Friday, April 5, 2013

Salubrius Challenges Wikipedia's entry on the Levy Report

by Sally Zahav

Salubrius*, an indefatigable champion of Jewish rights in the Land of Israel, recently shared with me his frustration when he tried to address an article in Wikipedia on the Levy Report that was biased against Israel. The letter follows:

Dear Sirs,

Your entry on The Levy Report includes the following:

"According to the Jewish Daily Forward, the report's claim, contradicting the world community's interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is based on “an eccentric legal doctrine that’s been circulating for years on the fringes of the far right”. Its advocates assert that the resolution of the post-World War I San Remo conference which called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” retains its validity to the present day and constitutes a binding international commitment to make all of historic Palestine as under the British mandate into a Jewish state.[10]"[Salubrius's emphasis]

However you have excluded from the entry the views of those who show that competing Arab-Israeli claims to the political rights to Palestine were adjudicated at the Paris Peace Conference and its extension at San Remo according to many distinguished lawyers with whom I, a lawyer,  agree.  These opinions show that the WWI Principal Allies recognized World Jewry's ownership of the political rights to Palestine.  What you have included is based on a single sentence of ad hominem that those who credit the Mandate as providing for a Jewish National Home as a prelude to a reconstituted state are those "espousing an eccentric legal doctrine that has been circulating for years on the fringes of the far right".  You ignore the citations to a memorandum of the British Foreign Office dated September 19, 1917 showing that the Balfour policy (and later the mandate) was to set up a trust for the political rights recognized as belonging to World Jewry so that no immediate sovereignty would be recognized, but that the sovereignty would be vested only after the Jews in Palestine attained a population majority.  

You ignore the views of Dr. Jacques Gauthier in his monumental work "Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem: A Study of the Historical, Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the Question of the Old City", Thesis no 725, University of Geneva, 2007; lawyer Howard Grief's comprehensive legal tome of 732 pages and 1300 citations entitled "Legal Foundations and Boundaries of Israel under International Law"  Mazo Publishing;  Salomon Benzimra, The Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel, Amazon-Kindle, November 2011, Dr. Cynthia D. Wallace "Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel" Creation House (2012) and the Levy Report of former Israeli Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy, former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker and former deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court Tchia Shapira.  My own legal opinion reaches the same conclusion although it relies on equity jurisprudence to a slight extent.

In other words, you credit a single sentence of ad hominem in a left wing magazine, admittedly affiliated with the Socialist Party of America, written by a journalist who has no legal qualifications whatsoever, over the published opinions of many lawyers citing credible sources for their major and minor premises, and showing reasoned conclusions.   Your action casts great doubt on the objectivity of your publication,.


Wallace Edward Brand

*Salubrius is the nom de guerre of Wallace Edward Brand, retired attorney living in Virginia.

Salubrius subsequently tried to add the following text to the entry:

"Other views

There are many lawyers who believe that in 1967 the Israelis "liberated" Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem rather than "occupied" them. This was because the Jews have been owners of the political rights to Palestine since the WWI Allies decision on the claims of the Arabs and the Jews to the political rights to Palestine. The adjudication on this issue commenced at the Paris Peace Conference and it was disposed of at a further meeting in San Remo in April, 1920.
At that meeting the WWI Principal Allies decided to recognize world Jewry as the owner of the political rights to Palestine but also decided to put them in trust. That was because at the time the Jewish population of Palestine was only a small minority and to give them immediate sovereignty would create an antidemocratic government. The trust was intended to last until the Jews by their development of Palestine permitted immigration from the diaspora that would permit the Jews to attain a majority of the population and to become just as capable of exercising sovereignty as any modern European state. This intention is shown in a memorandum of the British Foreign Office on July 19, 1917 by Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier. The memo's principal purpose was to defend the proposed Balfour Policy against charges by critics that it would establish a minority government that would be antidemocratic. The Foreign Office responded to the criticism by saying it agreed in principal that it would be antidemocratic to set up a minority government, but as it was proposed to be applied the criticism would be "imaginary". That was because the political rights to Palestine were to be given in trust to Great Britain or the US who would exercise legal dominion over them until the Jews in Palestine had attained a population majority and were deemed capable of exercising sovereignty. See Duncan Campell Lee, "The Mesopotamian Mandate". May, 1921 The trust agreement or "mandate" for Palestine gave the trustee power to legislate and administer and enforce law in Palestine during the term of the trust.
The San Remo Resolution adopted the Balfour Policy in 1920 and was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and by the US in 1922 by a joint resolution of Congress and in 1924 by a Treaty, the Anglo American Convention. This recognition of political rights by the League of Nations and the US was preserved on the demise of the League by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
England abandoned its trust responsibilities in 1948. In 1947 the UN voted to recommend partition of Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews agreed to give up some of their political rights to Palestine preserved in Article 80 of the UN Charter. The Arabs rejected the recommendation and went to war against the newly created state of Israel. The Partition recommendation therefore had no continuing force and effect except to show that the UN deemed that the Jews were capable of exercising sovereignty. By 1950 the Jews had attained a population majority within the Armistice lines.
Currently the Jews have an 80% majority of the population within the Green Line. Should it annex Judea and Samaria, and grant citizenship to all the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, its majority would decline to 66% according to Ambassador Yoram Ettinger based on studies by the Begin-Sadat Center in Jerusalem.
This legal opinion is my own, but it adopts with only very minor differences, the legal opinion of Jacques Gauthier in his 13,000 page doctoral thesis, the opinion of Howard Grief in his comprehensive some 600 page "Legal Foundations and Boundaries of Israel under International Law", a shorter book setting forth the historical facts on which this opinion is based by Salomon Benzimra published in November, 2011, by Amazon on Kindle, The Jewish Peoples Rights to the Land of Israel, the legal opinion of Cynthia D. Wallace in "Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel" and the Levy Report, the opinion of former Israel Supreme Court Justice Levy and two other distinguished jurists. See also, the legal opinion of Professor Eugene Kontorovich in his lecture, "The Legal Case for Israel". My own opinion may be found published in greater detail in a two part Op Ed in a conservative newspaper published in Israel. Part 1: 
Part 2:
The Arabs continue to claim, in massive public relations campaigns that they own Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem if not all of Israel. Ronn Torrossian, "Arab Nations Hire Ten More PR Firms Since Last Year" "
But, according to Salubrius, "My addition didn't last very long. Wikipedia  quickly removed it   Now they have added more ad hominem from some other left wing organizations and one left wing lawyer spouting even more ad hominem."   He suggests to "tell that guy who claims to be a lawyer for Yesh Din that as of April 25, 1920, the date of the meeting at San Remo, the question of whether the Arabs or the Jews owned the political rights to Palestine was res judicata and if he doesn't know what that means, tell him to ask a real lawyer.   If he is a real lawyer and knows trust law, he should be asked  of what was Great Britain trustee?  What was the trust res?  And he should answer  'the political rights to Palestine'.  Then he should be asked, if so, 'who was the beneficiary of the trust'.  And it is pretty clear that it is World Jewry that was the beneficiary and that the Jewish National Home that was created was the term that referred to the prelude to the Jewish state while the trustee still held dominion over the political rights.  The Jews now have an 80% population majority. If they had read the citations I gave them, they would have learned what the contemporary understanding of the Balfour policy and the Mandate were:"

"In the British cabinet discussion during final consideration of the language of the Balfour Declaration, in responding to the opposition of Lord Curzon, who viewed the language as giving rise to the presumption that Great Britain favored a Jewish State, Lord Balfour stated: "As to the meaning of the words 'national home', to which the Zionists attach so much importance, he understood it to mean some form of British, American, or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation and to build up, by means of education, agriculture, and industry, a real center of national culture and focus of national life. It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution." The key word here was 'early'; otherwise, the statement makes it quite clear that Balfour envisaged the eventual emergence of an independent Jewish state. Doubtless he had in mind a period somewhat longer than a mere thirty years; but the same could also be said of Chaim Weizmann."[38]

Salubrius continues:

"According to Lloyd George, one of Churchill's contemporaries, for example, the meaning was quite clear:
There has been a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of the words 'Jewish National Home' and whether it involved the setting up of a Jewish National State in Palestine. I have already quoted the words actually used by Mr. Balfour when he submitted the declaration to the Cabinet for its approval. They were not challenged at the time by any member present, and there could be no doubt as to what the Cabinet then had in their minds. It was not their idea that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants.

On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a National Home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. The notion that Jewish immigration would have to be artificially restricted [as it was in 1939] in order to ensure that the Jews should be a permanent minority never entered into the heads of anyone engaged in framing the policy. That would have been regarded as unjust and as a fraud on the people to whom we were appealing."[39]

If there is any further doubt in the matter, Balfour himself told a Jewish gathering on February 7,1918: "My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state. It is up to them now; we have given them their great opportunity."

This ends Salubrius's communication on the subject. To find out more about how information is accepted or rejected by Wikipedia, I searched for the phrase "who controls Wikipedia". Most results mentioned that anyone can enter information, and that there's not an army of verifiers investigating every claim or every data point.  

One of the results of my search, "Zionist Control of Wikipedia", especially caught my eye. Judge for yourselves, in light of the above information, whether Zionists are controlling Wikipedia.

Sally Zahav

Source: Original Post at Middle East and Terrorism

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

Flash! Threat from Rebel Syria Becomes Clear and What Really Happened in the Benghazi Murders

by Barry Rubin


While far too late, the Obama administration may be adopting a sensible policy on Syria. The strategy, however, is unlikely to succeed. Oh, and there is also a very important clue—I think the key to the puzzle—about what really happened in Benghazi.

Let’s begin with Syria. As U.S. officials became increasingly worried about the visible Islamist domination of the Syrian opposition—which their own policies had helped promote—they have realized the horrible situation of creating still another radical Islamist regime. (Note: This column has been warning of this very point for years.)

So the response is to try to do two things. The first is to train, with Jordanian cooperation, a more moderate force of Free Syrian Army (FSA) units.  The idea is to help the non-Islamists compete more effectively with the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and especially al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra group) affiliated units.

The second is to create a buffer zone along Syria’s borders with Jordan and perhaps later Israel and even Iraq in order to avoid the conflict spilling over—i.e., cross-border jihad terror attacks—to those countries.

According to the Washington Post:
“The last thing anyone wants to see is al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in southern Syria next to Israel. That is a doomsday scenario,” said a U.S. diplomat in Jordan who was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject.”
Someone has also figured out that it isn’t a great idea to have a border with Iraq controlled by Syrian Sunni Muslim terrorist Islamists allied with the Sunni terrorists in Iraq who killed so many Americans.

Well, might someone not have thought about that a year or two ago? Because, while nothing could have been more obvious there was no step taken to avoid this situation happening.

I should point out an important distinction. The problem is not merely al-Qaeda gaining a foothold but also other Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood doing so. That, however, is not how the Obama administration thinks. For it, al-Qaeda is evil; the other Salafists somewhat bad; and the Muslim Brotherhood good.

What are the problems here? As so often happens with Western-formulated clever ideas to deal with the Middle East, there are lots of them.

–The United States has stood aside or even helped arm the Islamists through Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. So now the Islamist forces are far stronger than the non-Islamists. That cannot be reversed at this point.

–The idea of border areas will create a Syria that is divided under the control of different forces. What will happen when, through elections or other means, the Muslim Brotherhood takes political power and wants its militia to control everything?

–Might this be laying the basis for a second Syrian civil war in which the Islamists band together against the FSA? In other words, here is this buffer zone that is backed by the West (imperialism!) to “protect” Israel (the Zionists!), Jordan (traitorous Muslims!), and Iraq (Shia heretics!)

–The training is limited and the FSA is badly divided among different commanders, defected Syrian army officers, and local warlords. The Brotherhood militia is united and disciplined. The result: worse than Afghanistan because the Islamists would have both the government and the stronger military forces.

–These buffer zones would not receive Western air support or international forces.

–Israel has the experience of maintaining a buffer zone in southern Lebanon for years by supporting a militia group. It succeeded for a long time by sending in Israeli troops covertly and taking casualties. In the end, rightly or wrongly, the effort was given up. Now Hizballah—the equivalent though not the friend of the Syrian Salafists—is sitting on the border and already one war has been fought. It should be noted that Israel has by far the most defensible border with Syria.

–A situation is being set up in which a future Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria can blackmail the United States. Either it will force Washington to accept whatever it does (including potential massacres) by threatening to unleash Salafist forces on its borders or it will actually create confrontations.

–Why isn’t the United States working full-time to stop the arms flows to the Islamists by pressuring the Saudis and Qataris (perhaps the point of Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip but hardly effective) and to rein in Turkey’s enthusiasm for a Syrian Islamist regime?

Speaking of Turkey, now we see the reason for the attempted Israel-Turkey rapprochement, because on top of everything else there will be a Kurdish-ruled zone not run by moderates but by the Syrian affiliate of the radical PKK, which is at war with Turkey.

So this is the likely fruit of the Syrian civil war, though that conflict is far from over. The old regime is still alive. What U.S. policy has helped to do is to create a big new threat to Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. It’s also a threat to Lebanon, but since the Syrian Islamists will target the Iran-backed Hizballah there, Washington doesn’t mind.

What does this have to do with Benghazi?  

Read this paragraph from the Washington Post:
Obama administration officials have expressed repeated concern that some of about 20,000 of the weapons, called MANPADS, have made their way from the arsenals of former Libyan dictator Moammar (sic) Gaddafi to Syria.
This weapons system might be the most technologically impressive arms ever to fall into the hands of terrorists. Once Libya’s regime fell (another U.S. foreign policy production), these weapons were grabbed by the Libyan rebels and sold to the Saudis and Qataris, who supplied them, respectively, to the Syrian Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to reliable sources, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi trying to get those MANPADS back and was negotiating with radical militias toward that goal. Stevens was doing something good—trying to take weapons out of the hands of terrorists—and not running weapons to terrorists.

Yet that doesn’t mitigate the mess unleashed by the administration’s policy. At any rate, Stevens and these efforts failed. The money was too good for the Libyan insurgents to pass up, not to mention helping fellow Islamists and anti-Americans. And now thousands of advanced, easily launched anti-aircraft systems are in the hands of anti-Jordanian, anti-Iraqi, anti-Israeli, and possibly anti-Turkish terrorists.

And just imagine the very real possibility of commercial passenger planes being shot at, or even shot down, by terrorists armed with a weapon they obtained because of U.S. government ineptitude or even involvement.

This article was posted on PJMEDIA

Barry Rubin


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

Muslim Brothers Learning to be Careful what they Wish for

by Thomas Lifson

The Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood, has endured decades of political repression in Egypt, the most populous country in the Arab world, and finally has achieved its goal of political power (with a big assist from Barack Obama who turned his back on US ally Hosni Mubarak). It turns out that running Egypt isn't quite as easy as the former dictator made it look. In fact, it is really easy to alienate the populace and perhaps discredit the movement.

Writing in Real Clear World, Zvi Mazel explains how the Brothers have "bitterly disappointed the people who had put their faith in them."

Nothing has been done to improve their lot. Upon taking office Morsi had promised - and failed - to take care of five burning issues within a hundred days: growing insecurity, monster traffic jams in the capital, lack of fuel and cooking gas, lack of subsidized bread, and the mounting piles of refuse in the streets.
The president's high-handed attempt to take over all legislative powers and grant himself full immunity provoked such an outcry that he had to back down. He sacked the prosecutor-general and appointed a new one - only to have his decision overthrown by the Cairo Court of Cassation last week, throwing the judicial system into disarray.
It seems that such unwise and unpopular moves were taken without prior consultations with his advisers and that in fact it was the Supreme Guidance Bureau of the Brotherhood which had urged Morsi to do so. In other words, the president is acting as a proxy for the movement.
Dissatisfaction is now evident everywhere. Elections held in students' union throughout the country saw Brotherhood candidates defeated by independent candidates. Worse, elections to the key Journalists' Syndicate saw the victory of Diaa Rashwan, head of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic studies and bitter opponent of the Brotherhood.

It could get much worse for Egyptians under the Brotherhood's tender governance. The country has virtually no foreign reserves with which to pay for necessary food imports. Poor Egyptians depend on government subsidized bread for survival, and when the money runs out, they will start to starve. Tourism, one of the biggest sources of foreign exchange, is drying up. The military has the guns, and they have been dependent on American aid for decades.

Even worse: the people are turning against them:

Dissatisfaction is now evident everywhere. Elections held in students' union throughout the country saw Brotherhood candidates defeated by independent candidates. Worse, elections to the key Journalists' Syndicate saw the victory of Diaa Rashwan, head of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic studies and bitter opponent of the Brotherhood.
In other words the movement is losing both the youth and the elites.

Of course, in Iran, the people long ago turned against their Muslim fundamentalist rulers, but the regime endures (in no small part thanks to President Obama ignoring the Green Revolution during his first term). But Iran has oil, while Egypt has tourism. A starving populace is not likely to put up with promises of religious comfort in the afterlife if they are starving in the here and now.

The stakes in Egypt are enormous. Because of the influence of Radio Cairo, the Egyptian film industry and television, the country has great visibility in the Arab world. If the MB goes down in the flames of incompetence, lessons will be drawn elsewhere.

Thomas Lifson


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

NYT Stokes Israeli-Palestinian Tensions

by Leo Rennert

Tensions are rising between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank and across the Gaza border, fueled by baseless accusations by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Israel was responsible for the death of a jailed Palestinian prisoner afflicted by cancer. 

So how does the New York Times report this event? With equal, balanced coverage of hard medical evidence pitted against the Abbas-led Palestinian hue-and-cry campaign? Forget it. The Times long ago shed its "all the news that's fit to print'' motto, substituting an all-out pro-Palestinian agenda to shape its news coverage. 

A glaring example of this agenda journalism can be found in an article by Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner in the April 4 edition ("Tensions Rise As Israel And Gaza Swap Strikes" page A8).

Here is Kershner's lead paragraph: "Israeli-Palestinian tensions rose sharply on Wednesday with a resumption of clashes at the Gaza border as Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails declared a three-day hunger strike to protest a fellow inmate's death, saying Israel was responsible." 

Is Israel responsible for the death of Palestinian terrorist Maysnia Abu Hamdiya, serving a life term for sending a suicide bomber to a Jerusalem café? To say the least, this is a highly inflammatory charge. But does it stand up to further scrutiny? And what does Israel have to say about it? And what evidence is there? 

Given the highly-charged accusation against Israel in the lead paragraph, one might expect prompt placement of Israel's response and the actual medical findings. Say in the second or third paragraph? But not at the Times

After her lead paragraph, Kershner diverts instead to this week's clashes between Israel and the Palestinians, returning to Hamdiya's death only in the 13th paragraph, which mentions in the second sentence that he had been diagnosed with throat cancer. 

It is not until the 16th paragraph -- in a 17-paragraph story -- that Kersner finally mentions that Israel had conducted an autopsy in the presence of a Palestinian expert of forensic medicine, which found that the imprisoned Palestian terrorist had died from "complications of cancer" and had been a heavy smoker. 

Even that doesn't begin to tell the full story. Kershner omits the specific findings of the autopsy which make it clear that the cancer complications were so vast and had spread so far that Hamdiya's condition was beyond any possible medical treatment -- the throat cancer had spread to the lungs, neck, chest, liver, spine and ribs. Also, the autopsy showed "no evidence of bruising" -- a clear indication that the prisoner had not been subjected to physical abuse or torture. None of this appears in Kershner's piece. 

Yet, having reported in her lead paragraph Palestinian propaganda that "Israel was responsible" for Hamadiya's death, shouldn't Kerhsner have disclosed all available evidence to the contrary -- and played it near the top of her article? She, of course, did neither. 

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian propaganda trumps hard Israeli evidence at the Times, with the latter getting back-of the-bus treatment, or no mention at all. 

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


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

Hack a Bank for Muhammad

by Lloyd Billingsley


Most recent news on hacking has centered on China’s data theft from U.S. companies. The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters have drawn much less attention, even though in late March they temporarily disabled the online banking systems of American Express and Wells Fargo Bank, both major U.S. financial players. The inspiration for the attacks is instructive.

Izz al-Din al-Qassam was a Syrian preacher of jihad killed in a guerilla attack against the British in 1935. He inspired the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and the Islamic Resistance Movement, the military wing of Hamas, is named after him. The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters first launched their campaign the week of September 11, 2012, when jihadists attacked U.S. embassies in several countries, most notably Libya, where they killed four Americans including ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The pretext was not any U.S. diplomatic or military action – indeed, the United States had aided anti-Gadaffi Libyan rebels – but an internet video “Innocence of Muslims,” reportedly portraying the prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Few had seen the trailer, which Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State, called “disgusting and reprehensible.” Susan Rice, president Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, claimed the Libya attack was “spontaneous – not a premeditated response” to “this very offensive video that was disseminated.” She did not say by whom.

The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters claimed that Western agencies made the film and demanded that it be removed from YouTube. They launched “Operation Alababil,” a series of attacks on Bank of America, Wells Fargo, PNC and other U.S. financial heavyweights in “revenge in response to the humiliation of the Organization of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) by some Western countries.”

Richard A. Clarke a former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, told ABC news that it was the first time an entity from the Middle East, perhaps a government, “had attacked websites, critical infrastructure in the United States.” The hackers claimed to be independent defenders of Islam taking orders from no one. But senator Joseph Lieberman and American computer security experts saw the hand of Iran in the attacks, more intense than those Russia directed at Estonia in 2007. Experts note that financial disruption is the calling card of state-sponsored attacks and the sophistication far exceeded the level of amateurs. It is entirely possible that Iran was responding to Western economic sanctions using the al-Qassam group as its proxy and the video as the pretext.

The Al Qassam squad continued the attacks until late October, 2012, then resumed the campaign in December claiming the attacks would continue until the U.S. government pulled the video off YouTube. The attacks have continued in March 2013, on the same pretext and with the same solution: pull the video and the attacks will stop. One doubts it, and now the context is different.

Jihadist mobs are not currently besieging American embassies and murdering ambassadors. On the other hand, Iran, an Islamic regime with a harem of carefully fondled hatreds, particularly for the United States, continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons. North Korea has canceled its armistice with the United States and continues to rattle its nuclear saber. As Americans face this double nuclear jeopardy, they might keep some realities in mind.

U.S. officials are fond of claiming that the nation is not at war with Islam but the cyberattacks are evidence that supremacist Islam remains at war with the United States and its allies. The video pretext, meanwhile, was a phony from the beginning, part of a carefully planned series of terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities and interests. The renewed attacks by the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters should serve as a reminder that the Obama administration, acting through Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, essentially parroted a jihadist propaganda ploy.

That sent a strong signal to al-Qassam, al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran and North Korea alike. If any terrorist group or nation seeks to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction, the conditions are now the most favorable they can expect. The world is now more dangerous than during the Cold War when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was the major threat.

Lloyd Billingsley


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

Saudi Arabia and Qatar's Idea of "Aid"

by Samuel Westrop

It is not the failure of the Saudi Arabia and Qatar to "step up" that will foment extremism in the Middle East; rather, it is they who are fomenting it. They must step down, not "up." It is these states' sponsorship of jihadists and other extremists that brings about the turmoil and the bloodshed.
Many journalists, instead of letting facts speak for themselves, frequently seem partial to making idealistic predictions and sweeping statements about the Middle East. Although no newspaper or government predicted the "Arab Spring," once it happened, much of the media declared that an era of prosperity, equality and democracy was about to transform the Middle East into a modern region with modern aspirations.

The Guardian, in fact, was so desperate to justify its original support for the "Arab Spring" that it recently produced a straight-faced editorial in which it claimed that Egyptian President Morsi's power-grab against the judiciary was a necessary act to guarantee Egypt's democratic aspirations.

The latest journalist to pick up the wrong end of the stick is Tim Montgomerie, who recently penned an opinion piece for The Times, entitled "The Arab world must act – or face disaster." Montgomerie claims:
Unless the Gulf states stump up their share of aid, the refugee problem will fuel extremism across the region.
The governments that need to step up to the plate are the region's rich oil powers, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar … David Cameron fears that a failure to answer calls for help from the moderate Syrian opposition will mean extremist elements will become increasingly dominant. The process of radicalisation of the anti-Assad forces is already well under way
If they don't get aid inside Syria soon, a refugee crisis of enormous scale will not just cause widespread human misery, it will fuel extremism in Jordan, Lebanon and throughout the region. A very great deal is at stake.
It seems to have escaped Montgomerie's attention that the leading funders of "extremist elements" within Syria are Saudi Arabia and Qatar – the very two countries he calls upon to "step up" and provide a solution.

Once the possibility of unrest in the Gulf started to die down last year, the Saudi Arabian government began, as described by Joshua Jacobs of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, to "unchain their clerical soft power."

State-controlled Saudi television regularly features pro-jihadist clerics. Sheikh Adnan al-Arour, for example, is a Syrian Salafist who calls for holy war against the Assad regime. He receives prime-time coverage on Saudi television. "Extremist elements" in Syria, such as the Supporters of Allah Brigade, have declared their allegiance to this Saudi-supported preacher.

Saudi Arabia, threatened by Iranian hegemony, is keen to dethrone the Iran-backed Assad and replace him with a Sunni-friendly regime. Their weapon of choice seems to be state-managed jihad.

Qatar is now the chief backer of the Muslim Brotherhood -- from Cairo and Gaza to the Brotherhood fighters in Syria. Al Jazeera, the influential media station owned by the Qatari Government, has assigned its Syria desk to Ahmed Ibrahim, the brother of Anas al-Abdah, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council. Al Jazeera has, unsurprisingly, produced a number of puff pieces about the anti-regime Islamists in Syria.

According to reports, it is the jihadists within Syria who are receiving the bulk of the weapons sent from Saudi and Qatar. The Independent notes that the extremist jihadist group, Jabhat al-Nusra -- declared a terrorist group by the United States in December 2012, and which claims to be an ally of al-Qaeda -- has become one of the most able fighting forces precisely thanks to the vast supplies of money and arms sent from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

It is not the failure of these two Gulf States to "step up" that will foment extremism in the Middle East; rather, it is they who are fomenting it. They must step down, not up. It is these states' sponsorship of jihadists and other extremists that brings about the turmoil and the bloodshed.

Montgomerie is not only a columnist for the Times, he is also considered one of the most influential conservatives in Britain. His columns are regarded as an expression of government policy, albeit more candid than the official line.

If I were a jihadist, I would feel extremely comfortable right now. If I were a secular Syrian fighting against despotism, I would feel very alone. If I were Tim Montgomerie, I would stop talking.

Samuel Westrop


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

Salafists to hold Conference against 'Spread of Shia Doctrine in Egypt'

by Ahram Online

Salafist Call and Nour Party will host a conference in Cairo on Friday to 'reveal dangers' of spreading Shia teaching in Egypt; spokesperson of Shiites in Egypt claims all Shiites are welcome except those from Iran 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks to Egypt's President 
Mohammed Morsi after his speech during the 16th summit of the 
Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran, August 2012 (Photo: Reuters)
The Salafist Call and its political arm, the Nour Party, will hold a conference on Friday in an attempt to condemn what they claim is the ‘spread of the Shiite tide in Egypt.’ 

The conference will take place in the Amr Ibn Al-Ass Mosque in the historic Fustat Cairo and is an attempt to show the differences between Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam, "that originates in the doctrine itself,” Sheikh Sherif El-Hawary, leading member of the Salafist Call, said in a press release.

"Egypt is a real catch because the Shiites see it as the main base for Sunni Islam, which they want to overtake. They believe their Mahdi [twelfth Imam] will only appear once Egypt is in their reach, but God willing, this will not take root", asserted El-Hawary.

"We truly believe that the Shiites will fail in spreading their influence just as they did when they initiated the Al-Azhar Institution and ruled for 260 years to take over Sunni Islam," he added.

Referring to the economic situation of the country, El-Hawary stated that this period is most significant, turbulent and threatening, which the Shiites are attempting to take advantage of.

The main objection against the Shiite sect is that they have attempted to change the word of God and the Holy Quran, in addition to their rejection of all of the Prophet's companions except a few, which is a clear violation of Islam," He further claimed.

The conference will be an attempt to reveal the ‘truth’ behind the Shiite sect and present the ‘dangers’ of its attempts at influencing Egyptian society by shedding light on a number of its betrayals throughout history, including what El-Hawary states is their ‘alliances’ with the US in aiding their ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan and Iraq.

On a similar note, spokesperson of the Shiites in Egypt, Bahaa Anwar Mohamed called on Salafists and Wahabi's to organise protests outside the Iranian embassy in Cairo against the recent resumption of Iranian tourism to Egypt. He called on the expulsion of the charge d'affaires of the Iranian envoy to Egypt.

Anwar added that before such normalisation of relations between Iran and Egypt takes place, the regime in Iran has to change, asserting "Egypt should nevertheless welcome all Shiites to Egypt, except those from Iran."

"Iran's Shiites attempt to spread political Islam in the form of Shiism that is affected by Ayatollah Khomeini, as opposed to Egypt's Shiites attempting to spread it in loyalty to Prophet Mohamed," asserted Anwar.

He further claimed that Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, from which President Mohamed Morsi hailed, are using the recent wave of tourism to Egypt as a warning in an attempt to blackmail the Gulf countries and attain money from them.

Anwar concluded by stating that he was against all forms of theocracies and regarded them "failed states" since religion in this case is used and abused for the benefit of those in power, referring to Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

There has been increased criticism by many Egyptians, specifically by Salafists groups, regarding the return of diplomatic ties between Egypt and Iran, with fears expressed of the rising influence of the Shiite branch of Islam in the country.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s historic February visit to Egypt — the first visit of an Iranian leader to the country since the 1970s — was met with severe criticism from Salafist groups who issued a statement warning Ahmedinejad not to visit Tahrir Square.

Nevertheless, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar demanded for the former to stop promoting Shiism in ‘Sunni Egypt’.

Several Shiite activists in Egypt, however, claim that many of the attacks on the sect in Egypt have been an attempt at scapegoating them for the fears of normalisation of Egypt’s relations with Iran in the face of several Gulf countries.

Ahram Online


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

Is this Just the Beginning? 15,000 Israelis Hacked on Facebook

by Ilan Gattegno, Shlomo Cesana, Lilach Shoval

Ahead of the massive cyberattack threatened for April 7, Facebook accounts of 15,000 Israelis are hacked • Israel's cyber bureau assures citizens vital infrastructure is secure • IDF pilots and some soldiers ordered not to use their real names on social networks.

The looming massive cyberattack on Israel is already being felt on Facebook.
Photo credit: GettyImages

Ilan Gattegno, Shlomo Cesana, Lilach Shoval


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

Norway Angry PA may have used Aid to Fund Terrorists

by Eli Leon and Israel Hayom Staff

Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide visits Israel, says he is angry at Palestinian Authority after report claims Norwegian aid money went to pay convicted Palestinian terrorists' salaries in jail • Norway asks PA for clarification.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide.
Photo credit: Reuters

Eli Leon and Israel Hayom Staff


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