Judge Dismisses al-Awlaki Suit

by IPT News


U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed Tuesday a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's alleged targeted killing program, saying a federal court "lacks the capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an 'operational' member of [al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula], presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him."

Last month Bates heard nearly four hours of argument from the parties in the case brought by Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen where he is serving as an operational commander of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Since arriving in Yemen in 2004 al-Awlaki has been involved in—planning, recruiting, and sanctioning—dozens of attacks against the United States.

On Aug. 30, 2010, the ACLU filed suit in federal court in Washington, challenging the government's authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens, such as al-Awlaki, and said officials, such as President Obama, are being given "sweeping authority to impose" death sentences on a U.S. citizen without legal approval.

In dismissing the case, Bates said there are a number of important questions at play.

"Can a U.S. citizen – himself or through another – use the U.S. judicial system to vindicate his constitutional rights while simultaneously evading U.S. law enforcement authorities, calling for 'jihad against the West,' and engaging in operational planning for an organization that has already carried out numerous terrorist attacks against the United States?," Bates asked.

On the other hand, "can the Executive order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization?"

Calling the case both "unique and extraordinary," Bates dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds. As the judge hinted at during oral arguments, the decision rested on whether Awlaki's father had the ability to bring the suit and whether a federal court could review the alleged targeted-killing program.

On both counts, the court answered no. Thus, as Bates explained, "the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day."

The court began by examining whether or not Awlaki's father had "standing" to bring the case, concluding that Nasser al-Awlaki could not bring the suit either on behalf of his son or on his own. Not only has Awlaki not been denied access to the courts—a prerequisite for his father bringing the suit—but he has publicly condemned the U.S. judicial system and expressed no interest in having the case brought on his behalf.

Highlighting the extensive public record, Bates explained that there is nothing preventing al-Awlaki from seeking justice himself. "While Anwar al-Awlaki may have chosen to 'hide' from U.S. law enforcement authorities, there is nothing preventing him from peacefully presenting himself at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen and expressing a desire to vindicate his constitutional rights in U.S. courts."

Rather, despite continued communication with the outside world, through videos, interviews, and AQAP's Inspire magazine (see here, here, and here), Awlaki has never sought access to American courts. On the contrary, "several times during the past ten months, al-Awlaki has publicly expressed his desire 'for jihad against the West' and he has called upon Muslims to meet 'American aggression' not with 'pigeons and olive branches' but 'with bullets and bombs.'"

Since late 2009, al-Awlaki "has taken on an increasingly operational role in AQAP," said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in a statement filed in the court case in August. Awlaki, Clapper said, has recruited terrorists and planned and facilitated attacks in the United States and abroad. IPT News has reported many of Anwar al-Awlaki's terrorist connections, linking him to the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bomb plot, and the failed Times Square attack. "He has involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism—fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents," the U.S. government explained in designating him.

As important as the issues presented in this case are, Bates' opinion suggests he is unwilling to expand judicial access to an individual who has expressed no such interest. "Whatever the reason for Anwar al-Awlaki's failure to seek legal redress for his alleged inclusion on the CIA and JSOC 'kill lists' – a mistrust of or disdain for the American judicial system, a desire to become a martyr, or a mere lack of interest in pursuing a case thousands of miles away from his current location," the court refused to expand access to al-Awlaki.

In addition to dismissing on grounds that Nasser al-Awlaki lacked standing to bring the suit, the court explained that the case was ultimately outside of the purview of federal courts. In a major victory for the executive branch's role in setting counter-terrorism policy, the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:

• the precise nature and extent of Anwar al-Awlaki's affiliation with AQAP;

• whether AQAP and al-Qaida are so closely linked that the defendants' targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen would come within the United States' current armed conflict with al Qaida;

• whether (assuming plaintiff's proffered legal standard applies) Anwar al-Awlaki's alleged terrorist activity renders him a 'concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety."

These considerations, the court acknowledged, are simply not within the purview of federal courts. "It is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." Although the procedures remain classified, a Pentagon document titled "Joint Targeting Cycle and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology," shed some light on the procedures for targeted identified terrorists.

Clearly, Bates expressed discomfort with the decision. "This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicial unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."

IPT News

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

Park51 Group Seeks Public Grant

by Ryan Mauro

The developers behind Park51, often referred to as the Ground Zero mosque and Islamic center, are applying for the $5 million Lower Manhattan Development Grant meant to rebuild the part of New York City devastated on 9/11. Should they succeed, some of their programs will be subsidized by American taxpayers against their will.

Park51 has confirmed ^[1] their application, saying that although the money cannot go directly to religious services, the grant will fund “domestic violence prevention, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services.” In other words, the taxpayers will pay for Park51’s outreach to the community.

“All I know is that we asked for assistance from the LMDC to give our dead decent and proper burials and were rejected,” said ^[2] Dianne Horning of WTC Families for a Proper Burial.

The attempt by Park51 to win the grant comes as more and more questions are being raised about the financial practices of the group and how it will go about getting the $100 million required for their project. The developers are not ruling out ^[3] taking money from Saudi Arabia and Iran and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has a lengthy list of extremist associations and statements, including support for the destruction of Israel. ^[4]

The developer, Sharif el-Gamal, has a criminal record ^[5] that includes a 2005 arrest for assault. His wealth has come under scrutiny ^[6] as he was a waiter until 2002 when he quit and formed his own real estate company the following year. He quickly accumulated the millions necessary to buy lots of property, including the old Burlington Coat Factory building slated to become the site of Park51. One former associate said, “I’m sure he didn’t buy it with his own money” and another “long-time associate” called him a “master manipulator.” Now, Sharif el-Gamal is being sued by Citibank for nearly $100,000 in overdue loans. This follows an eviction ^[7] from the owner of the offices he rented for $39,000 in unpaid rent. This is the man that NBC has proclaimed ^[8] “Person of the Year.”

Past financial irregularities with Imam Rauf’s organizations are further cause for concern. In 1997, Rauf formed the American Sufi Muslim Association, later renamed the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), alongside Faiz Khan, a prayer leader at Rauf’s mosque until at least December 2009. Khan is involved with organizations promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories, though he claims he never discussed his thoughts on the attacks with Rauf.

Khan says ^[9] that elements of the U.S. government worked with “the state of Israel, its criminal establishment, its secret service and its use and marriage with false flag operations” to carry out the 9/11 attacks. He also says a “sleazy mob, if you will, in the White House that co-ops Washington, D.C. and actualizes the agendas of Wall Street” was involved.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has found ^[10] that ASMA told the government that it held Islamic religious services in a 17-floor apartment building in New York City attended by 500 people. However, there is no single room large enough to accommodate such an audience. Cordoba House, the original name of Park51, has not declared ^[11] $100,000 in donations from ASMA and another one of Rauf’s organizations. This is significant because ASMA’s non-profit status as a church exempts them from being required to name their donors.

One of the major donors to Cordoba is Hisham Elzanaty, who also gave $6,000 to the Holy Land Foundation ^[12] in 1999. The charity was later shut down for being set up by the Muslim Brotherhood as a front for the Hamas terrorist group, which Rauf hesitated ^[13] for a long time to condemn. ^[14] Elzanaty says that he thought the money was going to an orphanage and was unaware of the Hamas connections, which is very possible even though suspicion over them had long been reported.

In audiotape ^[15] from 2006, Rauf is heard telling the person on the other line that he called on former U.S. Secretary of State Albright to engage Hamas and support an “Islamic State” since it is no different than supporting the Jewish state of Israel. He says he “[doesn’t] want a demographic Islamic State,” as he believes everyone should live together instead of separately. For good reason, Rauf repeatedly checks to make sure he is not on air and that the person he is talking to understands the conversation is off the record.

Martin Mawyer, President of the Christian Action Network ^[16] and producer of the documentary, Sacrificed Survivors: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mosque ^[17], told FrontPage that Park51’s application for the grant shows that there is inadequate local Muslim support for the $100 million project.

“What church needs to reach out for ‘overseas’ funding or government grants to build a house of worship? Churches are supposed to be built by the faithful who have a vision, a heart and a genuine need for a place of worship,” he said.

The application for the federal grant is a hypocritical move for an organization that claims it is trying to improve interfaith relations. The Park51 project may have faded from the media limelight for the time being, but its opponents must not be complacent. We may not be able to stop the approval of the construction, but we can fight so we’re not forced to pay for it out of our pockets.

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/07/park51-group-seeks-public-grant/

URLs in this post:

[1] confirmed: http://blog.park51.org/2010/11/22/park51-lmdc-funding-request/

[2] said: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/11/22/2010-11-22_park51_developers_apply_for_5m_federal_grant_outraging_opponents_of_mosque_near_.html

[3] not ruling out: http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/islamic-center-backers-rule-taking-funds-saudi-arabia/story?id=11429998

[4] support for the destruction of Israel.: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/13/imam-rauf-on-israels-destruction/

[5] criminal record: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/28/2010-08-28_park51_developer_sharif_elgamal_has_a_history_of_runins_with_the_law.html

[6] under scrutiny: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/beliefnet/no-answers-from-mosque-developer-20100824

[7] eviction: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ny-mosque-developer-getting-boot-in-rent-dispute/19634477

[8] proclaimed: http://nation.foxnews.com/ground-zero-mosque/2010/11/23/unreal-nbc-names-ground-zero-mosque-developer-person-year

[9] says: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2172/ground-zero-mosque-group-includes-9-11-denier

[10] found: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2150/questions-raised-about-raufs-nonexistent-mosque

[11] not declared: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2134/the-tangled-web-of-the-gzm-imams-organizations

[12] Holy Land Foundation: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6181

[13] hesitated: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL

[14] condemn.: http://157.166.255.31/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

[15] audiotape: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/22/ground-zero-imam-exposed-off-mic/2/

[16] Christian Action Network: http://www.christianaction.org/

[17] Sacrificed Survivors: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mosque: http://www.sacrificedsurvivors.com/

Ryan Mauro

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

Obama’s WikiLeaks Problem

by Rich Trzupek

The Obama administration’s glib, nonchalant response to the Wikileaks security breach reinforces the troubling perception that it doesn’t take national security seriously. While the president himself has said virtually nothing about the scandal ^[1], the response of his proxies has been even worse ^[2]. Attorney General Eric Holder assures us that he’s doing something, but won’t go into specifics. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made light of the issue, joking: “I’m writing a cable about it, which I’m sure you’ll find soon on your closest website.” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs downplayed the impact of Wikileaks, telling Fox and Friends: “We should never be afraid of one guy who popped down thirty-five dollars and bought a web address.”

The consequences of the Wikileaks releases are in fact both significant and dangerous — to the United States, to our allies, to Americans serving on the front lines, and to the foreign operatives who provide us with vital intelligence. Attempts by the administration to downplay the danger that Wikileaks represents smacks of the sort of “political considerations first” philosophy that seems to dominate Obama’s approach to governing. By attempting to minimize the importance of the leaks, the administration believes it can avoid much of the fallout. More than two years after an historic election that elevated him to the highest office in the land, Barack Obama still can’t get out of campaign mode.

In the broadest sense, the president is of course responsible for the leaks. As commander in chief, the buck stops squarely in the Oval Office when national security is in play. Just as Harry Truman was ultimately responsible for intelligence shortcomings that failed to foresee North Korea’s attack in 1950, and just as George W. Bush was ultimately responsible for faulty intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of WMDs, so is Barack Obama ultimately responsible for the lax security procedures that allowed a lowly private like Bradley Manning to access and disseminate sensitive information.

Yet, the root of Obama’s culpability in the Wikileaks scandal is the same as Truman’s and Bush’s: he put his faith in the military and intelligence professionals that are charged with keeping America secure. As they had in 1950 and 2003, those professionals made mistakes, and President Obama’s real sin is not in failing to anticipate a blunder that he has neither the skills nor training to recognize, but in refusing to recognize the extent of the damage that had been done and to act decisively to minimize that damage.

In the wake of 9-11, the multifaceted American intelligence community recognized that it was much too compartmentalized. Prior to those attacks, the CIA, FBI, NSA and other alphabet agencies jealously guarded their own pieces of the intelligence puzzle. It was realized – far too late to save the World Trade Center – that if those agencies had shared information, we might have understood what Al Qaeda was planning and stopped it. And so, the sharing of intelligence between agencies and the military became all the rage after 9-11. That new paradigm created what Pfc. Bradley Manning described as the “perfect storm.” ^[3]

Manning had clearance to two key high-security networks: SIPRANET ^[4], which manages information classified as “secret,” and JWICS ^[5], which deals in “top secret” communications. How could a Pfc have access to two such networks? Because, in the post-9-11 world, even lowly privates were important cogs in the machinery of intelligence, ensuring that important information would continue to flow in the right direction. While both SIPRANET and JWICS were configured to detect and report any unusual pattern when it came to document downloads, neither anticipated massive, unauthorized downloading of e-mail files. That’s how Manning got away with it. He copied the Microsoft e-mail files (designated as *.pst files) and sent them along to Julian Assange and company. Once that was done, Manning erased the server logs that would have exposed his activities.

But for the actions ^[6] of a twenty-nine year old California hacker by the name of Adrian Lamo, Manning’s traitorous actions would have taken a lot longer to discover. Lamo struck up a friendship with the private over the Internet and, once he realized what Manning was up to, Lamo reporter the Pfc to the authorities. “I am certain that more information would have come out had I not acted. Bradley would have continued compromising computer files,” Lamo said.

Adrian Lamo’s decisive actions to expose Manning stand in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s pathetic response. While a young hacker living on the west coast recognized that Manning and Wikileaks represented a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, the Obama administration whistled in the wind, wishing the crisis away by pretending it didn’t matter. Now that the Wikileaks scandal has hit particularly close to their political home, the president and his staff seem to be slowly awakening to the danger that Julian Assange and his cohorts represent. This may be a case of too little, far too late. While the Obama administration is finally, tepidly attempting to plug the hole in America’s security dike, the tidal wave of sensitive information rushing through the gaps that Manning and his cohorts have exploited might just well be too powerful to stop.

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/07/obama%e2%80%99s-wikileaks-problem/

URLs in this post:

[1] has said virtually nothing about the scandal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10783842

[2] proxies has been even worse: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4449623/critics-blast-white-houses-handling-of-wikileaks

[3] described as the “perfect storm.”: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/soldier-at-the-centre-of-wikileaks-storm-bradley-manning-says-he-only-wanted-a-normal-life/story-e6frg6so-1225965864354

[4] SIPRANET: http://www.rjhresearch.com/SecurityGuide/S1class/Siprnet.htm

[5] JWICS: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/jwics.htm

[6] actions: http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/wikileaks-one-analyst-so-many-documents-20101129

Rich Trzupek

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

Unlikely Allies

by Stephen Brown

Sometimes, the things that are not said speak the loudest.

This certainly applies to the recently released WikiLeaks documents ^[1], which revealed some Arab governments are urging the United States to attack Iran in order to stop its nuclear weapons program. In a meeting in 2008 with American diplomats, King Abdullah ^[2] of Saudi Arabia himself urged America to “cut off the head of the snake,” strong language usually reserved for Israel.

Similar to other WikiLeaks items such as Russia being run by a mafia, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States calling for an invasion of Iran is not a startling revelation. Shiite Iran and the Sunni Saudi kingdom have been locked in a Cold War for supremacy of the Islamic world since the Iranian Revolution ^[3] in 1979. Each regards itself as representing the true Islam, while the despised other represents heresy. It is a religious and political conflict, sometimes violent, that today spans the Islamic world from Nigeria to Pakistan and has even resulted in riots and deaths during the Hajj ^[4] in Mecca.

“Iran’s goal is to cause problems,” King Abdullah said in a WikiLeaks release. “There is no doubt something unstable about them.”

But AsiaTimes columnist Spengler (a literary pseudonym) maintains the biggest surprise contained in the WikiLeaks documents so far is what was not said. Spengler points out there was no mention by Arab governments of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Western liberal-leftist media outlets, academics and even President Obama appear obsessed with the “Israeli occupation” and the building of Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, Arab diplomats did not refer to these alleged impasses to Middle Eastern peace even once.

This does not mean that Arab countries do not want the Palestinians to have their own state. Some would undoubtedly even be very happy to see Israel disappear from the map. But Arab governments know the Jewish state represents no threat to them, and never has, unlike Iran, whose aggression, they fear, will only increase if the mullah-run state acquires nuclear weapons. Moreover, a solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, while desirable, would not stop Iran’s plans for a Shiite block, backed by nuclear weapons, from which it could then intimidate and dominate the rest of the Islamic world.

“There has never been a shred of evidence that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement would help contain Iran’s nuclear threat,” states Spengler.

But whatever gains Iran may hope to accrue from its nuclear weapons program have probably been negated by the fact it has united the Arab world against it. Iran had depended on the Arab countries remaining disunited while it fulfilled its nuclear ambitions. Instead, as one analyst commented, Iran has turned itself into an “Arabian nightmare,” setting off a potentially deadly confrontation with the Arab world.

Iran obviously did not learn from Saddam Hussein’s ^[5] example. When the Iraqi dictator became too militarily strong and belligerent toward his neighbors, Arab countries like Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia did not hesitate to join an American-led coalition in the first Gulf War to end the Iraqi threat and restore the region’s balance of power. Syria, for example, contributed about 30,000 troops to Desert Storm ^[6].

There is, however, one big difference between then and now, and it lies in the White House. In the early 1990s, with the senior George Bush ^[7] in the president’s office, the Arab states could rely on the United States to pull its chestnuts out of the fire and use its military to restore the status quo. Now, with Obama in charge, it is highly unlikely America will come to the Arabs’ rescue this time and launch an attack on Iran.

Spengler ascribes Obama’s unwillingness to act militarily against Iran to the American president’s emotional ties to the Islamic world. This is reflected, Spengler says, in Obama’s foreign policy, especially in his “vision of outreach to the Muslim world.” His emotional ties are based on the well-known facts that both his father and stepfather were Muslim. His anthropologist mother also “defended traditional Muslim society against globalization” and Obama himself was educated in a Muslim school.

Spengler does not believe Obama is a Muslim; but because of his Muslim roots and his drawing “on deep wells of emotion,” Spengler states he will not attack Iran. Obama, he says, is “the anti-Truman” (Harry S.Truman^[8] was the president who recognized Israel in 1948).

“Obama has the same sort of loyalty to the Muslim world that Truman had toward the Jewish people,” Spengler explains. “He cannot bring himself to be the American president who ruins a Muslim land.”

With an American military strike appearing unlikely, the militarily weak Arab states have had to seek help elsewhere. Ironically, to save themselves from the Iranian threat, they are turning to Israel, the state they have always wanted to destroy. Israel also wants Iran’s nuclear weapons program obliterated and is the only country in the region possessing the military power that could possibly do the job.

To this end, the Arab states have been expressing “less hostility” towards Israel and are probably helping with military preparations. The military news publication, Strategy Page, reported that Egypt allowed two Israeli warships to use the Suez Canal ^[9]earlier this year. The US and Israeli navies are both mapping the Persian Gulf waters. Egypt, which would never let Israeli submarines pass through the Canal, allowed one to do so in 2009. There are also reports that Israel has reached agreements with Arab countries to use their airspace in any attack on Iran. A member of the Israeli Knesset also said there have been talks between Israel and Arab countries, in which the Arabs stated they would back an Israeli military strike.

It is probably no coincidence Strategy Page also reports Saudi Arabia has been on a weapons buying spree, recently acquiring 84 US F-15Es ^[10]at $100 million each and a new, truck-mounted artillery system from France. Saudi Arabia, Strategy Page says, has ordered $60 billion worth of weapons, having purchased, in comparison, $50 billion in the years since 9/11.

It is obvious Israel would like to attack Iran with the United States Air Force. But since that is highly unlikely, she will wind up doing the Arab governments’ dirty work for them and attack the Shiite state as their “unofficial ally.” Staring into a possible valley of death if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Israel must do so for her own self-preservation. Failure to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program may make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict irrelevant – and not just in WikiLeaks.

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/07/unlikely-allies/

URLs in this post:

[1] WikiLeaks documents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

[2] King Abdullah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia

[3] Iranian Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

[4] Hajj: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj

[5] Saddam Hussein’s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

[6] Desert Storm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

[7] senior George Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

[8] Harry S.Truman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

[9] Suez Canal : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

[10] F-15Es : http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm

Stephen Brown

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

NY Times Downplays Saudis as Main Source of Funding for Global Terrorism

by Leo Rennert


While other media around the world headlined reports about the latest WikiLeaks documents as disclosing that Saudi Arabia remains the principal source of funding global terrorism, the New York Times went to great lengths to downplay ominous Saudi complicity in generously bankrolling jihadist groups in their war against the West.

The latest trove of leaked dispatches includes a sharply worded memo from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." In the same memo, Clinton also acknowledges that U.S. efforts to persuade Saudi officials to combat such financing of terrorism as a "strategic priority" have been to no avail. The Saudis continue to maintain their dubious role as premier Sugar Daddy of global jihad.

Yet, busy readers of the New York Times who scan only headlines and perhaps the first couple of paragraphs of any given article would not have been informed about such treachery emanating from Saudi Arabia when they perused the Dec. 6 front page article on the New York Times.

Instead, the Times led off with a more generic headline and lead paragraph that avoid specifically fingering the Saudis' tolerance for nurturing global terrorism -- "Cash Flow to Terrorists," reads the headline, "Evades U.S. Efforts -- Arab Allies Resist U.S. Moves to Close Aid Pipelines, Cables Say."

In a similar vein, reporters Eric Lichtblau and Eric Schmitt, serve up a lead paragraph that touches only on "allies in the Middle East" as part of a continuing money pipeline for terrorist groups. No mention that the Saudis rank first among these terror-coddling "allies."

When Lichtblau and Schmitt get down to specifics in the second paragraph about how terrorists get their money, they first of all call readers' attention to a "brazen bank robbery in Yemen last year." Never mind that this was chump change compared to the millions of petrodollars flowing to jihadist groups from generous Saudis.

Next on the reporters' radar screen are proceeds from the drug trade in Afghanistan -- again a clear runner-up to the far graver role played by the Saudis, according to Clinton.

After that, Lichtblau and Schmitt mention collections taken during pilgrimages to Mecca, which brings the article a bit closer to Saudi Arabia, but ignores the fact that most pilgrims at the hajj are not Saudis -- the primo baddies in the view of the secretary of state.

To illustrate the article, Times editors also keep Saudi Arabia away from the spotlight and instead chose a picture of opium poppies growing in an Afghan field.

It is not until the fourth paragraph of the Lichtblaud-Schmitt article that the Saudis themselves are revealed as prime culprits in financing global terrorism, as documented by Clinton's memo.

Any editor worth his salt -- and true to basic journalism rules to lead with the newest, the mostest [sic] and the most significant developments -- would have put right at the top in the headline and in the lead paragraph Clinton's sharp indictment of the Saudis as No. 1 bankers of global jihad. And, in fact, that's how most other media reported the story.

Given that the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and killed thousands in the towers of the World Trade Center -- a short distance from the New York Times -- one would think that Times reporters and editors, of all people, would be specially alert to the continuing terror threats emanating from Saudi Arabia.

But evidently and apparently not.

Leo Rennert

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

Poverty and Defeating Militant Islam

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi


Dealing with the threat of militant Islam was raised again recently by the newly appointed Chief of the Defence Staff in the UK, General Sir David Richards. Although the general may be right that a containment strategy might be a better approach than direct, overt military intervention -- in places where the US carries out drone attacks against militant groups like Al-Qa'ida in Pakistan and Yemen, and Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Islamists are constantly gaining ground at the expense of increasing destabilization of these countries -- is General Richards, as an Independent editorial put it, "also right to argue that promoting education, prosperity and democracy in countries most at risk from subversion is the best way to immunise people over the long term against the virus of radical Islamism"?

His view is rooted in the common assumption that economic hardship attracts people to the ideology of militant Islam; it is an opinion that has been echoed many times by Western politicians. Former President Bill Clinton, for example, declared that "these forces of reaction feed on disillusionment, poverty and despair,' and suggested the solution might be to "spread prosperity and security to all." Similarly, Edward Djerejian, formerly a key figure in the U.S. State Department, argued that "political Islamic movements are to an important degree rooted in worsening socio-economic conditions in individual countries."

An examination of the empirical data, however, reveal just the opposite: that Islamists, particularly active militants, normally derive from the urban middle classes, are upwardly mobile, and usually have a good education. Such findings are confirmed by ample evidence. Marc Sageman, for instance, a professor of Psychiatry at Pennsylvania University, in 2004 released a book entitled Understanding Terror Networks that contains a study of 172 cases of mujahidin (holy warriors). Over 90% of the members of his sample came from caring, stable families, 63% had gone to college, and 73% were married; most of them had children. Likewise, in 2007, a densely researched paper entitled 'Engineers of Jihad' by Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog argued in its abstract that "graduates from subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine are strongly overrepresented among Islamist movements in the Muslim world, though not among the extremist Islamic groups which have emerged in the Western countries more recently." Researchers from Muslim countries agree with such conclusions, including the Egyptian social scientist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Palestinian journalist Khaled M. Amayreh, and the Egyptian economist Galal A. Amin.

One could also look at the recent alleged terrorist cases of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad. Abdulmutallab's father is among the richest men in Nigeria; Umar himself was a graduate of the prestigious University College of London (UCL). Faisal Shahzad is the son of a deputy director general of the Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan; and as the New York Times reported, "while in recent years Mr. Shahzad struggled to pay his bills...he still owned his home and held a full-time job when he began signaling to friends that he wanted to leave the United States."

It should be clear on reflection why militant Islam does not attract the poor: in a state of poverty, one's priority is to survive, not to concern oneself with ideology.

For Islamists, wealth is merely a means to an end.

Additionally, religious education for the poor in Muslim countries often consists of merely learning to recite the Qur'an in Arabic -- which most Muslims do not, know, and which is written in a style of 1300 years ago, similar to the distance between Homeric Greek and Modern Greek, or Chaucer's English and Mark Twain's English -- without having to know what the words mean and studying commentaries on core Islamic texts by classical, orthodox scholars like Ibn Kathir, Al-Ghazali, Qurtubi and others, all of whom justified doctrines of jihad as warfare -- whether offensive or defensive.

The explanation of poverty as the real "root cause" of militant Islam is patronising in implicitly assuming that militants are unable to know their own motives. In fact, there has been at least one case where a militant has denied that poverty played a role in motivation: American-born Al-Shabaab member Omar Hammami stated, "They can't blame it on poverty or any of that stuff. They will have to realize that it's an ideology and it's a way of life that makes people change."

A similar attempt to dismiss ideology as the root cause was undertaken by Robert Pape in Foreign Policy, dismissing the idea that "Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 (9/11) hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill Americans" as a "simple narrative." Does Robert Pape therefore think that Mohamed Atta, the chief hijacker, did not somehow believe that "when the time of truth comes and zero hour arrives, straighten out your clothes, open your chest and welcome death for the sake of Allah" or that he would be entering "paradise...the happiest life, everlasting life" (from instruction manuals found in the hijackers' luggage)?

Does Pape also imagine that Faisal Shahzad did not really mean what he said when he affirmed in a tape released by Al-Arabiya that "you will see that the Muslim war has just started...until Islam is spread throughout the whole world...Islam is coming to the whole world...and the democracy will be defeated...and the word of Allah will be supreme," but that underneath these proclamations his real motivation was just to end drone attacks in Pakistan (something that was undoubtedly one of his objectives)?

All this reflects the central problem of the debate over militant Islam. On one side, there are those who, like Robert Pape, see the failures of direct military intervention but do not recognise the central role of ideology and identity behind the militants' motivations. On the other side, there are those like Michael Rubin, who identify the problem of militant Islam as one of ideas, yet continue to support operations like the present surge of troops in Afghanistan, a strategy that seems to be failing. Exceptions exist (e.g. Matthew Hoh and Daniel Pipes), but few see both the need for containment and the problem of militant Islam as an issue of ideology.

What are the implications for US policy?

The first step to be taken is to reduce direct involvement in countries such as Yemen and Somalia, and make it clear that any foreign aggression will be met with severe retaliation.

Most notably, this will mean ending drone strikes.

The alternative, however, is not simply to give more financial aid. On the contrary, pouring in development money appears to only increase corruption, as these experiments in Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan show.

The most important way of combating militant Islam lies in the hands of peaceful Muslims, who might not only acknowledge that jihadists draw on broad elements of traditional theology to justify their ideology and win recruits, but also devise effective counter-interpretations and bring mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence in line with modern concepts of human rights and liberal democracy. Although such a program does not mean that the US government should provide taxpayers' money to Muslim groups and comment on the nature of "real Islam," it would help to translate and disseminate works on Islamic historiography in Muslim countries, such as those of Ignaz Goldziher and Theodor Noldeke. This would make it easier for peaceful Muslims to view the dictates in the core Islamic texts as not being literally true for all times and places.

It is necessary for a new approach to be adopted that is more nuanced than those of the Bush and Obama administrations. Facilitating the spread of liberal democracy, and defeating militant Islam in Muslim countries, should be a gradual process, and not entail just calling for sudden elections as Bush did; involving US forces so heavily; or the current "business-as-usual" approach of Obama. Although the phrase "war of ideas" applies here, so far we have yet to treat the war against militant Islam as such.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

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

Iran Goes All In

by Rich Trzupek

On the eve of international talks in Geneva about its nuclear program, Iran upped the ante once again on Sunday, declaring that it is now self-sufficient throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle. “Today, we witnessed the shipment of the first domestically produced yellowcake … from Gachin mine to the Isfahan nuclear facility,” Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television on Sunday. Yellowcake is a uranium concentrate, the raw material that represents step one in a complex refining process in which fissionable U-235 is separated and concentrated from the more common, non-fissionable U-238. The ability to produce yellowcake internally means that Iran is no longer dependent on outside sources for any part of its nuclear production program. Thus the rogue Islamic state now has the infrastructure in place to produce low-grade refined uranium used in nuclear reactors and the high-grade (90%+ U-235) refined uranium used in weapons of mass destruction. Western nations hoped that Iran was running low on yellowcake, a claim Iran has denied, but this announcement would appear to make the issue moot. Most of Iran’s previous stock of yellowcake was obtained from South Africa by the Shah in pre-revolutionary Iran, although Western sources strongly suspect that China supplemented that inventory to some extent.

Clearly, the timing of this announcement is no coincidence. Iranian representatives will meet with delegations representing the so-called P5+1 nations today and tomorrow. The P5+1 nations are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China – plus Germany. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was once again hopeful that the talks would bear fruit. “This is an opportunity for Iran to come to the table and discuss the matters that are of concern to the international community — first and foremost, their nuclear program,” she said. From the West’s perspective, this is an opportunity to wring some concessions and safeguards out of Iran before pushing for sanctions that could, if enforced, result in severe repercussions for Iran’s economy. For its part, in addition to the opportunity to engage in the usual saber-rattling of which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is so fond, the yellowcake announcement strengthened the Iranian hand as it prepared for this latest round of talks. Iran thus appears to be following the North Korean model of dealing with the West: threaten as much as you can, for the more that’s on the table, the less you have to give away — and besides, you know that you’ll be able to do whatever you want at the end of the day, anyway.

The ideal way to end the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions without resorting to a military strike is to continue to obstruct and delay the program, as the West works to destabilize the nation’s current regime at the same time. As former President George W. Bush has said, solving the Iran problem in a peaceful way is essentially a two track issue. On the one track, you have Iran’s timetable to build useable warheads, and on the other track, you have a timetable for regime change. The more you do to stretch out the former and accelerate the latter, the better chance you have to avoid a military confrontation.

As pathetically ineffective as the West’s history of imposing and sticking with meaningful sanctions to influence rogue regimes is, there is real opportunity in Iran. There are two areas in which Iran appears especially vulnerable: crude oil production and gasoline refining capacity. A detailed study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released earlier this year summarizes Iran’s weaknesses in these two areas.

Rich Trzupek

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

The Two-State Solution: A Roadmap to Conquest

by Joseph Pruder

A recent poll ^[1] commissioned by The Israel Project (TIP) found that “[a] majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza view the two-state solution as a precursor to one state – a Palestinian state.” According to the poll, which was conducted by Stanley Greenberg of Greenberg, Quinlan & Rosner Research, “Palestinians have not reconciled themselves to the long term existence of the Jewish State.”

The poll points out that “[a]lthough 23% accept the statement that ‘Israel has a permanent right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people,’ two-thirds agreed with the statement, ‘over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian State.’” Sixty percent of the Palestinians were surprisingly honest with the interviewers, making it clear to the pollsters that “the real goal should be to start with two-states but then move it to all being one Palestinian State.”

Anyone who was more honest and realistic than President Obama and his clique, the Israeli political Left, and most of the European Union officials, would discern the strong irredentist tendencies among the Arabs and the Islamists. For the so-called Palestinian “secularist” of the Fatah variety as much as for the Islamist Hamas, virtually all the land now controlled by Israel belongs to the Waqf ^[2] — the Muslim religious endowment. In addition, lands that Islam has lost (such as Israel and Spain) must be reconquered. ^[3] The duty of the faithful is to regain control of lost lands and establish Sharia (Islamic law) as the law of the land. Furthermore, the Islamic ummah (nation) must continually expand. According to Islamic teachings, the earth belongs to Allah, and any part of the earth that does not presently follow Sharia, must be made to do so – by force if necessary.

President Obama, the State Department, and a large segment of academia and the media, refuse to see the Arab-Israel conflict as a religious one. They fail to recognize a fundamental reality, which is that in the Muslim world, there is no separation between mosque and state. Most of the Arab world adheres to Sharia law – which, in addition to setting the path for how a Muslim lives on a daily basis, also proscribes accommodation with non-Muslims and non-Arab political entities. This is one of the reasons why the 40 million largely Muslim but non-Arab Kurds do not have an independent political state, and why Israel as a Jewish state is not accepted as legitimate in the Arab Middle East. This is a reality the progressives in the West refuse to accept.

German Nazism and Italian Fascism of the 1920s and 1930s were racist ideologies that attracted and inspired the Arabs. The Baath ^[4] party that would take root in Syria and Iraq was spawned from these totalitarian systems. Baathists were drawn to the repressiveness of Nazism and Fascism rather than to the Western democracies of the U.S., Britain, and France. The Arab political elites, including those in the Muslim Brotherhood ^[5] in Egypt and the Mufti of Jerusalem ^[6], Haj Amin al-Husseini, aligned themselves with these extremist worldviews and, during WW II, worked with Nazi Germany.

Yaser Arafat, ^[7] who founded Fatah in 1959 in Cairo, was heavily influenced by the nationalist and Islamist teachings of Hassan al-Banna ^[8], founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Arafat drew inspiration from Hitler’s incremental conquest of Europe. Arafat agreed to sign on to the Oslo Accords, which he regarded as a “trojan horse,” because he saw Oslo as an opportunity to take advantage of the West’s appeasement tendencies. As the Nazis gained the Sudetenland, so Arafat hoped to gain Israel – piece by piece.

For Hitler, much like Mahmud Abbas, Chairman of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the solution for Czechoslovakia ^[9] was a two-state solution. The 3.2 million Sudeten-Germans and the section of Czechoslovakia in which they lived were to become part of the German Third Reich. Hitler incited Konrad Henlein, leader of the Sudeten-Germans Peoples Party, to employ terror against the democratic Czechoslovak state. Anticipating the chaos that the Sudeten-Germans would cause and the inability of the Prague government to control it, Hitler demanded that German troops occupy the Sudetenland (Abbas would likewise demand militarization of the West Bank, thus exposing Netanyahu’s rhetoric of a demilitarized West Bank as empty). Hitler further demanded that the areas of Czechoslovakia where Magyars and Poles were a majority should be returned to Hungary and Poland respectively.

No doubt Abu Mazen (Mahmud Abbas) or his successors would eventually demand the annexation of the Galilee in northern Israel to the Palestinian state by virtue of it being a majority Arab-populated region. The area between Tiberias and Hadera (the “Triangle”), which has an Arab majority, would then seek to join the Palestinian state. Like the Sudeten-Germans in Czechoslovakia, its people would engage in terror against the Jewish state with active help from the Palestinian state.

The U.S., Russia, the U.N., and the E.U. would, no doubt, consider the demands of the Arab-Palestinians legitimate, if for no other reason than to stem Arab anger and aggression — which is exactly what was done in Munich in 1938. With Mussolini of Italy as the mediator, the four powers: Germany, France, Britain, and Italy (The Soviet Union and, more importantly, Czechoslovakia were not invited) agreed that the Sudetenland should be annexed to Germany. Moreover, the government of Czechoslovakia was warned by Britain and France that if it rejected this solution, it would have to fight Germany on its own. This would very likely be the stance the U.S., Russia, the U.N., and the E.U. would take with regard to Israel.

It is inconceivable to clear-minded people that the Palestinians would ever be content with a tiny state that would require Israel’s consent for a land bridge between Gaza and the West Bank (in itself a risky proposition for Israel). Furthermore, this is only possible under the assumption that Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would make peace with each other. If they do not, then a West Bank-based Palestinian state would have no outlet to sea. This would stifle commerce and, given the lack of natural resources, the Ramallah-based Palestinian State would be an economic basket-case and a welfare burden on the international community.

President Obama is sure to give Israel security and diplomatic guarantees, but the democracies in 1938 made a similar commitment to Czechoslovakia — and we know how quickly those commitments were abrogated. Hitler’s Mein Kampf laid bare his intentions. Thus, our original poll statement: “over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian State…” is the truest expression of Palestinian intentions. If Israel seeks to avoid the fate of 1938 Czechoslovakia, it must convince itself and its allies that it is premature to speak of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution until such time as the Palestinians have managed to make peace among themselves. They must also demonstrate that they have taught their children the virtues of peace and are willing (through extensive remedial education) to accept by deeds rather than by words Israel’s rightful and permanent reality as the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/06/the-two-state-solution-a-roadmap-to-conquest/

URLs in this post:

[1] poll: http://www.jta.org/news/article-print/2010/11/22/2741858/palestinians-want-one-palestine
[2] Waqf: http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Waqf.htm
[3] reconquered.: http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/11/6-lands-must-be-conquered.html
[4] Baath: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4270070
[5] Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/loftus101106.htm
[6] Mufti of Jerusalem: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5696
[7] Arafat,: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_plo_arafat.php
[8] Hassan al-Banna: http://www.mideastweb.org/middle-East-Encyclopedia/hassan-al-banna.htm
[9] Czechoslovakia: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/czechoslovakia_1938.htm

Joseph Pruder

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

Northern Blaze Delights Many in the Arab world

by Khaled Abu Toameh


Many in the Arab world seem to be happy with the big fire that has been raging in northern Israel over the past few days.

Judging from comments on the blaze from readers in several leading Arab media outlets and websites, a majority believe that God is “punishing” Israel for occupying Arab lands and killing Palestinians, especially during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.

Many Arabs also strongly condemned Egypt and Jordan for agreeing to help in extinguishing the blaze.

Others called on Israel’s enemies, particularly Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, to seize the opportunity and try to wipe Israel off the face of earth. Only a few readers and viewers expressed sympathy with Israel over the tragedy and loss of many lives.

Following is a sample of the comments that have appeared over the past few days in the Arab media:

“May Allah punish all Arabs who helped put down the fire.

We pray to Allah that the fire will grow and spread to oil wells in the Arab world.” “O Allah, burn them [Jews] before the Day of Judgement [sic].

O Allah, destroy them and all the enemies of Islam.”

“May Allah take revenge against them and displace them together with our corrupt [Arab] governments.”

“This is the right time for Iran. If one fire has caused panic in the Zionist entity, where are Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah? And where is Syria? One rocket could set thousands of fires.”

“Allah gives time, but never neglects. The Israelis are being punished for their deeds. We hope their end is nearing.”

“Sounds strange that Arabs are sending aid to our enemies. Allah is punishing the Jews by making the fire. No military force or US veto can stop the fire.”

“Thank God for this new Holocaust and shame on the Egyptian authorities who rushed to save the Zionists while continuing to lay siege against our brothers in the Gaza Strip.”

“Thank God for burning the Jews the same way they burned our Muslim brothers in Palestine.”

“To Hizbullah, Hamas and all Arabs: This is a golden opportunity to get rid of Israel. The sea and fire are in front of the Jews and weapons are behind them.”

“This fire is the result of prayers from our prisoners held in occupation jails. The fire of Hell will be even stronger. May those Arabs who are helping the Jews burn with them in Hell.”

“Allahu Akbar! This is an effective weapon. We call on our Palestinian brothers to set fire to all forests.”

“How many prisoners did the wardens torture? Allah has answered the prayers of the oppressed.”

Khaled Abu Toameh

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

'Study' Denying Jews' Right to Kotel Resurfaces

by Khaled Abu Toameh


Only days after it was removed from the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information website, a “study” denying Jews’ rights to the Western Wall has resurfaced, this time on the official website of the PA’s news agency, Wafa.

By publishing the document on Wafa’s website, the official mouthpiece of the PLO and the PA, the authority has sent a message that its has officially endorsed its findings.

The “study,” which had sparked strong condemnations from Israel and the US, was written by Al-Mutawakel Taha, a senior official with the Ministry of Information in Ramallah. The five-page document claims that the Western Wall, which it refers to as the Al-Buraq Wall, is an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and has always belonged to Muslims. It states that Muslim “tolerance” had allowed Jews to stand in front of it and cry over its destruction. “This wall was never part of the socalled Temple Mount,” Taha wrote in his project. “The wall is the property of Muslims and there never was a stone in it that dated back to the era of King Solomon. Jewish faith has no connection to this wall.” The document accused “Zionist occupation of falsely and unrightfully” claiming ownership of the Western Wall. The “study” disappeared from the Ministry of Information’s website almost immediately after the US condemned it strongly. Initially, the ministry claimed that hackers had penetrated its website and removed the Western Wall report. However, a senior PA official in Ramallah later admitted that the “study” had been removed under pressure from the US Administration.

Khaled Abu Toameh

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

Hand Book Shows ICNA's True Goals

by IPT News


The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is preaching a global Caliphate and Islamic Shari'a law over America to its members, according to the 2010 ICNA Member's Hand Book. This is a very different messageclaims that the organization is a tolerant, mainstream Islamic group. than the group's public outreach efforts, and contradicts claims that the organization is a tolerant, mainstream Islamic group.

As the hand book spells out, the organization's ultimate goal is "the Establishment of Islam" as the sole basis of global society and governance. It also encourages members to deceive people in its proselytizing campaign to help fulfill this goal. This aim is one that ICNA has been actively pursuing as the group has set its sights on America's constitutional separation of religion and state.

It's not the first example of radicalism by one of America's largest Muslim organizations. ICNA's magazine has featured interviews with terrorist leaders in Pakistan, called on youth to fight abroad in Kashmir, and honored like-minded extremist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and South Asia's Jamaat-e-Islami. Concerns have also been expressed about 5 young members of the group's Virginia mosque, who were arrested and convicted on terrorism charges after attempting to link up with and fight for Pakistani terror groups in December 2009.

As the hand book explains, ICNA doesn't just believe that religion is a private affair. "Establishment of the Religion" extends beyond the individual and family and into the society, state, and world. "These words [Establishment of the Religion] include not only practicing the religion in individual and collective life and propagating its true teaching to others, but also striving to make this Deen [religion] a way of life for all," the hand book reads.

ICNA's charter is even more explicit. It calls for the "establishment of the Islamic system of life" in the world, "whether it pertains to beliefs, rituals and morals or to economic, social or political spheres."

For ICNA, this means being the American branch of a global phenomenon that they refer to as the 'Islamic Movement.' The 2010 Hand Book notes, branches of this movement "are active in various parts of the world to achieve the same objectives. It is our obligation as Muslims to engage in the same noble cause here in North America."

Working in an 'Islamic Movement' culminates in an Islamic super-state, the Caliphate, the hand book says. Believers have an obligation to strive to reestablish a collective body of Muslims worldwide, organized into the super-state under the direction of a Caliphate and Islamic law. The group wants "the united Muslim Ummah [community] in a united Islamic state, governed by an elected khalifah in accordance with the laws of shari'ah."

While these ideas may have been popularized decades before by the Muslim Brotherhood and South Asian radicals in Jamaat-e-Islami, ICNA is emphasizing them today in its education and membership.

The group also realizes that achieving its aim is a slow process and involves several stages. In a section called, "Levels of work by the Islamic Movement," ICNA lists five stages to attain a global Caliphate. The group advocates spreading its view of Islam to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, starting with the individual and family, and then implementing the "Establishment of the Religion" in the society, state, and global level.

In the early stages, members pass through the "Tarbiyah Process," an education consisting of radical literature promoting Islam in place of Western systems at later stages in the Islamic Movement. For example, the group advocates that members read Fathi Yakin's To Be A Muslim, a book which declares that "true commitment requires every Muslim to dedicate his or her life in a jihad to establish and maintain a system of Islamic governance." Likewise, the book pits Muslims against non-Muslims, by declaring all non-Islamic political and social systems to be contrary to Islam. As Yakin declares, "The adoption and adaptation of capitalist, socialist, communist or other manmade systems, either in whole or in part, constitutes a denial of Islam and disbelief in Allah the Lord of the worlds."

At the "Societal Level," ICNA advocates Islamist solutions to society's problems while providing social services and proselytizing to non-Muslims. Often, this is done in a deceptive way, such as through the organization's WhyIslam branch. On one hand, the hand book openly states that "WhyIslam is a subdivision of the Dawah [proselytizing] Department" that "works to promote Islam among non-Muslims." However, the document instructs ICNA members to state a different mission by WhyIslam to non-Muslims, one that wants to "build a bridge of understanding between Muslims and Non-Muslims" and "to educate the American public with accurate information of Islam."

In the next stage, called the "State Level," Islam gains traction in a larger segment of society" and "a good part of the society's thinking individuals join the movement. Then it may move to establish an Islamic society, obedient to Allah's commands."

The struggle then reaches the "Global Level" with worldwide ambitions. "Wherever the Islamic movement succeeds to establish true Islamic society, they will form coalitions and alliances. This will lead to the unity of the Ummah [Muslim nation] and towards the establishment of a Khilafah [Caliphate]," the book says in the section, "Levels of work by the Islamic Movement."

While this may seem like a farfetched concept of world domination, it is actually the same philosophy embodied by the group that ICNA admits founded it. Jamaat-e-Islami [JI], a radical South Asian group committed to the same purposes of a regional and then global Caliphate, promotes an identical message of Islamist domination of society, government, economics, and culture. ICNA maintains its connection to the group with a senior member of the JI from India, Yusuf Islahi, teaching in the organization's headquarters. Likewise, the 2010 hand book and other membership reading lists repeatedly emphasize the radical literature of JI's founder, Sayyid Abul 'Ala Maududi.

Maududi's books, like Let Us Be Muslims, are regular features in the group's education about replacing secular governments with Islamic ones. "Briefly speaking, it would be enough to state that the real objective of Islam is to remove the lordship of man over man and to establish the kingdom of God on Earth," declares Maududi in Let Us Be Muslims. He goes on to promote destroying non-Islamic governments, stating, "the duty devolves on you that wherever you are, in whichever country you live, you must … snatch away the power of legislation and lordship from those who do not fear God and are unbridled. And then taking over the leadership and superintendence of God's servants, conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with God's laws."

In Witness Unto Mankind, another book on ICNA's reading list, Maududi discusses how Islam will bring about the destruction of Western political and social systems. With the rise of Islamic political power, "secularism will lose all credibility and authority. Their philosophy and world-view, their economic and political ideologies, will prove fake and spurious when confronted by your truth and right conduct," he states. "The forces that today belong to the secular camp will, one by one, break away and join the camp of Islam. A time will, then, come when communism will live in fear of its very survival in Moscow itself, when capitalist democracy will shudder at the thought of defending itself even in Washington and New York, when materialist secularism will be unable to find a place even in the universities of London and Paris, when racialism and nationalism will not win even one devotee even among the Brahmans and Germans."

This militancy has led countries like Bangladesh to ban all of Maududi's books and arrest leading JI members. Pakistan has followed suit, arresting other JI leaders in anti-militancy operations. India has also banned the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), the former student branch of JI in that country, for its connection to al-Qaida and domestic terrorist operations.

ICNA's message in 2010 reinforces its long-held belief in spreading Islamist ideals, which it believes will culminate in a Caliphate. While its benevolent face preaches social justice and charity work, the goals it espouses to members tell a very different story.

IPT News

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

Press Low-Key on Wave of Arson by Israel’s Arabs

by Gil Ronen

Police and volunteers are manning checkpoints, lookouts and ambushes throughout Israel in an effort to combat a wave of terrorist arson by Arab citizens of Israel. While occasionally reporting some of the arson incidents, most news sources are playing them down considerably, while others cover them up completely.

The IDF has released video footage shot from an IAF aircraft, which shows a vehicle escaping from the scene of an arson attack on the Carmel Mountain. The conversation on the radio, in Hebrew, is between pilots and police. The pilots report that they have received word from a firefighting aircraft that spotted the vehicle leaving the scene of an act of arson, near a spot called the Muhraka. The aircraft follows the vehicle – a Renault Kangoo – until it is stopped by police cars.

Despite this video, news of the wave of arson is seeping into the public consciousness mostly through smaller news sources and by word of mouth.

Police said the main conflagration in the Carmel Mountains was unintentionally caused by a group of youth from Ossafiya. According to a report on Channel 2 news, the youths lit a fire as part of a nocturnal picnic and did not put it out properly before leaving the site. Later reports said that while most of the residents of Ossafiya are Druze, the youths who were arrested are Arabs.

News1 said that insurance companies were heartened by this news, because if they can prove in court that the fire was an act of terrorism, the state will pay the victims’ compensation instead of them.

However, Channel 2′s website also carries a report that Border Police arrested two Arabs, one an Israeli citizen and the other from the Palestinian Authority, who tried to start a fire near Jerusalem on Saturday night. The two were caught in a ravine near the “tunnels checkpoint” at the entrance to the neighborhood of Gilo.

Citizens who passed through the checkpoint noticed the suspects and reported their activity to security forces. A Border Police team identified the two trying to set a fire, called on them to stop and fired four shots in the air. The suspects tried to escape in a vehicle but were arrested after a short chase.

A short time later, a 34-year-old Arab man was arrested near Dodge Junction close to Nazareth. He was taken to interrogation.

The volunteer “New HaShomer” land security group also placed ambushes in key locations. On Friday it reported several arrests, via text messages that it sent to its volunteer guards.

The News1 website reported that Radio Haifa interviewed several people who witnessed car horn-honking and other acts of public celebration in the Arab village of Furadis, south of Haifa, after news of the tragedy became known Thursday.

According to the report, Arab citizens uploaded to a Facebook account gruesome photographs of charred bodies of victims. Other Arabs expressed their feelings by clicking “like.” The police are said to be investigating the matter and the Facebook page is said to have been closed.

However, the pictures have already begun making the rounds worldwide. A group called “Mujahedeen of Palestine,” identified with Al-Qaeda, put the pictures of the bodies on a YouTube video. The video includes text that says “Muhammad’s lions” came out at night to set alight the land of the “occupiers.”

Gil Ronen

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

Terror More Frequent in November

by Maayana Miskin

There was an increase in the frequency of terrorist attacks in November 2010 compared to October, according to data published Sunday by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency). Fifty-two terrorist attacks were confirmed in November compared to fourty-four the month before.

The number of attacks from Gaza involving the firing of rockets and mortar shells at civilian communities was noticeably up. Of particular note was the firing of a Grad rocket at the city of Ofakim for the first time since the end of the Cast Lead counterterror operation in early 2009.

Gaza terrorists attacked southern Israeli communities 16 times in November, and fired a total of 5 rockets and 28 mortar shells. In October, Gaza terrorists attacked southern Israel 13 times, and used 3 rockets and 20 mortar shells.

In November, like October and September, there were no fatalities due to terrorist attacks. One person was wounded in an attack in Samaria when a terrorist gang threw stones at his car as he drove near the town of Shilo. The victim suffered a blow to the head and was partially blinded.

Similarly, one person was wounded by terrorists in October – a security forces officer who was hit by a Molotov cocktail while on duty in Jerusalem.

Maayana Miskin

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