Monday, March 7, 2011

Jewish Student Sues UC Berkeley over Muslim Assault


by Maayana Miskin

This article is reprinted from IsraelNationalNews.com.

A Jewish student at the University of California at Berkeley who was attacked by a Muslim student last year has filed suit against UC Berkeley for failing to provide a safe atmosphere. In her suit, 21-year-old Jessica Felber alleges that UC Berkeley did not effectively deal with harassment and intimidation by Muslim and pro-Arab student groups, leading to “a dangerous and threatening environment.”

Felber was attacked by Husam Zakharia, leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) group, during a rally. At the time, she was holding a sign that said “Israel Wants Peace.”

Zakharia rammed Felber with a shopping cart, causing her injury. Following the assault, she was granted a restraining order against Zakharia.

The assault could have been prevented if campus authorities had taken sufficient care to ensure students’ safety, according to the suit. Instead, UC Berkeley policies “fostered and encouraged” pro-terrorist incitement, “turned a blind eye to the perpetrators of illegal activities,” and “failed to effectively discipline the MSA [Muslim Student Association] and SJP for their pro-terrorist programs, goals and conduct; despite having ample notice that such violence was foreseeable.”

By failing to provide security to Jewish and pro-Israel students, UC Berkeley “condoned and allowed the MSA, the SJP and MSU [Muslim Student Union] to threaten, harass and intimidate Jewish students and to endanger their health and safety.”

The suit lists several instances of past anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement on the Berkeley campuses and UC campuses in central and northern California, particularly the campus in Irvine.

According to the lawsuit, the SJP and MSA have previously staged “checkpoints” at which they brandish mock weapons and demand that students state their religious affiliation. The checkpoints are meant to mimic the IDF’s checkpoints in Judea and Samaria, at which soldiers check passing vehicles for weapons and bombs.

The suit also notes that Zakharia and two other SJP activists were cited in 2008 for battery, after disrupting a college by a campus Jewish group and assaulting a Jewish student.

SJP members heckled Mideast expert Daniel Pipes and author Nonie Darwish when the two came to speak at UC Berkeley in 2004 and 2007 respectively. SJP activists allegedly shouted “Death to Zionism,” “Zionism is racism,” and “Seig Heil” during Pipes’ address.

Felber is represented by civil rights attorney Joel Siegal, and by attorney Neal Sher, a former head of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and of the Justice Department’s Nazi prosecution unit.

Last year, two University of California professors warned that growing Muslim extremism on campus was putting Jewish students at risk. The warning came shortly after students at UC Irvine harassed visiting Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. In a rare move, those who harassed Oren may face criminal charges.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/07/jewish-student-sues-uc-berkeley-over-muslim-assault/

Maayana Miskin

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

Jihad at the University of Central Florida


by Robert Spencer


Last week the Muslim Student Association (MSA) of the University of Central Florida invited the Imam Siraj Wahhaj to give an address on campus – funded by UCF’s Student Government Association. It was an invitation that raised no eyebrows: after all, Siraj Wahhaj is one of the most sought-after speakers on the Muslim circuit, and has addressed audiences all over the country. In 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. After 9/11, his renown as a moderate Muslim grew when he declared: “I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism.” But with Siraj Wahhaj, as with so many other Muslim leaders in the U.S., things are not always as moderate as they seem.

When Siraj Wahhaj spoke at UCF, he was asked whether he would condemn Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Instead of answering directly, Wahhaj launched into a lengthy complaint against his having been designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. With obvious annoyance in his voice, Wahhaj complained that that designation essentially meant nothing; an audience member drew sympathetic laughter when she asserted that it meant that Wahhaj was “innocent.” Wahhaj did not explain to his UCF audience that he earned the designation by sponsoring talks in the early 1990s by the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

Apparently no one pressed Wahhaj about whether he condemned the jihad terror groups. Apparently also no one in the UCF audience asked Wahhaj how his view of Islam differed from that of Omar Abdel Rahman; however, if anyone had actually done so, probably Wahhaj would have supplied yet another windy non-answer, generating a great deal of righteous indignation from the Muslims in the crowd but little to nothing in the way of actual information.

Siraj Wahhaj’s contacts with the Blind Sheikh are not the only blots on his reputation as a “moderate.” He has warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has also asserted that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

So why was such a man giving a student government-funded address at the University of Central Florida last week? And why was he ever invited to give an invocation to Congress? The fact that someone who would like to see the Constitution replaced has led a prayer for those sworn to uphold it is just a symptom of a larger, ongoing problem: the government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims — and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered. Meanwhile, American academia is so in thrall to multiculturalism that it is likely that few, if any, students or faculty at the University of Central Florida knew about Wahhaj’s Islamic supremacist statements and ties, or would have cared if they had known: to raise a protest against such a speaker would have been “Islamophobic,” violating every rule of the anti-American, anti-Western ethos that prevails on campuses today.

Nor does anyone at the University of Central Florida apparently know or care that the sponsoring group that brought Wahhaj in to speak on campus is also suspect. The Muslim Student Association was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to a “kind of grand Jihad” in the United States – one that involves “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In the same document, the MSA is listed as a Brotherhood organization.

One might reasonably expect that a student group founded by members of the Ku Klux Klan would meet an icy reception from university officials on any campus in the United States today, and rightly so; but a Muslim Brotherhood organization on campus doesn’t seem to trouble anyone.

Siraj Wahhaj’s appearance at the University of Central Florida is just one of many such appearances by Islamic supremacists at mosques and Muslim student groups all over the country. That such a speaker with such a history would continue to be so popular among Muslims in America is telling; but is anyone paying attention?

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/07/jihad-at-the-university-of-central-florida/

Robert Spencer

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

Jordanian Journalists Call for Press Freedom


by Joel Greenberg

AMMAN, JORDAN - In the first protest of its kind here, journalists from state-controlled media demonstrated Monday for press freedom and demanded the ouster of the editor-in-chief of the main government-controlled newspaper.

"We're fed up, we've reached the point where there's no turning back," said Amer Smadi, a veteran broadcaster currently with state radio and formerly a news anchor on Jordanian television. "We have nothing to fear now. I've been waiting to say this all my life."

Inspired by the anti-government uprisings sweeping the Arab world and mounting calls for change at home, about 200 journalists from official and independent media rallied near the headquarters of Al-Rai, the main state-controlled paper. They then marched to the building, shouting slogans and calling for the dismissal of the government-appointed editor-in-chief, Abdel Wahab Zgheilat.

"We want press freedom, not government censorship!," they chanted. "We want the liberation of the media! Self-censorship destroys professionalism!"

A statement read to the crowd demanded a halt to "intervention in the media" by the Jordanian government and security agencies, and a change of the state-controlled press "to independent newspapers."

In an apparent sign of greater official tolerance of such protests, Information Minister Taher Adwan, a former newspaper editor, arrived at the rally and expressed his support, rejecting "intervention by any party" in media work. "There can be no economic or political reform if we don't start with the media," he said.

Al-Rai and other government-controlled newspapers have responded to growing protests calling for limits on the powers of King Abdullah II by highlighting gatherings where Jordanian tribes and other groups have pledged their allegiance to the monarch.

After thousands marched in central Amman on Friday demanding "reform of the regime," Al-Rai ran a headline that combined news of the loyalty pledges with the protest. Two pictures of equal size showed the crowds of anti-government protesters and a small group of demonstrators in support of the king.

Sami Zubeidi, a columnist at Al-Rai, said that his work was regularly censored, and he accused Zgheilat, the editor, of taking orders from the Jordanian intelligence service. "I have to practice self-censorship," he said. "I know our newspaper's threshold." He said he had been called in for questioning several times by the authorities.

"In the media our king says that the 'sky is the limit' for free speech, and in reality he lets his security agencies stifle the press," Zubeidi said. "He tells the intelligence to keep a low ceiling on the media. It's a myth that we have a parliament, a constitution and laws."

In an interview in his office, Zgheilat denied that he was in regular contact with the intelligence services or that he practices political censorship, saying he only intervened when columnists engaged in personal attacks. "We know the limits of freedom of the press," he said. "There are issues that you can't touch: the regime and the military. These are the rules. I don't need to get orders for that."

Smadi, the veteran broadcaster, said that in 20 years of work at Jordanian television, there was "no freedom to say what we want," but now there were signs of change. A mere three months ago, he said, the journalists' protest could have been violently broken up by the police.

"We don't know what will happen six months from now," he added, suggesting that a crackdown was also possible. "But if I have to end my career, at least I will be saying something I believe."

Original URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030702135.html?hpid=artslot

Joel Greenberg

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

What About "Arab Apartheid Week"?


by Arsen Ostrovsky

Today, March 7, begins an annual part of the global campaign to delegitimize Israel, as student groups and academics -- on campuses around the world -- hold events marking "Israel Apartheid Week" [IAW].

None of these groups is holding similar events protesting human rights abuses in any number of Arab and Muslim countries -- Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, the Sudan or Jordan -- where people are being jailed, tortured and often killed fighting for their human rights.

The IAW features a series of events, including lectures, films, demonstrations and other activities, which, according to organisers (http://apartheidweek.org/en/about), is aimed at "raising awareness about Israel's apartheid policies toward Palestinians and gathering support for the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign."

If Israel were an apartheid State, people like Arab Israeli Salim Jurban would not have been elected to Israel's Supreme Court and Ishmael Khaldi, a Bedouin Muslim, would not have been appointed an advisor to Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, and then to the position of deputy Consul General of Israel in San Francisco. If Israel were an apartheid state, there would not be 5 different Arab parties and 14 Arab Israeli members of Knesset, some of whom are the most outspoken and harshest critics of Israel, including Haneen Zoabi who participated in the terrorist flotilla in June 2010, and Ahmed Tibi, currently one of the Deputy Speakers of the Knesset.

There are Arab parties in the Israeli Parliament; full Arab voting rights. Arabs are welcome as both physicians and patients in Israeli hospitals, and as both teachers and students in Israeli schools. The only national institution from which they are exempted is the military, so that, if necessary, they should not be required to fight against their own brothers. Israel is clearly not an apartheid state.

Attempts, therefore, to compare Israel, to white South Africa are at best uninformed; at worst, maliciously dishonest and anti-Semitic.

The irony is that in Israel, despite problems in Israel as in any other country, Arabs enjoy more rights, freedoms and liberties than do their neighbours in any number of Middle East countries currently fighting for these very same privileges. As the Muslim Arab Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh repeatedly says (http://www.frumforum.com/abu-toameh-what-the-western-media-misses):

"Israel is not an apartheid state...Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second class citizen in Israel, even though I'm not, than a first class citizen in any Arab country."

The real apartheid today is in places such as Saudi Arabia, where the government totally forbids the public practice of non-Muslim religions, the presence of a Bible there, officially labels both Christians and Jews "unbelievers," and cautions in the Qu'ran Muslims not to befriend Christians or Jews:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and Christians for friends: they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." {Qu'ran 5:51)

"You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for , that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide [ie: Muslim who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.] " {Qu'ran 5:80}

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah," {Qu'ran 3:28)

"O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among other than your own people… they love what distresses you…." {Qu'ran 3:18)

"O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your bretheren for friends if they take take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith." [ie: Even family members should not be friend if they do not submit to Islam.} (Qu'ran 9:23) *

Also in the Qu'ran, Muhammed curses the Jews and turns them into pigs and monkeys. (Suras 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166)

Iran routinely executes, tortures and persecutes Baha'is, Sunnis and Kurdish minorities.

Turkey continues to harass and persecute its Alevis, Kurds, Zoroastrians and other minorities. How many Christians or Jews, for example, are in its government?

In both Saudi Arabia and Iran, women and homosexuals are stripped of their rights as the United Nations grants Saudi Arabia a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and Iran with a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

In Lebanon, Palestinians are banned from working in many professions.

Egypt continues to persecute its Coptic Christians and torch their churches.

Jordan last year revoked the citizenship of thousands of Jordanian Palestinians, and still denies citizenship to Jews.

Iraq continues to persecute and murder members of its Christian Assyrian population.

Yet Israel is the only country constantly to be singled out for opprobrium by groups such as the IAW. If its organizers were truly interested in human rights, going from worst to best, wouldn't a better starting point be to hold an Arab Apartheid Week?

The main weapon in the campaign to brand Israel an apartheid state is the Boycott Divestment Sanctions [BDS] Campaign, which seeks to ostracize the Jewish state by severing all ties with it -- economic, diplomatic, cultural, academic among others.

Marwan Barghouti for example, who is the founder and one of the leaders of the BDS Campaign (and incidentally, also a PhD student of ethics at Tel Aviv University), has said (http://vimeo.com/9605827) that the Palestinian refugees right of return to Israel is the "litmus test of morality for anyone suggesting a just and enduring solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict." First, the Palestinians' claim to a right of return is hotly disputed - where in history has one been able to defect to countries that have initiated four wars in sixty years against Israel; then, when these countries lose those wars that they have initiated, say that one would like to return and expect such a choice to be automatically accepted? The relocation of some 4 million plus Palestinians to Israel would clearly entail a demographic death of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state – rather than have two states, a Jewish Israel and a Palestinian State, you would have a Palestinian state displacing Israel, a point that is not lost on Barghouti, who says (http://vimeo.com/9605827):

"I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution...[I]f the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you would have a Palestine next to Palestine, rather than a Palestine next to Israel."

Other BDS leaders are equally forthright about the aims of their movement. Ronnie Kasrils for example says (http://vimeo.com/9617367): "BDS will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine." And Ahmed Koor, another leader, proudly proclaims (http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/bds-is-a-long-term-project-with-radically-transformative-potential.html): "Ending the occupation doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mean upending the Jewish state itself… BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state."

Koor goes even further, clarifying that: "BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown."

It [is] difficult to overlook the similarities between this "The Final Showdown" and Hitler's "Final Solution." Whereas Hitler's Final Solution sought to bring about the end of the Jewish people, the BDS Campaign's Final Showdown, by endorsing a one-state solution and return of Palestinian refugees, seeks to bring about the end of the State of Israel as the Jewish state.

The leaders of the apartheid and BDS movements may talk "peace," "justice" and "ending the occupation," however, their real goal seems to be the vilification, delegitimization, and obliteration of Israel as a Jewish state by branding it the pariah of the international community. From their statements, their goal is not to advance Palestinian rights, but to deny and strip Israel of its rights.

The IAW and BDS supporters do nothing to advance the cause of peace or the well-being of the Palestinians. But then again, has that ever really been the goal of the IAW and BDS movements?

See also Qu'ran 53:29; 3:85; 3:10; 7:44; and 1:5-7 , as wells as from the Hadith 1:417; 41:4815; 41:4832; 59:572; and Ishaq 262 and 252.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1937/arab-apartheid-week

Arsen Ostrovsky

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

Rethinking North Korea


by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

The question of how Western nations and South Korea change their present policies toward North Korea has become urgent in light of the severe food shortages: North Korean authorities are said to be estimating that food stocks will be depleted by mid-June.

Apparently many rural North Koreans are having to forage for wild grass and herbs; state media reported recently an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease across the country, leading to the deaths of thousands of livestock.

Further, a recent joint-report by U.S. aid groups points out that heavy rainfall and flooding last summer reduced vegetable crops by more than 50% in some areas, and that an unusually cold winter has frozen up to 50% of the wheat and barley that were to be harvested this spring.

The North Korean regime has also recently revealed a new, high-tech uranium enrichment facility. According to an American scientist invited to see it, the facility is a large step forward from the regime's aging plutonium technology, and clearly illustrates that North Korea has no interest at all in fulfilling its nuclear-disarmament responsibilities. When asked about the failure to mention this facility in their declaration of nuclear programs, North Korean officials absurdly claimed that it had been built from scratch after the collapse of negotiations over the country's nuclear arsenal in 2008 – a lie that fits into the pattern of North Korea's repeated lies in the past to the U.S., Russia, Japan, China and Japan over its nuclear program.

It is therefore not surprising that DPRK officials have now asked the U.S. to resume food aid as the UN plans on sending some 300,000 tons of humanitarian assistance to the Stalinist dictatorship. For the past few years, South Korea has been the primary source of external food aid, normally providing direct food supplies and fertilizers.

Anecdotal evidence also points to a problem of increasing food shortages in North Korea. Several former DPRK soldiers who defected to the south highlighted the growing rates of malnutrition among the country's armed forces. As Paek Hwa-Seong, a defector, put it, "I weighed 42 kilograms when I entered the military, but my weight was reduced to 31 kilograms in two years. My hair almost fell out after turning yellow, and I was bony." Similarly, Park-Myeong-Ho, a former captain, noted that starving soldiers frequently resort to stealing food from civilians, and that this practice has supposedly created a proverb in North Korea: The best place to live is where no military unit is stationed. Choi Hee-Kyung, a female defector who worked as an instructor in the North Korean air-force, affirmed that women in the armed forces often go for months without menstruation as a result of malnutrition.

The present dwindling of supplies, however, cannot be blamed solely on climate. One should take into account the regime's collectivist economic policies --- the key factor in the famine of the 1990s that killed over 10% of the population, and the more recent currency redenomination in 2009 that crushed any real attempts to start building a private sector on the local level. This, of course, was not some short-sighted policy undertaken with good intentions, but was rather a calculated measure aimed at eliminating an expanding class of entrepreneurs viewed as a long-term threat to the regime's grip on the country. Also to be factored in are the North Korean government's "Sŏn'gun'-- or 'Military First"-- policy that places state spending on the armed forces above everything else, and the country's nuclear program.

What can one do about North Korea? Given the dire food shortages now affecting the population, it would be tempting to heed the plea of the U.S. aid groups that authored the joint report mentioned above to restart food aid to North Korea. Although U.S. officials are considering such calls, this suggestion ignores the likelihood that the regime, with its policy of "Military First" will seek to divert humanitarian assistance mainly towards feeding its armed forces who are now bearing the burden of starvation like most of the populace -- thereby ensuring their loyalty to Kim Jong-Il. Though the government will undoubtedly use some aid to distribute more rations to civilians, it can easily use state propaganda to reinforce the lie that other countries are paying tribute to Kim Jong-Il because of his own supposed greatness and the threat of the nation's nuclear arsenal. This is precisely what happened during the famine of the 1990s-- causing Médecins Sans Frontières to withdraw their aid in 1998 when the regime's misuse of aid became apparent.

For similar reasons, the Center for International Policy's (CIP) calls for increased "engagement" with North Korea make no sense. Such engagement was attempted during the "Sunshine Policy" era of South Korea, and led to nothing apart from broken promises on the part of the DPRK. On the other hand, a military attack on the regime would also be folly. Besides a nuclear arsenal, North Korea has substantial anti-aircraft defenses and an army that can be backed by millions of reservist soldiers to defend against an outside attack, which would likely only unite the population behind the government.

Instead -- and this is said with a degree of hesitation -- might it be better if the U.S. government canceled any plans to send aid to North Korea, and tried to convince South Korea, as well, to suspend aid?

An induced famine, in the absence of aid, could spark an uprising, as we have been seeing in the Middle East. Without substantial food supplies, the armed forces could well ally with the population and turn against Kim Jong-Il.

As Park-Myeong-Ho says, "Some claim there is no possibility of revolt in North Korea, but I think, once ignited, the fire of democratization can turn around the current situation in a short period because of the collective nature of the North Korean society'."

Yes, there is the huge humanitarian problem of loss of life through famine, and violent conflict in the short-term, but the potential long-term benefits (even in terms of the loss of human life) of a collapse of the North Korean government and reunification of the Korean peninsula would surely be in everyone's greater interest.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1934/rethinking-north-korea

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

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

Tulsa Mosque Has Extremist Ties


by Joe Kaufman

Captain Paul Fields, a 16-year veteran of the Tulsa Police Department (TPD), has filed a lawsuit against his superior, after he was demoted for refusing to order officers in his command to attend a social event being held at Masjid al-Salam, the Islamic Society of Tulsa (IST). He claimed that it was against his religious beliefs, and that his rights were being violated.

For his "insubordination," Fields, who has received countless commendations and who has never had any disciplinary action taken against him, was reassigned and placed under investigation.

It is not Fields, however, who should be investigated, but the mosque sponsoring the event.

Given the extremist ties of the Islamic center, one has to wonder why the captain would be asked to do such a thing in the first place.

Captain Fields received a directive from TPD Deputy Chief Daryl Webster on February 17, 2011, to order his officers to be in attendance of IST's Law Enforcement Appreciation Day to be held on March 4th. He refused to do [so.] According to the opening paragraph of IST's constitution, found on its official website, IST "shall establish and maintain continuous affiliation with the Islamic Society of North America." The following paragraph states, "The aims and purposes of IST shall be to serve the best interest of Islam in the greater Tulsa area [by working] in cooperation with ISNA."

According to the Tulsa County Property Assessor, IST is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). Both ISNA and NAIT were named by the U.S. Justice Department, as recently as November 2008, as a party to the financing of millions of dollars to the terrorist organization Hamas.

In October 2006, a member of the mosque, Jamal Miftah, wrote an op-ed published by Tulsa World, denouncing al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. For this, IST representatives labeled Miftah "anti-Muslim" and a "traitor to Islam" and threw him out of the Islamic center.

In June 2007, Miftah filed suit against the mosque, alleging that IST had been involved in "money laundering" and stating that the money could "ultimately be funneled to undesirable organizations for illegal activities." According to his court petition, he and IST "were not in agreement…with regard for the need to avoid funneling cash donations to organizations with close links to Jihadist terrorists."

Today, on the homepage of IST's website, one can see an announcement for a February 2011 event hosted by IST featuring Siraj Wahhaj, a U.S. government named "unindicted co-conspirator" for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and sponsored by ICNA Relief USA, a group that, like ISNA and NAIT, has been associated with funding Hamas.

It appears that Captain Fields was right in his refusal to assign his officers attendance at the IST event. TPD should take note of the facts regarding IST and its association with extremists and act accordingly. Any contact between TPD and IST only serves to grant the Islamic center legitimacy, which it most certainly does not deserve.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1941/tulsa-mosque-has-extremist-ties

Joe Kaufman
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Qadaffi's 'Offer' to Libya's Vanished Jews


by Andrew G. Bostom


The most predictable outcome of Libya's violent internecine struggle-cum-latest-Arab- "democracy movement" was aptly characterized by Andrew McCarthy: "The Libyan people are no more our ally than Qaddafi."

McCarthy expanded upon these views with refreshingly singular honesty:

[I]t had been the swift military rout of Saddam Hussein that induced Qaddafi to renounce (or claim to renounce) his ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction in late 2003. But once the hard-power promise of the Bush Doctrine gave way to the belief that thugs could be democratized into submission, the wily old terrorist found a system he could game. And game it he did. I didn't buy the remaking of Qaddafi then, and I don't buy the remaking of Libya now. That puts me among a breed that, if news accounts are to be believed, is increasingly rare: I don't care about the Libyan people -- I'm sorry, I mean the "brave Libyan freedom fighters."

Beleaguered, bizarre, and brutal Libyan dictator Muammar Qadaffi defiantly insisted during a delusional Monday 2/28/11 interview with ABC, BBC, and The Times of London that he remains beloved by his people.

They all love me, all my people [are] with me. They will die to protect me.

The bloody despot Qaddafi's most recent counterfactual pronouncement echoes in its wicked lunacy his November 1973 statements about another "beloved" audience of his -- so-called "Arab Jews" -- inviting them to return to their former Libyan and other Middle Eastern Islamic homelands. Moreover, the seething Jew-hatred now openly expressed by the protesting "brave Libyan freedom fighters" -- directed in the absence of the liquidated Jewish community of Libya at Qadaffi himself -- justifies, or certainly it should, McCarthy's lack of concern for the anti-Qaddafi Libyans.

Before describing Qadaffi's November 1973 "proposal" -- highlighted by a surreal "press conference" -- an historical overview of the plight of Libyan Jewry under Islam is in order.

Mordechai Hakohen (1856-1929) was a Libyan Talmudic scholar and auto-didact anthropologist who composed an ethnographic study of North African Jewry in the early 20th century. Hakohen summarizes the overall impact on the Jews of the Muslim jihad conquest and rule of North Africa, including Libya, as follows:

They [also] pressed the Jews to enter the covenant of the Muslim religion. Many Jews bravely chose death. Some of them accepted under the threat of force, but only outwardly...Others left the region, abandoning their wealth and property and scattering to the ends of the earth. Many stood by their faith, but bore an iron yoke on their necks. They lowered themselves to the dust before the Muslims, lords of the land, and accepted a life of woe -- carrying no weapons, never mounting an animal in the presence of a Muslim, not wearing a red headdress, and following other laws that signaled their degradation.

Hakohen's study (pp.74,76) includes this mid-19th description of the Jews fate as Berber Muslim chattel slaves in the Atlas Mountains of Libya:

The Berber [Muslim] Lord passed his Hebrew slave down to his children as an inheritance. If the Berber lord had many sons, each inherited a share in the slave. Each could also sell his share in the slave...if the Hebrew slave met his obligation in giving homage to his lord and was able to acquire money, he could redeem himself by paying a sum agreeable to both parties. With this deed he could acquire a deed of manumission for that portion of the rights held by the seller....[T]o this very day [1865]..there is no Israelite family without an Ishmaelite master to whom the Israelite must make a token payment every year. The Ishmaelite may sell him to another, and this arrangement persisted until only six or seven years ago.

Nahum Slouzschz (1871-1966), a scholar, writer, archeologist, historian and translator, travelled amongst the Jews of North Africa from 1905 to 1916, including a trek through the remote Atlas mountain region, collecting information on their lives and customs. Below are excerpts from two of Slouzschz's accounts regarding Libyan Jews published in 1906 (p. 660) and 1908 (pp. 660-61).

Jews, Berbers, and Arabs (Libya, 1906)

Until the middle of the last century, the Jews were treated as the serfs of the Berber lords. While abolishing this humiliating institution, Turkey has not yet had the time of curb the moral vexations that the Muslims inflict on their Jewish neighbors. One example out of a hundred: the rabbi of the region [Djebel Nefussi], having journeyed to Nalut, was attacked by local inhabitants who ordered him to get down from his mule, since a Jew may not straddle a mount in the presence of Muslims. Should he dare to complain, he would run the risk of seeing his family massacred by the Arabs.

The most venerated places of worship, the most ancient cemeteries are desecrated by the Muslims and as for agriculture, their Arab neighbors have no qualms in seizing the products of the Jews' harvest. In spite of the goodwill of the ruling authorities [the Turks], these matters often escape their control.

For example, is it known in Tripoli that the Jewish inhabitants of a village called Al Qsar, who possess about fifty acres of arable land and several hundred olive trees, were forced last year to pay 1,600 francs for their tithe and, moreover, that many a Jew, after having been molested by the local inhabitants, would not dare to lodge a complaint for justice with the authorities?

Expropriation in Tripolitania (Libya, 1908)

Yehud Beni-Abbes is on the very margin of the desert which lies between the oasis and Tripoli; the village comprises two hundred and forty inhabitants, who take up six underground courts. At one time the Jews were very numerous in this country, holding most of the land and defending it successfully against all invaders. We were shown the fertile ravine, which ends in a well-watered valley and which commands the approach of the region towards Tripoli. Here, on the slopes, we found grottoes and traces of mines of an ancient civilization.

We were led across spaced-out fields, and were told that all of this splendid country belonged at one time to the Jews. But towards 1840 the plague ravaged the Jewish population; the only survivors were four families of Beni-Abbes, while many of the neighboring villages were completely wiped out.

The Ulad Beni-Abbes Arabs took advantage of the unhappy plight of the Jews to deprive them of their lands; the rightful owners kept on struggling against the invaders, but to no purpose; besides this, the Arabs, with the meanness characteristic of the servile fellah, took possession of the cemetery, the resting place of a whole line of ancestors, and ploughed it up. They could not have conceived a more malignant act, nor one which would have wounded so deeply the "infidels," who now, with tears in their eyes, led us across this field which contained the desecrated remains of their ancestors and their rabbis.

The Arabs, however, had not dared to dispossess the last native Jews entirely; they managed, instead, to force them into a collective ownership of the whole village, so that the Jews, having no distinctive property of their own, are yet forced to till fields and cultivate fruit trees belonging exclusively to the Mussulmans, and at a distance from their homes. The outcome is that the Jewish farmer must look on, without daring to protest, while his Arab neighbour appropriates the first-fruits of his olive-groves and the best produce of his own plot of land, which is swallowed up in the vast Arab fields.

Even this did not satisfy the oppressors. There is in the village an ancient synagogue, a sanctuary held in deep veneration. It is situated in a hollow surrounded by an open court, and its roof is colored like the soil in order to conceal it from view. This spot affords them the only moral gratification they have; it is the one meeting place where they can offer up their prayers or pour out the plaints of the Piyyutim [liturgical compositions], which mourn the sorrows and proclaim the hopes of Israel.

The fanatic Mussulmans, jealous of this sanctuary, planned, after the desecration of the cemetery, the ruin of the synagogue, on the pretext that the neighboring mosque would, according to Mohammedan law, be profaned by its proximity.

Fortunately, there were judges in Tripoli and money in the hands of the Jews. By a happy chance the Jews have in their possession a document which proves that the synagogue was in existence on its present site five hundred years before the foundations of the mosque were laid, that is to say, seven or eight centuries ago. The administration, basing its decision on the right of priority, was able to rescue the synagogue, to the unbounded joy of the Jews. Looking through the Geniza of this sanctuary we found, among other things a tablet dating from 5359-that is, 348 -years-old. Surely these Jews, swallowed up in the Sahara, have deserved a better fate.

The World War II era, and the two decades following it witnessed a rapid dissolution of the major Jewish communities in the Arab Muslim world -- pogroms, expropriations, and expulsions resulting in the exile of some 900,000 Jews (pp.150-64; 663-77). As historian Norman Stillman has observed, even the first decade after World War II saw (p.155),

...the overall Jewish population in the Arab countries...reduced by half through emigration. In several countries the decline was far greater. By the end of 1953, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya had lost over 90 percent of their Jews, and Syria 75 percent. Most of the Jews who remained in the Arab world were in the French-ruled Maghreb. It was not long, however, before the three countries of that region achieved their independence. Within little more than two decades after the end of World War II, most of the North African Jews were gone as well.
Recurrent anti-Zionist/Antisemitic incitement from 1943 to 1945 culminated in a series of anti-Jewish riots during November of 1945 (p.157).

One day after rioting in Egypt subsided, much more extensive and devastating anti-Jewish violence erupted in Libya. A minor altercation between Arabs and Jews near the electric power station outside the Jewish quarter of Tripoli was followed the next day (November 5th) by an anti-Jewish pogrom (p. 158):
...mobs numbering in the thousands poured into the Jewish quarter and the Suq al-Turk (the bazaar where many Jewish shops were located) and went on a rampage of looting, beating, and killing. According to one confidential report, weapons were distributed to the rioters at certain command centers, one of which was the shop of Ahmad Krawi, a leading Arab merchant...only Jews and Jewish property were attacked. The rioters had no difficulty in distinguishing Jewish homes and businesses because prior to the attack, doors had been marked with chalk in Arabic indicating "Jew," "Italian," or "Arab." Mob passions reached a fever picth when a rumor spread that the Chief Qadi of Tripoli had been murdered by Jews and the Shari'a Court burned. The terror then spread to the nearby towns of Amrus, Tagiura, Zawia, Zanzur, and Qusabat.

Zachino Habib, Tripoli's Jewish community president, provided this eyewitness account of what transpired in Tripoli, Zanzur, Zawia, Qusabat, and Zitlin on November 4-5, 1945 (p. 158):

...the Arabs attacked the Jews in obedience to mysterious orders. Their outbursts of violence had no plausible motive. For fifty hours they hunted men down, attacked houses and shops, killed men, women, old and young, horribly tortured and dismembered Jews isolated in the interior...In order to carry out the slaughter, the attackers used various weapons: knives, daggers, sticks, clubs, iron bars, revolvers, and even hand grenades

Stillman assessed the toll of the pogrom in lives and property, as well as its psychosocial Impact (p. 158):

When the pogroms -- for that is what the riots essentially were -- were over, 130 Jews were dead, including thirty-six children. Some entire families were wiped out. Hundreds were injured, and approximately 4,000 people were left homeless. An additional 4,200 were reduced to poverty. There were many instances of rape, especially in the provincial town of Qusabat, where many individuals embraced Islam to save themselves. Nine synagogues -- five in Tripoli, four in the provincial towns -- had been desecrated and destroyed. More than 1,000 residential buildings and businesses had been plundered in Tripoli alone. Damage claims totaled more than one quarter of a billion lire (over half a million pounds sterling). The Tripolitanian pogroms dealt, in the words one one observer [Haim Abravanel, director of Alliance schools in Tripoli], "an unprecedented blow...to the Jews sense of security." Many leading Arab notables condemned the atrocities, but as the British Military Administration's Annual Report for 1945 noted, "no general, deep-felt sense of guilt seems to animate the Arab community at large; nor has it been too active in offering help to the victims."

The ongoing isolation and alienation of Jews from the larger Arab Muslim societies in which they lived accelerated considerably after the establishment of Israel on May 15, 1948, and the immediate war on the nascent Jewish state declared and waged by members of the Arab League. A rapid annihilation of Israel and its Jewish population was predicted and savored by Arab leaders such as Azzam Pasha, the secretary of the Arab League, who declared (p. 159):

[T]his will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the crusades

Such widely held expectations may have subdued violent mob reactions of the Arab masses against Middle Eastern and North African Jews at the outset of the war. However, once the Arab offensive in Palestine experienced setbacks, several weeks after the war began, anti-Jewish violence erupted in Morocco and Libya (p.160).

The first such incidents took place on June 7 and 8 in the northeastern Moroccan towns of Oujda and Jerada. Forty-two Jews were killed and approximately 150 injured, many of them seriously. Scores of homes and shops were sacked.

On June 12, the day after the first truce was declared between the Israeli and Arab forces in Palestine, mobs attacked the Jewish Quarter in Tripoli, Libya. (Thousands of Moroccan and Tunisian volunteers had been streaming through the city on their way east to join the Aranb armies fighting in Palestine.) However, Jewish self-defense units, which had been organized here as in other cities that had suffered pogroms in recent years, repelled the attackers with stones, handguns, grenades, and Molotov cocktails, inflicting heavy casualties. The rioters then turned upon undefended neighborhoods outside Hara. Only thirteen or fourteen Jews were killed and twenty-two seriously injured, but property damage was very high. Approximately 300 families were left destitute. There were also attacks against the Jews in the surrounding countryside and in Benghazi.

Giulia Boukhobza chronicled the final destruction of the remnant Libyan Jewish community, breaking her silence 36-years (July 1, 2003) after surviving the 1967 pogrom in Tripoli (p. 677):

This is the first time I have ever written about my experience as a Jew from Libya. It's not easy for me. The memories are still painful. Jews had a continual presence in Libya for over two thousand years, predating the Arab conquest and occupation by centuries. My own family had lived on Libyan soil for hundreds of years, if not longer. I was born in Libya in 1951, the year of the country's independence. Most of the nearly 40,000 Jews left Libya between 1948 and 1951 because of a wave of anti-Jewish rioting, beginning in 1945, that left hundreds dead and injured and thousands homeless. My family, however, decided to stay and see if things would improve. After all, it was our home, it was our language, and it was the land of our ancestors. And the new Libyan constitution offered guarantees that gave us hope. We were wrong. The hope was misplaced. The guarantees were absolutely worthless. By 1961, Jews could not vote, hold public office, obtain Libyan passports, buy new property, or supervise our own communal affairs. In other words, at best we were second-class residents - I can't even say citizens - though this was our birthplace and home. Our fate was sealed six years later. In June 1967, the anti-Jewish atmosphere in the streets became terrifying, so much so that my family could not leave our house in Tripoli. My parents and I, along with my seven brothers and sisters, sat frightened at home for days. And then the mob came for us. I can't even begin to describe the scene. It seemed there were a thousand men chanting "Death to the Jews." Some had jars of gasoline which they began to empty on our house. They were about to strike a match. We were near hysteria. But then one man from the mob courageously spoke up. He said he knew us and we should be left alone. Amazingly, the mob complied and moved elsewhere. Other Jews, however, were not as lucky. Some, including close friends of ours, were killed, and property damage was estimated in the millions of dollars. Our family went into hiding for several weeks before we were finally able to leave the country and reach Italy. We arrived with barely a suitcase each. Today, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single Jew left in Libya, not one. An ancient community has come to a complete end. My family had to start from scratch in Italy. We had nothing and no one. But we persevered. We knew that we weren't the world's first Jewish refugees, or the last, and that we would just have to make the best of a difficult situation. And that's exactly what we did. We did not wallow in self-pity. We did not seek to make ourselves wards of the international community. And we didn't plot revenge against Libya. We simply picked up the pieces of our lives and moved on. The more I think about what befell us, though, the angrier I become. In effect, we were triple victims. First, we were uprooted and compelled to leave our home forever solely because we were Jews. Second, our plight was largely ignored by the international community, the UN and the media. Do a search and you'll be shocked at how little was written or said about this tragedy. And third, Libya erased any trace of our existence in the country. Even the Jewish cemeteries were destroyed and the headstones used in the building of roads. In other words, first our homeland was taken away from us, then our history as well. I can no longer be a Jew of silence, nor can I allow myself to become a forgotten Jew. It is time to reclaim my history. It is time to demand accountability for the massive human rights violations that occurred to us in Libya. That's why, after 36 years, I've chosen to speak out today.

Albert Memmi, a writer and philosopher born in Tunis in 1920, and an expatriate "Arab Jew," provided an eloquent analysis of Qadaffi's November, 1973 statements, below -- made just 6-years after the 1967 Tripolitan pogrom described by Giulia Boukhobza -- beckoning "Arab Jews" to return to the Islamic Middle East.

Go back home. Return to your native country. Are you not like ourselves? Arab Jews?

Memmi was invited to attend a "discussion" with Qaddafi on Saturday. November 24, 1973 organized by four major European newspapers -- Le Monde, The Times of London, La Stampa, and Die Welt. Not surprisingly, Memmi recounts,

As the time set aside for each participant in the meeting with Colonel Kadhafi was limited, I was not able to deliver these questions in full. The next day, however, several newspapers printed various extracts from them.

Memmi's most piercing questions (reproduced below) were of course never addressed by Qadaffi. These queries remain equally relevant four decades later, not only for Qaddafi and his regime, but also his potential successors, the anti-Qaddafi Libyan "democrats," and their champions -- delusive US policymaking elites, and talking heads.

Is it true that you have said that once the European Jews were sent back to Europe, only the Jews born in the Arab countries could continue to live there?

Do you seriously believe that the German or Polish Jews, at least the few survivors, could go back and live in the places where their parents, wives, husbands, and children were burned in the oven?

In that case, what would you do with the children of those Western Jews, children born in Israel and who now [circa 1973] make up 25 percent of the population?

Do you believe that the Jews born in Arab countries can go back and live in the countries from which they were plundered and massacred, before being expelled? Particularly since you want Islam to be fully reinstated, even, I am told, to the extent of cutting off thieves' right hands and sending the women back to the harem or to the promiscuity of polygamy. That is your business, of course. But do you think that someone who is not Muslim can go back and live under such laws, even supposing the Muslims were willing to let him?

Is it true that you have said that the Jews have always lived at peace in the Arab countries? And that you have nothing against Jews, only Zionists?

Can it be that seriously believe in the myth, deliberately invented for the sake of reassuring Westerners, that the Jews lived idyllic lives in the Arab countries?

The ongoing brutality of the Qadaffi regime is pathognomonic of the region's millennial continuum of Islamic despotism. Qadaffi's "democratic opposition" -- even in the absence of Jews -- still expresses the Libyan Muslim masses' equally oppressive legacy of Jew-hatred directed at its last now extinct indigenous pre-Islamic minority, which suffered throughout more than a thousand years of Islamic rule, culminating in a final wave of violent pogroms from 1945-1967, which liquidated the Jewish community of Libya.

With this history in mind, perhaps the most fitting US policy towards Libya is not a "No Fly Zone," but a "Not Worthy Zone."


Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/qadaffis_offer_to_libyas_vanis.html

Andrew G. Bostom

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

Thousands of Muslims Torch Christian Homes, Churches in Egypt


by Rick Moran

According to the Assyrian International News Agency, several thousand Muslims have attacked Christian houses and places of worship in a town 30 miles from Cairo. The fate of the clerics who worked at the church is unknown - they may have been detained as hostages or burned to death in the fire.

The violence was the result of a Christian dating a Muslim woman:

Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."

A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village.

This incident was triggered by a relationship between 40-year-old Copt Ashraf Iskander and a Muslim woman. Yesterday a "reconciliation" meeting was arranged between the relevant Coptic and Muslim families and together with the Muslim elders it was decided that Ashraf Iskander would have to leave the village because Muslims torched his house.

The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honor, which led the woman's brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians.

The Muslim mob attacked the church, exploding 5-6 gas cylinders inside the church, pulled down the cross and the domes and burnt everything inside. Activist Ramy Kamel of Katibatibia Coptic advocacy called US-based Coptic Hope Sat TV and sent an SOS on behalf of the Copts in Soul village, as they are presently being attacked by the mob. He also said that no one is able to contact the priest and the deacons inside the burning church and there is no answer from their mobile phones.

This is just the latest in a series of attacks on the Copts in Egypt that seem to have increased in intensity since the revolt last month.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/thousands_of_muslims_torch_chr.html

Rick Moran

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

WaPo tackles Riddle of Palestinians' 'Strange Quiet' Amid Arab Upheavals -- and Gets it Wrong


by Leo Rennert

In the March 5 edition of the Washington Post, Jerusalem correspondent Joel Greenberg treks over to Ramallah to try to find out why, amid widespread turmoil in the Arab world, Palestinians have not mounted massive protests against their leaders. ("Where the 'rage' is strangely quiet -- For Palestinians, calm amid the surrounding storm" page A7).

Unfortunately, he gets it wrong.

In interviews with Palestinians in Ramallah, Greenberg finds various explanations for why Palestinians have not taken to the streets to dislodge Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party in the West Bank, or Hamas in Gaza -- some show more interest in promoting Fatah-Hamas unity, Abbas is not seen as an autocratic ruler (really?), there's a bit of free expression in the West Bank, also a higher living standard than in neighboring Arab countries.

But the bottom-line response to the riddle of why Abbas appears unchallenged boils down to a single, transcending complaint in Greenbergs's piece -- The problem is not with the Palestinian leadership, but with the Israeli "occupation."

Greenberg starts out by quoting Abed Jabalah, an appliance store owner in Ramallah, as telling him: "We are not happy. No one is happy. But the president and prime minister are doing their best. We are under occupation. We are not a state. The things we demand of our government we know it can't do because of the Israelis. Our revolution should be against Israel first."

And Greenberg wraps it all up in the final paragraph of his story with a quote from Abu Helal, who works in youth programs sponsored by a non-profit group: "We have no regime to topple. Israel controls it all. Our basic problem is the occupation."

Which, of course, begs the real question. If Israeli "occupation" is the real offender, why is there nevertheless quiet on the Palestinian front? Greenberg, on the basis of his own article, fails to ask the right question -- why aren't West Bank Palestinians demonstrating en masse against Israel? Never mind their feelings about Abbas, since his governance apparently is not what they're really beefing about.

Had Greenberg delved into that riddle, he might have found that many Palestinians, while inveighing against Israeli "occupation," actually lead more satisfactory lives under Israeli rule than under Fatah or Hamas rule. And they often tend to act accordingly.

Anti-Israel rhetoric aside, Greenberg might have found telling evidence that this is so by reporting on what happened when Israel built its security barrier along the West Bank to prevent terrorist attacks and, in the process, sliced a bit into remote sections of eastern Jerusalem, leaving some Arab neighborhoods on the Palestinian side of the fence. Anticipating that the barrier eventually might become a border between Israel and a Palestinian state, Arab residents of these Jerusalem neighborhoods began to move out -- and bought homes in more central Jerusalem neighborhoods on the Israeli side.

While Palestinian public parlance against "occupation" has become commonplace, more determinative of their real attitudes is where Palestinians prefer to settle down when confronted with the prospect of ending up on the "wrong" side -- the Palestinian side.

Another bit of significant evidence, also overlooked by Greenberg, is the latest monthly Peace Index Poll by a Tel Aviv University think tank in conjunction with the Israeli Democratic Institute. Taken toward the end of February, the poll asked Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs about the likelihood of anti-government eruptions in Israel. After all, Arabs comprise 20 percent of Israel's population. Yet, they're totally ignored by Greenberg.

Why aren't they emulating Arab mass protests elsewhere? The answer: 56 percent of Israeli Arabs see no point in staging street revolts because they already live in a democracy or view their personal situations as quite good. The rest tend to be apathetic or skeptical, seeing no purpose in mass demonstrations.

Too bad that Greenberg contented himself with reporting Palestinian slogans against Israeli "occupation" instead of reporting on the real lives Palestinians and Israeli Arabs lead and the real choices they make.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/wapo_tackles_riddle_of_palesti.html

Leo Rennert

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

Carter Country


by Alan W. Dowd

“Sen. Obama says that I’m running for Bush’s third term,” John McCain quipped in June 2008. “It seems to me he’s running for Jimmy Carter’s second.” Less than three years later, Sen. McCain’s bleak forecast is coming true.

Let’s start with how Americans felt about America under President Carter and how they feel about America under President Obama.

Today, as in the late 1970s, there is a pervasive sense of decline. Obama has even mentioned it in a State of the Union and in his inaugural address.

This sense of decline is a function of many factors: China’s rapid rise, Washington’s self-imposed constraint overseas but especially America’s faltering economy.

Unemployment has remained stubbornly above 9 percent throughout the Obama presidency. Some 15 percent of homeowners are either facing foreclosure or at least a month behind on their mortgage. Inflation is creeping up. And the Misery Index is back.

It was invented during the Carter administration as a way to gauge how bad things are for the American people. In simplest terms, it’s the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate. The Misery Index was 19.72 at the end of Carter’s term, up seven points from four years earlier. Under Obama, it’s 10.63, up three points from when he entered office. (By the way, the Misery Index went down under George W. Bush.)

The bad news for American consumers—and for Obama’s 2012 prospects—is that if energy prices continue to rise, the economy will not be able to create new jobs, which means the Misery Index will live up to its name.

Today, as in the 1970s, gas prices are exploding, spurred by rising demand in developing economies and volatile supply lines in the Middle East. Oil has rocketed past $100 per barrel, translating into $3.36-per-gallon gas, up from $2.70 per gallon this time last year (national averages). That’s a 25-percent rise.

Inflationdata.com points out that between 1976 and 1980 gas prices increased by about 65 percent. According to one energy expert, “It would not be inconceivable to see $150- or $200-barrel oil this year.” In other words, it seems gas prices are headed in the same direction as in the late 1970s.

Obama’s solution is restraint and constraint. “We can’t drive our SUVs and…keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times,” he lectured us in 2008, before pushing a cap-and-trade scheme to tax and thus ration energy.

That’s straight out of Carter’s playbook: turn down the thermostat, wear sweaters, install solar panels, etc.

Even when Obama tried to go against his own tendencies and promote a modest opening of “new offshore areas for oil and gas,” events in the Gulf of Mexico intervened to stymie him. It was almost as if the ghost of Carter was haunting him. Recall that Carter promoted nuclear energy, describing the benefits of nuclear power as “very real and practical,” until Three Mile Island intervened.

Finally, we come to foreign policy. To be sure, there are subtle differences between Carter and Obama: Carter championed human rights, while Obama, from Iran and China in 2009 to Egypt and Libya in 2011, has embraced a kind of agnosticism on human rights and democracy. But both men seem to view the world through the prism of moral relativism. For Carter, that meant explaining away the behavior of America’s enemies and condemning the behavior of America’s allies; for Obama, it means lacing his speeches with qualifiers about America’s problems and flaws, while refusing to use the bully pulpit to promote freedom.

Today, as in 1979, the Middle East is in turmoil. Carter was not to blame for the Iranian mob’s assault on the U.S. embassy, and Obama is not to blame for the cascading chaos across the northern tier of Africa. But they are to blame for how their administrations reacted to these events.

For months, Carter did nothing of substance in response to the embassy takeover, and when he tried to do something it proved worse than nothing.

Similarly, in response to Iran’s failed Twitter Revolution of 2009, Obama sat silent. No one was calling on him to send in the 82nd Airborne to support the Iranian protestors. But freedom-loving people—and their enemies—look to America for signals. And Obama’s signals were loud and clear in the summer of 2009.

His administration made the same mistake but in a different way in Egypt, as his secretary of state and vice president initially mouthed support for Egypt’s autocrat. In Libya, the administration has regressed, failing in the first two weeks of Libya’s revolution to do or say anything of substance in response to Khadafy’s brutality. As Elliot Abrams observes, “When…the Arab League is ahead of you in denouncing human rights violations, you are reacting a bit slowly.”

But the Arab League, the EU and the UN secretary general are going to be ahead of Obama because he is more interested in the international community “speaking with one voice” and “bearing witness” than in America leading. In this regard, it pays to recall what historian William Pfaff observed in The Wrath of Nations: When nations don’t want to act, let alone lead, international organizations actually become “an obstacle to action, by inhibiting individual national action and rationalizing the refusal to act nationally.”

Blessedly, there has been no Desert One debacle under Obama, though one gets the sense that something like that is looming, perhaps in Libya or Yemen, perhaps in Saudi Arabia or Oman.

What we do know is that there already have been diplomatic debacles: Obama has “reset,” apologized, and gripped and grinned to accommodate America’s foes, averting his gaze from government thuggery in Russia in order to get an arms control treaty of questionable merit, ditching the Dalai Lama in order to save a photo-op summit in Beijing, literally bowing to the emperor of Japan, monarch of Saudi Arabia and dictator of China.

Similar things happened under Carter. A 1979 Washington Post article captures the strange and sad symbolism of Washington’s interactions with Moscow in those gray days of self-doubt and malaise. “Carter,” the Post reported, “seems to have developed a protectiveness, almost a fondness, for the older man, especially after he saved Brezhnev from falling on Sunday morning…Brezhnev seemed to welcome Carter’s assistance, as though he had come to depend on it.”

That was a bruising visual metaphor for Carter, and there are traces of this in Obama’s interactions with the world. Just consider how the Russias, Chinas, Irans and Venezuelas view the United States today.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/04/carter-country/

Alan W. Dowd

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

U.S. Government Discovers That There's a Competition with Iran But Has No Idea How to "Fight Back"


by Barry Rubin

In testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We are in a competition. I just stress over and over again, we've got to be there. We've got to fight back." A competition with whom? With Iran, though she didn't mention its long list of allies: Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, the Turkish government, the new Lebanese government, and the Iraqi insurgents.

The Obama Administration has been in office for more than two years and I've been writing about this every day of that period. I have never seen an administration official say anything like this before. And if Clinton or others are aware of this competition why didn't they "fight back"?

They didn't fight back in Lebanon, or try to overthrow the Hamas regime. They have ignored the fact that Tehran is winning the competition regarding the current Turkish government. They panicked and quickly helped overthrow (without any idea of what would come next) the staunchest anti-Iran regime in the Arab world (not Husni Mubarak as a dictator but the whole regime). They have given less support to Israel, the main (not by its own choice) enemy of Iran. And they have fallen all over themselves to reward Syria, the main ally of Iran while not diminishing the Tehran-Damascus axis in the least.

What fighting back has been going on?

Clinton made these remarks in urging Congress to support U.S. foreign aid to the Middle East. Yet what has this aid bought? Pakistan ignores U.S. interests and so does the Palestinian Authority. Aid to Lebanon goes to that country's army which is now, for all practical purposes, in the hands of America's enemies. As for aid to Egypt, isn't this now perceived as helping a discredited dictatorship?

There was, however, a hint given by Clinton as to what she meant. Iran was working, "Every single day with as many assets as they can muster, trying to take hold of this legitimate movement for democracy." In other words, the competition seems to be in the administration's mind over who can do the most to help the anti-government upheavals in the region to succeed. Thus, the administration rushed to show that it is eager to undermine pro-U.S. regimes to "persuade" the oppositions to support Washington and not Tehran.

Good luck on that one. In the first test of this proposition, the new Egyptian government let Iran's warships use the Suez Canal for the first time in 32 years. Those ships are now based in Syria, the country the Obama Administration was supposedly going to woo away from Iran. In Lebanon, a free election has led to a Syria-Iran-Hizballah dominated government. In the Gaza Strip, U.S. pressure for letting Hamas participate (albeit under a previous president) was so successful in helping the "legitimate movement for democracy" that Hamas won.

Clinton also made another remarkable statement about how al-Jazira is the best media on the Middle East and the idea that the United States is losing the "information war." Hilary: al-Jazira isn't so popular because--as you seem to think--it is providing better news coverage but because it is inciting radical Islamism which has a welcoming audience nowadays.

No policy the U.S. government can follow and no gimmick is going to persuade people in the region to love the United States. That has a certain relationship to the fact that people think America is weak, Iran and its allies are winning, and the United States sacrifices its friends. It also implies that people friendly to you won't do well in free elections. And that's not because Obama isn't charming enough or the United States isn't distancing itself more from Israel. It's a basic fact of political culture, ideology, and the power of demagoguery, too, throughout the Middle East.

The beginning of wisdom for U.S. policy in the Middle East is the end of the strategy used by the White House for the last two years. And that certainly isn't in sight.

Original URL: http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/03/us-discovers-competition-with-iran

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

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

Eternal Vigilance in the Defense of Free Speech: An Interview with Lars Hedegaard


by Ann Snyder

In January Lars Hedegaard, president and founder of the Danish and International Free Press Societies, was acquitted of charges brought under Article 266(b) of the Danish penal code, a "hate speech" provision. Just this past December, Danish MP, Jesper Langballe, rather than endure a circus of a trial "confessed," pleading guilty to violating Article 266(b) for remarks he made in support of Hedegaard.

In the days leading up to his prosecution, the Legal Project had an opportunity to catch up with Mr. Hedegaard. The conversation covered a wide array of topics from free speech in Denmark, to "no-go" zones, to the use of words like "Islamophobia," to what we must do to protect free speech. Highlights are presented below.

Denmark at the epicenter of the clash between Islamism and the West

From the never-ending Mohammed cartoon controversy to the recent trials of Langballe and Hedegaard, Denmark is one country that has been at that center of the clash between Islamism and the West with Danes at the vanguard in the defense of free speech. At least in part, according to Hedegaard, that has to do with "…a certain predilection among the Danes to defend freedom and not to kiss up to or trust authorities." A more worrisome reason, however, is that Denmark is vulnerable in ways the Danes had not imagined. Hedegaard explains:

"I am often asked that question. Why is it taking place in Denmark? Our protection of free speech is very weak in the country as we can see now. The protection that we enjoy in our constitution is extremely weak. It only says that you don't have to ask the permission of the authorities before you go out and print or say anything. However, you can be prosecuted afterward for what you say. That is becoming increasingly clear now. I think we all thought that there was something akin to a First Amendment protection but that now turns out not to be the case." He went on to say, "I think it has come as a shock to Danes that we really do not in fact have free speech. There is no prior restraint, but then they'll get you afterwards."

Hedegaard raised concerns about an additional threat to free speech in Denmark and other states in the European Union: the adoption of the so-called "framework" decision on "racism and xenophobia" in November 2008 that went into effect this past year. The decision requires member-states to adopt criminal "hate speech" laws including genocide denial and "trivialization" provisions. The intellectual cancer of "hate speech" laws is spreading.

The over-breadth of Article 266(b) and its uneven application

A striking commonality of "hate speech" laws in Europe is their sweeping language. The relatively benign remarks of a typical American politician or pundit on the nightly news might violate the letter of these laws. This idea was the premise of a recent Legal Project blog, "I Confess, Too." I asked Mr. Hedegaard why, given the broad language of Article 266(b), we had not seen more prosecutions in Denmark and whether or not the law was being selectively applied. "Yes, it is selective, but we are going to see many more of them," he said. He went on to discuss recent events in the news suggesting that there may be new cases in the near future. "It is an orchestrated onslaught against free speech, and I think that the police and public prosecutor know very well what is expected of them. So we're going to see an avalanche, an army of such cases. Of course, they hope that I will be convicted on the 24th of January, which will pave the way---because I am a high profile public figure. If they can get me, they'll say well we can then go for the little folks," Hedegaard added. His acquittal has thus turned the tides for now. However, Article 266(b) is not being evenly applied across viewpoints. "We have a situation where the law does not apply to all. There is no equality before the law. It is being selectively used to get at people you don't like," he said.

Why Americans should care about the fate of free speech in Denmark

When I discuss threats to free speech in Europe with other Americans, I am often asked why they should care given the strong free speech protections afforded by our First Amendment. Among the reasons I cite are that denying freedom of speech is a human rights violation and that the First Amendment might not be as strong a protection as expected given the increasing role of international law. (Read an article by Legal Project Director, Daniel Huff, on this issue.) I asked Mr. Hedegaard to share his insights on why Americans should care about free speech rights in Denmark in light of First Amendment protections. Mr. Hedegaard advised:

"Well they should because it is not as strong as it used to be in the U.S. It seems to me you have a pro-Islamic president at the moment. I am referring to his infamous speech in Cairo a couple of years ago where he clearly indicated his fealty to Islam. And, I can see from what I read that many politicians, not least among the Democratic party, would very much like to shackle free speech. Whatever they call it, the fairness principle [i.e., Fairness Doctrine], or whatever." He went on to add, "We live in an increasingly internationalized, globalized order where people look to other countries for guidance and inspiration. Of course, where Europe goes the U.S. may well go. You see the same pattern in Canada and other places. I don't think you should believe that the U.S. can remain an island of freedom in a world of suppression and dictatorship."

While Danes fight to protect freedom, so-called "no go zones" have emerged

Though the outlook for Denmark may appear grim, Hedegaard and others like him keep up a determined fight to preserve Western ideals and liberties. Even so, in some areas of Europe, so-called "no-go zones," the battle (but hopefully not the war) has been lost. Mr. Hedegaard explains:

"Some areas have been lost. We have enclaves in the country where Sharia law now reigns supreme as we do in every other country in Europe. The police will not go into Birmingham [U.K.] any longer unless in extremis. You have about 700 localities in France where you have 'no-go zones.' Police will not go in. The writ of French law does not reign in these areas, and you see the same all over Europe. People are trying to sort of look away and brush it off as exaggerations and the ragings of 'idiots' such as me. But, however you deal with it, it is a reality that will pave its way through every country in Europe. And of course, in the U.S., in the long run, you have your own ghettos now." (Read Islamist Watch's article on what may be the early stirrings of such a region in Philadelphia.)

Moderate Islam and Moderate Muslims

In the fight to defend the West from Islamists and Islamism, there are some, including Middle East Forum Director, Daniel Pipes, who reject an essentialist view of Islam and suggest that the religion can change into a moderate formulation of Islam that is compatible with Western values. I asked Mr. Hedegaard to share his thoughts on the concept of a moderate Islam, on moderate Muslims, and the potential for reform in Islam. He remarked:

"I am well aware of Daniel Pipes' position on moderate Islam as the solution to radical Islam, and I am all for that. I am just waiting to see it happen. They have had 1400 years to develop a moderate Islam, and it hasn't taken over anywhere in the world as far as I am concerned. We know very little about the moderation of the average Muslim mostly because we don't know what they think. Very few moderate Muslims ever speak up in the open debate. I think that many—perhaps even the majority of Muslims—would very much like to live in a peaceful way amongst the rest of us and would like to enjoy the freedoms and protections that our laws give them. However, they are the first victims of the men of violence who rule in Islam and have been ruling for 1400 years now."

What's in a name? Labels of "racist" and "Islamophobe" used against critics of Islam

As our readers are aware, the Legal Project works to combat Islamism by protecting the right in the West to speak freely about Islam. Beyond the use of legal means to silence critics, words like "Islamophobe" and "Islamophobia" are used to delegitimize speaker and statement, respectively, rather than confront the substance of a given argument. Mr. Hedegaard and I discussed this phenomenon. Dispatching quickly the allegations of "racism" against critics of Islam, Hedegaard observed, "Islam is not a race." He went on to discuss the concept of "Islamophobia."

"Well, I do not accept the word 'Islamophobe.' That's an invention intended to stifle criticism and to stifle debate. In the very word 'Islamophobe' is an accusation that what you fear does not exist. It's irrational. You have these arachnophobes, people who are afraid of spiders for no good reason. You have people who are afraid of open spaces. Of course, open spaces won't eat you nor will spiders. So in this 'phobe' is an unspoken contention that what you fear is irrational. It is not irrational to fear Islam. So, the contention that this is on par with fear of heights or fear of spiders is an invention intended to disarm us."

How to preserve our values against the threat of Islamism

In light of the threat posed by Islamists and Islamism not only to fundamental rights like freedom of expression but also to our Western civilization, Mr. Hedegaard and I discussed how to preserve our freedom: "The first step is to understand what Islam is, and people do not realize what we are up against. They do not realize what a pernicious ideology we are facing, even an ideology that does not really demand any sort of formal leadership," he said. He went on to add that unlike totalitarian ideologies like Communism and Nazism that were largely defeated when the states advocating those ideologies fell, Islam, without a formal head, is different. "As long as people think they will go to hell unless they live up to the requirements of Islam, it will exist. That is a much more difficult struggle than any struggle against other totalitarian ideologies," he said. Further, while Mr. Hedegaard and the International Free Press Society advocate the adoption of formal protections for free speech at the international level, ultimately, the responsibility for preserving our liberty rests with each of us. Hedegaard explains:

"We need an international 'First Amendment' protection. But laws are only as efficacious as the people who uphold them. So, it demands eternal vigilance on the part of citizens—the common man and woman. Otherwise, formal protection does not amount to beans. So faced with Islam, such as it is, we have really no option but eternal vigilance. This is a struggle that will take centuries. Islam can wait. It can lie low for centuries, and we cannot afford to do the same thing."

A qualified win for freedom of speech

Ultimately, when Mr. Hedegaard had his day in court he was victorious. He was acquitted because the court found that his remarks, while supposedly offensive, were not intended for public dissemination. (Please click here for a translation of 266(b) to parse the language for yourself.) In a statement following his acquittal, Hedegaard remarked that his "detractors—the foes of free speech and the enablers of an Islamic ascendancy in the West" would assert that he was acquitted on a "technicality." However, the author of this piece, a supporter, advocate of free speech, and no such enabler, would have to agree with them on that narrow point.

To be sure, the acquittal is an obvious win for Hedegaard and a decided victory for free speech in one sense. On the latter point, as Hedegaard notes, the prosecutor was aware of the circumstances surrounding the remarks but proceeded to trial anyway. Why the defense seems like a mere "technicality" is that no man's fundamental right to freedom of speech should ever be forced to rest on such meager grounds. (Of course nothing but congratulations to Mr. Hedegaard and his counsel are in order for successfully raising an available defense!) Mr. Hedegaard has an inherent right to say what did—in public or in private—despite Article 266(b)'s effect of limiting that right in practice. The penultimate win for free speech will be the day those who value their liberty have finally had enough of this nonsense and excise Article 266(b) and its ilk from the law books once and for all.

While individuals like Mr. Hedegaard and organizations like the Danish and International Free Press Societies are valiantly leading the way, no single person or entity, no court victory, and no law can safeguard our liberties for us. We must work to secure them for ourselves. As Hedegaard reminds us, the preservation of our freedoms requires "the eternal vigilance on the part of citizens."

Original URL: http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2011/03/eternal-vigilance-in-the-defense-of-free-speech

Ann Snyder

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