The Most Islamic Community in Europe

by Soeren Kern

Leicester, an industrial city in central England, is home to the most conservative Islamic population anywhere in Europe, according to American diplomatic cables that were obtained and recently released by the website, Wikileaks. Leicester is also on track to become the first majority non-white city in British history.

The politically incorrect observation was made by a senior US State Department official who visited the city as part of an effort to engage Muslim communities in Europe. It reflects how Leicester's long-ballyhooed experiment with multiculturalism is being challenged by Muslim separatism and assertiveness.

A leaked diplomatic cable recounts the October 2007 visit of Farah Pandith, the US State Department's Senior Advisor for Muslim Engagement, to Leicester, a mid-sized city some 70 minutes north of London. The stated purpose of the visit was for the US government to find ways to help Britain "update and improve" its approach to stopping "home-grown" Islamic extremists. The document says Pandith found the lack of integration of the Muslim community in Leicester to be "striking."

The cable says, among other observations, Pandith was shocked to find "girls as young as four years old were completely covered." The document continues: "At a local book store, texts… seemed designed to segregate Muslims from their wider community, urging women to cover themselves and remain in their homes, playing up the differences between Islam and other religions, seeking to isolate Muslims from community, and feeding hate of Jews to the young."

The cable also recounts a discussion Pandith had with religious and community leaders at an Ahmadiyya [an Asian Islamic sect] mosque: "Yaqub Khan, General Secretary of a local organization called the Pakistan Association, insisted that he had to teach young people in Urdu. When Pandith challenged him as to why he would use Urdu with children who were growing up with English as their first language, Khan insisted that there were no good books on the Koran in English."

After World War II, the British government encouraged immigration to the country to alleviate an economic crisis, and that trend accelerated dramatically in recent years due to left-wing immigration policies seeking to foster multiculturalism. A new study by the think-tank Migration Watch UK shows that during the thirteen years that the last Labour government was in power (1997-2010), immigrants arrived in Britain at a rate of almost one a minute.

A fair number of those immigrants settled in Leicester -- once known as a center for manufacturing shoes and textiles -- where immigrant groups now make up nearly half that city's total population of 280,000. Many of the immigrants are of South Asian origin; the city is now known for its many Hindu, Sikh and Muslim places of worship.

The sharp rise in Muslim immigration, however, is upsetting Leicester's ethnic balance, and casting doubt upon the city's multicultural future. After Christians and Hindus, Muslims are the third-largest faith group in Leicester. The city's Muslim population is estimated at between 11% and 14% (or somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 Muslims), which is well above the percentage (4.6) of Muslims in Britain as a whole. The Muslim population in Leicester is made up mainly of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, as well as Turks, Somalis, Kenyans and Ugandans. According to the Ummah Forum, "you'd really like Leicester if you want to be around a large population of Muslims."

Muslim immigration has led to the proliferation of mosques in Leicester, which now has more than 200 mosques and madrassas [Islamic religious schools]. The city is also home to several mega-mosques. The Leicester Central Mosque complex has a capacity for nearly 3,000 worshippers. It also has a school, a community hall, a residence hall for imams, a mortuary and a guest house. The huge Masjid Umar mosque has four towering minarets and a grand dome that displays Arabic calligraphy from the Koran.

The most influential Muslim in Leicester is Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadh-ul-Haq, a hard-line Muslim cleric who runs the Al Kawthar Academy, an Islamic school in the city. Ul-Haq, 40, is also the leader of a new generation of "home-grown" British Islamists who loathe Western values, support armed jihad and preach contempt for Christians, Jews and Hindus.

Ul-Haq, who preaches in mosques across Britain, outlaws television and music, and says football is "a cancer that has infected our youth." He is appalled by young women who want to get educated and go to university. He regularly praises the work of the Taliban and their attacks against British troops in Afghanistan.

In a typical sermon entitled "Imitating the Disbelievers," ul-Haq warns British Muslims of the danger of being corrupted by the "evil influence" of Western culture. He also heaps scorn on Muslims who say they are "proud to be British," and argues that friendship with a Christian or a Jew makes "a mockery of Allah's religion." Ul-Haq sermons are broadcast on Radio Ramadhan Leicester in Urdu, Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali, Somali, Arabic and English.

Other Islamic separatists have been linked to the University of Leicester, according to the recent report, "Radical Islam on UK Campuses."

In 2002, British police initiated a crackdown on supporters of Osama bin Laden's terror network in Leicester. A police swoop on predominantly Muslim areas of the city led to the arrest of eight Islamic jihadists, who were accused of belonging to al-Qaeda and conspiring to raise money to fund terrorism.

Meanwhile, Leicester has the fourth-highest rate of unemployment in Britain. The city also has very high rates of illiteracy, and ranks as one of the worst five municipalities in England for education.

An April 2010 survey titled "Muslims in Leicester" says that Muslims in the city are especially prone to underachievement and unemployment. The report says the inner city Spinney Hills neighbourhood, which has the highest percentage of Muslims in the city, is also the ward with the lowest rate of full-time employment, the highest rate of unemployment, the highest level of economic inactivity, the highest percentage of "no qualifications" for work and the highest level of social housing.

Muslims are now demanding political power within the Leicester city council, as well as the freedom to wear their religious dress at work and to have halal food in the city hospitals. They are also seeking their own faith-based schools.

One such school, the Leicester Islamic Academy -- where female students wear the full-length dress and head-covering and the boys wear black robes and skullcaps -- has been accused by the British government of promoting Islamic separatism. Another state-run Islamic school in Leicester, the Madani High School, has run afoul of government regulators for reneging on its promise that 10% of its pupils would be non-Muslim. A government official has warned that Britain is "sleepwalking to segregation." He said: "Segregation is now so extreme in some schools that there is not much farther it can go. It does not help to prepare children in these schools for the real world."

The British government has tried -- unsuccessfully -- to reverse the tide of Islamic separatism in Leicester. In June 2008, for example, the city hosted the first in a series of road shows designed to tackle the problem of honour-based violence. Leicester has been plagued by forced marriages, kidnappings, physical and mental abuse of women, and other honour-based violence crimes against those who have not, according to family and local community members, conformed to religious or cultural expectations.

Muslim assertiveness is also turning Leicester into a lightening rod for those who oppose radical Islam. In October 2010, for example, Leicester was the site of a demonstration organized by the English Defense League, a far-right group which emerged after Muslim extremists disrupted a homecoming parade in Luton in March 2009 for British soldiers returning from Iraq. EDL protesters in Leicester carried banners with slogans such as, "Sharia laws will destroy Britain and all our British values."

Alluding to the transformation of cities like Leicester, Michael Nazir-Ali, a bishop of the Church of England, has lamented that Islamic extremists have turned parts of Britain into no-go areas for non-Muslims. Lashing out at the spread of religious separatism and the damage caused by the doctrine of multiculturalism, Nazir-Ali warned against the acceptance of Islamic Sharia law in Britain, and added that amplified calls to prayer from mosques are imposing an Islamic character on many British towns and cities.

It is a rather strange irony that Leicester's motto is Semper Eadem: "Always the Same."

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1971/europe-most-islamic-community

Soeren Kern

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

Get Tough with Hamas Now

by Isi Leibler

These are indeed difficult times requiring painful decisions over issues such as how to placate the Obama administration in order to forestall a breakdown in US-Israel relations and avoid international efforts to force us to revert to the 1949 armistice lines.

But when it comes to matters of defense, there are clear lessons to be learned from the past.

Yet, in addition to Wednesday's monstrous attack opposite the Jerusalem Central Bus Station, there is a horrible sense of déjà vu as we observe the rapid escalation of Hamas missile launches which had been reduced as a byproduct of Operation Cast Lead.

One is even tempted to compare the current situation with what happened 10 years ago when the crude and limited-range Kassam rockets were first launched against us and contemptuously dismissed by leaders as primitive missiles with little capacity to incur serious damage or casualties.

In a Jerusalem Post column at the time, I predicted that if we avoided tough measures to curtail these "primitive" rocket attacks, the international community would become accustomed to regarding Palestinian missile launches against our civilians as the norm.

When the government would ultimately be obliged to act, a world accustomed to Israeli passivity against such attacks, would accuse us of over-reacting.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what happened. Each time we responded, we were accused of disproportionality.

Moreover, the situation deteriorated to such an extent that we were left with no alternative but to mount a full scale war against Hamas in Gaza for which the international community condemned us.

IT IS thus alarming to observe the government again prevaricating, issuing empty threats and bombing primarily empty buildings in Gaza in response to increasing attacks.

This has climaxed in recent weeks, with 50 missiles raining down over the Negev over the weekend and the deployment of lethal Iranian grad rockets. Israelis living in the southern region were destabilized and a few were even injured.

Moreover, this is the first time that instead of trying to blame "unauthorized groups," Hamas felt sufficiently confident to brazenly accept direct responsibility for the missile launches.

Yet, according to media reports, the security establishment relates to these outrageous breaches of international law and attacks on Israeli civilians as "low level confrontation" and reassures us that Hamas was not seeking a "major" conflict. And when civilians located adjacent to rocket-launching areas became casualties we once again apologize rather than condemning those responsible.

Obviously, the deterrent established in the wake of Operation Cast Lead "is eroding rapidly and we are again reconciling ourselves to large areas of Israel being subjected to "low level" missile attacks without reacting with tough military responses.

We should be under no illusions. Limiting our responses in order to meet Western expectations of "proportionality" serves no purpose. The lesson learned from Cast Lead was that any action we undertake to defend ourselves will at best be condemned as disproportionate but more likely as war crimes. One need only compare the absence of international criticism to the innocent casualties from Western bombardments in Libya in contrast to the cynical and hypocritical condemnations of Israel during Cast Lead, despite the far greater efforts of the IDF to minimize civilian casualties.

A MAJOR motivation for the attacks by the Iranian proxy Hamas is undoubtedly to divert attention from Iran's internal problems and its ongoing nuclear project. There is also the desire by Hamas leaders to deflect domestic public opposition to their rule. But above all, Hamas is testing our resolve and seeking to identify to what extent we will remain restrained because of our concern not to antagonize or embarrass the Americans who are pressuring us not to be "spoilers" during this period of turmoil sweeping the Arab world.

This is surely one time when we must demand that our prime minister display decisive leadership, gather his cabinet and insist this will be one of the rare occasions when all ministers must display unity and speak with one voice, proclaiming to the world that failing to employ deterrence is a prescription for disaster.

The opposition should be co-opted to create a united front and there is little doubt that Kadima supporters will demand that the party support such a policy.

Our embassies must be instructed to inform all nations that we will remain neither passive nor act with restraint. If Hamas continues launching lethal missiles against our civilians, we will severely punish them. We should emphasize that we seek quiet and stability on our borders. But if our citizens are targeted once again, not by terrorist splinter groups but by Hamas, which has exclusive jurisdiction over Gaza, it will be made to pay a bitter price. We will resume targeted assassinations and, while endeavoring to minimize civilian casualties, will be obliged to inflict massive reprisals on its infrastructure.

WE MUST make it clear in advance that Israel will no longer adhere to the tit-for-tat formula and that we will respond with overwhelming force, not because we seek revenge but in order to deter future attacks. This is not behaving disproportionately but is rather striving to employ deterrence to protect our civilians and avoid a new full-scale conflict. Such behavior is fully consistent with international law and our obligation to defend our citizens from outright aggression.

The time to bite the bullet is now. If we fail to reinforce deterrence immediately, the long-term price may be far more severe than any worldwide condemnations that will result.

We will be adopting a moral position which will undoubtedly be condemned by those with no love for Israel. But any country seeking to deny our government the right to protect its civilians will stand exposed as malicious hypocrites.

Ideally, this strategy may serve to stabilize the borders and avoid another war. On the other hand, if Hamas has a desire for martyrdom, we will be obliged to once again confront them full on. I am no military strategist, but it would surely be preferable for us to face this situation now, before Hamas manages to acquire more deadly weaponry that will undoubtedly reach Gaza under a future Egyptian regime.

We would also be in a better position to confront the terrorists today, prior to the stabilization of the new Arab governments - which are likely to be even more hostile to us than their predecessors.

Original URL: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2875
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

Isi Leibler ileibler@netvision.net.il

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

Hatem Bazian's Pernicious Misuse of 'Never Again'

by Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene

Just when it seemed as though the misuse of language and imagery associated with the Holocaust could get no worse, along came "Never Again for Anyone." A national speaking tour designed to coincide with International Holocaust Remembrance Day, "Never Again for Anyone" traveled the U.S. from January 25 through February 19, 2011, landing at the First Presbyterian Church in Oakland, California on February 17. The event was a benefit for the virulently anti-Israel organization, the Middle East Children's Alliance (MECA).

The purpose of the tour was pernicious: to draw a connection between the Holocaust and the Arab-Israeli conflict, with Israelis cast as the new Nazis and "Never Again" transformed into the Palestinian rallying cry. Accordingly, the flyer for the event juxtaposed a photo of Jews fleeing Warsaw in 1944 with a photo of Arabs appearing to do the same from Tulkarm, in the British Mandate of Palestine, in 1948. Conveniently omitted was any context for the photos: the former group was fleeing extermination and the latter voluntarily abandoning their homes at the behest of an Arab leadership who tried and failed to exterminate the Jews.

In an attempt to lend an air of credibility to this exercise in propaganda, the tour featured Hajo Meyer, an 87-year-old Auschwitz survivor-turned fanatical anti-Zionist. Joining Meyer at several locations was Hatem Bazian, a senior lecturer in the department of Near Eastern studies at the University of California at Berkeley. Bazian—who gave the introduction at a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) event at UC Berkeley in October 2010—is a notorious anti-Israel activist. He is also the director of the "Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project," a program of UC Berkeley's Center for Race and Gender.

Speaking to an audience of approximately 100 comprised largely of local leftist and anti-Israel activists who hung on his every word, Bazian wasted no time conjuring up the specter of Islamophobia. He referred to "the production of Islamophobia," claiming that, "politicians use Islamophobia to win elections." Holding up the grossly inaccurate comparison of the Japanese internment camps during WWII and the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings during the Cold War, he alleged that Islamophobia is part of the plan "to create a new enemy." Bazian—using racial terminology to describe what is, in fact, a religion—asserted that, "Islamophobia reintroduces the pre-existing racial structure . . . Arabs, Muslims are racialized."

Ratcheting up the hysteria several notches, Bazian later claimed that:

They [the U.S.] want to produce reflexive hatred against Arabs and Muslims so that when they bomb Arabs and Muslims they do not feel that they are . . . destroying legitimate families like us[Americans]. . . . [They] need to create the feeling they [Muslims] do not belong to the human family . . . they are less than human, subhuman.

After asking, "What interests are served by Islamophobia? Who benefits?," Bazian cited an oft-mangled 2001 quote from Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes, strategically omitting the essential component (indicated below in italics):

I worry very much, from the Jewish point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims, because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership, that this will present true dangers to American Jews.

Although the quote had nothing to do with Israel, he then added:

Muslims are part of civil society. But American Zionists want to keep it exclusive to themselves. They want to shut down the discussion of 'does Israel serve our national interests?' They want to shut down the debate; it's a strategy of silence.

He followed this with a rant about opposition to Park51 (the ground zero mosque), before reaching the ludicrous conclusion that:

Right-wingers are leading the charge against Muslims in America. These are the same people as the neo-Nazi skinhead groups.

Without pausing for a breath, Bazian launched into his favorite list of organizations and websites he hates: Campus Watch, Jihad Watch, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He drew no distinctions between them, but expressed particular animus towards the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Along the same lines, Bazian criticized the documentary series, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West and The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America. Rather than debating the substance of the films, Bazian charged them with supporting this supposed wave of Islamophobia.

In fact, FBI statistics reveal that two-thirds of all religiously motivated hate crimes in the U.S. are committed against Jews; anti-Jewish incidents outnumber anti-Muslim incidents by a factor of ten. A recent study conducted by the Center for Security Policy, "Religious Bias Crimes against Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims: American Trends from 2000-2009," shows that hate crimes against Muslim Americans have remained relatively low and trending downward since 2001. Given this evidence, one might ask why, instead of the focus on "Islamophobia," there isn't a center for the study of anti-Semitism at UC Berkeley?

Bazian later resumed bashing Israel, alleging—against all evidence—that "it was Israel that prevented the two-state solution, not the Palestinians." Similarly, he made the following conspiratorial claim:

They [Israelis] still think the transfer [of Arabs] is the best approach . . . all of them, not one family, not one tribe should be left. . . . The highest levels of the Israeli government still believe that to solve the problem is to transfer the Palestinians.

Regarding the counter-terrorism training Israel has provided to American police and military forces, he concluded, "So who do you think those officers see as terrorists? Who do they look like?" That both Israel and the U.S. are targets for Islamic—not Irish or Basque—terrorists was left out of the equation.

Bazian lamented American financial support for Israel, insisting that the U.S. "budget is heavily invested in the military industrial complex" and spending a fair amount of time trying to back up this assertion, however faulty. Indeed, a video with excerpts of his talk posted at YouTube includes text with facts and figures that successfully contradicts Bazian on this point.

Meanwhile, events were transpiring outside the venue—where 25 or so pro-Israel protesters holding Israeli and American flags were gathered peacefully—that lent an air of paranoia to the evening. Unbeknownst to those of us sitting near the front of the church, security guards and tour volunteers were ejecting seated members of the audience in the rear whom they recognized as pro-Israel activists—either from the protest in front of the church or other local events. Similarly, they refused entrance to at least one person attempting to buy a ticket.

It was a replay on a smaller scale of the scene at Rutgers University on January 29, 2011, when sponsors and campus endorsers of the tour—having advertised the event as "free and open to the public"—suddenly began charging for tickets when a number of pro-Israel protesters tried to enter. Meanwhile, they allowed others in for free.

Adding to this pattern, audience members at several other stops on the tour reported that they were not allowed to photograph or record events.

The thuggish and discriminatory behavior of the event's organizers; the calculated inclusion of Hajo Meyer; and Bazian's radical, conspiratorial commentary are all standard fare for the "Never Again for Anyone Tour," not to mention the morally reprehensible and historically false premise of the entire enterprise. Perhaps it's time for organizers to apply the "Never Again" slogan to themselves.

Original URLs:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/24/the-misuse-of-never-again/
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/11116

Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene

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

No Holds Barred at Islamist Confab

by IPT News

A global assortment of radical Islamists held an online conference last weekend, calling for the destruction of the West and the violent implementation of Islamic law.

It isn't clear how many people tuned in to the Rise of Islam Conference 2011, but many of the speakers are considered fringe elements, even among Islamists. They represented English-speaking Islamist groups from all over the world. Jamaican Islamist Abdullah al-Faisal and British leaders Abu Izzadeen and Anjem Choudary hammered home their views about why and how Islam will dominate the world. But American Abdullah Younus Muhammad, currently living in Morocco, took the spotlight with his open endorsement of al-Qaida's war on the West.

"O Muslims, there is no honor, there is no dignity, there is no victory, unless Islam is a complete system established," said Muhammad, of islampolicy.com. "We do not believe in mass protest movements. We do not believe in each one teach one as the way forward. We believe that when a sufficient amount of Muslims have might to take all the powers that be, they go out and march forth in the way of Allah."

He cited Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" in calling on Muslims in the West to do more.

America considered the defeat of the Soviet army in Afghanistan and the fall of communism to be "a victory over the entire world" and a victory for liberal democracy, Muhammad said. "And it is this system that they continue to try to perpetuate, and to try to force down the throats of people all over the world, that is the true enemy, that is the true empire that Islam is waging a war against today."

In bin Laden's 1996 declaration, he called for a combination of "operations" with political and economic moves, Muhammad said, describing how American Islamists could aid al-Qaida's cause. They should "pay more attention, give more effort to propagation, spend more time promoting and defending the message of the mujahideen wherever they may be … Publish their words; don't just call yourself jihadi and say 'I am allying with them,' speak as if you are speaking on their behalf."

In practical terms he advised that Muslims boycott American goods to open an economic front to coincide with al-Qaida's military front. "If the economic boycott is coupled with the mujahideen's strikes, then the enemy's defeat is imminent, Insha'allah [if Allah wills]. And vice versa, if the Muslims do not cooperate with and support their mujahideen brothers by severing economic deals with the U.S. enemy, then they are paying him money which is the foundation of wars and armies, hence promoting the war and the Muslim suffering from it."

Other speeches, although militant in their own right, paled in comparison.

Abdullah el-Faisal, a Jamaican Islamist militant who has been deported from Kenya and Britain, explained why Islam is destined to dominate the world. "If communism is dead in the grave, what makes you think capitalism will survive? What makes you think capitalism will survive? It can't survive. Allah says … Truth has come and falsehood has vanished, and falsehood is by nature a vanishing thing."

Abu Izzadeen, a British Islamist who once called bin Laden "the only true leader of Muslims" and was convicted of terrorist financing charges, talked about shaking British society through Muslim pressure.

"We are not aiming to control a mosque in East London or South London or West London. No! We are aiming for the society to bow down to La Illah Illa Allah [This is no god but Allah]," Abu Izzadeen preached to calls of "Allahu Akbar" from the crowd. "To see the Queen bow down to La Illah Illa Allah, Prince Harry and William to bow down to La Illah Illa Allah. Even his new wife to wear the hijab and the khimar, and the niqab. We aim higher, akhi [my brother], because this deen [religion] is superior and nothing will supersede Islam."

Anjem Choudary, a leading British Islamist who tried to spark a new American movement called "Shariah4America," reinforced the idea of bringing Islamic law to America and the West. "That Rasul Allah [the messenger of Allah] said, that before the Day of Judgment, Islam will enter every single household, whether with dignity or whether humiliation, dignity because they will embrace Islam, and humiliation because they will be Kuffar [non-believers] but they will be under the Sharia."

Supporters of freedom and democracy, he said, ultimately are doomed because of God's will. "The messenger Muhammad (saws) came with the guidance and the Haq [truth], the Deen [religion] of truth, for it to be dominant on all other ways of life, no matter how much the polytheists, the disbelievers, those Kuffar, dislike it or hate it. Our objective, therefore, is the domination of the world by Islam."

Original URL: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2713/no-holds-barred-at-islamist-confab

IPT News

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

Juan Cole’s Map of Lies

by Steven Plaut

Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History. He claims to be a Middle East historian and expert. He has served as the president of the “Middle East Studies Association.” At least one scholar has accused him of being personally responsible for the intellectual bankruptcy plaguing Middle East studies. Cole is an anti-Israel and anti-American extremist, and his extremism prevented him from getting a job offer from Yale a few years back. He is probably best known for his professing beliefs in grand Jewish conspiracies. He tosses around the term “Zionofascists” when he means “Jews.” He led the pro-Saddam lobby and is a Hamas apologist. He loves to spread anti-Jewish blood libels. He is bosom buddies with Neo-Nazi anti-Semitic conspiracist nuts, like Justin Raimondo (who claims the Jews and not al-Qaeda were behind the 9-11 attacks on the US).

For those who think that the fascist method of The Big Lie must be restricted to slogans or phrases, you should never underestimate the value of a false map. Perhaps the world title for telling a Big Lie by means of a map, or rather a pseudo-map, now belongs to the pseudo-academic Cole, regarding “Palestinian lands.” He has decided that lands owned by the British imperial mandatory governing in control of “Palestine” between the world wars were “Palestinian land.” Those are the “Palestinian lands” he claims were stolen by Israel. Now, as it turns out, those were “Palestinian lands” only in the sense that they were state land owned by the British “Palestine” mandatory government. They were by and large not lands owned by “Palestinian” Arabs. And they were by and large completely empty.

Those were the lands taken over by Israel when it became independent that Cole maps as “Palestinian lands.” Today Juan Cole is the daddy of the world’s most absurd propaganda pseudo-map, which purports to tell the history of “Palestine.” The map can be viewed here and is entitled “Palestinian Loss of Land 1946 to 2000.” It consists of four frames.

The first frame is labeled “Palestinian and Jewish Land 1946.” It shows “Palestinian land” in green comprising more than 90% of “Palestine” (defined as the area later forming Israel, the West Bank and Gaza). Most of this “Palestinian” land was “Palestinian” only in the sense that it was public land owned by the British mandatory government of “Palestine.”

The second frame shows the UN partition plan 1947, under which roughly equal slices of land in Mandatory Palestine were assigned to a proposed Jewish state and a proposed Palestinian Arab state. Unwittingly, the map prepared by Cole makes the Israeli case. Readers might want to ask of Cole and his friends embarrassing questions, such as why that Arab Palestinian state never arose. After all, the Jews accepted the compromise proposal. The answer that Cole does not want you to know is that the Arab states invaded the territory militarily and gobbled up most of the what had been earmarked for a Palestinian state. Readers might also wonder how come half the segment of Western Palestine that had been reserved for the Jews after Transjordan had been truncated from Palestine was being offered to the Arabs.

In the same map, what are shown in Cole’s second frame as “Palestinian lands” were also by and large public lands controlled by the British Mandatory government and not lands owned by “Palestinian” Arabs. The third frame shows Israel’s borders after Independence and the last frame shows Israel’s borders today together, again with lands in the West Bank and Gaza defined by Cole as “Palestinian lands.”

The Big Lie is most visibly and viciously concentrated in Cole’s first frame. After World War I, all of Western Palestine was governed by Britain under a Mandate granted to it by the League of Nations. Its mandate was to develop the area as a Jewish homeland. The eastern part of Palestine was truncated and illegally turned by Britain into the independent Arab kingdom of Transjordan. The rump segment of Palestine was reserved for the Jews. None of this was earmarked for creation of yet another Arab state. The bulk of land within the Palestinian Mandate was state-owned land, governed by the British Mandatory government. It had also been state-owned land previously under the Ottoman imperial government, before Britain liberated “Palestine” from the Turks. [Before World War I, land in Palestine was owned by the Ottoman state and a feudalistic class of absentee landlords. The few “Palestinian” Arabs who lived in the country at the time seldom owned any land. They farmed it as sharecroppers.]

The Cole map of “Palestinian lands” gives the impression that before Israel’s creation 90% of the land of Palestinian was owned by “Palestinian” Arabs. In reality, almost none of it was. It was mainly land owned by feudal aristocrats and by the imperial government. Most of it was empty. When the Zionist migrations began, the Jews started buying up lands from their feudal landlords, who were happy to turn a quick profit. Almost no “Palestinian” Arabs were forced off those lands as the ownership changed and the Jewish immigrants arrived. The anti-Israel Lobby, which loves to accuse the Zionists of “colonialism,” is invited to find any other case in human history in which the “colonialists” came and paid in full at (and often well above) market prices for the lands they were “colonizing.”

As Jewish capital flowed into the country, bringing with it rising wages, health and educational standards, Arabs from neighboring countries, mainly from Lebanon and Syria, flowed in to “Palestine” to take advantage of the progress. Those Arabs never saw themselves as “Palestinians” until the fabrication of a mythical “Palestinian people” became the Arab propaganda line after 1967. The “Palestinians” were then assigned the same role of the German Sudetens in the late 1930s, pretending to be oppressed “victims” whose liberation required annihilation of their democratic “oppressors,” or so their genocidal totalitarian patrons insisted.

The large increase in Jewish land ownership between the late 1800s and 1948 was due to this process of land acquisition by means of Zionist purchases. Swaths of lands were also purchased by Jews in Syria and Transjordan. They were later stolen by the respective Arab governments, a little matter about which the “anti-apartheid” poseurs and Hillary Clinton have never had much to say. The bulk of the land in Western “Palestine,” including almost the entire Negev in Israel’s south, was state-owned during the British mandatory period. If Cole and Sullivan had an ounce of integrity, they would have identified public lands as precisely that.

Then to make matters worse, the pseudo-map and its sponsors paint all of Israel and large swaths of the West Bank and Gaza as “Jewish lands.” Even when they are owned by Arabs.

Let us note that what Cole and Sullivan call “Jewish lands” or “Israeli lands” include not only private lands owned by Arabs but also public lands serving Israeli Jews and Arabs in common. Are highways and parks used by all Israelis “Jewish lands?” Evidently Cole thinks so. Are lands upon which Arab schools, mosques, libraries and sports stadiums sit “Israeli lands?” Maybe Cole has never met an Arab who uses a park.

In addition, the bulk of land in Israel is publicly owned even today. As an economist I oppose this anachronistic “socialist ownership.” These holdings include public lands that are used by all Israelis, Arabs and Jews. Of privately-owned land, Israeli Arabs own more of it than their share in the Israeli population!

Then we have parts of the Gaza Strip being shown on the Cole map as “Israeli land.” Never mind that there is not a single Israeli anywhere in the Gaza Strip, ever since Israel – somewhat foolishly – turned the entire area over to the Hamas years ago. In the West Bank, Cole shows large swaths of “Palestinian land.” What he means of course is land on which Arabs live today. There are also swaths of land there on which Jews live. If the very fact of Arabs living on those lands turns them into “Palestinian lands,” then most of the American Southwest is Mexico.

Let me put this a little differently. If we apply Cole’s “logic,” then we need to note that a hundred years ago there were no properties at all owned by Juan Cole in Ann Arbor. In contrast, today there are no properties in Ann Arbor owned by me. Therefore, Cole’s house there must belong to me!

Cole actually took the pseudo-map – as is – from a Bash-the-Jews web site operating out of Leeds, English. This “borrowing” shows the reliability of Cole’s academic sources and scholarship. A student of mine who did the same would be brought up on disciplinary charges. The “Leeds Palestine Solidarity Campaign” is a pro-jihad pro-terrorist tiny group promoting boycotts of Israel. It reprints the usual Islamofascist propaganda and it links itself to Aljazeera, Osama bin Laden’s favorite news outlet. In its statement of purpose it lists battling the “Zionist nature” of Israel as one of its goals. It is not clear who prepared the map for the Leeds bigots, but it was obviously not anyone with any interest in facts. This is evidently why it appealed to Juan Cole.

Cole took the map from the Leeds jihadists and ran it with no editing at all on his own web site here. It was posted as part of a broader Bash-Israel posting. That posting is so filled with pseudo-scholarship and disinformation that, in and of itself, it raises enormous doubts about Cole’s qualifications to serve on the faculty of any bona fide institution of higher learning. Among other things, Cole writes there:

“Israelis claim a ‘birthright’ to do things like colonize Palestinian territory, based on romantic-nationalist reworkings of biblical narratives. But Canaan was populated for millenia before some Canaanite tribes adopted the new religion of Judaism, and it was also ruled, as Palestine, for centuries by Romans and Greeks, and for 1400 years by Muslims. The Palestinian Jews converted to Christianity and then to Islam, so they are cousins of the European Jews (who appear to have gone to Europe voluntarily as male merchants around 800 CE,, where they took local wives). European Jews are about half European by parentage and all European by cultural heritage, and it is no more natural that they be in geographical Palestine than that they be in Europe (where nearly two-thirds of their mothers were from and about a third of their fathers). From a Middle Eastern point of view, European Jews planted in British Mandate Palestine by the British Empire were no different from the million colons or European colonists brought to Algeria while it was under French rule from 1830-1962.“

Cole’s attempt to claim that “Palestinian Arabs” have roots among Canaanite tribes is laughable charlatanism. His pseudo-history of Jews resembles those to be found on many Neo-Nazi web sites. Palestinian Jews did not become Christians and Moslems. Those who did go to Europe did not do so “voluntarily” but to escape persecution, in contrast with the Syrian and Lebanese Arabs who migrated into “Palestine” in the late 19^th and early 20^th century to morph into up-and-coming “Palestinians.” Jews were hardly “planted” in Palestine by the British Empire. Jews lived there thousands of years before London was established. If anything, the British Empire did its best to mollycoddle Arab fascism during the 1920s and 1930s by preventing Jewish refugees escaping growing persecution in Europe and immigrating to “Palestine.”

Cole’s publication of the “maps” of “Palestinian Lands” was quickly picked up by Andrew Sullivan, writing in the Atlantic. While in the past Sullivan was capable of expressing the occasional approving sentiment about Israel and Jews, he suddenly became a vicious Israel basher during Israel’s “Cast Lead” military campaign against Hamas terrorism in the Gaza Strip. Israel had patiently sat back during years of being bombarded by thousands of Palestinian rockets, mortars, and sniper attacks. When it at long last retaliated, Sullivan went on a series of rage rants. In several of these he ran Cole’s pseudo-map.

Sullivan was called to task on that by Leon Wieseltier, writing in the New Republic: ‘Sullivan is hunting for motives, not reasons; for conspiracies, which is the surest sign of a mind’s bankruptcy.. These days the self-congratulatory motto above his blog is “Of No Party or Clique,” but in fact Sullivan belongs to the party of Mearsheimer and the clique of Walt (whom he cites frequently and deferentially), to the herd of fearless dissidents who proclaim in all seriousness, without in any way being haunted by the history of such an idea, that Jews control Washington.’ More than one blogger saw the exchange between Sullivan and Wieseltier as the bubbling out of Sullivan’s latent anti-Semitism.

When Sullivan ran the Cole pseudo-map, he accompanied it with the caption: ‘Joe Biden was kicked in the balls as he came to Israel with a simultaneous “f**k you” by the Israeli government announcing new settlements – 1600 houses – in East Jerusalem.” Why Israel’s building housing in its capital is an obscenity, while the United States building housing in Washington, DC is not – is just one more mystery unexplained by Sullivan.

The Cole pseudo-map would not die, and continues to metastasize. Jeffrey Goldberg made a valiant attempt at debunking it in the Atlantic, but missed the most important points. Sullivan then defended his use of it, out-Cole-ing even Juan Cole.

Since the Cole-Sullivan tag team started promoting the map as reflecting some sort of historic record, it has been picked up by countless anti-Semitic and anti-Israel web sites, blogs and magazines around the world. I found reprints in thousands of web pages. It has also been debunked by others, such as this web site. But it is now indelibly part of the anti-Israel canon of the Bash-Israel Left and the Islamofascists, both beloved by the pseudo-academic, Juan Cole.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/23/juan-cole%E2%80%99s-map-of-lies/

Steven Plaut

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

Why Israelis Hate the Left

by P. David Hornik

At last Haaretz—Israel’s left-wing daily that I’ve criticized on more than one occasion (here, here, or here, for instance)—has an editorial that I like. Appearing this week, it marks the retirement of left-wing Knesset member Haim Oron and describes the “entire Israeli left” as being at an “unprecedented nadir” and “in desperate need of a new path forward….”

Pleasant words, those.

Trying to account for what it calls the Israeli left’s “helplessness and hopelessness,” Haaretz adduces “the failure of Oron and Meretz [his party] to voice a clear-cut alternative” to what Haaretz calls “the murky right-wing wave that threatens to flood the country.” As for that “wave,” Haaretz describes it in terms of “the nationalistic, racist and anti-democratic legislation that [the right] is proposing almost unhindered in the Knesset.”

In other words—as usual—Haaretz portrays Israel in terms not distant from those used by the Israel Apartheid Week crowd. That habitual Israel-bashing led Marty Peretz—no friend of the Israel right—to assert regarding Haaretz last week that

many of its columnists are intellectual psychopaths…. If you want one reason for why the international press is so hostile to Israel, it is because the only paper foreign journalists read is Haaretz in English. It is an exemplar of Jewish self-hate, full of ridicule, righteousness, and loathing. Its circulation is going down, down, down.

Oh yes, Haaretz’s circulation—one thing the paper forgot to mention while lamenting the state of the Israeli left in general. The mournful editorial, that is, skips the fact that if the Israeli left as a whole is a sinking ship, Haaretz is going right down with it.

As for why that should be so, Haaretz, of course, doesn’t have a clue. In addition to the left’s supposed failure to “voice a clear-cut alternative” to the right, the editorial lamely attributes the left’s decline to “the fact that Oron focused in his work mainly on economic and social issues” while “the fight against the occupation was secondary….”

“The occupation” refers, of course, to Israel’s presence in the West Bank—something most Israelis hardly want to “fight against,” especially now that Israel’s removal of “the occupation” of Gaza has resulted in six straight years of rocket and mortar fire on Israeli communities.

But if Haaretz really wanted to cast around for reasons for the left’s unpopularity, it could consider, for instance, a recent Israeli news item about Amos Oz and Marwan Barghouti. Oz is a septuagenarian, Israel Prize-winning, Nobel-candidate Israeli writer. Barghouti was one of the major leaders of the genocidal Palestinian onslaught known as the Second Intifada, now serving a life term on five counts of murder.

But what is strange—or maybe not so strange, considering that he’s a lifelong leftist—is that Oz now wants to send Barghouti something close to a love letter. Oz’s acclaimed autobiography, A Tale of Love and Darkness, has been translated into Arabic. Oz has asked another Israeli leftist to bring Barghouti a copy of the book in prison, bearing this personal dedication:

This story is our story. I hope you read it and understand us better, as we attempt to understand you. Hoping to meet soon in peace and freedom.

Earth to Haaretz: Israelis, as they scamper with their children into shelters while the rocket-alarms sound, don’t like this kind of thing. We don’t like writers who feel a kinship with terrorists and long to see them free, nor the left-wing culture that spawns such bizarre and sinister sentiments.

And as for that other leftist, the one Oz requested to bring his present to Barghouti for him…it’s none other than Haim Oron, the pol whose imminent retirement prompted Haaretz’s editorial. Oron is, in fact, a regular visitor of Barghouti and a constant advocate of his release, bloody hands and all.

Blaming the ongoing aggression on “the occupation”—that is, on Israel. Vilifying Israel while lionizing terrorists. Providing an endless stream of Israel-bashing fodder to ignorant and malevolent foreign media. These are not some of Israelis’ favorite things.

Until the Israeli left starts to understand that—and whether it can understand it is doubtful, since understanding it would entail abrogating its identity—it will continue to sink.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/23/why-israelis-hate-the-left/

P. David Hornik

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

Obama: Rewarding Obstructionists, Shafting Allies - Again

by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

U.S. President Barack Obama is trying to play "Nothing To See Here" in foreign policy. Just after declaring that the White House organized a coalition to start a military action in Libya, he was landing with his family - wife, Michelle, daughters, Sasha and Malia, and mother-in-law, Marian Robinson - in Brazil, one of the five nations that abstained in the vote of a UN resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya – and thereby bestowing a reward for behavior that was "unhelpful," to say the least.

Obama went for a five-day Latin American Tour that will be bringing him to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador, at a time when the Middle East is burning, Further, Libya is massacring facing a massacre; a civil war might start in the Ivory Coast, and an earthquake, a tsunami and collapsing nuclear reactors have hit Japan, leaving the country at risk of a radioactive meltdown. The trip to Latin America, however, was planned to strengthen economic and political relations, and also as a way to confront the anti-American propaganda that mainly the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba are trying to spread over the continent.

Obama tried to charge his first visit to Latin America with symbolism; it marks the 50^th anniversary of the launch of the 1961 Kennedy administration's "Alliance for Progress," aimed at establishing economic cooperation between South America and the U.S. The program was seen as a failure already in the '70s, based especially on the worsening of socio-economic indicators throughout the 60s. Policies set by the Alliance for Progress were in fact a total fiasco. The region's annual economic growth went from 1% to between 0.6 to 1%, well below the goal set by the Alliance[1].

However, even though Obama seems keen to exhume the Alliance for Progress, in his first trip to the region, the US President did not include in his agenda a visit to Washington's main ally in Latin America: Colombia, a country with which the United States has effectively worked in the fight against drug trafficking activities and terrorism. Colombia, which borders with Venezuela, keeps being threatened by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's support to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - known by its Spanish abbreviation, FARC – a Marxist-Leninist group that carries out extortion, kidnappings and drug trafficking.

The reason behind President Obama's avoiding a visit to Colombia is no surprise. Five years ago, the United States negotiated free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, another top White House ally. In the last two State of the Union addresses, Obama said that his administration will pursue the free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, but did not set any timetable to have the pact ratified. The Washington Times reports that at a hearing on Capitol Hill, "senators from both parties practically begged the White House to submit the trade accords - but U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk hemmed and hawed about how they weren't quite ready just yet."[2] However, Montana's U.S. Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat, seems to do not agree with the Obama Administration and said: "The time is here. The time is now. In fact, the time has passed to ratify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It has long passed. We are losing market share hand over fist"[3].

This unjustified delay is not only undermining relations with US top allies in Latin America, but also has a direct impact on the US economy: As explained by Sen. Baucus, since Obama has not yet submitted the agreement to Congress for approval, Montana farmers and businesses have difficulty competing with businesses from other countries that have free trade agreements with Colombia. Specifically, Canada has passed an FTA with Colombia, set to enter into force in the next few months. If the U.S. still has not approved its agreement when that happens, America is likely to lose the entire Colombian wheat market.[4]

In the meantime, while Obama was in Brazil, French jets were deployed over Libya. The US President, who is also the US Commander in Chief, was absent also at the Paris talks, where military options against Libya were decided, while he was heading to Latin America. His absence left a void -- and the impression of a weakness of the US -- in its foreign policy. White House and Pentagon officials said the President's trip could not have been cancelled. "It is imperative that the United States not disengage from these regions [Latin America]," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, told reporters. "When we disengage, our ability to advance partnerships that serve our interest suffers."

The interests of the US seem to suffer anyway, thanks to the Obama administration. The international community perceives that the US left the mantle of the Free World leadership to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is now leading the battle against Gaddafi's dictatorship. Gaddafi himself seems to consider Obama as a dwarf in foreign policy by sending him an eccentric letter, in which he addresses the US President as his "son," hence putting him underneath him: "To our son, his Excellency, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, God forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."

[1] http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Calkins/Escobar.pdf
[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/fearful-obama-hides-from-american-allies/
[3] http://baucus.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=392
[4] Ibid.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1982/obama-rewarding-obstructionists-shafting-allies

Anna Mahjar-Barducci


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

Why France Was So Keen to Attack Libya

by Soeren Kern

Even before allied forces unleashed a "shock and awe" barrage of cruise missile attacks against Libya on March 19, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was quick to take the credit, saying France had "decided to assume its role, its role before history" in stopping strongman Muammar Gaddafi's "killing spree" against people whose only crime was to seek to "liberate themselves from servitude."

Sarkozy's newfound concern for Libyan democracy contrasts sharply from only three years ago, when Sarkozy welcomed Gaddafi with open arms during an extravagant five-day state visit to France. On that occasion in December 2007, Gaddafi breezed into Paris in his Bedouin robes, accompanied by an entourage of 400 servants, five airplanes, a camel and 30 female virgin bodyguards, and then proceeded to pitch his heated tent on the grounds of the palatial Hôtel de Marigny, just across the street from the Elysée Palace.

At the time, Sarkozy ridiculed critics of Gaddafi's visit by saying: "It is rather beautiful the principle that consists in not getting yourself wet, not taking risks, being so certain of everything you think while you're having your latte on the Boulevard Saint-Germain." He also asked: "If we don't welcome countries that are starting to take the path of respectability, what can we say to those that leave that path?" Meanwhile, Sarkozy's chief diplomatic advisor, Jean-David Levitte, insisted that Libya had a "right to redemption."

Nor did Sarkozy express much support for the recent uprisings in the Arab world, which deposed long-time friends of Paris, including Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

In the case of Tunisia, Sarkozy reluctantly fired his loyal foreign minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, after it emerged that she borrowed a private jet from a Tunisian businessman linked to Ben Ali in order to work on her suntan in the Tunisian seaside town of Tabarka during the height of the political upheaval in Tunisia. According to the French newspaper Le Canard Enchaîné, Alliot-Marie also offered Ben Ali the "know how" of France's security forces to help him quash the fighting in Tunisia just three days before he was removed from office.

In Egypt, it emerged that French Prime Minister François Fillon and his family had accepted a free holiday from Mubarak, complete with a private plane and Nile River boat, just weeks before the Egyptian president was removed from office. Facing accusations that France cozies up to dictators, Sarkozy said that in the future, his government ministers should take their holidays in France.

So what explains Sarkozy's about-face vis-à-vis Libya? His sudden support for the anti-Gaddafi rebels can be attributed to two main factors: opinion polls and the closely related issue of Muslim immigration.

Sarkozy's sudden zeal for the cause of democracy in Libya comes as his popularity is at record lows just thirteen months before the first round of the 2012 presidential election. With polls showing that Sarkozy is the least popular president since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958, he is betting that French voters will appreciate his efforts in Libya to place France at the center of the world stage and reinforce what Charles de Gaulle once famously called "a certain idea of France" as a nation of exceptional destiny.

Further, Sarkozy's main rival is not Gaddafi, but rather Marine Le Pen, the charismatic new leader of the far-right National Front party in France. A new opinion poll published by Le Parisien newspaper on March 8 has Le Pen, who took over from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in January, winning the first round of next year's presidential election.

The survey gives Le Pen 23%, two percentage points ahead of both Sarkozy and Socialist leader Martine Aubry. On the basis of this opinion poll, Le Pen would automatically qualify for the second round run-off with one or other of the two mainstream party leaders.

Le Pen, who appeals to middle class voters, is riding high on voter dissatisfaction with the failure of the mainstream parties to address the problem of Muslim immigration. Since taking her post three months ago, Le Pen has single-handedly catapulted the twin issues of Muslim immigration and French national identity to the top of the French political agenda. In recent weeks, Le Pen has been a permanent fixture on prime-time television to discuss the threat to France of a wave of immigrants from Libya.

Gaddafi has already pledged that Europe will be "invaded" by an army of African immigrants: "You will have immigration. Thousands of people from Libya will invade Europe. There will be no-one to stop them any more," he warned on March 6 in an interview with the French newspaper Journal du Dimanche.

During a visit to Italy in August 2010, Gaddafi demanded €5 billion a year from the European Union to stop illegal immigration which "threatens to turn Europe black." At the time, Gaddafi asked: "What will be the reaction of the white Christian Europeans to this mass of hungry, uneducated Africans? We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and cohesive continent or if it will be destroyed by this barbarian invasion. We have to imagine that this could happen, but before it does we need to work together."

Furious Europeans have compared Gaddafi's demands for cash to stop illegal immigration to a "Mafia extortion racket." But since the revolt in Tunisia in January, nearly 15,000 boat people (more than the total for all of 2010) have arrived on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, a 20-square-kilometer island that traditionally has been a major gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union.

On March 14, Le Pen upstaged Sarkozy by visiting Lampedusa and telling undocumented migrants on the island that they were not welcome in Europe. "I have a lot of compassion for you, but Europe cannot welcome you," Le Pen said. "We do not have the financial means."

On March 2, the French minister for European affairs, Laurent Wauquiez, warned that up to 300,000 illegal immigrants could arrive in the European Union from North Africa during 2011. The influx of immigrants from Libya is a "real risk for Europe that must not be underestimated," he said.

Threatened by Le Pen's rising popularity, and in urgent need of a political boost, Sarkozy is now using the Libya intervention both to play the role of the respected statesman on the international stage and to address French concerns over mass immigration from North Africa.

During a March 21 interview with France 24, however, Le Pen dismissed Sarkozy as "a French president who is no longer running anything, who is governing on impulse or emotion, depending on the circumstances."

As an angry Gaddafi threatens to turn the "entire Mediterranean into a battlefield," it remains to be seen whether Sarkozy's gamble in Libya will pay off. With the French economy stalled, and unemployment stuck at 9.6%, any political bounce for Sarkozy is likely to ebb the longer the military campaign against Gaddafi lasts.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1983/france-libya-attack

Soeren Kern

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

State Department Legitimizes Terror

by Eli. E. Hertz

To whom did the Obama administration grant permission to fly the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] flag in Washington D.C.?

The answer: Palestinian Arabs - A society whose overwhelming majority nurtures a blind hatred of Israel, and has created a cultural milieu of vengeance, violence and death. This organization, which has been directly responsible for the murders of American civilian and security personnel, now has its recognition and flag waving in our capitol.

Here is just a subset of articles from the PLO Charter that the American administration has no shame to honor:

*Article 7: [Individual] must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.

*Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

* Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.

* Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

*Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

And if their charter was not convincing enough, the United States Congress, on numerous occasions, has reaffirmed the PLO's status as a terrorist organization. Although past presidents have attempted to circumvent this law, its conclusions are concise and unequivocal:

"Therefore, the Congress determines that the PLO and its affiliates are a terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of the United States, its allies, and to international law and should not benefit from operating in the United States.

The violent and disturbing history of the PLO is one that has dreadfully affected the lives of countless Israelis, Americans, and many others. The PLO is so transparent in its criminal and malicious ways, whether it be via their charter, public statements, or incitement, that one must question what the State Department was thinking when it upgraded the status of their mission from representative office to general delegation.

Original URL: www.mythsandfacts.org

Eli. E. Hertz

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

The Pinnacle of Incompetence

by Efraim Karsh

It is commonplace for the views of people in power to receive widespread exposure. Having presumably won their stripes in an arduous climb to the top, they are believed to know best what's going on.

This presumption, however, is not only wrong, but is often the inverse of the truth. Given bureaucracy's predilection for conformity, it is rarely the best and brightest who reach the top, but rather the yes-men sycophants – whether by rising to their level of incompetence, as the Peter Principle famously asserts, or by stumbling upward through successive failures, or by simply "being there" long enough.

Thus we have England's national soccer team manager, Sven Goran Eriksson, putting Wayne Rooney on a par with soccer's best-ever player, the legendary Pele. Yet rather than have his professional judgment questioned, the overpaid manager was allowed to lead his under performing team for three more trophy-less years.

Or take US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's astounding description of the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization.

Shouldn't he know what countless newspaper readers know full well – the Brotherhood is probably the world's foremost Islamist organization, committed to the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. How else is one to interpret its motto – "Allah is our objective. The prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope"? Now Baroness Eliza Manningham- Buller, former director of MI5 (Britain's FBI equivalent), has joined the march of folly. In her first television interview since leaving her job four years ago, she argued that the "war on terror" is unwinnable, and urged the British government to "reach out" to al-Qaida. "It's always better to talk to the people who are attacking you than attacking them, if you can," she explained.

This gives the idea of appeasement a whole new meaning. Even the most notorious incident – the Anglo- French surrender of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the 1938 Munich agreement – took place prior to any German military aggression. Once the Nazis invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, London and Paris attempted no further talks, but declared war on Germany.

In contrast, by the time Manningham-Buller made her startling suggestion, al-Qaida had massacred tens of thousands in the name of Islam – from the 9/11 attacks, to the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, to bombings in Yemen, Bali, Sharm e-Sheikh and Madrid. Yet neither these atrocities, nor the July 2005 London bombing, which took place under her watch, seem to have shaken the former director's belief that outreach to the Islamist group would curb its murderous zeal: "If we can get to a state where there are fewer attacks, less lethal attacks..., fewer young people being drawn into this, less causes – resolution of the Palestinian question, less impetus for this activity, I think we can get to a stage where the threat is thus reduced."

THIS JUDGMENT of al-Qaida's worldview is as delusional as Clapper's take on the Muslim Brotherhood. It is true that during the 1970s Western Europeans bought partial immunity from Palestinian terrorism by indulging the PLO. But then, the PLO's goal has always been limited to the "liberation of Palestine" (that is the destruction of Israel), while al-Qaida seeks nothing short of worldwide triumph. As such, the idea that Israeli-Palestinian peace will take away one of Islam's primary gripes against the West totally misreads history and present-day politics.

It is not out of concern for a Palestinian right to self determination, but as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of part of the "House of Islam" that Islamists inveigh against Israel. In the words of the covenant of Hamas, the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood: "The land of Palestine has been an Islamic trust [wakf] throughout the generations, and until the day of resurrection... When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims."

In this respect, there is no difference between Palestine and other parts of the world conquered by Islam throughout history. To this day, for example, many Muslims unabashedly pine for the restoration of Spain, and look upon their expulsion in 1492 as a grave historical injustice, as if they were Spain's rightful owners. Small wonder that Osama bin Laden evoked "the tragedy of Andalusia" after the 9/11 attacks, and the perpetrators of the March 2004 Madrid bombings, in which hundreds of people were murdered, mentioned revenge for the loss of Spain as one of the atrocity's "root causes."

Indeed, even countries that have never been under Islamic rule have become legitimate targets of Islamist fervor. Since the late 1980s, various Islamist movements have looked on the growing number of French Muslims as a sign that France, too, has become a potential part of dar Islam, the house of Islam.

In Britain, even the more moderate elements of the Muslim community are candid about their aims. As the late Zaki Badawi, a doyen of interfaith dialogue, put it, "Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community."

This goal need not necessarily be pursued by the sword; it can be achieved through demographic growth and steady conversion to Islam. But should peaceful means prove insufficient, physical force can be brought to bear.

Nor is this vision confined to an extremist fringe. This has been starkly demonstrated by the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Islamic world, in the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the 2006 crisis over the Danish cartoons, and in the poll indicating significant sympathy among British Muslims for the "feelings and motives" of the London suicide bombers.

To deny this reality is the height of folly, and to imagine that it can be appeased or deflected is to play into the Islamists' hands.

Original URL: http://www.meforum.org/2856/pinnacle-of-incompetence

Efraim Karsh is professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King's College London, editor of Middle East Quarterly and author of Islamic Imperialism: A History.

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