Gaddafi's Fin de Régime

by Daniel Pipes

The violent demise of the Middle East's longest-ruling leader – who came to office in September 1969, just a few months after Richard Nixon – stands well outside the mainstream of the region's politics, but then Moammer Gaddafi always did.

Moammer Gaddafi in regalia.

Gaddafi (for the record, the correct spelling of his name is Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhāfi) began his rule at the tender age of 27, just as Pan-Arabist ideology was dying down; undeterred, long after others had given up on this fantasy, he remained a proponent of the notion of turning all Arabic countries into one gigantic whole. Eventually frustrated with Arabic-speakers, where the small population of Libya limited his influence, he turned south, where his outsized energy income bestowed real clout in Africa.

Fortunately for the world, every one of his hare-brained schemes came to naught. What I observed in 1981 still holds true: "For all Qadhdhafi's hyperactivity, he rarely gets his way; empty promises and fanaticism on his part have repeatedly undermined his ceaseless efforts to project power. … Qadhdhafi has won many battles but not a single war."

How deeply satisfying will it be to watch as a brave and desperate people sweep this eccentric, nasty, and repressive tyrant into the dustbin of history. How gratifying that he has alienated nearly the entire world, even the U.N. Security Council. May his ugly example serve as a permanent warning to other dictators who make war on their populations.

On a personal note: I have watched Gaddafi with interest through the years in part because my career in Middle East studies began coterminous with his rule. Also, he invited me in 2007 to Libya for a one-on-one chat. Although at the time curious about meeting him, in retrospect I am glad I did not. A shower does not cleanse oneself of some encounters. (February 24, 2011)

Original URL:http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/02/gaddafi-fin-de-regime

Daniel Pipes

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

If Anyone Cares - and Few Do - the UN Sorta Condemns Libya

by Rick Moran

If it had been the US or another western country using helicopter gun ships to mow down unarmed civilians in the streets, my guess would be that half the UN delegates would have had a case of apoplexy and demanded drum head trials and executions of American leaders.

But this is the bunch that elected Libya to the Human Rights Council - a mistake that they are refusing to rectify despite what is turning out to be Tiananmen Square on steroids. The UN resolution on Libya is full of fire and brimstone:

The council's 15 members said the Libyan government should "meet its responsibility to protect its population", act with restraint, and respect human rights and international humanitarian law.

The Libyan authorities should also hold accountable those people responsible for attacking civilians, and respect the rights of its citizens to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and press freedom, they added.

British ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said the statement was "extremely strong", and indicated further measures were likely in the coming days.

Well, perhaps not fire and brimstone. More like milquetoast and oatmeal. A UN spokesman gravely announced that it was "too soon" to talk about sanctions. Nothing like quick, decisive action by our international Keepers of Human Rights.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi is probably congratulating himself that the world, as usual, will stand by while he cleanses his country of anyone who doesn't agree that they live in paradise.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/if_anyone_cares_and_few_do_the.html

Rick Moran

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

The Mad Dog of the Middle East

by Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was new to the scene when he marched into the Arab summit in Cairo in September 1970, exactly one year after he had staged a successful coup in Libya, at the young age of 27, ousting his predecessor, the ailing King Idriss, aged 80.

Dressed in military uniform with a revolver strapped around his belt, the flamboyant young man wanted to come across as an "Arab Che Guevara". The Arabs assembled in Egypt were busily trying to hammer out a solution to a bloody showdown in Amman between King Hussein and the Palestinians, known as Black September.

Gaddafi, a protege of Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser who was ostensibly committed to Arab nationalism, was furious with Hussein. In words that seem strangely appropriate today, Gaddafi barked, "We are faced with a madman like Hussein who wants to kill his own people. We must send someone to seize him, handcuff him, stop him from doing what he is doing, and take him off to a mental asylum!"

King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, a wise old man, gently said, "I don't think you should call an Arab king a madman who should be taken to an asylum." Gaddafi snapped back: "But he is mad! All his family is mad! It's a matter of record!" Gaddafi was making reference to Hussein's father King Talal who abdicated in 1951 because he was mentally unfit to rule Jordan.

The wise Faisal remarked: "Well, perhaps all of us are mad." Nasser intervened, "Sometimes when you see what is going on in the Arab world, your majesty, I think this may be so. I suggest we appoint a psychiatrist to examine us regularly and find one which ones are crazy."

Days later, Nasser was dead - but apparently Gaddafi dodged the mental check-ups. Had a psychiatrist examined him in 1970, he probably would have declared him mentally unfit to rule Libya. Young and still very insecure, Gaddafi resorted to outrageous behavior and loud publicity stunts, probably to cover for his tremendous internal weakness and complexities, especially when compared to older, wiser and better established Arab leaders.

He lacked the charm of Nasser, the nationalistic credentials of Tunisia's Habib Bourgeiba, the brains of Syria's Hafez al-Assad, or the wisdom of Saudi Arabia's King Faisal. Eager to prove himself equal to all the rest, he entered an ill-fated union with Egypt and Syria in 1972, which never saw light, followed by another failed attempt at union with Tunisia in 1974, which quickly turned into animosity.

When both attempts failed, Gaddafi took off his military uniform and began to dress in outrageous Peacock colors, certain that if his policies failed to attract world media, then his colorful costumes, and assortment of 40 women bodyguards (ostensibly all virgins) certainly would.

He then opened his country to every resistance movement across the planet, provided it was seriously involved "in fighting Western imperialism". In 1975, he authored his ridiculous philosophical work, The Green Book, copying from Nasser's own book, The Philosophy of Revolution and the works of other revolutionaries like Mao Zedong's Little Red Book. Chairman Mao's book came out over the years 1964-1976, while Gaddafi's was released in three volumes between 1975 and 1979.

When it was clear that his people were not going to take The Green Book seriously, seeing it as a compilation of rubbish, he imposed the book on schools, universities, bookstores, TV, radio, and every foreign visitor coming to see him in Tripoli, translating it into several languages. He did not stop there, taking up green as the official color of Libya.

Gaddafi then decided to "adopt" the Palestinian cause, lavishly dishing out money to then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. When Arafat refused to track down and assassinate Gaddafi's opponents outside of Libya, Gaddafi immediately turned against him, expelling the Palestinians from Libya, closing down their offices, and halting his subsidies.

Another forced exodus of 30,000 followed in 1995, and he threatened to extradite "up to one million" Palestinians, regardless of what their fate would be, to punish Arafat for signing Oslo with the Israelis. The fact that he was persecuting the Palestinians - the sacred cow of Arab nationalism - did not really matter to Gaddafi; and nor did the fact that he was repeating what King Hussein had done to them in 1970. He continued to insist that his welfare state was committed, in rank-and-file, to the Palestinians.

For the past 41 years, Gaddafi has tried to fill the oversized shoes of Nasser, who died one year after the Libyan colonel came to power. He saw Anwar al-Sadat's 1979 peace with Israel as a god-sent opportunity to become godfather of Arab nationalism, but was outsmarted by Syria's Assad, who picked up the mantle after Nasser.

Realizing that the Arab neighborhood was not his cup of tea, he began supporting liberation movements and rebels in West Africa, notably Sierra Leone and Liberia, declaring that Libya was more African than it was Arab. In the 1980s, Gaddafi graced the world stage as a firm opponent of US president Ronald Reagan, who personally dubbed him the "mad dog of the Middle East".

By March 1982, the US had declared a ban on import of Libyan oil, and the export of US technology to Libya. In April 1986, the US intercepted messages from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin suggesting Libyan involvement in bombing of La Belle, a now famous Berlin discotheque.

Reagan ordered a massive bombing of Libyan cities in response, which led to the killing of hundreds of civilians, including Gaddafi's adopted daughter Hanna. Gaddafi fired two Scud missiles at the US Coast Guard stationed next to an Italian island, both of which landed in the sea, with no casualties.

His relations with Britain also suffered when a British policewoman was shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London while monitoring anti-Gaddafi demonstrations. As a result, Gaddafi's relations with London were suspended for an entire decade, and restored after Tony Blair visited him in Tripoli in 2004.
Probably Gaddafi's most infamous act was the Lockerbie Bombing of 1988, bringing down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, killing 270 innocent passengers. International sanctions were imposed over Libya throughout the 1990s, and were only lifted when Gaddafi decided to come clean, shortly after the toppling of his friend and comrade, Saddam Hussein.

In August, 2003 Gaddafi wrote to the United Nations formally accepting responsibility for Lockerbie, paying compensation of up to US$2.7 billion for the families of victims. World leaders flocked to Libya in reward, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy paying him a visit in July 2007, followed by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in August 2008, and UN secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in September.

For four decades, ordinary Arabs dealt with Gaddafi as a sad reality that they just had to live with - given that they could not change. Gaddafi has worked with four Saudi kings, three Syrian and three Egyptian presidents, and five Arab League secretary generals. He has survived eight US presidents, several of whom served for two terms, and five French ones.

He would often gloat that he is the "king of kings in North Africa" and "dean of Arab kings and presidents". Arab leaders were never too fond of him, because of his eccentric behavior, humoring him early into his regime, because he was a protege of Nasser.

Gaddafi learned, at the young age of 27, that he could do just about anything he pleased in the Arab world - and get away with it. Nothing stuck to Gaddafi, no scandal from eccentric behavior, no guilt because of bloodshed, and embarrassment because of poor leadership.

That all explains why the "king of kings" did not even blink when mowing down protesters in Benghazi and Tripoli over the past week, whipping up a death toll of nearly 300 Libyan citizens. He hired African tribes to kill his own countrymen, fired at the unarmed demonstrators from airplanes, contaminated the waters of Benghazi, and cut off fuel to prevent opponents from commuting between Libyan cities. It was Gaddafi being Gaddafi, right until the apparent end.

The outrageous Gaddafi, who likes to be called "Brother Muammar", has made it clear, through his son Seif al-Islam, that he will not step down, because if he does, "Western imperialism" will return to Libya. He will fight until the last man, and woman, and insists on staying in power until curtain fall.

Seif al-Islam's speech was one ripped right out of his father's dictionary, reeking of violence, brute force, and dictatorship. Probably learning from the Tunisia and Egypt scenarios, he will refuse to flee like Tunisia's Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali or resign like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.

"Big Brother Muammar" will either be toppled when and if the angry Libyan street storms his palaces in Tripoli, or if he is arrested by a military coup. Suicide perhaps, would be easier for him, than surrender.

Original URL:http: //www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB23Ak02.html

Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria.

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

Two Million Egyptians Chant Death to Israel

by Frontpagemag.com

Two million Egyptians in Tahrir Square chant “To Jerusalem we are heading, Martyrs in the millions”:

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/23/two-million-egyptians-chant-death-to-israel/

Frontpagemag.com

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

The Left’s Hand in Fort Hood

by Ryan Mauro

When Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 and killed 13, his shouts of “Allah Akbar” during the attack left little doubt that it was motivated by radical Islam. A new Senate report finds that that the attack was preventable and that the government failed to take indications of Hasan’s extremist ideology seriously and this resistance to calling a spade a spade is ongoing.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report, titled “A Ticking Time Bomb,” says that the Department of Defense and the FBI “collectively had sufficient information to have detected Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it.” It said that there were “specific systemic failures in the government’s handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.”

Senator Susan Collins criticized the Obama Administration for failing to mention the ideology behind the terrorists, including Hasan, saying “the refusal to distinguish violent Islamic extremism from the peaceful, protected exercise of the Muslim religion sends the wrong message as it implies they can’t be distinguished.” The Obama Administration, on the other hand, is purposely vague out of the same concern.

On May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying before Congress when he was pressed on this issue. “There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious,” he said. Rep. Lamar Smith pressed him to define the ideology behind Hasan, to which Holder said, “No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano spoke with more clarity in February 2010, saying “Violent Islamic terrorism…was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings.” She had earlier been criticized for referring to “man-made disasters” instead of specifically mentioning terrorism, a decision she described as part of a “move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

This lack of clarity has been present throughout President Obama’s time in office. The War on Terror has alternatively been referred to as an “overseas contingency operation,” “a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm,” and “countering violent extremism.” Terms like “radical Islam” do not appear in the Quadrennial Defense Review, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review or the National Security Strategy documents, the latter of which had “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict on the early years of the 21^st century” removed from its contents. Even in the specific case of the Fort Hood shooting, none of the military branches’ reports mention radical Islam in investigating what is obviously a radical Islamic terrorist attack.

The Fort Hood shooting is a case study in ignoring unmistakable signs of adherence to radical Islamic beliefs. In 2007, he gave a talk where he spoke in support of Osama Bin Laden and claimed the War on Terror is a War on Islam. He also said that infidels should be beheaded and would have burning oil poured into their throats in hell. He asked his superiors in the Army about whether patients could be charged with war crimes and recommended that Muslims be allowed to leave the military as “conscientious objectors.”

A former colleague said that Hasan applauded the shooting of two military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 2009 and stated that “Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor,” referring to the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hasan’s fellow psychologists even held a meeting to discuss his mental state and other officers called him a “ticking time bomb,” the inspiration for the title of the Senate report. Yet, despite these red flags, Hasan was never even investigated. In fact, an evaluation of Hasan said he had “extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy.”

Dorothy Rabinowitz recounts in the Wall Street Journal how his supervisors lavished praised on him, calling him a “star officer,” even though he was in the bottom 25 percent of his class and his outbursts caused concern amongst his colleagues. His business card even had an acronym for “Soldier of Allah” on it and spelled “health” incorrectly.

“A resident who didn’t represent the diversity value that Hasan did as a Muslim would have faced serious consequences had he behaved half as disturbingly,” she writes.

“He was a star not simply because he was a Muslim, but because he was a special kind—the sort who posed, in his flaunting of jihadist sympathies, the most extreme test of liberal toleration. Exactly the kind the progressive heart finds irresistible.”

The FBI should also be embarrassed by the attack. The agency intercepted 18 emails between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki before the attack. He made Internet postings in favor of suicide bombings under the name “NidalHasan.” He attended the extremist Dar al-Hijrah mosque at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers when the imam was al-Awlaki. The FBI read the evaluations of Hasan’s Army superiors and concluded that his suspicious Internet activity was innocent research. The agency declined to interview him or any of his colleagues and did not pass this intelligence to the Army.

This attitude is encouraged by the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in the U.S. who accuse anyone using terms like “radical Islam” of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry. Shockingly, an official with the Islamic Society of North America came to Fort Hood after the shooting to lecture the soldiers about Islam. The official, Louay Safi, wrote in 2003, “The war against the apostates [non-believers of Islam] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order.”

“It is up to the Muslim leadership to assess the situation and weigh the circumstances as well as the capacity of the Muslim community before deciding the appropriate type of jihad. At one stage, Muslims may find that jihad, through persuasion or peaceful resistance, is the best and most effective method to achieve just peace,” Safai wrote.

The government’s colossal failure to put the pieces together about Nidal Hasan’s intentions is a testament to how political correctness and overall naiveté is leaving gaping holes in our defenses. Not all attacks can be prevented, but the Fort Hood is certainly one that could and should have been.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/23/the-lefts-hand-in-fort-hood/

Ryan Mauro

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

The Multiculti Tango

by David Solway

It takes two to tango, goes the cliché, a truth so evident even the cliché must blush with embarrassment for expressing it. But what is true of the tango is no less the case for the complex immigration dance in which the newcomer is expected to partner with the cultural norms and usages of his adoptive country—or, to be precise, was expected to do so before the terpsichorean disaster of multiculturalism introduced the scrum we see daily enacted before our eyes.

The successful integration of the immigrant into society demands a series of intricate, syncopated steps: he (or she, as it goes without saying) must learn the language well enough to function in the marketplace and the public square; should acquire a familiarity with at least the rudiments of the country’s history; needs to seek employment so as not to become a burden on an overextended welfare system; and must abide by his oath of loyalty and assimilate peacefully into the life of nation.

The conventional metaphor regarding optimal immigration is what is known as the “melting pot,” the paradigm developed in the United States, not the “salad bowl” model prevalent in Canada and Europe. The melting pot works, more or less; the salad bowl, with its fragmented ingredients, plainly does not. A nation composed of immiscible elements is asking for trouble. To revert to my controlling metaphor, immigrants must learn to dance chest to chest and hip to hip with the partner they have agreed to tango with.

All too often, the synergy does not “take.” Indeed, an alternative form of tango has become popular in recent years. The tango nuevo, as it’s called, provides for an open embrace which permits the “leader” to perform all manner of figures and evolutions of his choosing. Similarly, the immigration dance has become “heteronormative,” that is, the “lead” falls to the arrivalist who creates a kind of hyphenated space in order to impose the motifs he prefers on the other.

The tango nuevo is fine and dandy on a Rioplatense dance floor, but it does not belong in the multicultural ballroom. This means, of course, that there is no room for the separating hyphen in forming one’s national identity. Responding to the current events in Egypt, an Egyptian-Canadian interviewed on CBC radio affirmed, without the slightest awareness of the discrepancy, “I am proud of my country.” The question that naturally arises is: which country? For this particular individual, who has been long settled in Canada, the answer is dismayingly clear. He is not dancing to Canada’s tune, but to the exotic strains of another cultural and political world.

One recalls, too, that during the 2006 Israel/Lebanon war, the Canadian government repatriated, at taxpayer largesse, several thousand Lebanese-Canadians caught in the midst of the turmoil. After hostilities had ceased and a year or so had passed, most of these hyphenated beneficiaries of what they considered their entitlement as Canadians returned to their sunny Mediterranean billet as native Lebanese.

What we are observing in all too many cases is not a dance in which two partners agree to enact the proper steps, but a razzia, a raid by one party upon the generosity of another while retaining what amounts to an alien and often parasitical identity. Canada is especially prone to such depredations. As Canadian Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, points out, “Canada has the highest relative level of immigration in the developed world” and is, additionally, saddled with a judiciary that is soft on refugee claims. Again, this is asking for trouble, and there has been plenty of it. Our position requires excessive caution and stringent rules of admission, both in the protocols governing the reception of illegals to our shores and the vetting of legitimate applications.

Canadians who are proud to be Egyptian should be…Egyptian. Canadians who flee Lebanon at government expense and then return as soon as the coast is clear should be…Lebanese. Canadians of Muslim descent who attend radical mosques and plan jihad against the country that has welcomed them, and who have no compunction profiting from its social, medical and fiscal services, should not be tolerated but deported. They have no place in the dance hall. As Hungarian-born and National Post columnist George Jonas said somewhere, he came to Canada because Canada needed more Canadians, not because Canada needed more Hungarians.

Several European politicians have declared, however tardily, that multiculturalism is a failed social experiment. Whether they will act on their belated discovery or not is another issue, but Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy appear to have heard the beat. Certain rules apply if chaos is to be avoided and a measured harmony to prevail. You dance with the one who brung you and you dance to the music that is playing. There is a rhythm to the history, customs, practices and civic expectations of a country—what is loosely called the “national character—that needs to be honored in the observance and not in the breach, even if one is not, to cite Hamlet, “native here/And to the manner born.”

This is not to say that the newcomer must slavishly adhere to every single cultural demand and practice or that he or she cannot lobby for change and amelioration. Canada at one time refused women the vote. Before and during WW II, Jews were not welcome in this country—“None is too many,” advised a minister in the Mackenzie King government. Such aberrations should be—and were—addressed, and nothing prevents an immigrant from participating in the social discourse to bring about needed reformations.

But the point is that Canada, like other Western nations, comprises the sort of political environment in which gradual and meaningful improvement is possible and perhaps even inevitable, within the framework of the larger cultural parameters established by the tradition of parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and the intellectual breakthroughs of the Enlightenment. And it is these traditions and advancements to which the newcomer must adapt and remain faithful, irrespective of the discrete imperfections that pertain at any given time. The orchestra may hit wrong notes or one’s native partner may stumble from time to time, but the pattern is discernible and needs to be followed.

In short, it takes two to tango; it takes only one to wreak havoc on the dance floor, especially if he is new to the dance and decides to cavort as he sees fit. The conclusion is obvious. The multiculti tango needs to be abolished or at the very least reconfigured, and the open space where the hyphen inserts itself closed. Will Canada’s leaders have the courage to adopt the necessary steps?

Otherwise, the eventual sequel does not seem especially promising. Last tango in Canada, anyone?

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/23/the-multiculti-tango/

David Solway

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

Egyptian Armed Forces Demolish Fences Guarding Coptic Monasteries

by Mary Abdelmassih

Egyptian armed forces this week demolished fences surrounding ancient Coptic monasteries, leaving them vulnerable to attacks by armed Arabs, robbers and escaped prisoners, who have seized the opportunity of the state of diminished protection by the authorities in Egypt to carry out assaults and thefts.

"Three monasteries have been attacked by outlaws and have asked for protection from the armed forces, but were told to defend themselves." said activist Mark Ebeid. "When the terrified monks built fences to protect themselves, armed forces appeared only then with bulldozers to demolish the fences. It is worth noting that these monasteries are among the most ancient in Egypt, with valuable Coptic icons and manuscripts among others, which are of tremendous value to collectors."

On Sunday February 20, armed forced stormed the 4th century old monastery of St. Boula in the Red Sea area, assaulted three monks and then demolished a small fence supporting a gate leading to the fenceless monastery. "The idea of the erection of the gate was prompted after being attacked at midnight on February 13 by five prisoners who broke out from their prisons," said Father Botros Anba Boula, "and were armed with a pistol and batons. The monks ran after them but they fled to the surrounding mountains except for one who stumbled and was apprehended and held by the monks until the police picked him up three days later."

Father Botros said after this incident they thought the best solution to secure the monastery was to erect a gate with a small fence of 40 meters long at the entrance of a long wiry road leading to the monastery, which would be guarded day and night by the monks, and advised the army of their plan. According to Father Boulos, the army came with armored vehicles to demolish the gate, but it was agreed the monastery itself would undertake the demolition of the gate in stages as army protection is reinstated. "We told the Colonel it would look ugly to the outside world if Egyptian army is demolishing a gate erected for the protection of the unarmed monks under the present absence of security forces. We gave them full hospitality but we had a feeling that they wanted to demolish the gate in a 'devious' way."

On Saturday morning, seeing that only three old monks were guarding the gate, the army returned. "When the army found that very few monks were present the soldiers, who were hiding in military vans, came out," said Father Botros, "bound the three monks, threw them to the ground and confiscated their mobile phones so as not to photograph the incident."

The monks were set free after the gate and the 40 meter fence were demolished." Only four soldiers were left to guard the huge monastery.

"The army was here not to protect the monastery as they claimed, but to carry out their agenda of demolishing the gate" said Father Botros to activist Ramy Kamel of 'Theban Legion' Coptic advocacy. "By removing the gate and the supporting small fence, the army is giving a message of encouragement to any thief or thug to break into the monastery."

On February 21, armed forces demolished the fence surrounding the 5th century old Monastery of St. Bishoy in Wadi al-Natroun in the western desert.

Father Bemwa Anba Bishoy said that after the January 25th Uprising, all the government security forces that were guarding the monastery fled and left the monastery unguarded. He said they were attacked by prisoners who were at large after escaping from prisons during that period.

"We contacted state security and they said there was no police available for protection," Said Father Bemwa,"So we called the Egyptian TV dozens of times to appeal for help and then we were put in touch with the military personnel who told us to protect ourselves until they reach us." He added that the monks have built a low fence on the borders of one side of the monastery which is vulnerable to attacks, on land which belongs to the monastery, with the monks and monastery laborers keeping watch over it 24 hours a day.

Although security officials welcomed this step., a fanatical Muslim officer at the district police headquarters named Abdo Ibrahim incited the Muslims in the neighborhood, but when the circumstances were explained to them and that the fence also secures the nearby mosque, they agreed. "Ibrahim then incited the army against us, so they came with heavy equipment and armored vehicles, insulted the monks, demolished the fence and left," said Father Bemwa. "Now the monks are left in the open, vulnerable to attacks from prisoners who are still at large or Muslim fanatics" (video of demolished fence).

In a related incident, Father Boulos, a monk at the Monastery of Abu Magar, also called St. Makarios of Alexandria in Wady el-Rayan, Fayoum, said that on February 21 armed forces stormed the monastery and wanted to demolish its fence and gate. He explained that after the security vacuum during the January uprising, the Monastery was attacked by thugs and Arabs armed with automatic weapons, leading to the injury of six monks, including one monk in critical condition who is still hospitalized.

"The perpetrators took advantage of the fact that the monastery is a nature reserve and has no fence for protection. After the incident we have built a fence around the monastery to protect it, but the environmental agency rejected it and sent for the security forces and the army to remove the fence." He added that they were given 48 hours by the authorities to demolish the one-meter high fence, otherwise the army would be back to destroy it.

"If no authority is in a position to protect us," said Father Boulos, "then let us do it ourselves, the way we see fit."

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1911/egypt-army-coptic-monasteries

Mary Abdelmassih

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

Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: Gilad Shalit

by Arsen Ostrovsky

There is one person certainly suffering from a humanitarian crisis in Gaza: Gilad Shalit. He has been held hostage by the terrorist group Hamas, in breach of every international law and human rights convention, for over 40,800 hours,, 1700 days,, 4.5 years; and denied so much as a visit by the Red Cross. Shalit, born in Israel in 1986, was kidnapped by eight Hamas terrorists in an unprovoked attack on June 25, 2006, when he and other Israeli Defence Soldiers were guarding a border crossing named "Kerem Shalom," ironically translated as "Vineyard of Peace," to enable trade between Israel and Gaza. Today of course there is very little trade with Gaza, with the exception of humanitarian supplies, out of fear that terrorists will abuse it to smuggle weapons.

During the attack, two Israeli soldiers, Lieutenant Hanan Barak and Sergeant Pavel Slutzker, both 20, were killed, and three others were seriously injured. At the time of Shalit's abduction, he was 19 years old; this August he will turn 25.

Since that day, with the pitiful exception of one 3-minute video and three letters over a period of four and half years, Shalit has been denied any contact with the outside world: no Red Cross, no Geneva Convention rights, no letters or packages from family: Nothing. The details of his physical condition, and even his location, remain unknown.

At the time of the Flotilla incident last June, so called "peace activists" bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza rejected a request by Shalit's father to bring his son a letter and small package.

As a soldier, Shalit is entitled to certain basic rights afforded to Prisoners of War as enunciated in the Third Geneva Convention: humane treatment (Article 13); knowledge of the location of his captivity (Article 23); regular exchange of correspondence with the outside world (Article 71), and visitation and unfettered access to him by Israeli representatives and the Red Cross (Article 126). In 1700 days of captivity, Hamas has not afforded a single one of these rights to Shalit.

Human Rights Watch states that Hamas authorities are violating the laws of war and that his prolonged incommunicado detention is "cruel and inhumane and may amount to torture". Even the Goldstone Report, which out of 600 plus pages devoted only 2 paragraphs to Gilad Shalit, urged his immediate release on humanitarian grounds, and, pending such release, that he be given the full rights accorded to a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions, including visits from the Red Cross.

The response from Hamas or pro-Palestinian activists when the name Shalit is raised, often is: "but what about Israel? They have thousands of our prisoners." The Israeli Prison Service acknowledges that there are approximately 2,000 Hamas prisoners currently serving time in Israeli prisons for offenses of national security. But the Hamas prisoners, together with their associates from Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and so on, had routinely committed war crimes, including indiscriminate and deliberate attacks upon civilians; failure to carry weapons openly; failure to wear fixed distinctive signs recognizable at a distance (many purposely dress as civilians to be indistinguishable from them), and generally failing to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war.

Although, unlike Shalit, these individuals are not entitled to the benefits and privileges afforded by the Prisoner of War protections under the Third Geneva Convention, and are subject to prosecution as war criminals, Israel affords them these protections nonetheless. Terror prisoners in Israel have full visitation rights from the families; access to lawyers (paid for by Israel); access to judicial review; regular visits and inspections by Red Cross representatives; and their location is publicly known. Many of these prisoners also receive cell phones, have internet access and the ability to study for further degrees.

Ironically, therefore, fighters belonging to groups like Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, who are not entitled to the protected status of POWs, are afforded those rights by Israel, whereas Shalit, who, as a POW, is entitled to these rights, is afforded not even one of them.

To mark the anniversary of his capture, a two-week Awareness Campaign was launched this week by the Israeli Embassy in London, in coordination with some non-governmental organizations. There will be various events across the UK, including "ad-vans" driving around the country telling Shalit's story. On February 24, vigils will be held also in London, Manchester and Leeds.

Yes, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza: the continued detention of Gilad Shalit, 1700 days and counting. Will anyone else speak up?

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1902/gaza-gilad-shalit

Arsen Ostrovsky

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

Administration Deliberately Vague on Brotherhood

by IPT News

American policymakers are trying to downplay any role the Muslim Brotherhood will play in an emerging Egyptian government, saying only that President Hosni Mubarak's successors must be open and tolerant of religious minorities and govern an open society.

Statements by senior policy officials to the media and before congressional committees since Mubarak's Feb. 11 resignation show that the Obama administration does not consider the Brotherhood to be an extremist organization, despite its written commitment to creating an Islamic state and its leadership's history of threats and hate speech.

The Brotherhood made good Monday on its pledge to form a political party, called the Freedom and Justice Party. General Guide Muhammad Badie said the party is open to everyone, provided they "accept its platform and tendencies." That platform hasn't been issued yet.

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice minimized the Brotherhood's potential power Sunday during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. "There's no indication that the Brotherhood is going to dominate Egyptian politics," she said. Host David Gregory noted the Brotherhood's standing platform "would seek 'the preservation of honor' by stoning adulterers, punishing gays, requiring Muslim women to cover their heads and shoulders in public and killing Muslims who leave their faith."

Rice did not address those positions, but indicated that the U.S. favored a deliberate path toward Egyptian elections, giving time for other parties to organize.

President Barack Obama discussed the Brotherhood in similarly broad terms in a pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. "I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don't have majority support in Egypt," Obama said. "But they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There's no doubt about it."

During an impromptu news conference on Capitol Hill last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Egypt needs to build a system with checks and balances to guarantee lasting reform. "Because, as I've said many times before, democracy is not just about one election where whoever wins it never wants to have another election," she said. "You need an independent judiciary, a free press. You need an independent support for minority rights. And there's just so much else that goes into what democracy represents."

In hearings before House and Senate committees earlier this month, officials rarely mention the Brotherhood by name. Instead, they use language similar to Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, who told the House Foreign Relations Committee Feb. 10 that "we have to be clear about what anybody joining a government would be expected to be committed to. And that commitment is to an open tolerant society that allows for religious diversity, for differences of opinion, that doesn't undermine civil society, that supports an open discourse among all elements of society, and rather than trying to anticipate what any particular member organization is, that we hold to those principles."

But officials aren't saying what would happen if that government is deemed too stringent on any of these ideals."And if they do not," Steinberg told the House committee, "then we will be clear about what our position is."

Members of Congress have been more direct in expressing concern about the Brotherhood's possible ascendancy. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, presided over a two-part Foreign Affairs committee hearing that focused on recent Middle Eastern upheaval. "The Muslim Brotherhood," she said, "had nothing to do with driving these protests and they and other extremists must not be allowed to hijack the movement toward democracy and freedom in Egypt."

Democrat Howard Berman of California expressed skepticism "about the Muslim Brotherhood's commitment to democracy" and warned that "even in the best case scenario," the group would "try to influence the Egyptian government in ways that undermine U.S. interests and that will make Egypt a regressive and less tolerant place."

U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., tried in vain to pin Steinberg down. He received no direct answer when he asked, "Is the administration actively working to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from being involved in this process of new government in Egypt?"

Steinberg said he didn't want to single out an individual group and repeated the administration's goal "that the government that emerges is an inclusive, tolerant, democratic one that respects the rights of women, minorities, religious minorities and the like." The United States would not support government involvement of "any group that isn't consistent with that."

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y, also asked whether the administration is trying to block the Brotherhood from gaining power. Steinberg again did not provide a direct answer, saying "these transitions can be difficult and they can lead to unpredictable results."

The U.S. cannot dictate outcomes for Egyptians, he said. "And we want to make sure that the process is not hijacked by extremists or those who do not deeply believe in the open and tolerant and democratic process that we want."

According to America's two top intelligence officers, however, there's nothing inherently radical about the Muslim Brotherhood. Speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged he committed a faux pas when he called the Brotherhood "largely secular." But Clapper and CIA Director Leon Panetta declined to call the group radical. There are extremist elements in the Brotherhood, they said.

One of those elements, spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, returned to Cairo to deliver a sermon after prayers Friday. Qaradawi, who has prayed for the chance to kill a Zionist and to be killed by an infidel, made a point of praising Coptic Christians. But he also went out of his way to say he hoped to lead a similar ceremony in Jerusalem after "the conquest of the Al-Aqsa Mosque."

Brotherhood officials, meanwhile, are more openly expressing their intentions for Egypt's future. Kamal Helbawy, a leader of the group's older guard, told Iranian media that the Egyptian revolution was an Islamic one. He also indicated the 32-year-old peace treaty with Israel was not something the Brotherhood accepts. "People of Egypt cannot accept an agreement which is based on injustice and has ignored the rights of Palestinians."

Original URL: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2617/administration-deliberately-vague-on-brotherhood

IPT News

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

Despite Corruption, EADS Favored Over U.S.-Based Boeing

by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Within days, the Obama Pentagon is expected to decide which supplier to rely upon for what is, arguably, the cornerstone of America’s ability to project power for the next forty years: the next generation aerial refueling tanker known as the KC-X. The choice for this role – which is worth conservatively $40 billion – would seem to be a no-brainer. The obvious winning candidate to produce and maintain for decades to come 179 tankers would be a reliable, experienced and responsible U.S. manufacturer, Boeing.

It seems, however, that Team Obama is poised to entrust responsibility for this vital defense capability to a company that has none of those attributes – the European aerospace conglomerate EADS. The pretext apparently will be that the foreign competitor is offering a lower bid than its American counterpart.

This claim is preposterous on its face. The Lexington Institute’s Loren Thompson, one of Washington’s most respected defense program and budget analysts, noted recently that each of the two bidders has to satisfy 372 mandatory performance requirements. “Thus, the key discriminator in who wins becomes price.” Meeting or substantially undercutting Boeing’s bid is problematic since the Airbus tanker based on the A330 weighs in 28 percent larger with 40 feet more wingspan than Boeing's derivative of the 767. “It appears that is exactly what the European company plans to do, raising the obvious question of how such a bid is possible.”

How, indeed? The answer is not so hard to fathom if you look at the nature of EADS. As the Center for Security Policy documented in a white paper issued in September 2010 (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18520.xml), the company has relied on devious, unethical and unfair practices to buy-into or otherwise win contracts. It has then relied upon massive subventions and/or cost-overruns to stay afloat. For example, last June, the World Trade Organization estimated that EADS garnered some $20 billion in illegal subsidies from its European governmental owners.

Then, there are EAD’s endemic problems with bribery and corruption. Eleven years ago, with the company’s Airbus sales in mind, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey told Europeans in an op.ed. in the Wall Street Journal: “Your companies’ products are often more costly, less technologically advanced or both, than your American competitors’. As a result you bribe a lot.”

In addition, EADS has been under investigation in France for the past five years in connection with alleged insider trading tied, presumably, to the company’s abysmal financial track record. In early February of this year, the Paris judges said they were focusing the investigation on Daimler. In particular, EADS’ massive cost-overruns have gotten so bad lately that the German government has scheduled an emergency summit on February 23 to discuss bailing out Daimler, by nationalizing Daimler’s 7.5% stake in EADS. According to the Financial Times, the EADS losses cost Daimler €231 million in the last year alone. Is this really the kind of company we want the Pentagon to be keeping?

Here is what U.S. taxpayers can expect in EADS performance. The company's A400M military transport plane program is surviving only because of a $4.6 billion bailout forced from European taxpayers in November 2010 . The A400M program was originally to cost $27 billion; a recent study found that final costs could now rise to $44 billion. The program is three-to-four years behind schedule.

It is not easy getting a company with such a dismal past cleared to win what may prove to be the largest Pentagon contract ever. In January 2010, then-Representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas wrote in Human Events: “Given the well-known corruption practices by EADS, it would make common sense that it not be awarded Pentagon contracts. In fact, Congress has passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that bars companies who engage in bribery overseas from competing for United States government programs.

“The U.S. Department of Justice has appallingly interpreted the laws to only cover U.S.-based companies – therefore exempting EADS. But it gets worse. The federal government has gone even further and exempted EADS from the Buy American Act, the Berry Amendment, the International Trafficking and Arms Regulations, and the Cost Accounting Standards. Complying with these expensive regulations is mandatory for any American company looking to do business with the Pentagon, but waived for a foreign competitor such as EADS.” (Emphasis added.)

If these considerations were not grounds enough for denying EADS the KC-X contract no matter what price it offers, there are other compelling reasons to have these tankers made in America. These include: EADS has a highly politicized socialist workforce in Europe, one that has exhibited profoundly anti-U.S. sentiments in the past. Do we really want to rely on such workers in the event their efforts are essential to future combat operations with which they vehemently disagree?

There have also been issues of technology theft and commercial espionage associated with EADS. With the Kremlin owning a 5% stake in the company, the security implications of such behavior cannot be minimized.

Taken together, the arguments against turning the future of a key determinant of America’s power projection capability over to EADS are compelling. If the Obama administration persists in its efforts toward that end, it will likely find the Congress less willing to ignore the strategic and economic repercussions of such a step. That is especially true insofar as doing so would give lie to the universal mantra of politicians on both sides of the aisle to promoting American competitiveness and the need to expand the number of skilled jobs here at home.

Alternatively, the Government Accountability Office may find irregularities in the KC-X award (notably, the Pentagon’s inexplicable sharing with EADS last November of proprietary, competition-sensitive data supplied by Boeing) that once again justify overturning an ill-managed award.

Either way, the real loser will be the servicemen and women who needed a reliable and capable new tanker years ago – and certainly deserve no less now.

Original URL: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18650.xml

Frank Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.

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