundamentalists running the Al-Madinah School in Derby, an industrial city in central England, have ordered all female teachers -- including those who are not Muslim -- to cover their heads and shoulders with a hijab, an Islamic scarf.

In addition to the strict dress code, pupils have been banned from singing songs, playing musical instruments, or reading fairy tales, activities deemed to be "un-Islamic," according to non-Muslim staff members at the school.

The Al-Madinah School in Derby, England.

Girls as young as four are required to sit at the back of the classroom, behind the boys, regardless of whether they can properly see the chalkboard. Girls must also wait for all the boys to get their lunches before they can eat.

When teaching children the alphabet, staff are prohibited from associating the letter 'P' with the word "pig." Female staff are banned from wearing jewelry and are instructed to avoid shaking hands with male teachers to prevent "insult." Naturally, all non-halal food is outlawed at the school.

The revelations about the un-British goings-on at the Al-Madinah School -- some staffers have compared the working conditions at the school to "being in Pakistan" -- are fueling outrage over what some are describing as underhanded attempts to establish a parallel Islamic education system in Britain.

Critics say the school -- which originally marketed itself as an "inter-faith" school in order to qualify for taxpayer monies -- promised that at least 50% of its students would be non-Muslim. Now that it has obtained £1.4 million (€1.7 million; $2.25 million) in government financing, however, the administrators of Al-Madinah are switching gears by operating the school according to Islamic law, apparently to ensure that the school will be 100% Muslim.

The Al-Madinah School opened in September 2012 as a so-called free school, which is similar to a private school in that it operates beyond the control of local authorities, but is different from a private school in that its operations are paid for by British taxpayers.

Free schools were introduced by the ruling Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2011 based on the argument that such schools would create more competition for public schools and thus drive up educational standards.

The new free school policy makes it possible for parents, teachers, charities and businesses to set up their own schools, along with the freedom to decide the length of school day and term, the curriculum, teacher pay and how budgets are spent.

More than 80 free schools -- at least a dozen of which are catering specifically to Muslim students -- are currently operating in Britain and another 200 are in the planning stage.

British Education Secretary Michael Gove has said that Muslim fundamentalists would not be allowed to set up free schools, and the Department of Education has established guidelines to discourage Muslim separatism. As a result, many Muslim groups seeking to establish free schools have been marketing themselves as "inter-faith" schools in an effort to qualify for government funding.

The Al-Madinah School, which caters to 240 students between the ages four and 16 (eventually, the school plans to have up to 1,100 pupils), appears to have employed just such a strategy.

The Muslims behind the Al-Madinah project initially hired a non-Muslim principal, Andrew Cutts-McKay, and a non-Muslim deputy principal, Suzanne Southerland, to run the school, apparently in an effort to assuage fears about Islamic fundamentalism.

In a May 2012 interview with the local newspaper This is Derbyshire, Cutts-McKay said: "We will honor all faiths and envisage a school where 50% of pupils are Islamic and the other half aren't. During the day, the timetable will be flexible with time for Islamic teaching but pupils will be able to opt out of this and there will be a chance to learn about other faiths."

After just over a year in their posts, however, both Cutts-McKay and Southerland have resigned. Both allege that they were "forced out" after being "bullied and sidelined" by the school's Muslim board members.

The tensions came to a head in August, after non-Muslim staff said they were told to sign new contracts which force them to wear the hijab. Not only that, but the dress code at the "inter-faith" school has been updated to state: "The design of the clothing must not display any symbols of other faiths [other than Islam]."

Around half a dozen teachers at Al-Madinah who face losing their jobs if they refuse to comply with the new rules are now seeking legal advice from the National Union of Teachers.

In an interview with the newspaper Derby Telegraph, a local representative National Union of Teachers, Nick Raine, said: "We are very worried about the school and the education of the 200 children there. There are worries over practices concerning the discrimination between male and female pupils in the school, with the girls being told to sit at the back of the class regardless of whether they can see the board properly."

"It's one thing to have a dress code which we can challenge and quite another to build it into a contract," he added. "The school is publicly accountable so there needs to be a greater level of transparency."

A spokeswoman for the Derby National Union of Teachers, Sue Arguile, said: "This school was first launched as based on Muslim principles and not as a Muslim school. If the school is not sticking to the original reasons behind why it was set up, then it does call into question whether public money is being used properly and for its intended purpose."

The Al-Madinah School -- which is already being investigated by the government over alleged financial irregularities -- has been unapologetic. The school issued a statement saying: "Like all pioneers, we are on a journey, and as a new school open for just one year (and only a few days in our new, wonderful, secondary building) we simply ask for time to get going and grow into an excellent school."

The Al-Madinah controversy is not unique. In July, the Department for Education (DfE) blocked plans for the creation of the Northern Lights Free School in Halifax, a town in West Yorkshire, over alleged links to Muslim fundamentalists.

Organizers of the proposed school were dogged by allegations of extremism after a letter -- sent to scores of homes in Halifax -- warned parents to attend a meeting that was "more serious than death." Also known as the "Hell Leaflet," the letter stated: "There have been several incidents recently where children in various settings have been forced to do things against Islam."

The document was sent by Akeel Ayub, the director of the Sunniyy School, a Muslim school in Halifax with close links to the proposed Northern Lights Free School. Evidently, the letter was seeking to apply pressure on families to enroll their children in the new free school.

Many parents in Halifax were furious at receiving the leaflet and the DfE launched an investigation after receiving a letter from a local politician, David Whalley, who wrote: "The local authority is concerned that the rise in issues being reported regarding uniforms for Muslim pupils, Muslim pupils participating in musical activities in school, Muslim pupils participating in curriculum activities related to Christmas etc. have increased and schools have alleged that parents are being influenced by views espoused by the Sunniyy School."

"The local authority is led to believe that there are close links between the Sunniyy School and the proposed free school and therefore the potential risk of a negative impact on community relations within the area is high," Whalley added.

Other Muslim free schools that have generated controversy are the Tauheedul Islam Boys' School and the Tauheedul Islam Girls' School in Blackburn, a large town in Lancashire, England. Blackburn is an area where too many people live "parallel lives" and there is a need for integration rather than separation, according to the Lancashire Telegraph.

The official body for inspecting schools, known as Ofsted, has pledged to keep tabs on Muslim free schools. But Ofsted has long been accused of "whitewashing" hardline Islamic schools that are helping to radicalize a new generation of young British Muslims.

An opinion essay penned by Manzoor Moghal, a well-known writer and commentator on Islam and Muslim affairs in Britain, argues that Islamic schools that oppose the Western lifestyle are a breeding ground for potential social problems in the future.

The essay, "Veils, Segregated Schools and Why We Risk Sowing the Seeds of Islamic Terror in Britain," states:
For far too long, the British authorities have turned a blind eye -- out of misguided fear of being seen as racist -- to the creeping prevalence of militant Islam in our midst. We see this same fearful attitude in the official tolerance of informal Sharia courts in Muslim areas of urban Britain. Such tribunals should not be allowed to operate. Muslims do not need separate judicial institutions. Under the great English tradition of justice, we are all meant to be equal before the law, regardless of status, wealth or religion.
...
How can people ever integrate if the authorities allow separatist enclaves and customs to take root, as we now see all the time in places like Birmingham, Dewsbury in Yorkshire, or Leicester? ... My great worry is that, if the British authorities continue to allow the Islamic hardliners to have their way in the name of choice when it comes to segregating boys from girls in schools, or Sharia courts, or insisting that women should be allowed to wear veils in all circumstances, then those hardliners will feel they are pushing at an open door.
Moghal sums it up: "We must, sadly, accept that there are people in our midst who want to see a hardline Islamist caliphate in Britain. And while the security and intelligence services are nothing less than heroic in their fight against Islamic extremists, continuing to foil terror plots on a regular basis, our civic institutions have in contrast been far too cowardly in their reluctance to challenge fundamentalism."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Source:http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3999/uk-education-sharia

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

Surreal and Suicidal: Modern Western Histories of Islam



by Raymond Ibrahim


Rereading some early history books concerning the centuries-long jihad on Europe, it recently occurred to me how ignorant the modern West is of its own past. The historical narrative being disseminated today bears very little resemblance to reality. 

Consider some facts for a moment:

A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the "Islamic world" -- including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China -- much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom's other great basilica, Constantinople's Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.
The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the "terror of the Turk." These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island, seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."

In short, for roughly one millennium -- punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing -- Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

And therein lies the rub: Today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic "victims" of "intolerant" Western Christians. That's exactly what a TV personality recently told me live on Fox News.

So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11 -- merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West -- Americans elected a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president, who openly empowers the same ideology that their ancestors lived in mortal fear of, even as they sit by and watch to their future detriment.

Surely the United States' European forebears -- who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam -- must be turning in their graves.

But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it? Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be "touched up" a bit?

This would be a somewhat plausible position -- if not for the fact that, all around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did. The only difference is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.

Yet this may not even be necessary. Thanks to the West's ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of "immigration," refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called "enclaves" or "ghettoes" but in Islamic terminology are the ribat -- frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.

All this leads to another, perhaps even more important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside its head, what other historical "orthodoxies" being peddled around as truth are also false?

Were the Dark Ages truly benighted because of the "suffocating" forces of Christianity? Or were these dark ages -- which "coincidentally" occurred during the same centuries when jihad was constantly harrying Europe -- a product of another suffocating religion? Was the Spanish Inquisition a reflection of Christian barbarism or was it a reflection of Christian desperation vis-à-vis the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, while claiming to have converted to Christianity, were practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert the Christian nation back to Islam?

Don't expect to get true answers to these and other questions from the makers, guardians, and disseminators of the West's fabricated epistemology.

In the future (whatever one there may be) the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the "information age," was not an age when people were so well informed, but rather an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generations of people lived in bubbles of alternate realities -- till they were finally popped.


Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians, which deals with both history and current events. A Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, he wrote his master's thesis on an early battle between Islam and the West under the direction of military historian Victor Davis Hanson. 

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/surreal_and_suicidal_modern_western_histories_of_islam.html

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

Obama is Weak and the Mullahs Know It



by Manda Zand Ervin


The mullahs of Iran are playing the game of the good cop, Moderates, and bad cop, Hardliners, with the present American administration, and unfortunately President Obama is so eager to prove his misguided statement of six years ago offering negotiations with Iran with no preconditions, that he may fall in the mullah's trap. The reality is that there are no moderates in the regime of Iran. Khomeini set the law of "United under the absolute rule" that makes all dissent nothing but treason punishable by death. 

The mullahs are cunning, soft-spoken and deceitful. Ahmadinejad was not a mullah -- he was a useful idiot for the dear supreme leader Ali Khamenei. He had a big mouth but no power -- that made him less threatening than Rouhani. 

Ask any Iranian about the nature of the Shia Mullahs, they will tell you that there is no one as cunning, deceptive, unreliable, and capable of lying as they are. Khomeini lied to the people of Iran and the world, and his heirs have continued the same policy, called taqqiya. The rule of taqqiya means that a Moslem can lie, cheat, and commit murder in upholding Islam. 

I was in Iran during the 1978-1979, heard Khomeini, the Islamist clergy, and their marchers whose slogan was: DEATH TO AMERICA. Their revolutionary propaganda was mostly directed against America and the Shah was damned for being the servant of Imperialist America. 

The Islamist regime boasted about kicking America out of Iran and has made it their number-one policy to keep the United States out. This has been fed to their 6% constituency, with every Friday sermon ending: "Death to America" for the last 35 years. 

The history of the Iranian mullahs has proven that no matter what they say, they will never carry out their promises and do not respect their signature or any contract they sign. That is why Iranians have never trusted nor respected the mullahs. Hafiz e Shirazi, a well-known 14th-century Iranian philosopher-poet, said about the mullahs: Do not trust the mullahs, who will tell you one thing on the pulpit but do another in private. 

When asked by an American reporter what his feelings were on returning to Iran, Khomeini said "nothing." In another interview, he said: Iran is only a platform for us to spread Islamic rule around the world. During the last 35 years, the mullahs of Iran have proven that they are capable of all crimes against humanity in order to stay in power on their own terms. They use Iran as the platform to spread their ideology by spending Iranian wealth to promote international terrorism through Hamas, Hizb'allah, Sudan, Bolivia and so on, while the children of Iran are starving. 

President Obama continuously repeats that we need to reach out, negotiate, and use diplomacy with President Rouhani -- who, by the way, is the representative of Ayatollah Khamenei and not the people of Iran. 

Europeans, through Jack Straw of the UK, Dominique de Villepin of France, and Joschka Fischer of Germany, tried negotiations for five years with the so-called moderate reformist, mullah President Khatami, represented by none other than Hasan Rouhani. That effort ended in disaster, with the European Union admitting its failure. President Reagan tried also. He sent a cake and a Qur'an to Khomeini, but Khomeini fed the cake to dogs and willfully ignored President Reagan's proposal of friendship. President Clinton worked diligently on negotiations for eight years. 

As I wrote five years ago, since 1979 every president of the United States has tried the same as all of the above. Two secretaries of state, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright, both failed during the regime of the same mullah president, Khatami. It was Warren Christopher who called the regime of Iran "evil" after over three years of unsuccessful negotiations. Mrs. Albright even publicly apologized to the mullahs of Iran for America's sins. She eliminated trade sanctions on three items as a goodwill gesture and offered incentives on Iranian frozen assets, but at every point, the mullahs ungraciously found excuses ignore the repeated gestures of good will and refused to take a single step forward.

The most important fact to remember is that while the negotiations were going on between the Clinton Administration and the mullahs of Iran, they were continuing the development of their hidden nuclear program.

The Bush administration also tried directly and indirectly, behind closed doors and in public. If the mullahs of Iran wanted to negotiate, there was the April 2006 package approved by the European Allies and Russia and offered by the U.S. with good will and many incentives. Yet typically and inexplicably, Iran remained recalcitrant and rejected it.

For all the above reasons we, the Iranian Americans, think that President Obama should only trust the people of Iran and not the dictators.


Manda Zand Ervin

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/obama_is_weak_and_the_mullahs_know_it.html

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

Barry Rubin: What Will Happen Now with U.S. Middle East Policy?



by Barry Rubin


Turkish Reader: Haven’t you understood yet that the US does not care about whether a Muslim country is ruled by Sharia [dictatorship] or by secular [democracy] law as long as that regime is pro-American? Isn’t this U.S. interests “über alles”?

Me: Yes I do care. First, no Islamist government is really going to be pro-American or pro-Western. Second, it won’t be good for that country’s people. Why should I feel differently to handing over Czechoslovakia to Nazi rule or Hungary to Communist rule than Turkey to Islamist rule?
—————
Already there are starting to appear evaluations of what President Barack Obama’s second term will be like. I think that even though the Obama Administration doesn’t know or have a blueprint it is clear and consistent what the Middle East policy would be. It is a coherent program though as I say it is not necessarily fully or consciously thought out. The plan would be for a comprehensive solution which will leave the Middle East situation as a successful legacy of the Obama Administration.

 
There are three main themes of this plan, though as I say I’m not sure it has really taken shape. By 2016 they will all fail, and leave the West weaker.

The first is with Iran policy. The goal would be to “solve” the nuclear weapons’ issue by making a deal with Iran. One thing that is possible is that the Iranians just deceitfully build nuclear arms. The other that the will go up to the point when they can get nuclear weapons very quickly and then stop for a while. Probably either result will be hailed as a brilliant diplomatic victory for Obama.

This is how the nuclear deal is interpreted by Iran, in a dispatch from Fars new agency: “It seems that the Americans have understood this fact that Iran is a powerful and stable country in the region which uses logical and wise methods in confrontation with its enemies.” In other words America is an enemy of Iran that has backed down. One thing Iran might get in a deal for “giving up” its nuclear ambitions would be something in Syria perhaps.  It would probably look like this.

 It is possible that this deal would be in the shape of an unofficial partition of Syria, with the Bashar Assad regime surviving in 40 percent of the country including Aleppo and Damascus; another 40 percent would be controlled by a U.S.-backed rebels, mainly Muslim Brotherhood; and 20 percent would be a Kurdish autonomous area. I want to stress that I don’t believe that this would work and would in fact be the object of another Iranian stalling technique and effort to gain total victory.

Iran wants primacy at least in the Shia world – meaning Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. It would just require Iranian patience if Iran is willing to devote extensive resources to this enterprise until it could seize the whole country. The U.S. probably won’t provide ground troops, which is understandable. And would the U.S. provide military and economic aid to an al-Qaida-Salafi–Muslim Brotherhood regime? At any rate the Iranians would either develop nuclear weapons or simply get to the point where they could if they wanted to and then stop, knowing that they could so at any time. Of course, this would relatively ignore Israel’s security needs.

And if a nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t materialize you can tell who will be blamed by an article named, “A Nuclear Deal With Iran Is Within Reach, If Congress Plays Its Part,””  in the prestigious magazine,  Roll Call.

The second theme would be an illusion that it would be possible to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a two-state solution but actually moving toward the Palestinian real goal which is an Arab Palestine. Period. Regarding this issue it is probably that both sides would stall. Only Secretary of State John Kerry believes otherwise.

The Israeli side would mount a strategic retreat by gradual concessions hoping that the Obama Administration would end before too much damage was done. It is clear, for example, that prisoner releases, the granting of economic benefits and the entry of more laborers would be among the concessions given.Of course, this would also relatively ignore Israel’s security needs.

Meanwhile the Palestinians will also stall and constantly flourish the threat that they will seek unilateral independence, which might result in more  U.S. concessions. But it is unlikely that the United States will pressure the Palestinians much or criticize them, no matter what they do. In the classical formulation of President Shimon Peres, “We will give and the Palestinians will take.”

The point is that probably not much progress—which is really moving backwards–will be made on the Israeli-Palestinian front.  Also of course the so-called “peace process” won’t affect any other regional issue positively.

The Islamists, Sunni or Shia, don’t want progress toward peace and will try to wreck it. That goes for the Muslim Brotherhood government in Tunisia and Gaza; the Islamist governments in Lebanon, Turkey and Iran, or the government and the rebels in Syria. In fact the harder the United States works on peace the angrier they will be.

The third theme has to do with the Sunni Muslim Islamists. The theory is that this movement is the best protection against al-Qaida. But if that’s true why does the U.S. support the Syrian rebels when they form a united front at each opportunity to support al-Qaida? Similarly. While al-Qaida is much weaker in Egypt, the U.S has now backed the al-Qaida movement, by refusing to back the army coup by failing to back the army’s war against Islamists, especially in the Sinai?

Case study Note: 
CIA Ramping Up Covert Training Program for Moderate Syrian Rebels”: The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, U.S.-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war. But the CIA program is expected to produce only a few hundred trained fighters each month, enough to help ensure that these militias don’t lose, but not enough for them to win. The CIA has trained fewer than 1,000 rebel fighters this year and has sent additional paramilitary teams to secret bases in Jordan in recent weeks to double that number. By contrast, U.S. intelligence analysts estimate that more than 20,000 have been trained by Iran and Hizbullah to fight for pro-Assad militias. (Washington Post)

Trick: The Islamist Syrian rebels have about 60,000 men from Muslim Brotherhood. Salafists and al-Qaida! Moreover. the moderates could easily defect to al-Qaida with their weapons and who is going to do anything about it?
 
In other words that’s a regime about 60 regime; 60 Islamist rebels and 2 “moderates.”
—– 
More subtly, Turkey has an Islamist government and it is the favorite ally of the United States in the Middle East.

To summarize, it is likely that the last three years of the Obama Administration are going to be spent pursuing these three failed themes.

–Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons or at least aggression and that it will fool naïve Americans. Iran will be strengthened; U.S  allies will be weakened.

–On Israel-Palestinian policy likely no progress will be made toward a peaceful solution but the Palestinians will try to make gains toward destroying Israel, although they would benefit more by grabbing a Palestinian state and then using it to strengthen (the two-stage solution. Instead they will lose their chance to get a two-state solution.

–And finally it is likely that the Sunni Muslim Islamists will let down the United States because, after all, they will never be pro-American. And they will intensify Sunni-Shia bloodbaths. So while there will be much activity within the Obama Administration over the next three years media reports will cheer it. At the Bard of Avon said, “It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.”

Also posted at: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/10/03/what-will-happen-now-with-u-s-middle-east-policy/


Barry Rubin

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/10/what-will-happen-now-with-u-s-middle-east-policy-2/

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

Israel vs. Iran at the U.N.



by Majid Rafizadeh



Picture 14 

When it comes to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, one of the countries that would be the first target and would experience the severe repercussions of an Islamist nuclear-armed Iran is Israel. This issue of a nuclear- armed Iran led by an Islamist regime has become more critical and dreadful due to the geographic proximity of Iran and Tel Aviv (merely half the distance between New York and Los Angeles), along with its fundamentalist ideology.

After President Hassan Rouhani attempted to appear, and disguise himself, as a moderate by using a conciliatory tone, outreaching to the West and the United States, advocating for human rights by releasing a few prisoners out of the thousands of lawyers and political activists in jail, and keeping a smile while delivering his speech at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his speech in response to Rouhani’s rhetoric.

The geographic proximity of Israel and Iran, along with Israel’s first-hand knowledge of Iranian and Arab culture in the Middle East and the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran, has led Israeli leaders to understand, analyze and fully comprehend the politics of the ruling clerics and Ayatollahs of Iran better than their Western counterparts, European allies, and even the Obama administration.

The first critical issue that Netanyahu pointed out was on the ideological unity of the clerics (across all of Iran’s political spectrum: reformists, moderates, centrists, hardliners, conservative, and principalists). Netanyahu stated, “They’ve all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime”.

Rouhani was a friend of Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamist and theocratic regime. Through the last 34 years of the Islamist regime, Rouhani climbed the political ladder by fulfilling Islamist principles and ideals. He has been a member of the Assembly of Experts since 1999, a part of the notorious Supreme National Security Council since 1989, a member of the Expediency Council since 1991, and head of the Center for Strategic Research since 1992.

Therefore, the major question is why Iranian Islamist clerics and Rouhani are following this “disguised smile policy”?  It comes down to the very international and unilateral economic sanctions that have brought the Islamist regime to its knees. Iran’s inflations has spiked, the Iranian currency the Rial has devalued, oil exports have dropped, and there is a huge risk of revolt that would endanger the hold on power of the Ayatollahs and the clerics. This “disguised smile policy” is a strategic move by the ruling clerics in the Islamic Republic.  The Shiite-Islamist principle of Taqiyya, which is very popular Iran and among the Iranian Ayatollahs and clerics, allows the Shiite ruling Muslims to lie and to see lying not only as acceptable, but also as mandatory for accomplishing and achieving one’s own objectives.

The second issue that Netanyahu addressed in his speech at the UN General Assembly this week is the comparison between Iran and North Korea. As the Israeli government has pointed out, a nuclear-armed Islamist regime of Iran would be geopolitically and militarily much more dangerous than North Korea. The key reason is that Iran and the Iranian Ayatollahs will infuse their Islamist Shiite ideology to nuclear ambitions and a nuclear program. As a result, Iranian leaders will not only have nuclear arms and weapons, but also will use Jihadist and Islamist ideology when it comes to deploying those warheads and weapons. As stated at the UN General Assembly speech this week, Iran’s politics and ideology are close to, and an even more extreme version of, those of Europe’s fascist dictatorships of the 20th century.

The third fundamental thing is related to facts and actions rather than words. As the saying goes, actions speaks louder than words— Iran is still spinning its centrifuges and enriching uranium while Rouhani has launched his “charm offensive.” Tehran is now enriching uranium at 20 percent purity, which is considered to be a relatively technical short step from obtaining weapons-grade material and arms. Netanyahu stated, “I wish I could believe Rouhani, but I don’t,” telling the General Assembly with Iran’s vacant seats, “Because facts are stubborn things and the facts are that Iran’s savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani’s soothing rhetoric.”

As the West and the United States seem to be easing their economic sanctions on Iran and mending relationships because of Rouhani’s charm offensive and smile policy, Iran is continuing to enrich uranium at 20 percent, defy the International Atomic Energy Agency standards (IAEA), and crack down on lawyers, human rights and political activists. It seems that the West may awake to the truth of the situation one day, but when it is too late and when Iran is already a nuclear-armed state accompanied with its Islamist ideology.


Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-Syrian scholar, is the president of the International American Council on the Middle East.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/israel-vs-iran-at-the-u-n/

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