UK Speeding up Planning for Potential US-led Iran Attack

by Yaakov Lappin and Jpost.Com Staff

The British military is accelerating planning for its part in a potential US-led attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, The Guardian reported on Wednesday, days after the UK's military chief visited Israel.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is currently in London on a state visit, where he met with senior officials, including British National Security Advisor Sir Peter Ricketts.

The Iranian nuclear threat is believed to be at the top of the agenda of talks between Barak and British officials.

According to the Guardian report, the UK Ministry of Defense believes the US may have intensified plans for targeted missile strikes of Iranian nuclear targets.

The newspaper quoted British officials as saying that the UK would assist the US in such a mission. Britain is reportedly examining locations for mobilizing its Royal Navy ships and submarines to assist a possible American aerial and naval campaign against Iran.

Washington could also ask London for permission to use the British island of Diego Gacria, in the Indian ocean, as a base of operations.

Meanwhile, an army source told The Jerusalem Post that British military chief Sir David Richards visited Israel this week.

Richards was a guest of IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, the source said.

He arrived as "part of an annual visit" aimed at maintaining international cooperation, the source said. The source did not disclose the content of talks held by Richards and Israeli officials.

The visit was not announced earlier because it is standard practice in Britain to refrain from publicizing such visits while they occur.

The army source confirmed that "no announcement was released" during Richards' arrival.

"The IDF has a system of international cooperation which sees foreign figures visit Israel," the source added.

Yaakov Lappin and Jpost.Com Staff

Source: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=244172

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

Arab Spring Risks Bearing Islamist Fruit, CHP Warns

by AK Group

Turkey's main opposition party has raised concerns that the wave of revolt across the Arab world could give way to the rise of Islamist movements and result in new authoritarian regimes.

"We are questioning whether the Arab Spring may turn into an Islamic Spring and that the new administrations in these countries may evolve into authoritarian regimes," Umut Oran, a deputy from the Republican People's Party, or CHP, told the Daily News Monday.

Oran backed Turkey as a model in the Middle East, but questioned "which Turkey" the Arabs should be looking at. He charged that the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, had eroded the standards of Turkish democracy and the rule of law and "made secularism the subject of controversy."

"Turkey is definitely a model, but Republican Turkey and the AKP's Turkey are very much different," he said. "It is Republican Turkey that should serve as a model for the Middle East."

Kılıçdaroğlu met with a German delegation including Michael Link and Johannes Vogel of the Free Democratic Party, or FDP, Alexander Lambsdorff of the European Parliament and a representative of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

Kılıçdaroğlu questioned whether "moderate Islam could shift to authoritarian regimes, suspend democracy and then move to a rule based on sharia law," party sources said.

Kılıçdaroğlu decried increasing government control of the judiciary and the imprisonment of journalists, lawmakers and students under the AKP, casting doubt on how the ruling party could be an inspiration for others in the region.

"The vision that the AKP is promoting does not [reflect] the secular, democratic and social state based on the rule of law," he was quoted as saying. "Yes, Turkey should be a model. But it should be the Republican Turkey and not the AKP's Turkey."

In a related development, a delegation of female members of the CHP crossed into unrest-hit Syria over the weekend for a visit to observe the situation on the ground. They were invited by Syrian women's organizations. The team, led by CHP deputy chairwoman Birgül Ayman Güler, is scheduled to return home Wednesday.

AK Group

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2555/arab-spring-risks-bearing-islamist-fruit-chp-warns

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

Israel and Just-War Theory

by Herbert I. London

Now that a trade of more than one thousand convicted terrorists for one Israeli soldier has been transacted, it should be clear to any of the skeptics which side in the Middle East puts the greatest premium on life. Similarly, it should be noted from this trade which side adheres to the principles of "just war."

Nevertheless, when Judge Richard Goldstone wrote his report about the conduct of the Israeli Defense Force in the Gazan Cast Lead operation, he indicated in several places that Israeli troops acted irresponsibly, leading to unnecessary deaths in the civilian population. Although Goldstone later recanted, the damage was done. His report became a propaganda weapon against the Israeli government from Europe to Africa, and from Academia to the United Nations.

The problem with the report is that Goldstone relied on the reflections of officials in Gaza instead of films provided by the Israeli forces. Seeing is not always believing; doctored pictures have a notorious history. Nonetheless, if you view the films, they seem to offer incontrovertible evidence that Israeli troops did whatever they could to control collateral damage.

There were even times when the Israeli soldiers put their own lives at risk to avoid killing an innocent person. Time after time a known terrorist hiding behind "human shields" in an apartment complex was spared to avoid the death of people who were innocent. Rockets launched from a school roof remained untouched until children had left the premises. In the heat of battle Israeli forces maintained a level of moral behavior that was exemplary.

A recent chat with a base commander about the behavior of his troops in battle was revealing: "Our troops are trained to put life ahead of personal safety." The Israeli army officials contend that unnecessary shelling is not acceptable. Fire power is related directly to the force used against Israel.

Many commentators on this subject point to an Arab boy of about fifteen crying as he approached a checkpoint. Soldiers on the scene went into high alert. It seemed clear that this distraught youngster was recruited to be a suicide bomber. One Israeli soldier, recognizing the boy's agitation, called out to him, "Brother" in Arabic. He could not be sure when or whether the boy would set himself ablaze. Nonetheless, the IDF soldier continued to walk to the boy, took him in his arms and disarmed the explosive device around his waist -- all the while knowing that often the Palestinians use a remote control device to explode suicide bombers. The episode also tells a great deal about the Israeli military psychology.

Arab attempts to paint a different picture of the IDF have been successful. Many in the Arab world see these well-trained and disciplined troops as amoral. That, however, is far from the truth. These Israeli eighteen and nineteen year olds are told from the first day of national service that they carry the banner of a civilization that puts a premium on life. Their job is to protect and defend. They are given a green light to kill only when other methods to stop an enemy fail.

At a training session for IDF entrants at Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem, teenagers drafted into military service discuss the roots of war, the conflict in the Middle East, the history of this new nation. But most significantly, they study just-war theory and a moral stance for fighting those who rely on terror methods. Of course, no system is foolproof; occasionally a soldier will act improperly. This, however, is the exception. Israel is in a daily struggle. After all, 250 million Arabs in 22 Arab and Muslim countries want to destroy this nation. But Israeli leaders do not modify their moral code one iota. As the commander of this training center noted, "If we altered our approach, what effect would it have on soldiers when they leave military service?" One fights not only to save a nation, but to save values.

Herbert I. London is president emeritus of Hudson Institute, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Books).

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2554/israel-just-war-theory

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

The Syrian Impasse

by Frank Crimi

The Obama administration’s recall of the US ambassador from Syria signals the latest diplomatic impasse between the United States and Syria. Despite eight months of diplomatic initiatives and economic sanctions, Syrian President Bashar Assad shows no signs of moving aside.

Citing “credible threats” against his personal safety, the United States recalled Robert Ford from his post as US ambassador to Syria. The State Department​ said Ford’s return to Damascus would be contingent upon an “assessment of Syrian regime-led incitement and the security situation on the ground.” The reaction by the Syrian government to the decision was to immediately recall its own ambassador from Washington.

Ford’s security has been in growing jeopardy since July 2011 when he visited the Syrian city of Hama and was greeted warmly by anti-government protesters. Ford’s welcome prompted Syrian authorities to incite hundreds of pro-government sympathizers to attack the US embassy in Damascus, where they smashed windows and spray-painted obscenities on the walls.

From that point on, Ford has been the subject of several incidents of intimidation by pro-Assad supporters, including one in which he was pelted with eggs and tomatoes while going to a mosque in Damascus.

While the Obama administration was quick to point out that Ford’s recall was not a formal breakdown in relations with Syria, the move underscores the failure to date of diplomatic initiatives and economic sanctions to either dislodge Assad from power or force him to enter into negotiations with Syrian dissidents.

The latest efforts against the Syrian regime include a new series of economic sanctions — on top of the ones already levied on Syria’s banking and oil sectors — by the European Union. They also include diplomatic efforts by the Arab League to host talks between the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition, an effort which has been rejected by both sides.

This latter rejection certainly makes sense given that Syrian President Bashar has steadfastly maintained that the uprising against his government, which began in March, has been fomented by “armed terrorists groups” carrying out a “foreign agenda,” resulting in the deaths of over 1,100 Syrian army and police personnel.

For its part, the Syrian National Transition Council, formed in early October as the leading voice of the Syrian protest movement, won’t negotiate until Assad stops his murderous assault against Syria’s civilian protesters, assaults which to date have produced an estimated 3,000 deaths and over 10,000 wounded.

Unfortunately, Assad continues to have his security forces ratchet up the violence to new and disturbing levels, with the latest deadly killings coming when Syrian tank forces killed at least 25 people in the Syrian city of Homs.

Syrian security forces have also been accused of arresting an estimated 250 doctors and pharmacists treating wounded anti-government protesters since the start of the uprising. In one case, Human Rights Watch said Syrian security forces “forcibly removed” patients from a hospital and prevented doctors from reaching the wounded during a military siege in Homs.

Even escaping Syria can’t guaranteed one’s safety as reports have surfaced of Syrian refugees and activists in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan being kidnapped by Syrian intelligence agents and forced back into Syria.

Of course, Bashar Assad​’s continued resistance to stepping down from power may have been stiffened by the video images of Muammar Gadhafi​ being dragged out of a drainage ditch and summarily executed, his corpse dragged through the streets before it was buried in an unmarked grave deep in the Libyan Desert.

So, in an effort to spare himself a similar fate, Assad in a recent interview gave a pointed warning as to the costs of a NATO-led military intervention against his regime, saying, “Syria is the fault line, and if you play with the ground, you will cause an earthquake. Do you want to see another Afghanistan, or tens of Afghanistans?”

While some have dismissed those comments by Assad as simply “playing up to the fears of the West at the moment,” the reality is that launching a military strike against Syria would entail a far more dangerous risk than the one launched against Libya. For starters, unlike Libya, Syria has a host of powerful allies that won’t sit idly by and watch Assad go under, chief among them Iran, Russia and China.

Russia and China already feel they were burned by the United States, France and Britain for overstepping the mandate of UN resolution 1973, which called for the introduction of a UN no-fly zone over Libya designed to protect Libyan civilians.

That mission, however, quickly morphed into an exercise of regime change, one in which NATO helped topple Gadhafi’s regime by launching more than 26,000 airstrikes against pro-Gadhafi forces.

So, when France in early October pushed a similar UN resolution that called for the UN Security Council to take “responsibilities” and sanction the “bloody repression” in Syria, both Russia and China, believing it would be a pretext for an attack on their Syrian ally, vetoed the resolution

For his part, Assad has already indicated that he won’t be content to simply wait for outside help to save his regime. Assad, along with Syria’s proxy terrorist organization Hezbollah, has reportedly pledged to launch its huge arsenal of rockets and missiles at Israel if Syria is attacked, a prospect that would all but guarantee the beginning of a large scale regional war.

Therefore, it is understandable that NATO is much more hesitant this time to invoke the military option, evidenced by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who told reporters in Libya that he could “completely rule out” a NATO-led strike on Syria.

Yet, while NATO may be ruling out a possible military strike on Syria, some still cling to that hope. That view was voiced by Senator John McCain​, who days ago said, “Now that military operations in Libya are ending, there will be renewed focus on what practical military operations might be considered to protect civilian lives in Syria.”

While McCain’s views may not represent the best answer to the Syrian situation, at least he’s not alone. Jordan’s King Abdullah recently said, “I am one of the most optimistic people you’ll meet in the Middle East, but…I don’t think there’s anybody in the region or outside who knows how to tackle the Syria issue.”

With no end in sight to Bashar Assad’s rule and Syria drifting ever closer toward full scale sectarian civil war, finding an answer to the Syrian problem grows more elusive and imperative by the day.

Frank Crimi

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/02/the-syrian-impasse/

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

Italy Faces Up to the Evil Within

by Bruce Bawer

There is no question that anti-Semitism in Europe has been on the rise during the last few years. The European left, for a range of reasons, has gotten into the habit of viewing Israel, and by extension all Jews, as the foremost challenge to peace on earth and goodwill toward men. As Europe’s Islamic communities have expanded, moreover, and their members grown less and less shy about expressing – and acting upon – their opinions, the articulation of anti-Semitic sentiments and the commission of anti-Semitic acts by young Muslim men has increased accordingly.

While all this has been going on, a number of European governments have chosen to look the other way. Many political leaders in Europe, indeed, have fueled anti-Semitism by word and deed. The Italian government, however, has been an exception.

It was in October 2009 that two committees of the Italian Parliament voted to commission an in-depth study of anti-Semitism in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. They established a sub-committee to perform the inquiry, and put the Jewish writer and parliamentarian Fiamma Nirenstein​ (whom I profiled here recently) in charge. Now the sub-committee’s report has been released, and its findings are well worth attending to.

The report acknowledges “a strong resurgence of anti-Semitism in European societies” in recent years – a new kind of anti-Semitism that is “less overtly racist, and therefore more subtle and insidious,” than previous varieties, and that is being spread especially through online social networks. As a consequence of this new brand of anti-Semitism, “Jewish communities in various Western countries have had to deal for the first time with a new atmosphere of insecurity” and “a new cultural climate.” Though Italy is nowhere near as severely plagued with anti-Semitism as many other European countries, recent years have nonetheless seen a rise in anti-Semitism on the Italian far left, which, like its counterparts elsewhere in the West, has come to view Israel as “a state based on apartheid against the Palestinians,” takes the view that “the victims of the past have become today’s executioners,” and relativizes the Shoah by essentially equating it to what is routinely, and absurdly, depicted as a “Palestinian Holocaust.”

The report offers its share of sobering statistics. It references a 2010 study showing a steady rise in Italian anti-Semitism between 2001 and 2009, and another study indicating that “44 percent of Italians express attitudes and opinions in some way hostile to Jews and 12 percent are fully-fledged anti-Semites.” Fully 22% of Italians between the ages of 18 and 29 were hostile to Jews, and the figure was even higher among males in northern Italy. One-fourth of Italians surveyed agreed with the statement: “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews.” (In other European countries the figure was even higher: 35% in Germany and Britain, 41% in the Netherlands, 48% in Portugal, and no less than 55% in Poland.) One-third of Italians regard Jews as “not very nice,” and one-fourth don’t consider them “fully Italian.” Among Italians between the ages of 18 and 34, 22% were anti-Semitic, even though 71% of them “had never had any direct contact with Jews.” Of Italians in this age group, 51% balked at the idea of their daughter being in a relationship with a Jew, 38% didn’t want a Jewish boss, and 25% didn’t care for the idea of having Jewish neighbors.

The Italian sub-committee interviewed a long line of experts. Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini spoke of “a new insidious form of anti-Semitism…based on apathy and uncritical acquiescence to claims asserting Jewish ‘control’ over politics, the media and the economy.” Renzo Gattegna, head of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, suggested that anti-Semitism “is being fuelled today by anti-Israeli arguments, encouraged by various media that are prejudiced against the Jewish State and hostile to it.” And Rabbi Benedetto Carucci of the Rome Jewish School expressed concern “that events focusing solely on remembrance of the Shoah might create the impression that Judaism was all about extermination.”

Admirably, the role of European Muslims was not obscured (as is so often the case): “Incidents of anti-Semitic intolerance are spreading in the Islamic communities in Europe, with murders and physical attacks on Jews….In Sweden, which has one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, the Jewish communities spend 25 per cent of their funds on security measures.” Riccardo Pacifici, the president of the Rome Jewish Community, noted “the close connection which exists between certain Muslim organisations and neo-Nazi groups and which underpins attacks on Jewish communities, synagogues, schools and cemeteries and also underlies the boycotts of sports events.” Professor Dina Porat, director of the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University, spoke to the sub-committee about the emergence in Europe in recent years of “an Islamist form of anti-Semitism” that is marked “by a tendency to attack Jewish communities outside Israel because of their association with that country.” And Professor Gert Weisskirchen of the Steering Committee of the Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism (ICCA) “emphasised the risks of an Islamic fundamentalist insurgency which might have dangerous repercussions for Jews.”

The report makes certain recommendations, most of them about beefing up education at all levels about Judaism, Israel, and Jewish life and history. This solution may seem self-evident, but on a continent where schools are increasingly timid about teaching about (for example) the Holocaust for fear of arousing Muslims pupils’ wrath, it counts as pretty gutsy.

To be sure, for those of us who have been noticing the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe for years, nothing in the Italian report really qualifies as headline news. But it’s encouraging nonetheless that a leading Western European government considered this subject important enough to commission a major inquiry into it. In Norway, where breathtakingly ugly public expressions of anti-Semitism by leading members of the cultural elite are well-nigh routine, one can hardly imagine the government ordering such a study. (If it did, the resulting report would almost certainly blame European anti-Semitism mostly on actions by Israel, including its treatment of the Palestinians.) That the government of Italy, where anti-Semitism is considerably less virulent than in many other Western European countries, saw fit to address this issue head-on, and to produce a genuinely honest and searching report, is immensely admirable. Hats off to the Berlusconi government. And may every other country in Europe learn a lesson from this: get some cojones, face up to the evil within, and do what’s right before it’s too late.

Bruce Bawer

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/02/italy-faces-up-to-the-evil-within/

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

Why Does the Crucifix "Provoke" Muslims?

by Raymond Ibrahim

For a religion that is perpetually "misunderstood," the consistency of Islam is remarkable. Consider how ostensibly diverse issues—complaints of "human rights" abuses at an American university and murder in an Egyptian classroom—are interconnected.

First, the American story. According to Fox News:

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University of America [CUA] violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers. The investigation alleges that Muslim students "must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate."

Behind the complaint is John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University professor whose website boasts that his "enemies" call him a "Legal-Terrorist" and "the Osama bin Laden of Torts." He asserts that Muslim students are "particularly offended" because they have to "meditate" at the school's chapels and cathedral, where they pray while "having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus."

Of course, as a private Christian institution, even Banzhaf admits "that it is technically not illegal for Catholic University to refuse to provide rooms devoid of religious icons." Still, according to this so-called "Legal-Terrorist," that CUA refuses to compromise its Catholic image "suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice."

The reader is left to decide who really is acting "with malice": a private institution operating under private—in this case, Christian—principles, or reportedly "offended" Muslims who are free to attend non-Christian institutions?

Banzhaf further tried to denigrate CUA by boasting of how neighboring Georgetown University, a nominally "Christian" university, "provides its Muslim students with a separate prayer room and even a Muslim chaplain"—as if it is not well known that Georgetown's Arab and Islam departments receive much largesse by way of donations from the radical Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia (who, incidentally, refuse to permit churches on Saudi ground).

As Newt Gingrich observed regarding this affair: "Are you [Muslims] prepared to sponsor a Christian missionary in Mecca? Because if you're not prepared to sponsor religious liberty in Saudi Arabia, don't come and nag us with some hypocritical baloney."

Notable, too, why Muslim students are seeking to create Islamic havens (or enclaves) in universities: as one of them put it, "Arab [code for "Muslim"] and American students have a difficult time befriending each other because people naturally gravitate towards others with similar backgrounds and interests." In fact, this is a product of Islam's own doctrine of wala' wa bara', which commands Muslims to be loyal to one another, while completely disassociating themselves from non-Muslims.

Now, consider Muslim behavior toward Christian symbols, specifically the crucifix, where Muslims are the majority and thus in charge—where might not only makes right, but often exposes true sentiments.

Days ago it was revealed that a Christian student in Egypt was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students—simply for refusing to obey the teacher's orders to cover up his cross. When the headmaster was informed of the attack in progress, he ignored it and "continued to sip his tea." And, as usual, Egyptian media covered it up, insisting the "conflict" was "non-sectarian" (worse, it was straightforward "Christian persecution").

In the words of prominent Egyptian columnist Farida El-Shobashy, writing in the independent newspaper Masry Youm: "I was shaken to the bones when I read the news that a teacher forced a student to take off the crucifix he wore, and when the Christian student stood firm for his rights, the teacher quarreled with him, joined by some of the students; he was beastly assaulted until his last breath left him."

Indeed, the Maspero massacre, where the Egyptian military killed dozens of demonstrating Christians—including by running them over with armored-vehicles—began with hostility for Christian symbols: Muslims insisted a Coptic church be stripped of its dome and cross, so it would not resemble a church; as one Muslim elder put it, "the Cross provokes us and our children." When Christians refused, Muslims destroyed the church. This is what Christians were protesting when the Egyptian military mowed them down to cries of "Allahu Akbar."

These two stories—one in Washington, D.C., the other Egypt—demonstrate remarkable consistency; only methods differ, according to circumstances. Where Islam is weak, "terrorist-lawyers" and Islamist organizations like CAIR complain about "human rights" abuses against Muslims; where Islam is dominant, Islamists take matters into their own hands, violating the human rights of others.

Yet if the methods differ, the motivation is one: the victory of Islam over all else; or, in the words of the Quran (8:39)—"Make war on them ["infidels"] until idolatry shall cease and Allah's religion [Islam] shall reign supreme."

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3089/crucifix-provokes-muslims

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

FBI Learning to Disconnect the Dots

by TR Clancy

A new campaign has been opened by Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States against federal agencies charged with conducting counterterrorism investigations. The strategic goal is to eradicate completely all references to Islam, Muslims, or the Qu'ran from training materials on violent extremism and terrorism. Spokesmen for the Ikhwan are threatening the Department of Justice to get rid of the "anti-Muslim" training materials, or else the feds can kiss all the invaluable cooperation they're getting from the "community" goodbye.

As reported in The Daily Caller, the Obama administration, in a completely unsurprising reaction, is "pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive." TPM Muckraker, in a highly dishonest article, credits to Attorney General Eric Holder a statement that "training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence ... will not be tolerated." (The statement is actually that of an obscure and severely dhimmified Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dwight C. Holton. Holton brags that his Oregon office produced a "37-page complaint" against Christmas-tree bomber Mohamed Mohamud in which the al-Qaeda-inspired jihadist was "never once identified as a Muslim.")

This latest defeat for national security began in September with an article by Spencer Ackerman in Wired magazine's Danger Room blog. Focusing on a recent briefing of FBI agents at Quantico presented by FBI intelligence analyst William Gawthrop (which you can view here), Ackerman purports to expose FBI agents being taught that violent and radical themes common to jihadists are not "fringe" Islamic values, but "main stream."

As if.

Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), followed up with an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times on October 19, decrying the Quantico briefing's "bigoted and inflammatory views on Muslims." MPAC's identity as a Muslim Brotherhood front is well-established, functioning, according the The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, "as the political lobbying arm of the U.S. Brotherhood," and opposing "virtually every count-terror initiative undertaken or proposed by the U.S. government."

ITEM: simultaneously with Al-Marayati's LA Times op-ed MPAC published an "Action Alert" opposing proposed House and Senate funding bills that will required the Department of Homeland Security to designate an official to "counter homegrown violent Islamist extremism." Why? Because MPAC objects to the use of "religiously laden terminology such as 'Islamist.'"

Al-Marayati, in addition to complaining about the "bigoted and inflammatory" views FBI agents were exposed to at Quantico, mentions in his op-ed that:

Wired also found a 2010 presentation by an analyst working for the U.S. attorney's office in Pennsylvania that warns of a " 'Civilizational Jihad' stretching back from the dawn of Islam and waged today in the U.S. by 'civilians, juries, lawyers, media, academia and charities' who threaten 'our values.' The goal of that war: 'Replacement of American Judeo-Christian and Western liberal social, political and religious foundations by Islam.'"

Al-Marayati says these are "baseless and inflammatory claims." But he knows perfectly well that no FBI intelligence analyst invented the phrase "Civilizational Jihad." He ought to recognize it from "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," the internal Ikhwan memo first obtained by the FBI and presented in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas in 2007.

As Andrew C. McCarthy has written of the memo in his 2010 book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America:

It is not every day that, even as the game is being played, the opposition's playbook falls into your hands, telling you, chapter and verse, exactly how he intends to beat your brains in. Yet the United States has long been in possession of the Muslim Brotherhood's playbook - in multiple iterations, as a matter of fact.

A fat lot of good the playbook will do if FBI agents are prohibited from opening it. Al-Marayati is now demanding "a new 'interagency task force' to review the training materials - a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring."

First, feds can't say "Islamist" and "extremist" in the same sentence. Next, they won't be allowed to say when a dot's a dot.

TR Clancy

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/fbi_learning_to_disconnect_the_dots.html

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

Abraham, The First Jew and the First Zionist, Under Challenge at the Un

by Leo Rennert

This coming Saturday, Nov. 5, Jews around the world will gather in synagogues for the Torah reading of Chapter 12 of Genesis, which ought to have a special resonance this year in view of the UNESCO vote to recognize and welcome "Palestine" as a full-fledged member -- a nation like any other nation.

Chapter 12 begins the saga of the patriarch Abraham, the first Jew and the first Zionist - "Now the Lord said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing."

As the story unfolds, Abraham "takes Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all the substance they had gathered...and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came...And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said: 'Unto thy seed will I give this land.'"

This was indeed a momentous historical moment as Judaism and Zionism burst together onto the human stage. Judaism's birth wrenched mankind from the worship of multiple deities -- polytheism -- into recognition of a single divine spirit. In parallel, the seed of Zionism was sown with the prospect of a Jewish "nation" in a specific "land" -- Canaan.

From that moment on, Judaism and Zionism became two sides of the same coin.

Yet, as Jews prepare to recall at Sabbath services how Abraham was chosen to open the way for a full-fledged "nation" in the Promised Land, more than 100 other nations assembled in Paris and effectively voted to abrogate Abraham's legacy and negate 4,000 years of Jewish ties to this land.

In granting full membership to "Palestine" in the UN's cultural agency, the 107 countries which cast "yes" votes went along with Palestinian wishes for a state along the 1967 lines - or, as the PLO put it, on "all the territories that were occupied in 1967," when Israel overcame an onslaught by half a dozen Arab armies determined to exterminate the Jewish state.

Thus, the UNESCO vote sets a major precedent for international recognition of a Palestinian state with borders sought by the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas that would encompass all of Gaza, all of the West Bank, and all of the Old City of Jerusalem -- without any land swaps.

The import of such a prospect cannot be exaggerated.

Palestinians would hold sovereign rights over Mount Moriah, where Abraham proved his fidelity to God with his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac -- the very geographic heart of Judaism and Zionism. Wrenched from Jewish sovereignty would be this same site where also stood the First and Second Jewish Temples, better known as Temple Mount -- Judaism's holiest shrine.

Also ceded to "Palestine" would be Hebron -- Judaism's second holiest city after Jerusalem, the site of the Cave of the Jewish Patriarachs and Matriarchs, bought by Abraham for 400 silver shekels to bury his wife Sarah -- the first biblical real estate transaction to effectuate the Lord's promise of a "nation" in its own "land." In addition to Abraham and Sarah, this also became the burial place for the other two patriarchs, Isaac and Jacob, and for two other matriarchs, Rebecca and Leah.

In addition, with the loss of Hebron, a Jewish state also would be shorn of King David's first capital.

In short, the precedent set by the UNESCO vote strikes at the very heart of both Judaism and Zionism. And yet, more than 100 nations cast "yes" ballots without batting an eye.

A new, ominous chapter in a 4,000-year saga of Jewish nationhood, as promised to Abraham, has begun. This week's Torah reading ought to serve as a special warning.

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/abraham_the_first_jew_and_the_first_zionist_under_challenge_at_the_un.html

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

Iran’s Proxy War from Gaza

by P. David Hornik

[Note: the writing of this article required an intermission for a rocket attack on Beersheva from Gaza.]

On Monday the Palestinians were overwhelmingly voted into UNESCO—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It’s a pity. Palestinian “education” consists largely of anti-Semitic hate, their scientific achievements are nil apart from importing ever more sophisticated weapons, and as for their culture…Israelis have again been getting a taste of that in recent days.

Since Wednesday, on and off, the Israeli south has again been under a barrage from Gaza. One man has been killed and eight people wounded, along with extensive property damage including nine cars blown up in a parking lot. Some 200,000 children have been kept home from school. The Israeli air force has killed ten terrorists in retaliatory raids that amount to little more than tit-for-tat.

So far, though, not one of the 40-plus rockets and mortars fired from Gaza appears to have been fired by Hamas, its ruling organization. All, or nearly all, have been fired by another group, Islamic Jihad. Palestinian “culture” being what it is, you sometimes need a scorecard to keep up with the various Palestinian terror movements. But Islamic Jihad is not just another of those small, global-jihadist, Al Qaeda-linked groups occasionally heard from in Gaza.

Israeli military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai​ writes that Islamic Jihad has lately

accumulated (with the active support of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards​) military power that is equal to—and in some cases greater than—Hamas’s military capabilities.

Islamic Jihad has more long-range rockets than Hamas, thousands of activists, and some 10,000 supporters and collaborators….

And Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, a Palestinian-affairs expert, concurs, noting that

Today, [Islamic Jihad] poses a serious challenge to the Hamas government.

With the help of Iran and Syria, Islamic Jihad has become a major player in the Palestinian arena….

It’s almost certain by now that Islamic Jihad—which is viewed by some as being more radical than Hamas—will one day rise to power in the Gaza Strip.

As for why Islamic Jihad chose now to heat things up, accounts vary, but all agree that it’s at Iran’s (and probably also Syria’s) prodding. Abu Toameh writes that “According to informed Palestinian sources, relations between Hamas and the Iranians and Syrians have deteriorated because of the movement’s refusal to publicly support the embattled regime of President Bashar Assad.”

Iran and its friends are probably also unhappy about Hamas’s drift toward Egypt and the boost to its popularity from securing the release of so many Palestinian murderers (Palestinian culture again) in the Shalit deal. Solution: tell Islamic Jihad to start shooting at Israel and recoup lost points.

Where does all this leave Israel?

Clearly, whether Iran throws its weight behind Hamas as it did formerly, or Islamic Jihad as it is doing at present, the barrages from Gaza stem ultimately from an Iranian strategy aimed at weakening and eventually destroying the Jewish state. The Netanyahu government’s reluctance to deal decisively with Gaza terror—more and more reminiscent of the preceding Olmert government, which tolerated almost three years of bombardment before launching the inconclusive Operation Cast Lead—presumably reflects, in part, the need to look at the larger strategic picture.

Speculation—and, reportedly, American apprehension—about a possible Israeli strike on Iran has reached an unprecedented level. It would make sense to go for the root instead of getting tangled up in one of the branches. Or, if such speculation again proves baseless, it is hard to see what excuse remains not to cut off the branch.

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator in Beersheva, Israel.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/01/iran%e2%80%99s-proxy-war-from-gaza/

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

A Haunting Vote at the UN

by Joseph Klein

In its own special version of a Halloween “trick or treat,” the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) became the first UN agency to admit Palestine as a full member since the Palestinians launched their full court press for total recognition as a UN member state.

The final UNESCO Halloween vote tally was 107 votes in favor, 14 against and 52 abstentions. The United States, Canada and Germany voted against Palestinian membership in UNESCO. France joined the countries that voted in favor. Britain abstained.

UNESCO provided the Palestinians with their undeserved Halloween treat. But the trick will be against UNESCO – a loss of major funding from the United States, as explained below.

The Palestinian bid for full membership in the United Nations as a whole is currently before the Security Council, where it is not expected to succeed this year. However, by piling up individual UN agency memberships, which can be approved by those agencies even for non-members of the entire United Nations system, the Palestinians are hoping to create momentum towards achieving their ultimate objective. The chain reaction will start with Palestinian bids to gain membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization, the UN Industrial Development Organization (in which the United States is not a member), and the UN Conference on Trade and Development, which admit entities that belong to another specialized UN agency such as UNESCO.

Sabri Saidam, adviser to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas​, declared:

This is a historic moment, a moment of jubilation on route to full recognition of Palestinian independence and self-determination, that’s equally a call for reconsideration of positions to those wavering on the Security Council vote. It is also a foundation stone for what’s to come at the (Security Council) and other international organizations.

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova, speaking after the vote, said the “admission of a new member state is a mark of respect and confidence.” Bokova falsely believes that a government which lacks the basic prerequisites of statehood under international law deserves membership in her organization as a “mark of respect and confidence.” Abbas’s government does not control all the territory it purports to represent, and there are no internationally recognized borders negotiated with Israel in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242. Moreover, a government contemplating “unity” with Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of a member state of the United Nations, deserves neither the respect nor confidence of the international community.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice, piercing through the nonsense coming from UNESCO, tweeted: “Today’s vote to grant Palestinian membership in UNESCO is no substitute for direct negotiations, but it is deeply damaging to UNESCO.”

David Killion, the U.S. permanent representative to UNESCO, said the United States “cannot accept the premature Palestinian admission for membership in a United Nations specialized agency such as UNESCO.”

Under U.S. law, the Obama administration must cut off funding for UNESCO, as acknowledged by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

“The United States will refrain from making contributions to UNESCO,” Nuland said. This action stems from a provision of the U.S. code that states: “No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.”

The Palestine Liberation Organization is technically the Palestinian entity that represents the Palestinians in the United Nations.

The U.S. cut-off of funding will blow a big hole in UNESCO’s budget since the U.S. has been paying 22% of its budget – approximately $80 million in annual funding. A $60 million payment to UNESCO due in November will be the first casualty of the cut-off.

UNESCO was fully advised in advance of its impulsive decision to admit Palestine as a member state that its gravy train would be in jeopardy. Nevertheless, after her vain attempt to justify the UNESCO vote to admit such a dysfunctional entity as a member of equal status with the United States, UNESCO Director-General Bokova childishly complained about the financial consequences. “I believe it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that UNESCO does not suffer unduly,” she said, whining about losing funding from “our largest contributor, the United States.”

At a press conference at UN headquarters in New York that I attended, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made the same point.

Their pleas should be ignored. UNESCO is reverting to the same kind of irresponsible behavior that led to a U.S. boycott for almost two decades until it was finally ended by President George W. Bush in 2003.

In November 2010, UNESCO had already foreshadowed its pro-Palestinian agenda by adopting several proposals by Arab states reclassifying Jewish historical landmarks as “Palestinian sites.” This attempt to use the UN’s cultural agency to blur or obliterate the Jewish people’s historical connection to their homeland reinforces Abbas’s oft-repeated refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. A little more than a week ago, he proclaimed that “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a ‘Jewish state.’” Yet he points to the UN General Assembly partition resolution (Resolution 181), which explicitly recognizes a “Jewish State,” as a legal justification for his bid for Palestinian UN member state status.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had it right when she said the UNESCO cut-off of funding should be just the beginning. “Congress must pass pending U.N. reform legislation to cut off funding to any U.N. entity that grants any upgraded status to ‘Palestine,’” said Rep. Ros-Lehtinen. “Such strong action is the only way to deter other U.N. bodies from following in UNESCO’s footsteps, and to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from paying for biased entities at the U.N.”

Rash actions must have significant consequences or the rash actions will simply multiply. The United Nations has been misusing American taxpayers’ money for too long. It is time to push back.

Joseph Klein

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/01/a-haunting-vote-at-the-un/

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