Friday, May 27, 2011

Ketsaleh "addresses" the US Congress

by INN Staff

Note: This speech was actually written by MK Yaakov Katz (“Ketsaleh”), head of the National Union party, given to Prime Minister Netanyahu and sent to INN for translation and posting, in the hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu [would] stand firm and present its message to the government of the United States.

Dear Friends, Senators and Congressmen, Representatives of the American people who are the best friend the Jewish people have had in all of history,

The Jewish people and the state of Israel are honored that the Prime Minister of Israel is invited to stand here before both houses of the American Congress.

I wish, in the name of the Israel’s citizens, to thank you for this opportunity to talk to you.

In 1492, two events of great historical significance occurred.

An evil decree of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain brought about the expulsion of the 150,000 Jews of Spain from the country where they had once lived tranquilly and had had a semblance of civil rights.

Yet an act of deliverance preceded this debacle, when, in the same year, Christopher Columbus discovered America. This was the start of the American nation, the nation whose very existence is an act of grace for the entire world and for the Jewish people in particular.

America was fated one day to become a place of refuge and support for the Jewish people.

Our people feel great affection for the American nation, which became a safe harbor for us towards the end of our exile. We thank the Almighty for choosing the American people to be the best and most helpful friend in our efforts to establish a national homeland for the Jewish people.

From the very start, there has been a covenant of love and friendship between the American people and the Jewish people and its state. The United States of America has stood by Israel in the past, in the present and will, please G-d, stand by her forever.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Senators and Congressmen,

At the close of a forced, long and cruel exile, we returned to our land. During all the 1900 years of exile, we never forgot our land, the land of Israel, our birthplace, the land promised to us and our descendants by the Creator of the world, the land of the Bible. Generations of Jewish children, young and old, studied and memorized the words of the Bible and our daily prayers, day and night, in hunger and thirst, cold and poverty, in secret and in the open, longing for a return to Jerusalem and the cities of Judea. Jerusalem is mentioned 21 times in a Jews’ daily prayers.

The Passover Haggadah that is recited at the yearly Seder, the very same one we have said through the ages, in Casblanca, Paris, Fez, London, Tsana,Barcelona, Addis Ababa, St. Petersburg, Alexandria, G’erba, Munich, Rome, and New York—whatever place we were exiled to—ends with the song “Next year in Jerusalem”.

The pioneering spirits among our people attempted to found a Third Commonwealth, but the nations of the world prevented them from succeeding. A small number managed to actually reach the land of the Bible. They started an awakening. They were followed by successive waves of tens, then hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands who founded villages, communities, cultural institutions and spread throughout the holy land, but the land remained desolate looking as It had been since its destruction thousands of years earlier.

After 18 centuries of exile, bubbles of longing began coming to the surface of Jewish life, and in the last 300 years, a large number of Jews left their places of residence to return to Israel. Today, at the state of Israel’s 63rd birthday celebration, we can state with confidence that our land was glad to see us back. Israel is a beautiful country, has one of the most stable economies in the world, is blessed with investments, research and development—it is a beacon to the entire world—and this is in addition to the rennaisance of Jewish culture and scholarship in the Jewish state.

In his book, “The Innocents Abroad”, Mark Twain describes journeying to the holy land with a group of pilgrims in the 1860’s. He describes a barren and desolate land, that contains nothing but deserts, wastelands, swamps, full of neglect and contagious diseases. All this was before the Jews returned. Once they began coming, Arab tribes followed in their footsteps, so that Arab claims to being in the land from time immemorial are put to the lie even by Twain.

In the Passover Haggadah I mentioned earlier, we also say each year: “In every generation they rise to destroy us, but the Lord rescues us from their hands.” No one, not even today, has a rational explanation for the continued existence of anti-Semitism. We only know that it is there, kicking and screaming. It began with our becoming a nation, in Egypt, and continued all through the years of exile during which period most of our nation was systematically murdered. That is how we find ourselves, after 1900 years and after the Holocaust, approximately the same population size as we were when the long exile began.

Possibly, anti-Semitism is a product of Israel’s G-d-given task of being “a light unto the nations," commanding the Jews to set a moral example and to spread monotheism in the ancient world of paganism and cruel idol worship. That may have caused jealousy and hatred, mixed with admiration. Jewish tradition had it that the world was round 1200 years before Galileo was hounded by the Church for saying so. In Jewish law, women were called “daughters of kings” long before the world realized the basic rights of women. The Jewish people served as an island of culture, purity, charity and lovingkindness, all found in the 613 commandments, those between man and his fellowman, those between man and his God. Although most of the world has abandoned idol worship by now, that hatred did not cease in the bitter exile with which we were subjected, but in which we never bowed. We remained stalwart spiritually and it is that strength that gave us the foundations for our national steadfastness.

On November 2, 1917, Lord Arthur James Balfour, Foreign Secretary and past Prime Minister of Great Britain, issued the famous Balfour Declaration, that posits the founding of a national home for the Jewish people in the land of Israel. Its authors were referring to the Biblical borders of Israel, with whose boundaries the English people were familiar from studying the Holy Book, that land which lay on both sides of the Jordan River, extending from the northernmost Golan Heights to Aqaba in the south, close to 116 thousand square kilometers.

In 1920, the San Remo International Conference confirmed the Balfour Declaration and gave Britain the mandate over both sides of the Jordan River. King Feisal of Iraq, in the name of the Arab delegation to the 1919 peace conference after WWI, wrote: “Our delegation here in Paris are fully aware of the suggestions the Zionist Federation made to the peace conference. In our eyes they are modest and fitting, and we will do our best to have them accepted. We will welcome the Jews warmly when they come home.

Two years later, the eastern bank of the Jordan, an area of about 90,000 square kilometers, was separated and closed to Jewish immigration. What remained for the Jews was the west bank of the Jordan, an area of only 26,000 square kilometers. The decision to hand over the land east of the Jordan to the head of the Saudi royal family, was decided on by Great Britain for political ends.

The plan to partition the land of Israel west of the Jordan River, as suggested by the Peel Committee in 1936, was called “a midget-sized Jewish country”, by revisionist leader Zeev Jabotinsky, in his 1937 speech before Parliament. The heads of Jewish settlement in Israel declared that even if the Jews are forced to accept the partition against their will, they see it as a temporary solution. Chaim Weizmann, later Israel’s first president, said: “This is an arrangement that can last 25-30 years”, and David Ben Gurion, later to be Israel’s first Prime Minister, reacted: “I see our future as cancelling the partition, once we have become secure in our state”.

In 1947, the United Nations Assembly ratified the Partition Plan, a decision that led to the declaration of the state of Israel on the tiny bit of land left for the Jewish homeland. Our capital,Jerusalem, was divided in two, and her heart, the site of our Holy Temples, was outside our borders. All the parts of Israel that had been clearly promised to us by God were also outside these borders.

The Arabs never accepted the Partition Plan and, led by Amin El Huseini, continued their terror attacks against the Jewish people. Huseini met with Hitler in Bernlin at the height of WWII in order to plan the extermination of the Jews in Israel and the east.

Immediately after the declaration of Israel’s independence on May 15, 1948, the armies of 7 Arab states invaded the fledgling country to attempt to murder all its Jewish residents. For the next 19 years, we lived while paying for our existence in unending bloodshed. In the War of Independence alone, 6000 soldiers and civilians were killed, that was 1% of the population at the time. God helped us defeat our enemies and we succeeded in building a wonderful country despite its narrow borders and their limitations.

Then began the infamous announcements of President Nasser of Egypt in 1967, who, together with Syria’s ruler Hafez el Assad, and Jordan’s King Hussein, decided to invade tiny Israel and wipe it off the map. Israel’s boundaries were the indefensible Green Line, called “Auschwitz Borders” by then-Foreign Minister Abba Eban. In the June 1967 war that ensued, the state of Israel and its heroic soldiers, defeated Egypt in six days and freed the remaining sections of Israel on the west of the Jordan River.

From the beginning, the Arab countries have engaged in anti-Israel incitement. Israel, for its part, has always yearned for peace with its enemies, but was always given the cold shoulder—and worse, unceasing terror attacks and bloodshed.

In 1993, a minority Israeli government signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. The US government had reservations about the agreement limits at various stages of its development. The immediate result of these agreements was the terrorist murders of over 1500 Israelis, most of them civilians: the elderly, women, men, children - in the city centers, on buses, at restaurants and shopping centers. The PLO broke the Oslo Accords and forced Israel to engage in a military operation to reestablish full security control in PA cities, an act that was taken to prevent terror in Israel today.

It is no secret that of the 120 members of the United Nations General Assembly, 57 are Islamic, and that they vote automatically against Israel no matter what the issue. The United States of America, along with several other countries, have led the fight against anti-Israel activities in the UN for the 63 years since Israel’s establishment.

We are immeasurably grateful to the Presidents, Cabinet Members, Senators and Congressman who kept the hate and anti-Semitism in check, not allowing them to win another war waged against the Jewish people who have come home after thousands of years in exile.

In recent years, another enemy of the Jewish people has arisen, one who reminds us of Adolf Hitler, an enemy who does not hesitate to declare that he wishes to complete the genocide that Hitler planned. Israel, the entire world and especially the United States must make the battle to eliminate this ruler, who is developing non-conventional weapons of destruction and preparing his army to destroy Israel, a top priority. We must act towards Ahmadenijad as the United States did successfully and so bravely against arch- terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

Six years ago, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided on a “Disengagement Plan” and expelled 10,000 Jews from the Katif Bloc. Although I was in the coalition when this was decided, I realized my mistake and left the government. Today, in retrospect, almost everyone admits that this plan was an egregious error and that Israel should have remained in that part of the Gaza Strip instead of leaving it for Iran’s puppet, Hamas.

Israel expelled Jews, destroyed their homes and brought about the burning of their synagogues by rioting Arabs. Immediately afterwards, Israel became a target for missiles raining from Gaza.

Over 10,000 rockets and missiles have been launched at Israeli cities as a result of this immoral and irresponsible decision. Our strategic, existential and security status have all become more vulnerable. We were forced to initiate the Cast Lead Operation to try to change the situation, but at great cost.

Israel yearns for peace, it is capable of overcoming past grievances. It has diplomatic, economic and even security relations with countries that took part in the destruction of the Jews only 70 years ago.

Israel gives equal rights to all her citizens, even those who once fought against her, and even to those who work against her even at present - and announce publicly that they do so.

There is no Arab or Muslim country in the world whose citizens have the freedom that Israel’s Arabs have. They vote, are members of the Knesset, serve as judges on the Supreme Court and in any capacity they wish.

Our right to the land of Israel is inalienable. It is an historical right and is stated clearly in the Book of Books. God’s command is that the Jewish people be connected to the holy land forever and ever. We must do our best to rebuild its ruins and settle its desolate areas.

My grandfather, the gifted speaker and well known Zionist, Rabbi Natan Milikovsky-Netanyahu, may he rest in peace, was a good friend of the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Avraham Kook. He traveled round the world at his behest, most especially to American Jewish congregations, during the 1920’s, to convince Jews to move to Israel and live their Zionism. Speaking in Rochester, New York in 1927, he said: “ We will not abandon our people to die. We must live. We have proven our integrity and just cause for two thousand years. We have our old weapons with us—justice and integrity—we will return to our homeland, our birthplace, our past and independence. The land awaits us.”

Dear Senators and Congressmen,

I wish to tell you that of some 7.5 million residents of the state of Israel, 6 million are Jews. 650,000 of them live in what is called “East” Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria – Israel’s heartland, the dwelling place of our forefathers, liberated in the Six Day War.

A good many places in the United States are named for Jewish holy cities: Beit El, Bethlehem, Shiloh and more.

The anti-Semitism always unleashed against the Jewish people, is now aimed at the Jewish state. It is inconceivable that 500 years after the Jews were expelled from Spain and suffered so many expulsions from the countries of Europe through the centuries, that Israel will be expected to expel 650,000 Jews from their ancestral homes, the cities of ancient Israel that have come back to life: Beit El, Hevron, Shechem, Elon Moreh, Kiryat Arba, Susiya, and above all, Jerusalem.

There is no doubt that the American people, who enjoy American’s freedom, who love and know the uniqueness of the Bible, will come to the aid of the millions of Jews who have renewed their lives in all parts of the holy land. You are the representatives of this wonderful nation and there is no doubt in our hearts that you will stand at our side and help defend our rights to live everywhere in biblical Israel.

At the present time, the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are being led astray by leaders who are eaten up by hatred. Anti-Semitic caricatures in the PA press are an everyday occurrence. PA media, official textbooks, do not accept the existence of Israel and the Jewish people’s rights for a state in the holy land. Children are taught to be shahids from an early age, taught to kill as many Jews as possible. As long as this goes on, there is no way of talking to the PA. The treaty they signed with Hamas only makes this more obvious.

In exactly the same way we offered full citizenship to Israel’s Arab citizens decades ago, we are willing today to extend that gift to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. Accept Israeli citizenship and become loyal to the state.

We are a peace loving nation. We will always be one. We never tried to undermine the countries in which we lived during our centuries of exile and always wanted peace. But peace is not derived from the destruction of another. Peace is the ability to live together.

Our integrity is reflected in our policies. I am the head of the Likud party, voted in on a platform that vowed to keep all of Israel in the hands of the Jewish people. I must tell you that in the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, not counting “East” Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, 26.5% of the voters chose me. They have not authorized me to destroy their homes, even had I wished to do so.

In the name of the Israeli nation that has sent me here, I ask you to help bring a painful isue that puts a pall on the quality of our relationship to an end. I am referring to Jonathan Pollard, and it seems to me that we must decide together, in the name of rationality as well as morality, to free him. He has paid a much higher price than anyone who has committed a comparable crime.

I turn to you to also help us gain freedom for our soldier Gilad Schalit from the hands of Hamas terrorists, the ones who expressed outrage and grief at the elimination of Ben Laden.

We in Israel have to learn from the United States, not to negotiate with terrorists. Gilad has not been visited by the Red Cross, has not seen a lawyer. Hamas ignores international principles of the freedom of mankind and commits crimes against humanity. We ask the world to raise its voice against this.

To close, I wish to pray that one day the world realize that the shared longing of the Jewish and American peoples for peace and liberty, is one that the entire world should share. May we pray together for world peace.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to address you. All of you are invited to visit the holy land, the land of the Bible, to enjoy her beauty, her rebuilding and progress.


INN Staff

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

Muslim Brotherhood Aims for Islamic Egyptian State

by Gavriel Queenann

The Muslim Brotherhood will impose Islamic Sharia Law in Egypt if it comes to power, according to the movement's Sobhi Saleh, the Egyptian Arabic daily Al Masry Al Youm reports.

Saleh, a leading Muslim Brotherhood figure, claimed Sharia would protect Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

“Terms like civil or secular state are misleading,” he said. “Islamic Sharia is the best system for Muslims and non-Muslims."

Sharia implements an Islamic state that excludes non-Muslims from full participation in government, and which does not regard non-Muslims are full citizens. Under Sharia the lives and property of non-Muslims are only protected in an Islamic state after Jizya ["protection money" -ed.] is paid.

"The acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty," the 20th century Islamist thinker Shaikh Syed Abul A'ala Mawdudi wrote.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla, another major Islamic thinker of the 20th century, summarized the purpose of the Jizya,

"Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God's religion. The Qur'anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.'" (Qur'an 9:29)

Prior to the "Spring revolutions" that have shaken many Arab regimes to the core and brought new governments to power in Egypt and Tunisia, the United States Central Intelligence Agency had classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a "secular organization."

US president Barack Obama has pledged USD 1 billion to Egypt as well as the cancellation of an addition USD 1 billion in Egyptian debt in his bid to democratize the Middle East and advance American values in the region.

"We support a set of universal rights," Obama explained. "Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; San'a or Tehran."

The Muslim Brotherhood is one of Egypt's most powerful political forces and is well-situated to be the big winner in Egypt's coming elections. This underscores critics' doubts about Obama's plans to use Egypt as the flagship of his vision to democratize and liberalize the region.

The Brotherhood recently set aside differences with rival Salafist group Jama’a al-Islamiya, to form an alliance of Islamic parties.

"Recent attacks on the Islamic groups brought us together," Saleh told reporters.

Although it now claims to have renounced violence, Jama’a al-Islamiya was responsible for a number of terrorist atrocities in Egypt throughout the 1990s, including the 1997 Luxor Massacre, in which 62 people were killed.

A victory for te Islamists would likely put Egypt at odds with Obama's aims for the region and bring into question his plan to give aid to emergent regimes.

The Muslim Brotherhood has called for the cancellation of the 1979 Camp David Accords signed by Israel and Egypt.


Gavriel Queenann

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

Obama's Revisionist History

by Philip Averbuck

Always a master at misdirection and diversion, President Obama and his flacks have taken pains to assert that his new "1967 lines as a basis for peace" formulation for Israel's borders is, hey, "nothing new."

There's a grain of truth in this argument. But a mountain of lie. The lie renders the truth utterly irrelevant. Let's take a little walk down memory lane of prior US administrations, and see just how fraudulent it really is:

When the Nixon Administration considered the situation (the 1970 "Rogers Plan"), the objective was to wean Egypt away from the Soviet orbit, and dealt only with Egypt's territorial losses to Israel in 1967. In case Barack hadn't noticed, these territories were completely returned to Egypt by 1982, pursuant to the Camp David Accords of 1978. The Rogers plan did not address any of the Jordanian territories (Judea and Samaria, so-called "Palestine") captured by Israel in 1967, much less even suggesting a "Palestinian" state. That would have been seen as an outrageously provocative and unfriendly act by then-King Hussein, a US ally, who was at that time obliged to respond with extreme force to an attempted "Palestinian" putsch against him; he drowned the putsch in the blood of at least 5,000 Arafat loyalists.


When the Carter Administration considered the problem, Egypt had already broken with the USSR, and had independently approached Israel to seek peace talks. The Carter Administration did little more than put a heavy thumb on the scale to ensure a favorable result for Egypt, which by any normal reading walked away from the table with negotiating windfall after windfall. However, the Camp David Accords also did not address the disposition of the Jordanian territories captured by Israel, except to declare that they should receive a period of "autonomy" before their final status was determined.

It is important to note that, at the time of the Nixon and Carter diplomatic efforts, the two strongest Muslim nations in the Middle East (Turkey and Iran) were both strong American allies, and both semi-open allies of Israel. This reality has turned 180 degrees today, to the point that Turkey's membership in NATO is an open scandal and an absurdity, as it is now weaving together its operational activities with Iran. Barack may have not noticed the dozens of kissy-face visits of Erdogan to Iran or Ahmadinejad to Turkey in recent years (and many more high-level military and security visits), but that is to his everlasting discredit. Israel has noticed them, of course. The new anti-Israel Iranian/Turkish alliance alone makes all of the earlier State Department calculations utterly irrelevant.


The Reagan Administration started in 1982 to seek territorial concessions from Israel, but that position was soon abandoned as new Sec. of State George Schultz moved up the learning curve and reviewed the devastating intelligence and weaponry captured by Israel from the PLO in Lebanon that summer. Not to mention the unprecedented trouncing that Israel laid on Syria, which had been supplied with the latest Soviet weaponry. Shortly after Israel's Operation Peace for Galilee in Lebanon, President Reagan addressed the nation on Sept 1, 1982 -- you be the judge how similar this sounds to Barack Hussein Obama in 2011:

I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.

Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories, nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza. So, the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.

There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give and take of negotiations. But it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just, and lasting peace.

So, to summarize: the Reagan Administration firmly rejected the idea of Israel returning to the "wasp-waist" 1967 lines; firmly rejected a Palestinian state; and supported the idea of Jordan negotiating with Israel for the final territorial disposition. No Palestinian state.

Bush I

The first Bush Administration was indeed set to pressure Israel in 1990, but Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait -- wildly supported by the "Palestinian" Arabs -- derailed them. However, even the unfriendly-to-Israel patrician George H.W. Bush rejected a Palestinian state, telling Arab journalists in 1991:

Q. What do you mean by political rights to Palestinian people in your speech?

The President. About political rights? Listen, there will not be peace until the whole question of where the Palestinians have a right to be is taken care of. And some say "state." It's not been our position in favor of the state, and there we differ with many of our Arab friends.


It in fact isn't until the sixth (6th) US President following the 6 Day War (Clinton) that the idea was finally floated to give the "Palestinians" a state with borders approximating those of West Bank Jordan on June 4, 1967. At the same time, the PLO under Yasser Arafat had made a tactical decision to peacefully engage Israel on the surface, while secretly maintaining a strategy based on the mass murder of Jewish civilians. This clear but unrealistic strategy was based on the assumption that enough "independent" non-PLO, arms-length terror-bombings and shootings would bring Israel to its knees where entire Arab armies had failed. The strategy culminated in "the second intifada" of September 2000 (which was finally militarily liquidated in April 2002), leaving even the notoriously concessionist Clinton (who had invited Arafat to the White House more than any other foreign official) completely empty-handed, and embarrassed.

Therefore, it is arguable that Obama is indeed following the precedent of one (1) US President, Bill Clinton...a precedent which collapsed in blood and chaos.

Bush II

Finally, we have the 2nd Bush Administration. There has already been a lot of discussion about George W. Bush's letter of April 14, 2004, to Ariel Sharon, essentially endorsing the annexation of "already existing major Israeli population centers," which has been studiously ignored by Obama & Co. Secondly, it is important to note that the same letter placed as precedent to any Israel compromises the following conditions for the Palestinians:

Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Needless to say, every single one of those conditions have gone wretchedly unfulfilled.

But there's more. Just as the new Turkey/Iran axis requires an entirely new calculation for both Israel and the US, so the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (16 months after the Bush letter), which has resulted in a Hamastan-Gaza serving as a missile-firing range requires yet another calculation.

And that's not all: the post-2006 buildup of Lebanon with Iranian missiles (estimated to be at least 60,000) has to result in yet another calculation. And neither of those calculations can result in greater demands of Israel, unless they are in fact blatantly hostile demands.

So, what else can go wrong since 1967? Ohhhhh, I don't know...How 'bout the overthrow of the one neighbor (Mubarak's Egypt) with which Israel had a relatively solid peace treaty, and its replacement with a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government? Does that development call for greater pressure on and territorial compromise from Israel?

But wait, there's more. I haven't even mentioned Iran's nuclear missile program, and its openly proclaimed plan of genocide against Israel, have I?

And I haven't even mentioned the recent Fatah/Hamas alliance, the prevention of which was the central and explicit objective of the Rabin/Clinton strategy since 1993. (A strategy which had drearily failed, on other grounds, long ago.)

Is there any small country on earth that should face such a crescendo of deadly threats and be pressured to give up its territory? What kind of "friend" would do such a thing? If Hussein Obama had even a trace of sympathy for Israel, he'd be threatening the new Egyptian government every single day that, should they abrogate the Camp David Accords, the United States will materially support Israel's recapture of the Sinai, not to mention cutting off our billions in aid to Egypt.

"Nothing new," says Obama, and his brain-wiped bootlickers like the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg join the chorus. Well, in fact the entire region has had so many new -- and purely hostile -- changes since 1979, that it qualifies as nothing less than malicious madness to pretend that a "let bygones be bygones" approach will lead to more peace, security, and justice.

It is beyond crystal-clear: for Israel to even approximate the 1967 border lines will give such encouragement, high terrain and favorable borders to its bloodthirsty enemies that Neville Chamberlain's work "on behalf of" Czechoslovakia will be re-examined as wildly successful in comparison.

Nothing new? To quote the great Herman Cain: Obama is treating us as if we're stupid. Well, are we?


Philip Averbuck

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

Geert Wilders's Anti-Islam Show Trial "Must Go On"

by Soeren Kern

A court in Amsterdam has ordered the anti-Islam hate-speech trial of the Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders to resume after Dutch appeals judges on May 23 rejected his claim that the court is biased against him.

The Wilders trial, which has turned into a two-year legal odyssey, represents a landmark case that will establish the limits of free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.

The single-minded determination with which the court has pursued the case against Wilders -- contrary to the advice of the prosecutors -- has led many to condemn the proceedings as a show trial.

Dutch prosecutors, in June 2008, had initially refused to bring charges against Wilders, arguing that he was protected by the right to free speech. They have also argued that Wilders had spoken out not against Muslims per se, but against the threat to Dutch society posed by the growing assertiveness of Islam in Dutch political and social life.

Ironically, for more than two years, the prosecutors have said there is no case against Wilders. But the judges have ignored the prosecutors, dismissed all of the prosecutors' recommendations out of hand, and are insisting on holding the trial at all costs.

In January 2009, the prosecutors were overruled by an appeals court led by Judge Tom Schalken, who ordered that Wilders be charged for "sowing hatred."

Wilders's lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, argued that the court had overstepped its authority by agreeing to prosecute Wilders after the Public Prosecutor's Office had decided against it.

He had also previously sought to have the judges removed on the opening day of the trial after one of them passed comment on Wilders's decision to make use of his right to remain silent during the proceedings. But that complaint was dismissed.

Although begun in Amsterdam on October 4, and scheduled to end on October 22 with the verdict from the panel of three judges due on November 5, the trial unexpectedly collapsed in disarray on its final scheduled day of hearings after Dutch newspapers reported that Tom Schalken, one of the judges who ordered Wilders to stand trial, had dinner with Hans Jansen, a leading Dutch expert on Islam who also happens to be a defense witness. Jansen said that Schalken had improperly tried "to convince me of the correctness of the decision to take Wilders to court." (An English-language translation of Jansen's accusations can be found here.)

After the allegations about Judge Schalken's behavior came to light, Moszkowicz, asked the court to summon Jansen, but Moszkowicz was refused. In response, Moszkowicz formally protested that the judges were biased against the defendant and should be dismissed; he also called Schalken's contact with Jansen "scandalous."

For these reasons, many people have called the proceedings a "show trial," and Wilders has said that the trial is attacked against him.

A separate review panel was then convened to consider Moszkowicz's complaint, which it upheld by ordering a retrial with new judges. Judge G. Marcus said the panel understood Wilders' "fear that the court's decision displays a degree of bias ... and under those circumstances accepts the appeal." At the time, Wilders -- who has called the trial a farce, a disgrace and an assault on free speech -- welcomed the decision, saying: "This gives me a new chance with a new fair trial."

Wilders has articulated what is at stake in this case: "I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticize an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom."

In a March 2009 interview with Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, Wilders summed up his views about Islam: "I have nothing against the people. I don't hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life -- economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book -- but it's not [only] a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state. Islam is totally contrary to our values."

On May 23, however, presiding judge Marcel van Oosten rebuffed calls for the case to be dropped, saying Wilders' "right to presumption of innocence has not been violated." Van Oosten said Schalken had not attempted to tamper with the witness and that the court's independence had been demonstrated. In a hearing broadcast online by NOS Dutch public television, van Oosten said: "It isn't plausible that Schalken tried to influence Jansen. We cannot conclude that the defendant's rights were violated. The request is denied. The trial must go on."

The closely-watched trial of Wilders -- who is accused of "making statements insulting to Muslims" -- was halted in October 2010 after it emerged that one of the judges attempted to influence an expert witness before the trial. A verdict is now expected in mid-June, although no date has yet been fixed.

Wilders is facing five counts of inciting racial and religious hatred against Muslims for remarks which include equating Islam with fascism and others calling for a ban on the Koran and a tax on Muslim headscarves. The allegations against Wilders arise partly from the 2008 short film "Fitna" which mixes Koranic verses with footage of extremist attacks. The film led to 61 complaints being filed with the police.

On October 15, midway through the trial, the Dutch Public Prosecutor's office argued that there was no case against Wilders and that he should be acquitted. Amsterdam public prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman testified in court that Wilders was not guilty of discrimination against Muslims and inciting hatred against them.

Van Roessel and Velleman said that "comments about banning the Koran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban along democratic lines, there is no question of incitement to discrimination 'as laid down in law.'" Regarding Wilder's comparison of the Koran with Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf, the prosecutors called it "crude, but that did not make it punishable." In any event, they said, the comparison did not originally come from Wilders, but from the late Italian writer Oriana Fallaci.

During the trial, Moszkowicz rejected the accusations of hate speech against Wilders and urged judges not to "shoot the messenger." He told the court that Wilders is a straight-talking politician seeking to prevent Koran-inspired violence. "Regardless of the danger to his own life, he speaks about the dangers he sees around him that result from immigration," Moszkowicz told the court. "In his eyes, Islam is a totalitarian ideology."

Moszkowicz cited the right to freedom of speech: "Wilders's conscience dictates that he does not close his eyes ... dictates that he places this discussion on the political agenda. As a politician, Wilders does not have to be silent." Wilders "has criticism, and expresses that criticism. Regardless of the danger to his own life, he speaks about the dangers he sees around him that result from immigration."

Moszkowicz also countered accusations by critics who say that Wilders's call for banning the Koran is inconsistent with his defense of the freedom of speech. He told the court that Article 132 of the Dutch Penal Code prohibits books that "incite to violence." He asked if books such as Mein Kampf can be banned under that article, why not another book that manifestly incites its readers to violence and hatred? Moszkowicz said that as long as the Netherlands has such laws, Dutch authorities should apply them consistently and not selectively based on politically correct considerations.

Reacting to the court's decision to order a new trial, Wilders said: "I am confident that I can only be acquitted because I have broken no law but spoke the truth and nothing but the truth, and exercised my freedom of speech in an important public debate about the dangerous totalitarian ideology called Islam."

Wilders' Freedom party has seen a surge in popularity in recent years, coming third in last year's election. Wilders offers parliamentary support to the right-leaning Dutch coalition and actively campaigns to "stop the Islamization of the Netherlands."

If he is found guilty, Wilders faces up to one year in prison and/or a fine of €7,600 ($11,000).

But that is hardly what is at stake.


Soeren Kern

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

The Deranged World of Cynthia McKinney

by Rich Trzupek

Former United States Representative Cynthia McKinney is at it again: spouting nonsense on the world stage and lending aid and comfort to America’s enemies via an apparently never-ending stream of ridiculous and unfounded pronouncements. McKinney took her show on the road to the Middle East, where she fanned the flames of American hatred by telling Muslims living in Libya and Iran that the United States is exactly what they believe it is: a fat, bloated nation controlled by Israel that exploits the poor in order to line the pockets of the wealthy.

Appearing on Libyan state television, McKinney said that the United States had no business being involved in the conflict there, especially given the way that Obama administration is exploiting America’s poor.

“Under the economic policies of the Obama administration, those who have the least are losing the most. And those who have the most are getting even more,” she said. “The situation in the United States is becoming more dire for average ordinary Americans, and the last thing we need to do is to spend money on death, destruction and war.”

That’s classic McKinney of course. As a Congresswoman, she never displayed the slightest understanding of economics, nor did she show the even the faintest interest in learning about how modern economies function. Her job, as she saw it, was to secure the largest possible piece of the juicy federal pie for her district – period. And so, if real unemployment in America has been stuck over fifteen per cent throughout the Obama administration, the only conclusion McKinney is capable of coming to grips with is that the administration is passing out too many goodies to the wrong people.

Yet, ignoring the realities of free market economics was just the tip of the iceberg. McKinney saved her most outrageous statements for the people of the nation that represents the most dangerous and powerful threat to peace in the Middle East: Iran. In an interview on Iranian state TV, she threw Israel under the bus and stoked Muslim anti-American paranoia at the same time.

McKinney expressed outrage and disgust because the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) expected her to sign a pledge to support Israel before they would consider sending her donations for her campaigns. This is of course common practice for any number of PACs, left, right or in the middle. At a minimum, PACs expect you to answer a questionnaire so they can determine how reliable your vote will be. Quite often, they ask candidates to sign pledges that formalize their commitment.

Anybody familiar with American politics understands that this is the way fundraising works, all across the board, for better or for worse. But, one must assume that the Iranian interviewer and her audience aren’t at all familiar with American-style politics and fund-raising. Accordingly, a person discussing something like a pledge to AIPAC surely has a moral obligation to put those kind of fund-raising tools into proper context. Not so with Cynthia McKinney.

As the interview develops, it’s clear that the interviewer believes that signing the AIPAC pledge is a requirement for anyone running for Congress and that signing this pledge is a unique – and therefore sinister – occurrence in American politics. McKinney plays right into the paranoia, making it sound like if you don’t support Israel, you can’t get possibly get any money and therefore can’t be elected to public office:

McKinney: You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel that the economic assistant that Israel wants that you would vote to provide that.

Press TV: This is not a question for the Congress people serving that they are representing or they are supposed to be representing the people of the United States not a foreign country and yet they have to pledge allegiance to a foreign state? No one questions this?

McKinney: That is what I was asked to do and I made it public.

Any American interviewer worth their salt would have asked the logical next question: “Ms. McKinney, if you can’t get elected without big campaign contributions and if you can’t get big campaign contributions without committing to support the military superiority of Israel, how did you manage to get elected six times? You must have got campaign contributions from somewhere.”

Because she was appearing on television in a totalitarian state with a tame interviewer, that question would never be asked. The point of the exercise was to demonize Israel as much as possible and to fan the flames of anti-American hatred and paranoia as much as possible, and the facts be damned. It’s hard to believe that McKinney could be a bigger embarrassment out of office than she was when served in Congress, but that’s proving to be the case. The administration and Congress need to denounce her in the strongest possible terms, before she does even more damage to American and Israeli interests throughout the world.


Rich Trzupek

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

Egypt Comes Out for Hamas

by Robert Spencer

In one of the clearest signs yet that the “Arab Spring” in post-Mubarak Egypt heralds a resurgent Islamic supremacism rather than a flowering of Western-style pluralism and democracy, Egyptian officials announced Wednesday that they were reopening the Rafah crossing this Saturday.

The Rafah crossing is the only official point of entry into Gaza other than from inside Israel. Egypt closed it for good in 2007 after Hamas took power in Gaza, as part of its uneasy observance of the Camp David Accords maintaining peace with Israel. The Rafah crossing had been an easy route into Israel for jihadis and their weapons suppliers who, for obvious reasons, wanted to avoid Israeli scrutiny.

But now it appears that peace with Israel is no longer such a high priority; instead, the new government in Egypt appears to be more concerned with accommodating Israel’s jihadist enemies. Egyptian officials announced that the Rafah crossing was being reopened in order to “end the status of the Palestinian division and achieve national reconciliation.”

The reopening of the Rafah crossing is just the latest indication that Egypt is heading toward becoming a Sharia state that is pursuing war with Israel. Man-on-the-street interviews conducted during the uprising against Mubarak more than once found ordinary Egyptians explaining to clueless and incredulous reporters from the likes of CNN that one of their principal beefs with Mubarak was that he maintained peace with Israel. “He is supporting Israel. Israel is our enemy,” protesters explained to the journalists who had come out looking for ringing declarations of love for democracy and pluralism. Instead, they heard that “if people are free in Egypt…they gonna destroy Israel.” Many of the demonstrators carried posters of Mubarak defaced with a Star of David drawn on his forehead.

In January, Mohamed Ghanem, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said in an interview on Iran’s Al-Alam television station that Egypt should prepare to go to war with Israel. That same month, Iran’s Press TV interviewed an Egyptian international lawyer Marwan al-Ashaal. Al-Ashaal explained the popular discontent with Mubarak as a direct consequence of his keeping the peace with Israel: “Currently the Egyptians demand a new rule for the country, a new government, a new leader. The American-Egyptian relationships were based on Israeli security and I think Mubarak has been very dedicated to Israeli security more even than to his own people’s security or the national interests.” Al-Ashaal asserted that “we see the deals with Israel that provoked people and took them to the edge.” And he declared that Egypt is “never going to be a friend of Israel.”

Then there was the delirious welcome accorded the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual father, the Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In February one of the biggest and most enthusiastic crowds of the entire Egyptian revolution thronged to Cairo’s Tahrir Square to hear Qaradawi, who outdoes even the most Hitlerian Islamic clerics in his Jew-hatred and bloodlust. Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone welcomed Qaradawi to the city in 2004 and praised him repeatedly; during that visit Qaradawi explained to the BBC that suicide attacks against Israelis did not actually constitute suicide at all, but rather “martyrdom in the name of God.” In January 2009, during a Friday sermon broadcast on Al Jazeera, he prayed that Allah would kill all the Jews: “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.” He also declared: “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the people [Jews] who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler.”

That is the man who, by the record of the welcome Egyptians gave him in Tahrir Square that day, best embodies the spirit of the “Arab Spring.”

And so last week the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood leader Rachid Ghannouchi was much more perspicacious than Western analysts when he predicted that the “Arab Spring” would lead to the destruction of Israel. For every day brings new advances toward power in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacist groups allied with it. Once they finally attain that power, there is no indication whatsoever that they have any inclination to keep the peace with Israel that has prevailed, however uneasily, for the last thirty years; indeed, there is abundant indication to the contrary.

The Rafah crossing is just the beginning. Watch for more belligerence from Egypt toward Israel, and more Egyptian moves that redound to the benefit of Hamas. After all, Hamas styles itself in its charter as the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine; why wouldn’t its sister organization in Egypt be interested in lending it a helping hand? And as it does so, it inches the Middle East and the world ever closer to the inevitable conflagration.


Robert Spencer

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

Tom Friedman: Bring Tahrir Square to Jerusalem

by Phyllis Chesler

This week, Tom Friedman more than earned his keep at The New York Times by essentially calling for the “non-violent” destruction of the Jewish State. I am not exaggerating. Wait until you read exactly what he’s written in his column: “Lessons From Tahrir Square.”

First, Friedman calls for a “Tahrir Square alternative” in terms of the Israel-“Palestine” impasse.

Tahrir Square? Did the man sleep through journalist Lara Logan’s mass gang rape there? Does he view such a mob as “peaceful” or “non-violent?” Does he not understand that the young Egyptian Wael Gonim has, perhaps unintentionally, paved the way for the far more organized Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists to assume power? Does Friedman actually believe that the Islamist factions at war with each other and with their overlords, chieftains, and dictators, are all engaged in “non-violent” social change?

Friedman does not focus on Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh, Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi or Bahrain’s King Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa —all of whom have been shooting down their own people in cold blood in the streets. He does not call for people of good will to “nonviolently” go and face these evil men down. No. Instead, listen to Friedman’s clarion call. He suggests that we should:

Announce that every Friday from today forward will be ‘Peace Day,’ and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things — an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: ‘Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed adjustments — including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.”

If Palestinians peacefully march to Jerusalem by the thousands every Friday with a clear peace message, it would become a global news event. Every network in the world would be there. Trust me, it would stimulate a real peace debate within Israel — especially if Palestinians invited youth delegations from around the Arab world to join the marches, carrying the Saudi peace initiative in Hebrew and Arabic. Israeli Jews and Arabs should be invited to march as well. Together, the marchers could draw up their own peace maps and upload them onto YouTube as a way of telling their leaders what Egyptian youth said to President Hosni Mubarak: “We’re not going to let you waste another day of our lives with your tired mantras and maneuvering.”

Alright, the man’s a regular Gandhi, hand him his dhoti (loincloth). However, why doesn’t Friedman also call for an international delegation to march to Sderot to serve as human shields against Hamas rockets? Why did he never call for thousands of peaceniks to “nonviolently” board Israeli buses during the heart of the Second Intifada — a new group of Freedom Riders to give innocent Israelis freedom from savage, bloody death? Why doesn’t Friedman call for Western supporters of the Arab Spring to swarm over Syria’s or Libya’s borders holding signs calling for Assad’s and Qaddafi’s ouster?

Thomas Friedman and Hosni Mubarak both came to power in 1981 (Friedman joined the Times that year). Mubarak is now on trial for murder. Friedman should be on trial for murdering the truth. Alas, we live in America and in times in which the Big Lie is granted every academic and free speech right and the truth goes begging.

No one is less qualified to speak in support of the “Arab Spring” than Friedman who, on September 9, 2009, argued that America’s “one-party democracy” is worse than China’s “one-party autocracy.” As Martin Peretz has recently described him: “He wishes America were China, almost the way some native fascists like Charles Lindbergh wanted America to be like Germany and the way ignorant but ‘idealistic’ oodles of American intellectuals and radical Jewish immigrants wanted the country to be like Soviet Russia.”

Friedman views Israel as having “all the leverage,” as somehow capable of turning the tsunami of global Jew hatred right around. He scorns Netanyahu for refusing to use the “leverage” he now presumably has to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians. Has Friedman talked to Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, lately, or, for that matter, to his paymaster, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Has Friedman found them trustworthy, flexible, “non-violent?”

I find it chilling that Friedman calls for these “non-violent” marchers to do so “every Friday.” Is he unaware that violent jihad is often waged right after Friday Muslim religious services? Equally troubling is Friedman’s failure to understand how vulnerable Israel is geographically. Does the man even own a map of the region? Israel is vulnerable in the north (Lebanon, Hezbollah/Iran and Syria/Iran); Israel is vulnerable in the south (Gaza/Hamas/Iran and a potentially Islamist Egypt); Israel is vulnerable in the east given the “Palestinian” launching of suicide bombers from the West Bank. If, in addition, Jordan turns hostile, Israel is rendered further vulnerable and absolutely must command the Jordan Valley in order to protect Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion International airport.

What is Friedman really doing? Like Tony Kushner and many other Jews, Friedman also wants to be ahead of the curve when they come for the Jews. He wants to be the Jew who is spared because he is known for having condemned “Israeli apartheid” and the “Jewish apartheid state.” The burden of defending Israel merely by telling the truth is simply too much for the Friedmans and the Kushners to bear.

They refuse to condemn real apartheid—as it is practiced among Muslims and in Arab lands. It is far safer to condemn the Jewish State and to call for activists to “nonviolently” march against it. These marchers can be certain that Jewish soldiers will not shoot them down like dogs. They can be sure that the world and the wind will be at their backs. Were they to surge into Syria or Libya, they would be dead.

This way, they hope to avoid being beheaded, and in fact, decorated as heroes. They are not self-hating Jews. They are rank opportunists, mere conformists, extreme cowards.


Phyllis Chesler

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

China Warns U.S.: 'Any Attack on Pakistan Would Be Construed As an Attack on China' – Evolving Pakistani-Chinese Alliance to Face the U.S./India

by Tufail Ahmad and Y. Carmon


On May 18, 2011, Pakistani and Chinese officials sign bilateral agreements in Shanghai while Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao look on (Image courtesy: Roznama Express, Pakistan, May 19, 2011)


In an analysis titled "A Looming Super Power Clash Triggered by Pakistan" (published on February 15, 2011), we pointed out to the rapidly growing danger of a U.S.-Pakistan clash which will involve – in addition to the Unite States, China and Pakistan – India, Russia, NATO powers, and other powers in the region.[1]

In the past few months, the U.S.-Pakistani relations further deteriorated into an open sabotage of the CIA work in Pakistan by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

On May 17-20, 2011, this process took an escalating turn with the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to China. The China visit was described by Pakistan's Information and Broadcasting Minister Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan as "historical" and one that "would certainly open a new chapter in China-Pakistan relations under the new international environment and historical conditions."[2]

Gilani's four-day China visit acquired an unprecedented international importance in the wake of the May 2, 2011, killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a U.S. operation in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.

Pakistani leaders saw bin Laden's killing in a unilateral U.S. operation as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and national dignity, while U.S. politicians and media suspected that there was complicity on the part of the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in providing the Al-Qaeda leader with a safe hideout for years in Abbottabad, right next to a Pakistani military academy.

Amid this explosive situation, the Gilani visit was seen as a move to protect Pakistan from possible measures taken by the U.S. against it and to undercut the U.S. and Indian influence in the region, which is perceived by Pakistan as a years-long threat to Pakistan's national security. While Pakistan and China have been long-standing allies, a fundamental shift can now be observed in their strategic relationship, which is characterized by bolstering their military and other relations and by the huge rupture in Pakistani-U.S. relations.

This analysis reviews the multi-dimensional elements of the rapidly growing alignment of Pakistan with China to face an anticipated stand-off – and even an open armed clash – with the U.S./India.

The Military Dimension

a) Chinese Commitment to Defend Pakistan

Pakistan is now engineering a seismic shift in its overall relationships by aligning itself with China to counterbalance the U.S. and India. China, on its part, also expressed its own interest in aligning with Pakistan.

After the Abbottabad operation, which indicated that there might have been Pakistani government/ISI complicity in hiding bin Laden, Pakistan feared that the U.S. could carry out a similar unilateral operation targeting the Pakistani nuclear installations.[3] China was the first country, and perhaps the only one, to express its support for Pakistan's stability. Soon after the Abbottabad operation, China "indicated it will... back its long-term strategic ally's efforts to maintain stability."[4]

During Gilani's visit, China gave indications of how it is willing to underwrite Pakistan's sovereignty and stability. According to a May 19, 2011, Pakistani daily report, "China... warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China..."[5] The report, citing highly placed diplomatic sources in Beijing, noted: "Beijing has advised Washington to respect Pakistan's sovereignty... and this was formally conveyed to the United States at last week's China-U.S. strategic dialogue and economic talks."[6]

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who was in Washington for the U.S.-China talks in mid-May 2011, conveyed the Chinese "feelings" to the U.S., and this point was disclosed by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself during his two-hour-long formal talks with Prime Minister Gilani at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.[7]

b) Air and Naval Cooperation

During Prime Minister Gilani's visit, China agreed to "immediately" provide Pakistan with 50 new JF-17 Thunder multi-role fighter planes for Pakistan's air force.[8] Although this agreement for these fighter planes was signed earlier, Islamabad and Beijing are also discussing the supply of J-20 Stealth and Xiaolong/FC-1 multi-purpose light fighter aircraft to Pakistan.[9]

In recent years, joint Pakistani-Chinese naval cooperation has strengthened, involving a contract with China to build four warships that will carry missiles and heavy weapons.[10] The first Chinese-built F-22P Frigate was inducted into the Pakistan Navy in July 2009.[11]

The Chinese frigates, which are medium-sized warships, are equipped with surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and anti-submarine helicopters. Admiral Noman Bashir, the Chief of Pakistan Navy, has stated that Pakistan hopes to buy bigger ships with more firepower from China, such as 4,000-ton class frigates.[12]

In an interview with China Daily in July 2010, Admiral Bashir said: "The friendship between China and Pakistan is greater than the Himalayas and deeper than the Ocean. We already made progress in air force and other areas, now we should further and expand the cooperation in Navy, a broadly-based relation."[13] He also commented on the expansion of Pakistan's naval cooperation with China, stating: "We [Pakistan Navy] can provide facilities, ports, logistics, maintenance among other things..."[14]

During Gilani's May 17-20 visit, Pakistan asked China to build a naval base at Gwadar, in addition to the commercial port there. Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, the Pakistani defense minister who accompanied Gilani to China, said: "we would be more grateful to the Chinese government if a naval base was... constructed at the site of Gwadar."[15]

The Pakistani defense minister also commented on the nature of Pakistan-China relationship, stating: "China is an all-weather friend and the closest ally of Pakistan, and it could be judged from the fact that in whichever sectors Pakistan requested assistance during... [Prime Minister Gilani's] recent visit to China, they immediately agreed."[16]

According to a Pakistani daily report, "China is the main arms supplier to Pakistan..."[17]

c) Deployment of Chinese Troops in Pakistani Kashmir

In 2010, international media reports revealed that more than 11,000 Chinese troops have been stationed in Gilgit Baltistan, an ethnically different region in Pakistan that had traditionally been part of Jammu & Kashmir. Chinese military engineers have previously helped Pakistan, but this time the Chinese soldiers are building concrete residential houses and are opening branches of Chinese banks.[18]

In 2011, it was revealed that the presence of the Chinese troops is not limited within Gilgit Baltistan but they have moved into Pakistani Kashmir along India.

In May 2011, Indian intelligence agencies reported that they have "credible evidence" that Chinese troops are also based in the Pakistani side of Jammu & Kashmir, which is divided by the Line of Control (LoC) between Pakistan and India.[19]

The website of The Times of India daily reported that several hundreds of Chinese working in Pakistani Kashmir are engineers of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China while the Indian intelligence agencies are "verifying if these Chinese military engineers are engaged in some sort of military construction like bunkers."[20]

A warning was issued in April 2011 by Lt.-General K. T. Parnaik, the Commander of the Indian Army's Northern Command (which oversees Kashmir), that India faces a threat from the Chinese troops based in Pakistani Kashmir who could be deployed on the Line of Control against India.[21] This is perhaps the first time that a serving Indian Army general has publicly voiced concern over a Chinese military threat to India in Kashmir.[22]

d) The Chinese Military Interest Geared against the U.S. in Af-Pak Theater

While the deployment of Chinese troops in Pakistani Kashmir is understandable in view of past rivalries and wars between China and India, the Chinese military interest in the Pakistani-Afghan border and in the routes through which American supplies go to Afghanistan shows that the Chinese interest is also geared against the U.S.

The Chinese military leadership has recently been assessing the implications of a likely U.S. military incursion into the Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, which so far had not been of any strategic interest to China.

In October 2010, a high-level delegation of the Chinese Army visited the Landikotal Army Garrison in Khyber Agency last October. The Chinese team comprised five high-ranking officials led by Director General of the People's Liberation Army Major General Yan Hu.[23]

Commenting on the importance of the Chinese military team's visit, an October 29, 2010, report in The News daily stated: "The delegation stayed in Landikotal for several hours amid tight security. All the link roads and Torkham Gate were blocked to the public. NATO supply remained suspended during the delegation's visit to [nearby] Michini Checkpost."

e) China Funding Pakistani Nuclear Knowhow

Over the past few decades, China has funded and has technologically supported the Pakistani nuclear program.

On May 12, 2011, Pakistan's third nuclear electric power plant went operational. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, while inaugurating the Chashma Nuclear Power Plant Unit-1 (CHASNUPP-2), located near Chashma Barrage on the left bank of River Indus, 32 kilometres south of the town of Mianwali, paid tributes to China's support. "Today is a proud day for Pakistan and for Pakistan's civil nuclear energy program... It is yet another illustrious example of the Pakistan-China cooperation in the field of nuclear science and technology," Gilani said.[24]

Two more nuclear plants, C-3 and C-4, are already under construction at the site.[25]

India has expressed concern that the Pakistani nuclear strategy is aimed at building low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons which can be used in case of skirmishes at the Pakistani border with India.

A May 19, 2011, Indian media report warned that Pakistan is building its fourth reactor at the Khushab military facility and Pakistan has now acquired the capability to add 8-10 such nuclear weapons every year.[26]

"The figure [regarding the Pakistani nuclear weapons] is likely to go up considerably once the new reactor becomes operational in less than two years. Latest satellite images revealed recently that Pakistan has expedited work on the fourth reactor, a plutonium producing facility," the report said.[27]

S. D. Pradhan, former chief of India's joint intelligence committee, who has closely monitored Pakistan's nuclear-weapon program, commented on the Pakistani drive to produce plutonium bombs, stating: "They are following the Chinese model of having low-yield nuclear weapons. Pakistan believes these weapons will provide it a flexible response in case of an escalation with India..."[28]

f) Chinese Radars for Pakistan

After the killing of bin Laden, Pakistani media reports had indicated that Pakistan's radar system was jammed by the U.S. in order to carry out the operation. During Gilani's visit, China offered to upgrade Pakistan's radar system and satellite technology.[29]

During a visit to the China Academy of Space Technology in Beijing on May 20, the Pakistani prime minister was briefed on the latest Chinese radar systems and satellite technology; and it is expected that Pakistan would get 10 state-of-the-art radar systems and satellite technologies.[30]

g) Cooperation in Satellites & Missiles

According to a Pakistani media report, the two countries have also agreed to step up work on Pakistan's satellite currently being built in China, which is scheduled for launch on August 14, 2011, the Independence Day of Pakistan. The satellite will supply "multifarious data" to Pakistan.[31]

Pakistan claims that its missile program is developed indigenously, though the missile technologies are thought to have been provided by North Korea, a Chinese ally.

On April 29, 2011, Pakistan conducted a successful flight test of the cruise missile, Hatf-8. The nuclear-capable Hatf-8 (Ra'ad) missile, which has a range of over 350 kilometers, has been developed exclusively for launch from aerial platforms.[32] According to a report, the cruise missile has stealth capabilities and is a low altitude, terrain-hugging missile with high maneuverability.[33]

Earlier that month, Pakistan also conducted the first test of a surface-to-surface ballistic missile Hatf-9 (Nasr).[34]

The Economic Dimension

a) Integration of Pakistani Economy with China

China is investing in all sectors of the Pakistani economy on a major scale. Pakistan has also expressed its goal to align the Pakistani economy with China.

During Gilani's visit, the two countries explored ways of bolstering economic ties, including the establishment of the trans-border economic zones, instituting integrated border management systems, and working together on the intra-regional and trans-regional economic and development agenda, corporate sector interaction in joint projects, opening of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) branches in Pakistan, finalization of the currency swap arrangement, and more.

In Beijing, Prime Minister Gilani stated that Pakistan will be forging deeper economic engagement with China. Gilani said that Pakistan is determined to take all necessary measures for closer economic integration with China, stating: "The free trade agreement, the joint five-year economic program, the joint investment companies and the ongoing cooperation in the financial and banking sectors, great interaction between our capital markets, robust defense and defense production cooperation are but a few example of the direction that our strategic cooperation partnership has taken."[35]

b) Boosting Bilateral Trade in Short Term

Pakistan and China are rapidly boosting their economic ties and bilateral trade.

As per statistics presented in May 2011 before the National Assembly (the Lower House of the Pakistani Parliament), between March 2005 and December 2010, China collaborated in six different projects worth $2.7 billion, providing technical and financial support.[36] The two countries are now pressing ahead in the areas of trade, banking, ports, roads, and railways.

In 2010, the total volume of Pakistan-China trade rose by $2 billion to approximately $8.7 billion.[37] Compared to 2009, a 37 percent jump was seen in Pakistani exports to China year on while Chinese exports to Pakistan increased by 28 percent.[38]

During his China visit, Prime Minister Gilani said that measures are being implemented to increase Pakistan's trade volume with China to $15 billion a year by 2013.[39]

c) Pakistan's Encouragement of Chinese Investment

Pakistan is encouraging Chinese investments in different areas of the Pakistani economy and is seeking incentives for Pakistani businessmen in China, notably in the Kashgar Special Economic Zone, which is a few hundred kilometers from Pakistan's border.

In May 2011, a 50-member Chinese economic delegation led by Muhametmin Yashen (Muhammad Amin Yasin), the Deputy Director General of the Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, visited Islamabad. In the Pakistani capital, Pakistani leaders advised the Chinese team that China could tap the one-trillion dollar Halal foods industry by providing special incentives to Pakistani businessmen to invest in the Kashgar Special Economic Zone.[40]

Pakistani business leader Raza Khan told the Chinese delegation that they should explore opportunities in sectors like finance, banking, power, alternative energy, information technology, engineering goods, textile machinery, agriculture, agro-based industry, food, fruit processing, packaging, livestock, dairy farming, and real estate sectors.[41]

c) China Gives $1.7 Billion Loan for Lahore's Rail System

The Export-Import Bank of China recently agreed to give Pakistan a loan of $1.7 billion for the development of a train system in Lahore. Khawaja Ahmed Hassan, chairman of the Lahore Transport Company, said: "The bank agreed to lend us the money with a two-year grace period, and our aim is to get it at 6% interest."[42]

It should be noted that Lahore is the capital of Punjab, the most influential Pakistani province, whose government cancelled six agreements with the U.S. in the fields of health, education, and waste management in protest against the Abbottabad operation.[43]

The Diplomatic Dimension

During Prime Minister Gilani's visit to Beijing, China's top leaders expressed support for Pakistan in the wake of the Abbottabad operation. At his meeting with Gilani, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced that China is sending a special envoy to Islamabad to express solidarity with Pakistan at this crucial period in its history.

On May 19, 2011, Jia Qinglin, the chief of the powerful Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), declared that Pakistan will never be left in the lurch and the strategic cooperation between the two countries will be taken to new heights. "No matter how the global situation may change, the resolve and determination of the government and the people of China in developing its friendly relations with Pakistan will never be swayed," Jia Qinglin said at a reception held in honor of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.[44]

Noting that China has always given priority to developing cooperation with Pakistan, Jia Qinglin said, "China will stand together with Pakistan to seize the opportunity presented by the 60th anniversary [celebrations of bilateral ties]. We want to carry forward our tradition of friendship in all areas of our strategic partnership and cooperation and take our bilateral ties to a higher plane."[45]

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, during his meeting with Gilani in Beijing, assured Pakistan of China's "all-weather friendship," stating: "I wish to stress here that no matter what changes might take place in the international landscape, China and Pakistan will remain forever good neighbors, good friends, good partners and good brothers... I do believe that this visit will give a strong boost to the friendship and cooperation between our two countries and take that friendship and cooperation to a new high."[46]

Implications for the U.S., India, Afghanistan

a) The U.S.

Pakistan's bolstering of its relations with China is aimed at countering the U.S. influence in the region. Pakistan's highest defense forum, the Defense Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) which met under Prime Minister Gilani on May 12, 2011, reviewed its relations with the U.S. in the wake of the Abbottabad operation, which it called a "violation of Pakistan's sovereignty" and agreed to redefine Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. "in accordance with Pakistan's national interests and the aspirations of the people."[47]

Among those who attended the meeting were: Senior Minister for Defense Production Ch. Pervaiz Elahi; Finance Minister Dr. Abdul Hafeez Shaikh; Interior Minister Rehman Malik; Information and Broadcasting Minister Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shamim Wynne, Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, Defense Secretary Lt. Gen. (retired) Syed Athar Ali, and other senior officials.

According to a report in the Urdu-language daily Roznama Ummat, the top Pakistani military leadership has decided to teach the U.S. a strong lesson.[48] The report said that a decision to this effect was taken at a meeting at the General Headquarters of Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi, following which the military officials met with Pakistani President Asif Zardari and other civilian government leaders to apprise them of their thinking.[49]

The decision to teach the U.S. a strong lesson could be the Pakistani Army's realignment with China. However, it could also be a provocative move on the part of Pakistan with Chinese backing to damage America's position in South Asia, and potentially against India and Afghanistan. Such a provocation could trigger a super power clash.[50]

b) India

India's civilian and military leaders have consistently expressed concern over the deepening military ties between Pakistan and China, as well as over the deployment of Chinese troops inside Pakistani Kashmir, a territory claimed by India. India fears that its security is undermined by China's military support to Pakistan, both in Kashmir and against mainland India.

On May 19, 2011, Indian Defense Minister A. K. Antony expressed concern over China's decision to "immediately" provide 50 new JF-17 Thunder multi-role warplanes, stating: "It is a matter of serious concern for us. The main thing is, we have to increase our capability..."[51]

In mid-May 2011, Lieutenant-General K. T. Parnaik, Commander of the Indian Army's Northern Command, warned against "deep collaboration in weapon delivery" between Pakistan and China.[52] He also spoke of China's strategic moves in Pakistan, stating: "China is helping Pakistan in building a road from the Khunjerab Pass [on Chinese border with Pakistan] to Gwadar Port besides other infrastructure projects like dams very close to the Line of Control (LoC)."[53]

In a recent article, former Indian Army chief General (retired) V. P. Malik warned that Pakistan and China are articulating "joint interest" against India. He stated: "Though the Chinese army would not point guns towards our posts on the LoC [Line of Control in Kashmir], the fact that they are there reflects their 'joint' interest and enhancement of strategic and operational preparedness on the LoC along with Pakistan."[54]

India is reassessing the altered threat matrix in the wake of the Pakistani-Chinese defense collaboration. At a recent meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Indian Army Chief General V. K. Singh presented a three-pronged strategy to counter China's growing presence in the Tibet Autonomous Region and in Pakistani Kashmir. The strategy calls for a dedicated mountain strike corps, significant enhancement in the army's tactical airlift capability, and improvement in the border infrastructure along the border with China.[55]

India has also expressed concern over the support of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to the Taliban in Afghanistan, especially the Haqqani Network. It fears that with China supporting the Pakistani military establishment, efforts to defeat the Taliban-led terrorism in Afghanistan may not succeed, especially after the U.S. withdraws its troops from Afghanistan.

c) Afghanistan

Afghanistan is too weak a state to articulate its independent position on growing military and non-military relations between China and Pakistan, whose support to the Taliban militants has been the cause of terrorism in Afghanistan over the past few decades.

As a result of Chinese-Pakistani military collaboration, the interests of Afghanistan as well as the U.S. and Indian interests in the country could be adversely affected, especially in view of the Pakistani military's use of the Taliban organizations as strategic assets working in the interests of Pakistan.

Parallel to the ISI-backed Taliban surge in terror attacks in Afghanistan, the Pakistani government has mounted a diplomatic offensive in Kabul.

On April 16, 2011, almost the entire top Pakistani leadership arrived in Kabul to hold bilateral talks with the Afghan government. Among those who came to the meeting were: Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Pakistani Junior Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, as well as Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Lt.-Gen. Shuja Pasha, the chief of Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), whose involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks has come up before a New York court.

During the day-long talks, it was decided to establish a two-tier Afghanistan-Pakistan Joint Commission, an unprecedented move that facilitates the presence of Pakistan Army chief General Kayani and ISI chief Lt.-Gen. Shuja Pasha on the commission, enabling them a greater role in molding Afghanistan's internal affairs and foreign policies. It was perhaps the first time that the Pakistani military has formally managed to embed itself in a mechanism that allows it to shape the future of Afghanistan.

According to an Afghan media report, some of the written demands made by Prime Minister Gilani at the meeting included: "Pakistan should be consulted on the training and number of Afghan forces; Pakistan's share in Afghan mines and development projects should be cleared; implementation of Pakistani strategies in future governments in Afghanistan, recruitment of Pakistani cadres in the [Afghan] government institutions [should be ensured]; and Pakistan should be kept aware of any sort of agreement between Afghanistan and its Western allies, including the U.S. and NATO..."[56]

Of all these demands by Pakistan, Gilani's demand to appoint Pakistani officials in Afghan government institutions is a Pakistani attempt to undermine Afghanistan's independence in the long run. It should be noted here that during the Taliban rule, some Pakistani nationals worked in the Taliban-led Afghan government institutions.

These demands reflect a clear intention on the part of Pakistan to subjugate Afghanistan to Pakistani rule. Following the April 16 talks, Afghan analysts accused Pakistan of violating diplomatic norms by demanding major concessions from Afghanistan. According to a report in the Pashtu-language Khedmatgar Wrazpanra, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told President Karzai that the U.S. has been defeated in the region and so it is better for Pakistan and Afghanistan to prefer China as a strategic ally in the region.[57] According to the report, Gilani also said that it is better for Afghanistan not to allow a long-term presence of the U.S. forces in the country.[58]

According to another report on the Afghan website, former Afghan politician Sulaiman Layaq commented on the Pakistani strategic move in Afghanistan, stating: "Pakistani government supposes Afghanistan as a Pakistani colony..."[59]

This escalation in the Pakistani state's behavior towards Afghanistan contains all the elements and dangers of a direct clash between Pakistan and Afghanistan; and as a result, almost inevitable triggering of a larger-scale clash in which even a single spark could involve all the regional and international powers present in the South Asian region.

* Tufail Ahmad is Director of MEMRI's South Asia Studies Project (; Y. Carmon is President of MEMRI

[1] See A Looming Super Power Clash Triggered by Pakistan, MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series No. 665, February 15, 2011 (
[2] (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[3] After the Abbottabad operation, Pakistani media reports regularly articulated a national concern for the security of the Pakistani nuclear installations.
[4] The Hindu (India), May 3, 2011.
[5] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[6] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[7] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[8] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[9] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) sees itself as aligned against the U.S. and its other Western allies. According to a November 18, 2010, report on the website of The Nation newspaper (, Pakistan Air Force Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman stated: ''The PAF has no plans to install Western devices and weapons on the aircraft for the time being.’’
[10] The News (Pakistan), July 16, 2010.
[11] Daily Times (Pakistan), July 31, 2009.
[12] (China), July 22, 2010.
[13] (China), July 22, 2010.
[14] (China), July 22, 2010.
[15] (Taiwan), May 23, 2011.
[16] (Taiwan), May 23, 2011.
[17] (Pakistan), May 18, 2011.
[18] These details are based on a survey report carried out by renowned Kashmiri writer Dr. Shabir Choudhry who led a team of researchers to Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistani Kashmir in October 2010. See: Kashmiri Writer Examines the Strategic Implications of China's Military Presence in Kashmir Region, MEMRI Special Dispatches Series No. 3772, April 19, 2011.
[19] (India), May 12, 2011.
[20] (India), May 12, 2011.
[21] (India), April 6, 2011.
[22] (India), April 6, 2011. While speaking about the Chinese-Pakistani threat to India from Pakistani Kashmir, Lt.-Gen. Parnaik said: "we hear many people today who are concerned about the complicity of the Chinese if there were to be hostilities between India and Pakistan."
[23] The News (Pakistan), October 29, 2010.
[24] Daily Times (Pakistan), May 13, 2011.
[25] Daily Times (Pakistan), May 13, 2011.
[26] (India), May 19, 2011.
[27] (India), May 19, 2011.
[28] (India), May 19, 2011.
[29] (Pakistan), May 20, 2011.
[30] (Pakistan), May 20, 2011.
[31] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[32] The Express Tribune (Pakistan), April 30, 2011.
[33] The Express Tribune (Pakistan), April 30, 2011.
[34] These missile tests are just a few of the scores of missile tests carried out by Pakistani military in recent years.
[35] Daily Times (Pakistan), May 20, 2011.
[36] (Pakistan), May 11, 2011.
[37] (Pakistan), April 25, 2011.
[38] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[39] The News (Pakistan), May 19, 2011.
[40] (Pakistan), May 13, 2011.
[41] (Pakistan), May 13, 2011.
[42] Daily Times (Pakistan), April 28, 2011.
[43] (Pakistan), May 20, 2011.
[44] Dawn (Pakistan), May 20, 2011.
[45] Dawn (Pakistan), May 20, 2011.
[46] (Pakistan), May 18, 2011.
[47] The News (Pakistan), May 13, 2011.
[48] Roznama Ummat (Pakistan), May 5, 2011. The decision was taken just days after the May 2, 2011, Abbottabad operation by the U.S.
[49] Roznama Ummat (Pakistan), May 5, 2011.
[50] The Pakistani military’s moves against the U.S. are part of Pakistani strategy to counter the U.S. According to an April 28, 2011, report in The Express Tribune daily, a few days before the Abbottabad operation, Salman Bashir, the Pakistani foreign secretary, visited China. The visit was planned in the context of the Pakistan-China strategic dialogue mechanism between the two foreign ministries. "But official sources [in Islamabad] confirmed that the foreign secretary's visit to China was prompted by the recent rise in tensions between Pakistan and the United States due to a series of events, including the Raymond Davis affair and a U.S. drone strike that killed dozens of civilians in Pakistan's tribal districts." The report also noted that Salman Bashir is a "strong advocate of seeking realignments and has presented a detailed analysis to the government regarding a reduction in dependence on the U.S. by reaching out to the Chinese."
[51] (India), May 20, 2011.
[52] (India), May 15, 2011.
[53] (India), May 15, 2011.
[54] (India), May 12, 2011.
[55] (India), May 19, 2011. [56] (Afghanistan), April 19, 2011.
[57] Khedmatgar Wrazpanra (Afghanistan), April 30, 2011.
[58] Khedmatgar Wrazpanra (Afghanistan), April 30, 2011.
[59] (Afghanistan), April 30, 2011.


Tufail Ahmad and Y. Carmon

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

Share It