Monday, August 20, 2012

Shin Bet: PA Security Guard Involved in Terror Plot


by Lilach Shoval

Four Palestinians arrested in Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine terror plot • One suspect worked as guard in Palestinian National Security Forces and cell planned to use weapons he could access as part of his duties with the Palestinian force.

One of the suspects worked as a guard in the Palestinian Authority Security Services. [Archive]
|
Photo credit: AP
Lilach Shoval

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5478

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

Republicans Who Understand Democrats


by Bruce Walker

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have an advantage in campaigning which Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not: Romney and Ryan have won elections in strongly Democrat areas and have learned how to make their case to voters who are not naturally inclined to vote Republican. Romney won election as governor of the only state that McGovern carried in 1972, a state which routinely shows near the top on the list of the most leftist and the most liberal in the union. Ryan won election from perhaps the most Democrat congressional district in Wisconsin.

Look a bit more closely in the families of these two candidates, and the inculcation of appealing to Democrat voters is even more profound. George Romney ousted popular Democratic Governor Swainson in 1962, gathering 51% of the vote. During the 1964 Johnson Landslide, Romney managed to win re-election with 55% of the vote, and in Romney's last election two years later, he collected 60%. This was in a state which was overwhelmingly Democrat and which had powerful labor unions which battled Romney again and again...and lost.

Paul Ryan's wife, Janna Ryan, has a long history of working in Democratic politics. She is the niece of David Boren, the popular Oklahoma governor who was elected to the Senate and then left the Senate as the third-most powerful member of the Democrat caucus. She also worked for Congressman Bill Brewster, whose Third Congressional District was nicknamed "Little Dixie" and which never voted Republican, even in presidential elections, until Reagan in 1980. This was also the district of House Speaker Carl Albert, the last moderate leader of House Democrats. Janna has not only experienced politics, but she has been immersed in Democrat politics.

These are strengths, not weaknesses, in the Republican ticket. Those conservatives who pine for the next Reagan forget that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat most of his life. Unlike much less successful Republican nominees -- Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, Dole, and Ford -- Reagan had not been a lifelong Republican. He knew how ordinary Democrats thought, and he was able to win huge numbers of them -- first to his election, and then to his party.

The difference between the Republican ticket and the Democrat ticket is stark. If there is one salient fact about Barack Obama, it is that he has grown up in a plastic bubble of Democrat leftism. Hawaii, Ivy League schools, Chicago machine politics in a strongly Democrat Illinois...except for his election in 2008, Obama has never even had to try to win Republican voters.

His wife has also grown up in an alternative universe of angry black Marxism, leftist law schools, and a church in which the parishioners sit quietly in their pews while a hate-mongering pastor spews out contempt for his chosen homeland. Wright's quotes about America are bad, but over and over he has said things which are simply nuts.

Both Barry and Michelle hung out with the most militant 1960s radicals, but more to the point, they never associated with ordinary Republicans. Indeed, to the Obama couple, simply being a Republican is akin to being a hopeless racist. They have no clue what actually moves Republican voters, and indeed, they often show utter ignorance of what ordinary Democrats -- the sort which once made Democrats the majority party -- feel and think.

The same is true of Biden. He comes from a state with two Democrat senators, a Democrat governor, and a Democrat congressman. Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Democrats. It is the sixth-most Democrat state in the nation, according to Gallup (Illinois is the tenth-most Democrat state.)

Small wonder, then, when Biden spoke of Republicans wanting to "put you all back in chains," that did not seem like over-the-top rhetoric to him. Like Obama, he has completed for Republican voters in an environment where Democrats are not the overwhelming majority in precisely one election: the 2008 presidential election.

Barry, Michelle, and Joe simply do not understand Republican voters at all. Mitt, Paul, and Janna, in sharp contrast, have persuaded successfully Democrats to vote for them, or, in the case of Mrs. Ryan, she has grown up in a political family which was Democrat and worked for a Democrat congressman.

At some point in the next ten weeks, that difference in the understanding which the Republican ticket has of ordinary Americans of both parties and the utter myopia which the Democrat ticket has about the largest political party in the nation will become brilliantly clear to millions of Americans. When that happens, the election is over.

Bruce Walker

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/republicans_who_understand_democrats.html

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

Confessions of an Ex-Liberal


by Carol Brown

Bill Whittle has nailed it.

He has spoken the truth about how liberals view conservatives (skip to the 1:55 mark for this part):

Liberals think that conservatives are:

a) Old

b) Stupid

c) Evil

d) Some of the above

e) All of the above

Indeed.



When I was a liberal, this was exactly the way I saw conservatives.

Let's start with Evil.

I would have a knee jerk reaction to any conservative assuming - knowing - they were rich, greedy, uncaring, selfish, and arrogant. Oh, and they liked to go to war just for the hell of it. In a word: Evil. I would not listen to conservatives talk on any issue because of my rock solid belief that they were horrible human beings who cared not a whit for others.

In this way, a feedback loop was created such that when a conservative would speak, I knew they were evil and felt no desire to listen. (Why get aggravated, right?) Or, if for some reason I was compelled to listen for a few minutes, every word that came out of their mouth was tainted with the awful truth that I knew. Yes, they were evil.

Next up: Stupid.

Like my conviction that conservatives were evil, so too was my firm belief that they were also, for the most part, stupid. (If a conservative somehow managed to squeak past my stupid label, it didn't matter because they were at the very least, evil.) There were all sorts of ways stupid played out. For sure, if they were from the south, they were dumb. If they were from the mid-west, well I just knew they couldn't be that bright. I mean, the great plains? How could anyone from there be smart? Any other geographic pockets of conservatives were also stupid because of the obvious fact that they were stupid. (Yeah, I know. Really pathetic.) In my view, only people from major cities could be smart. And then, only the highly educated. The intelligentsia.

As a student, I expected my professors and fellow students to be super liberal. If I got a whiff of anyone who seemed like they may not be toeing the party line to the fullest, I was disgusted. I also looked down on those who viewed college as a place to get job training. College was about study. It had nothing to do with anything concrete related to functioning as an independent adult in the real world.

(sigh)

And lastly: Old

Old was often part of a larger category that was about blandness and sameness. Conservatives were old, but also male, and also white. This fueled my feedback loop because all of these things were, well, you guessed it. Evil.

I would scratch my head in wonder about how any black person could be conservative. I thought

J. C. Watts was insane. I simply could not fathom how any black person could be a Republican. I felt bad for him. It seemed as if he was bamboozled. Yup. He was an Uncle Tom without a doubt.

Needless to say I did not appreciate the hypocrisy of my views. I was liberal. I was about freedom and opportunity for all. Yet here I was holding a view of a black man that dictated he must think a certain way.

I also had an incredible sense of entitlement regarding the media. If a conservative was interviewed, I was outraged. How dare they give that person air time! And if a conservative was interviewed on NPR, well that was just way over the line.

Seriously. This was my thinking.

All the while, I felt an extraordinary sense of self-righteousness. America was about liberalism. There was no room - no room! - for conservative ideas.

Needless to say (again), I did not appreciate my own hypocrisy. Here I was walking around, taking full advantage of living in a free and open society, while having a view of our society that was not free and open at all.

But of course I didn't see that. I didn't see any of it.

I've traveled a long journey since then and I would like to express my gratitude to American Thinker for being such an important place that helped me along the way.

Sometimes I wonder, and perhaps some of you do as well: Are we just preaching to the converted on these blogs? Then I remind myself that I was a non-conservative who visited AT, peered in, and stayed a little while, reading articles and comments. And I returned. And bit by bit ideas began to percolate. And questions arose. Perspectives began to shift. I started to seek out information and views contrary to what was familiar to me. And step by step I strayed far away from a lifetime of liberal "thinking."

Bill Whittle has it right about how liberals view conservatives. But change can, and does, occur.

Don't underestimate the power of your comments on these threads. You never know who may read a comment, follow a train of thought, become curious, and maybe, just maybe, begin a journey.

Carol Brown

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/confessions_of_an_ex-liberal.html

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

Egypt Fully Remilitarizing Sinai - with US Help


by Shoshana Bryen

Secretary Panetta is talking about helping Egypt to do something forbidden by the Camp David Accords -- bring large-scale forces into Sinai. Israel's long term concern is whether Egypt will at some point remove the additional forces. Recent comments by Egyptian government officials suggest they will not.

Egypt has moved forces into the Sinai beyond what was agreed to in the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. Getting them in wasn't that difficult – Israel agrees that security in the Sinai has deteriorated. Getting them out again later may be another matter. And how the U.S. positions itself to safeguard the treaty itself will be crucial.

One of the lesser-known American military deployments is as part of the Multinational Force & Observers in the Sinai (MFO), inserted in 1981. Its mission is to "supervise the implementation of the security provisions of the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace and employ best efforts to prevent violations of its terms." The MFO consists of 1,656 soldiers from 12 nations[1] and, according to its website, operates checkpoints, reconnaissance patrols and observation posts; verifies the continued implementation of various arms limitations in the Sinai; ensures freedom of navigation through the Strait of Tiran; and monitors the deployment of border guards along the Egyptian side of the Gaza/Egypt border to ensure that it meets the terms agreed to by Israel and Egypt in 2005.

The MFO, clearly, is not a fighting force; it is a peacekeeping force with an agreed-upon peace to keep.

So how odd it is that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has announced that the U.S. "is providing additional military assistance to peacekeeping forces in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula to strengthen security in the region."

Panetta said no additional troops had been sent to Sinai, but that the U.S. was working closely with Egyptian leaders "to determine what additional help they may need in order to ensure that the area is secured."

To change the mission of the MFO from monitoring the Israel-Egypt peace treaty to helping Egypt secure the Sinai from terrorists/jihadists/al Qaeda is a change that cannot be undertaken lightly – and should not be taken unilaterally. To change the force from the touchstone for both Israel and Egypt into an ally of Egypt in military operations will undermine its status in the future.

The MFO does need to secure itself in the face of rising violence and longtime Egypt-watcher David Schenker notes that it has already made adjustments.

The force has upgraded its vehicles in recent years, and many of them are fully or partially armored. Yet growing abduction fears have led to the cancellation of many patrols, and reconnaissance flights have reportedly been scaled back due to concerns about terrorists or other actors fielding man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS). Should the situation continue to deteriorate, the MFO might reduce its patrols even further.

He adds:

Over time, the MFO's mission will simply become untenable unless security improves in the Sinai -- or unless the rules of engagement are changed, which seems unlikely.

Changing the rules of engagement is much more likely now. Secretary Panetta is not talking about how the force protects itself while it does the job it was designed to do. He is talking about helping Egypt do something forbidden by the Camp David Accords – bring large-scale military forces into Sinai.

The fact is the U.S. and Israel have been somewhere between sanguine and cautiously happy regarding increased Egyptian concern about jihadists in the Sinai, and have accepted an Egyptian buildup that includes aircraft and helicopter gunships. Israel Radio reported Friday that the deployment includes anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles near the border. Israel's longer-term concern will be whether at some point Egypt removes the additional forces and returns to the agreed-upon restrictions and demilitarized zones.[2] Recent comments by Egyptian government officials suggest they will not.

Former presidential contender Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh called for President Morsi to reject limitations on Egyptian forces, saying, "The blood that has been spilled should force Egypt to assume full control of Sinai without the restrictions and obligations stipulated by this inequitable treaty that prevents Egypt's armed forces from deploying on Egyptian territory."

Mohammed Gadallah, a legal advisor to Morsi, said the Egyptian government is considering "amending" the Camp David Accords "to ensure Egypt's full sovereignty and control over every inch of Sinai."

It is hard to imagine a circumstance in which the United States should support the restoration of "full sovereignty and control" of Sinai, including military control, to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. Israeli analyst Ehud Yaari said if the Egyptians want to go in that direction, "Israel should have its answer ready" and that the mechanism for negotiating change is the MFO.

But if the MFO mission changes by design or by mission creep, it may provide little support for Israel's position. Secretary Panetta should be extremely careful about the circumstances under which the U.S. will supply "additional help" to increase the long term staying power of the Egyptian military where Israel does not necessarily agree it should be.

Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center. She was previously Senior Director of Security Policy at JINSA and author of JINSA Reports from 1995-2011.

[1] Australia, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, the Republic of the Fiji Islands, France, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, the United States and Uruguay

[2] Its second concern will have to be whether such weapons as the Stinger missiles reportedly given to Syrian rebels by the CIA will ultimately find their way to the Sinai via interlocking terrorist organizations.

Shoshana Bryen

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3293/egypt-rearming-sinai

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

Egyptian Tears Up the Quran on Camera


by Nonie Darwish

Instead of giving religious visas to Islamists who come to America to preach hate, the US should immediately declare that anyone who leaves Islam and is threatened should get a priority visa to the US. American embassies should, in fact, stop giving religious visas to those who are obviously Islamists: by doing so we are only breeding our own homegrown terrorists inside America.

Could this be the real Arab Spring? The Muslim world does not have to blame Pastor Terry Jones any more for burning the Quran or non-Muslims for desecrating it. They are now in shock over seeing a YouTube post of a young Egyptian man doing the unthinkable on camera: tearing up the Quran and putting it in the trash.

This is the summery translation of what he said:

"There it is, Allah's book, this is the basic catastrophe. I don't know what day it is of this disgusting month of Ramadan! You are making the tearing of the Quran such a big and dangerous thing.. it is instinctive to tear this book, those sons of b----s- think they can threaten me and challenge me to tear the Quran, but I want to prove to them that they are nothing and what is the big deal in tearing this book?!! There it is (he starts tearing up the Quran) in the trash. Are you feeling better now?! You cannot touch a hair on my head! We keep blaming Hamas and Gaza, but it is not them, it is this son of a b ----h book that I am stepping on right now. That book is the source of all evil and the real catastrophe. There is nothing new here, it is not Omar Abdel Rahman, Abbud or all the others, it is this garbage that is causing us to run in a demonic circle that will never end."

Although the young man's worlds were very insulting, this is the same language that Muslims commentators use against him and against anyone who leaves Islam. The comments about this video are extremely violent, scary and vastly more insulting than anything this young man said in the video. This is the kind of language many Muslims use against any critique of Islam. I worry about this young man who seems to be living in Egypt. There have been hundreds of fatwas [religious edicts] calling for his death issued against him already: the responses to the video threaten him with, "I will kill you" and "I will cut your tongue, your ears, your arms and legs, as Mohammed would, and leave you for dead."

Instead of giving religious visas to Islamists who come to build mosques in America and preach hate, the US should immediately declare that anyone who leaves Islam and is threatened will get a priority visa to the US, ahead of Islamists. American embassies across the Muslim world should, in fact, stop giving religious visas especially to those who are obviously Islamists: by doing so we are breeding our own homegrown terrorists inside America.

Throughout the history of Islam, many people where tortured, beheaded, jailed, ostracized, or had their limbs cut off for as little as accidentally stepping on the Quran. The Sharia punishment for blasphemy of the Quran and Mohammed is death even if the perpetrator pleads it was an accident and they never meant to desecrate the Quran. There is a Filipina maid in the Arab Gulf who was jailed for accidentally sitting on the Quran which was on a sofa.

Now the Muslim world is starting to face the nightmare of a new kind of challenge from within: Muslims deliberately challenging this taboo and putting their lives on the line.

Islamic customs have elaborate rituals giving the highest esteem to the book itself and physically protecting the Quran from any disrespect. I remember as a child, placing a schoolbook on top of the Quran on a table; my grandparents harshly scolded me for doing that. The message was repeated over and over and over again never -- ever! -- to place anything visually or mentally on top of the Quran. In the same year the Arabs conquered the Christian city of Alexandria in Egypt, 639 AD, the Alexandria Library was burned down and the Quran became the one and only source of knowledge for the country.

The beginning of the end of Islam as we know it may just have begun: that will be the true Arab Spring.

The violence we are seeing today in the Arab world will accelerate when such confrontations to Islam increase and when the Muslim World wakes up from its 1400 year slumber.

In my book "The Devil We Don't Know", I predicted that Islam will fall like a house of cards, but the bloodshed will be huge and the world must leave the Muslim world to settle this on their own. The number one enemy of Islam is the truth and with today's technology, many Muslims are seeing the truth clearly on the internet, satellite dishes etc.

There is an awakening worldwide, not only about Islam, but also about other similar totalitarian ideologies. One hopes that next there will soon be the same awakening to the harm being done by Western liberalism and socialism, cousins and supporters of Islam and its tyranny. All such ideologies aim at covering up of the truth by using intimidation, fear-mongering and hatred, now so prevalent in American politics today.

It is not just the Muslim world that is changing and that needs change, but also America and Europe. We in America must also set aside books such as "Rules for Radicals" and other socialist propaganda of hatred. Whether Islamism or Socialism, both of these are ideologies based on lies, slander, hatred and control. America must protect itself from such corrosive ideologies by unapologetically reaffirming our Judeo-Christian culture and our Constitution of freedoms before they are taken away from us -- or, worse, we blindly give them away.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of "The Devil We Don't Know."

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3292/egyptian-tears-quran

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

U.S. Distorts Nigerian Jihad on Christians


by Raymond Ibrahim

Boko Haram's terror campaign is motivated entirely by religion -- even as the Obama administration refuses to designate the group a terrorist organization, spends millions of U.S. tax dollars on superfluous initiatives to find out the "true causes," and pressures the Nigerian president to make concessions, including building more mosques, the very structures where Muslims are radicalized and converted to Boko Haram's jihad -- while the Boko Haram pressures the Nigerian president to "repent and forsake Christianity."

While the Obama administration continues to say that the Islamic group Boko Haram's jihad against Nigeria's Christians—which has seen countless churches destroyed, and thousand Christians killed— has nothing to do with religion, the group once again made clear that it is all about religion. According to a recent report:

In an online video released last week, the militant Muslim group Boko Haram demanded that Nigeria's Christian president either convert to Islam, or resign. [Boko] Haram head Abubakar Shekau told President Goodluck Jonathan to "repent and forsake Christianity," otherwise Shekau's followers would continue their violent campaign...

Indeed, despite the fact that the Obama administration has agreed to spend $600 million in an USAID initiative launched to ascertain the "true causes" behind Boko Haram's murderous bloodlust, the fact is it was clear from the very beginning that the group and other Muslims were enraged that Nigeria was being led by a Christian, President Goodluck Jonathan, even though he won elections "by a landslide."

Writing back in April 2011, Nigerian analyst Peter Run said:

The current wave of riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission's (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was [deemed] intolerable was unsurprising…. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.

Once again, then, reality is easily ascertained—at root, Boko Haram's terror campaign is entirely motivated by religion—even as the Obama administration refuses to designate the group as a terrorist organization, spends millions of U.S. tax dollars on superfluous initiatives (or diversions), and pressures the Nigerian president to make concessions, including building more mosques, the very structures where Muslims are radicalized and recruited to Boko Haram's jihad.

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

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3290/nigerian-jihad-christians

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

Palestinian ‘Honor Killings’ Rising


by Frank Crimi



A growing collection of Palestinian leaders are acknowledging that the recent rise in “honor killings” and other horrific acts of violence being perpetrated against Palestinian women can only be stemmed by changing the Arab cultural and Islamic propensity of violence toward women.

The latest victim of a Palestinian honor killing was Nancy Zaboun, a 27-year-old mother of three, who, moments after she left a divorce hearing in Bethlehem, was brutally murdered by her husband.

Nancy had been in the process of seeking an early exit from her marriage after having suffered repeated beatings over the course of her ten-year marriage, beatings that often required hospitalization but which never resulted in criminal charges being brought against her husband.

Unfortunately, Nancy Zaboun’s attempt to flee her abusive marriage caused such a stain on her husband’s familial honor that he stabbed her multiple times, a death sentence which tragically has been shared by a long and ever-expanding list of Palestinian women and girls.

In the years between 2007 and 2010, the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights has reported 29 women were killed by family members in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, in the past two years, 25 women have been subjected to honor killings, with 13 women murdered in 2011 and 12 women slain in 2012.

Those victims include: 17-year-old Rofayda Qaoud, whose mother placed a plastic bag over her head and slashed her wrists after she had been raped and impregnated by her two brothers; 27-year-old Fadia Najjar, a divorced mother of five, bludgeoned to death by her father because she owned a cell phone that he thought she was using to call a man outside of the family; and 20-year-old Aya Baradiya, tied up and thrown down a well to die by her uncle because he disapproved of her engagement.

Yet, while honor killings have long been a staple byproduct of Palestinian society, the sharp upsurge in familial murder over the past several years has generated widespread condemnation by a growing coalition of Palestinian officials and human rights activists, denunciations which have included calls for new criminal legislation and longer prison terms.

To that end, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in May 2011 issued a decree that amended decades-old laws which had guaranteed “leniency” for honor killers such that prison terms might not exceed three years.

The result of the presidential decree, according to PA Justice Minister Ali Mohanna, is that honor killings are now treated as any other murder, and, as such, claims of assailants that they were simply protecting “family honor” are no longer taken into account.

However, that judicial opinion is not equally shared by all, as critics argue the Palestinian legal system does not punish the crime of honor killing severely enough and thus still allows for violence against women to continue to go unpunished.

Specifically, they point to the fact that tenets of the amended laws in President Abbas’ legal order left in place can still be used to justify honor killings, such as mitigating circumstances that let perpetrators avoid severe punishment if they can prove that they acted in a “state of rage.”

As such, Attorney Salwa Banura said the new law encourages murders, since mitigating circumstances “are accepted by the courts, and a man who murders his daughter, wife or sister stays in prison only three months, and is then released.”

Yet, unfortunately, honor killings remain just one small aspect of the horrific torment faced by Palestinian women and girls at the hands of Palestinian men.

A recent study done by the Gaza-based Palestinian Women’s Information and Media Center found that 67 percent of Palestinian women reported being subjected to verbal violence on a regular basis, 71 percent to psychological violence, 52 percent to physical violence and 14 percent to sexual violence.

Not surprisingly, for some, this pervasive violence has been laid at the feet of the usual suspects, namely the Israelis. This scapegoating was summarily expressed in a 2011 report by the United Nations Economic and Social Council which blamed harsh economic and social conditions created by the Israeli “siege,” an occupation which has led to high levels of poverty, unemployment and, thus, “violence, within families.”

That belief was echoed by Rahiba Diab, the PA’s Minister of Women’s Affairs, who recently said that while the Palestinian Authority was committed to eliminating all forms of violence against Palestinian women, one should not “forget about the violence that comes from the critical political situation that we’re living under as Palestinians.”

However, an increasing number of leaders and human rights activist are refusing to buy into Israeli complicity as an excuse for Palestinian man-on-woman violence, but rather instead laying the blame on a much deeper problem, namely, “Arab-Muslim culture.”

For starters, while they applaud legislative efforts to at least address the issue of violence against women as a crucial first step, they maintain no amount of legislation will stop the violence and killings until cultural attitudes change within Palestinian society.

Those cultural attitudes, according to Mona Shawa, head of the women’s unit at the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza City, are based on female inequality and discrimination that “encourages violence against women.”

For her part, Maysoun Ramadan, Director of the Mehwar Center, the West Bank’s only women’s shelter, has simply noted, “We have a lot of previous constructions about women which need to be changed.”

Those “previous constructions” were bluntly articulated by Israeli-Arab lecturer Yusuf Jabareen in a June 2012 interview on Palestinian TV in which he placed the blame squarely on an Arab culture which has served to produce a deep vein of misogynistic cruelty in Arab men, callousness that encompasses their own immediate and extended families as well as women in general.

As Jabareen further explained, “Part of our [Palestinian] identity is to attack women… to beat women… – we must acknowledge it…Palestinian identity has its charms, but there are things that we have adopted from Arab culture for centuries that harm the individual and the woman…That’s part of our identity.”

Giving voice to that belief, the official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida weighed in with two editorials that said it is an Arab “tribal mentality” that justifies the murder of women, rationalization based in part because many Palestinians “still think of them [women] as the bent rib of Adam, void of intelligence or religion.”

So, in an effort to rectify that thinking, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida has called for a “cultural revolution”

“Our [Arab and Muslim] societies consider the crime of violence against women, honor killings, and avenging the killing [of relatives], as legitimate, understandable and [part of] a unique heritage. There are some who even praise and glorify this [honor killing] as a manly, heroic act, turning it into an aspect of [our] culture that molds the character of Arab and Islamic societies. If we wish to free our society from this crime’s octopus grasp, we must first admit that without a cultural revolution that will cleanse our perceptions, our books, and our heritage from sanctifying murder performed in the name of Allah and honor, we will not be able to take a single step towards lessening this crime[.]”

Unfortunately, while Palestinian misogyny may indeed have an Arabic taste to it, deeply marinated Islam gives it its full flavor, seasoning found in Muslim countries throughout the Mideast, South Asia and Africa, where men more often than not treat women little better than livestock.

Changing that dismal equation will take more than just a cultural revolution.

Frank Crimi

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frank-crimi/palestinian-honor-killings-rising/

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

The Muslim Brothers Take Over Egypt


by Bruce Thornton




We don’t hear much anymore the breathless celebrations of Egyptian democracy that followed our abandonment of the creepy but reliable Hosni Mubarak. The “Facebook kids” who enchanted our media with their tech-savvy cool have been forgotten. It’s hard to find anymore the optimism of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who in Foreign Affairs called the Arab Spring a struggle for “democracy, dignity, economic opportunity, and involvement in the modern world.” Events in Egypt every day reveal that shortsighted enthusiasm to be singularly lacking in prudence, and almost delusional in its naïve understanding of genuine democracy. But our government continues to pretend that the Muslim Brothers running the show are democrats whose interests can align with ours.

As each day passes, the Muslim Brothers are consolidating their power and shaping a government that looks less and less like a liberal democracy. President Mohammed Morsi has removed a major check on his power, Defense Minister Mohammed Hussein Tantawi. He was the leader of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which had been running Egypt since Mubarak was ousted last February, and which countered the influence of the Islamists. Also sacked were his fellow council members, the acting chiefs of Egypt’s military branches. Morsi then annulled SCAF’s constitutional declarations that had kept Morsi from exercising legislative power. As The Christian Science Monitor reported, the Muslim Brothers’ Morsi “now theoretically holds all the formal political power in the Arab world’s largest country. He can legislate, nominate members of the constitutional drafting committee, set foreign policy, and apparently shuffle the senior ranks of the military at will.”

Around the same time, Morsi went after newspapers that weren’t following the Muslim Brothers’ line. Editions of Al-Dustour, one of the few newspapers not run by the government, were removed from newsstands for “fueling sedition” and “harming the president through phrases and wording punishable by law,” according to Egypt’s official news agency. This follows the shutting down of a television network, el-Faraeen, and the Muslim Brothers-dominated parliament’s move to replace the editors of the state-run newspapers.

Finally, just a few days ago Morsi targeted the Egyptian judiciary, seeking to limit the courts’ power and remove anti-Islamist judges. The president of the Lawyers’ Syndicate, Sameh Ashour, pointed out the obvious intent behind Morsi’s actions: “These are monopolistic plans. The Brotherhood wants to control all aspects of the state.” The next step will be the drafting of a new constitution that will further emasculate the Supreme Constitutional Court, which has been an obstacle to the Muslim Brothers since Mubarak’s fall.

Of course, no one familiar with the Muslim Brothers’ aim to institute shari’a law in Egypt and, in the words of Muslim Brothers founder Hassan al Banna, to see “the Islamic banner . . . wave supreme over the human race,” will be surprised. Yet for the Obama administration, the mechanics of democratic elections trump the noxious ideology manipulating the machinery. Hence Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Morsi is that the United States is eager to “support the democratically elected government and to help make it a success in delivering results for the people of Egypt.” Clinton shows no awareness that the “results” the Muslim Brothers and their millions of supporters want to deliver are unlikely to be those compatible with liberal democracy and human rights. Similarly myopic is the invitation to the White House issued to a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a notorious Egyptian terrorist outfit. State Department flack Victoria Nuland explained the visit by saying, “We have an interest in engaging a broad cross-section of Egyptians who are seeking to peacefully shape Egypt’s future.” Like her boss, Nuland seems oblivious to the sort of “future” the Muslim Brothers and other jihadists have in mind. She too should listen to al Banna, who wrote, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations, and extend its power to the entire planet.”

A similar blindness to reality lies behind the invitation to Morsi to visit the White House in September, which came right after the Muslim Brothers’ “Supreme Guide,” Muhammed Badi, in a Friday sermon preached “the necessity for every Muslim to strive to save al-Quds [Jerusalem] from the hands of the rapists [Israelis] and to cleanse Palestine from the clutches of the occupation, deeming this an individual duty for all Muslims,” as the Freedom Center’s Raymond Ibrahim has reported. Nor does Badi leave vague the means for achieving this aim: “The improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” And this “improvement and change” involves not just the destruction of Israel, but the institution of a global caliphate that will lead to Islam’s “mastership of the world.”

So it is that the United States is abetting an expansionist, illiberal ideology that openly proclaims its willingness to use violence to achieve its aims. We are legitimizing a regime that threatens our closest ally in the region by ending the cold peace with Israel that has left her southern border relatively secure for over 30 years, and emboldening the terrorist Hamas organization that runs Gaza and rains down missiles on Israeli towns and cities. We are turning our backs on 10 million Coptic Christians who already are being marginalized, threatened, brutalized, and murdered by Muslims. And we continue to finance, to the tune of $1.3 billion a year, a regime fired up by an ideology that hates us and everything we stand for. We’re not just selling the jihadists the rope they will use to hang us––we’re giving it to them for free.

What is astonishing about this inability to see past the pleasing banners of “freedom” and “democracy” is that this mistake has been made many times before. Moreover, we were warned against it over 200 years ago, by Edmund Burke in his classic Reflections on the Revolution in France. Like today’s enthusiasts for the “Arab Spring,” many in Europe back then were seduced by the cries of “liberty, fraternity, equality” coming from those who unleashed the horrific violence of the Terror and plunged Europe into a continent-wide war. Burke’s warning against such imprudent support still resonates today: “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints. Prudence would dictate this in the case of separate, insulated, private men, but liberty, when men act in bodies, is power. Considerate people, before they declare themselves, will observe the use which is made of power, and particularly of so trying a thing as new power in new persons of whose principles, tempers, and dispositions they have little or no experience.”

Our own failure to heed this advice is all the worse because we do have experience of the “principles and tempers” of the Muslim Brothers and the other jihadist outfits whom we are supporting and financing. We can only wonder what it will take before we accept that the Islamists are acquiring power to do exactly what they’ve been telling us they intend to do––“see the Islamic banner wave supreme over the human race.”

Bruce Thornton

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/the-muslim-brothers-are-taking-over-egypt/

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

The Price of Dempsey’s Different Clocks


by Jonathan S. Tobin

When General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters yesterday that Israel and the United States are on “different clocks” regarding Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, he was doing more than stating what has already become obvious. Dempsey’s purpose in saying so publicly was more evidence that Washington is determined to ward off pressure from Israel to abandon its complacent attitude toward the Iranian threat. But it is also just one more instance in which the Obama administration has sought to create more daylight between U.S. and Israeli positions on security matters. While the president and his advisors think they are trying to teach the Netanyahu government a lesson, the main effect of this public disagreement is to encourage the Iranians to think that they don’t have to worry that much about either Israel or the United States.

Washington is frustrated because the Israelis won’t shut up about the consequences of a Western policy that has allowed the Iranians to keep refining uranium and getting closer to their nuclear goal. Dead-end diplomacy and loosely enforced sanctions have merely played into Tehran’s hands and the Israelis have been vocal about the fact that they are not going to simply stand by and wait patiently until Iran accumulates so much nuclear material stored in hardened underground bunkers that it will be too late to do anything about it. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is said to believe that moment will pass within a few months rather than the years the Americans say it will take. But rather than work with the Israelis and give them some concrete assurance that the president meant it when he said he would not allow Iran to go nuclear, the main reaction from the White House has been pique at Netanyahu’s chutzpah and public signals indicating the Israelis are on their own. This strengthens the security of neither the U.S. nor Israel. All it does is illustrate Mitt Romney’s point about the foolishness of the administration’s Middle East policy.

As the Times of Israel reports, General Dempsey spoke about the issue while on a flight to Afghanistan and acknowledged that Israelis view the issue differently from the Americans:

“They are living with an existential concern that we are not living with,” he said, according to AFP.

Dempsey added that he and Israel Defense Forces Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz spoke on a bi-weekly basis to coordinate intelligence, despite gaps in understanding how close Iran is to the point of no return.

“We compare intelligence, we discuss regional implications. And we’ve admitted to each other that our clocks are turning at different rates,” he said.

This is a critical problem for which the Israelis are being blamed in the world press since they are viewed as troublemakers or provocateurs because they refuse to allow the Obama administration to go on pretending that diplomacy and sanctions have a chance to change the minds of the ayatollahs. But the problem with this view of the situation is that no one in Washington is prepared to seriously argue that the current Western policy has a chance of success. Washington is continuing to act as if the failed P5+1 talks can be revived or that sanctions will miraculously bring Tehran to its knees. But the only purpose of this pretense is to stall the discussion about Iran until after the November election when presumably the president will have the “flexibility” to propose an even more generous deal to the Islamist regime.

But even if we were to assume the president is sincere about his desire to stop Iran, his decision to allow administration officials to publicly express their disagreement with Israel is undermining any chance that diplomacy could ever succeed. So long as the Iranians are convinced the Americans are focused more on squelching Israeli self-defense than on halting their nuclear program, they are the ones who will show patience. They don’t think Obama is serious when he pledges that he will neither accept nor seek to merely contain a nuclear Iran. Nor do they think he will ever use force against them.

As in its past gaffes on the Israel-Palestinian diplomatic process, the daylight that Obama has opened between Washington and Jerusalem is merely serving to sink any hope that the goals he claims to support can be accomplished. The more American officials talk about Israel and the U.S. having “different clocks,” the more certain it is that the Iranian leadership thinks they can run out the clock on Western diplomacy and achieve their nuclear ambition unscathed.

Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/20/the-price-of-martin-dempsey-different-clocks-israel-iran-nuclear/

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

Baghdad on the Nile


by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

What to make of the Egyptian president's recent decisions to sack both his minister of defense, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, and the army chief of staff, Sami Hafez Enan, to force the heads of the air force, navy and air defense to retire, and to annul the addenda to the constitution issued by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces on June 18, just prior to the elections?

Much as we can understand the moves against Tantawi and company from a good-government perspective, it is clear that Morsi's actions should be understood, first and foremost, as attempts to consolidate his power. Last week's debacle in Sinai that led to the deaths of 16 soldiers provided an apt occasion to make a move. Dismissing Tantawi and other senior military figures who are essentially remnants of the Mubarak regime serves a double purpose.

First, it allows Morsi to promote ideological confederates -- primarily among the younger officer corps -- in an institution seen as a constraint on presidential power and on the implementation of Islamist ideology. Second, as regards those who may not necessarily be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology but are willing to pledge loyalty to the president, there is ample opportunity for Morsi here to establish patron-client networks that form an integral part of political life in the wider region, as my friend Abu Faris in Cairo pointed out to me.

This is where an analogy with Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq is appropriate. Even though we would not normally see a parallel between the Shi'i prime minister of Iraq and the Sunni president of Egypt, certain similarities in their situations and hence their behavior prove to illuminate Morsi's actions. In post-invasion Iraq, the Saddam-era armed forces had already been dissolved, allowing Maliki's own Islamic Dawa Party and like-minded groups to fill the ranks with their own Shi'a partisans and to solidify their patronage networks.

When he became premier in 2006 ‏(having replaced Ibrahim Jaafari as the leader of the Dawa party), Maliki continued this process. Recently, however, he has aimed to bring back Sunni soldiers from the Saddam era -- provided they are willing to pledge him loyalty, something that can be seen as a way to nurture Sunni Arab support for the premier and to weaken pro-autonomy trends in the west and north of the country.

It should be noted that in his moves to monopolize his grip on Iraq's security forces, Maliki has the support of the Interior Ministry, which his party controls, and of the intelligence agencies he created.

Similarly, as Abu Faris noted in a discussion with me, Egypt's Morsi has the backing of the Interior Ministry and the country's mukhabarat ‏(intelligence services) for his initiatives against the traditional military hierarchy. In this context, one can also understand better Morsi's recent crackdown on the independent media, which parallels the behavior of Maliki's government. In Iraq, the security forces have often harassed journalists, depending on a law that allows the premier to fine or imprison anyone deemed to have insulted the government and authorities. Frequently, the targeting of independent media entails accusations of whipping up sectarian hatred or conspiring against the government (e.g. by supporting the banned Ba'ath party).

In Egypt, moves against independent media have entailed placing travel restrictions on Tawfik Okasha -- owner of the Al-Faraeen TV station, which has now been shut down by the Egyptian authorities -- and on Islam Afifi, who runs the Christian-owned newspaper Al-Dustour. As The National newspaper reports, Al-Dustour faces charges on allegedly "harming the president through phrases and wording punishable by law," while the pretext against Okasha is that he has been calling for the assassination of Morsi and inciting sectarianism.

To be sure, Okasha is a deranged conspiracy theorist, obsessed with Zionism and Freemasonry. However, it is clear that he is simply being targeted for his stance against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, and there is no evidence that he has ever called for murder or any other form of criminal sabotage. As for claims of stirring up sectarian strife, these unsubstantiated charges amount to little more than hypocrisy.

There are, after all, plenty of Islamist TV channels in Egypt inciting hatred against the Shi'a, who already face a precarious situation in that country (along with Copts and other members of minorities‏), yet these stations are not subject to any restrictions at all. For example, on one Salafist channel, Al-Nas TV, Mohamed Fawzi, who hosts a cooking show on the station, recently declared, "By Allah, you people [the Shi'a] are dogs ... Enough said, if there is a real Islamic regime, you people will not exist anymore ... I lived in Iraq for four and a half years, and these were the best days of my life. Allah's mercy upon Saddam Hussein. He wouldn't let you utter a single word."

Both Maliki and Morsi come from Islamist backgrounds in organizations for which being an open activist during the Saddam and Mubarak eras, respectively, meant risking, at the minimum, imprisonment and torture. It is therefore not surprising that the two have a paranoid mindset that sees a need to preempt perceived coup attempts and crack down on supposed threats to one's power.

Of course, neither man is a de facto dictator as of yet, and elections have been held in theory as an obstacle to such totalitarian power, but analyst Kirk Sowell of the biweekly newsletter Inside Iraqi Politics speculates that Maliki could evolve into a figure like Russia's Vladimir Putin. The same might also be said of Morsi.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3306/baghdad-on-the-nile

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