Friday, May 31, 2013

Mordechai Kedar: Know thine Enemy


by Mordechai Kedar
Read the article in the original עברית
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

The Emirate of Qatar is located on the shore of the Persian Gulf, and lives on top of a large gas well. The tremendous amount of money that flows into this  country has enriched its two hundred thousand citizens incredibly: they do not pay taxes, they enjoy free educational and health services and laugh all the way to the bank. The money enables them not only to purchase anything they want, but also to have a dramatic influence on the Middle East. As a result of this, the ruler of Qatar has become the most influential person in the Arab World, and he is an active partner in significant international processes.

The chief means that the Emir of Qatar uses to influence matters in the Middle East is the al-Jazeera channel, the channel responsible for overthrowing the rulers of the Arab world one after another by means of incitement that it has been conducting against them ever since it began broadcasting, toward the end of 1996. Using this channel, the ruler of Qatar disseminates the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is destined- according to his view - to replace all of the secular ideologies (nationalism, socialism, liberalism) that have penetrated into the Islamic world. A central component of the message of the Emir of Qatar and al-Jazeera is that the state of Israel is an illegitimate entity and must be fought with all means available to the Islamic world, mainly by spreading the message that the state of Israel is an illegitimate state that was established by a criminal act and all of its deeds are sin and iniquity.

Al-Jazeera implements all of the principles of taqiyya - deception, or misrepresentation - in order to seem like a fair and balanced station, a station that calls for democracy, individual rights, minority rights and women's rights, but this whole spectacle - produced with attractive and captivating computer graphics - is meant to advance the agenda of the Emir of Qatar: to amass power, to advance the political Islamic movement, to destroy Israel and to minimize as much as possible the influence of the United States in the world. Using taqiyya, the Emir of Qatar organizes international meetings and conferences that are meant to present a picture that is the opposite of his real agenda.

A month and a half ago I presented here my weekly article entitled "The Islamic Winter Blows into Jerusalem" in which I described the steps that the Emir of Qatar is taking in order to uproot Jerusalem from Israel. I noted there, the incredible sums that Qatar has allocated for the matter, about a half billion dollars from a fund of a billion dollars, and the various ways that money can be used to promote the unholy goals of the Emir of Qatar.

And the money indeed is beginning to have an effect: this week the al-Jazeera channel published in a news item entitled (my comments are in parenthesis, M.K.): "The Campaign in Qatar to Support the Perseverance of the People of Jerusalem (the Muslims, against Israel's attempts to take control of the city, M.K.) "  "Ninety prizes were awarded to the public who answered the questions about al-Aqsa (mosque, M.K.)". In this report, under the subtitle "Whoever has donated to it is as if he had prayed in it" (a quote from the Hadith, M.K); yesterday in Doha (the capital of Qatar, M.K.),  the Qatari Red Crescent organized an event in support of the al-Aqsa Mosque to collect donations for the projects dealing with health and education in the blessed city and to help its residents to stand steadfast against expulsion and Judaization. As part of the operation, lectures and competitions were organized relating to the situation of al-Quds, its history and its importance for the caliphs of Islam since the days of Umr ibn al-Khattab (the second caliph, who conquered Jerusalem in the year 638 CE from the Byzantines, M.K.) until the Ottoman period.

In the event that was held in coordination with the association of the "Youth for al-Quds", ninety prizes were awarded to members of the audience who answered the questions about the al-Aqsa Mosque and praises relating to praying within it, its spires and its gates. The Islamic propagandist Dr. Wajdi  Ghuneim gave a lecture in which he clarified that supporting al-Aqsa with one's money and time is "a very valuable sort of jihad".
Ghuneim pointed out that al-Aqsa has a very important place in Islam and it must remain etched in the memory of society because it is the place from which the honorable prophet was transported at night, it is the third most important mosque and it lies on the ground where the dead will gather before Judgement Day and from where they will arise for judgement. Ghuneim urged the public to invest everything that is dear to them in al-Aqsa and not despair of liberating it, "because victory is with those who fight for Bayt al-Maqdis (the classical name of Jerusalem, M.K.) and the surrounding area, "and G-d sustains his light even if the infidels hate it" (Qur'an, Sura 61, Verse 8).

The head of the board of directors of the Red Crescent of Qatar, Dr. Mohamed bin Ghanem al-Ali al-Ma'adid, exhorted the public to donate to al-Aqsa and to the residents of Bayt al-Maqdis, who "suffer from the most terrible oppression and upon whom many restrictive measures are used in order to force them to leave. Al-Ma'adid took care to say that the operation offers important support and that it can help al-Aqsa and its people to cope with the plans to erase (the Islamic identity, M.K.) and Judaize (Jerusalem, according to the plot of, M.K.) the thieving entity (the term meaning Israel for those who won't even say its name, M.K.).

A War Between Cultures (The original subtitle, M.K.)

The deputy head of the Association of al-Quds Youth said to that the event is held because of the war of cultures being conducted in Jerusalem between Israel and the Muslims. Muhammad Darwish added that the association participated in the campaign by disseminating the Jerusalem culture among the youth, to awaken the sense that al-Aqsa,  the captive, is part of the Muslim identity and entity and can never, ever be compromised.

The association organizes conferences and lectures on the matter of al-Aqsa in mosques, schools and commercial centers, in order to connect with the various sectors of society. According to the words of Darwish, this year the association organized a competition on the situation in Jerusalem and its history, which fourteen thousand students in Qatar took part in, and he noted that the rate of participation of the youth in the competition exceeded expectations.

The manager of development of financial resources of the Red Crescent said in a conversation with that the event was held to collect donations for the "Jerusalem Fund", which
(the Qatari Red, M.K.) Crescent established three years ago, and during the past three years it has raised more than twenty million rials. 'Adel al-Baker clarifies that the function of the fund is to support hospitals and (medical, M.K.) centers in the holy city, and to give monetary support to its residents in order to help them maintain a stronghold in the city and sustain their position. He added that as long as Israel gambles that the Jerusalem families will not be able to stand up to the efforts of Judaization and the attempts to impoverish them, the Muslims must maintain contact with these families, to ease their lives and allow them to survive.

The Arab Conscience (original subtitle, M.K.)

According to the words of al-Baker, this kind of operation must be done continually, so that Jerusalem will not deteriorate from a problem that is central to the Arab conscience into an occasional event that people remember once or twice a year. According to him, he feels that the Jerusalem families derive satisfaction from continual contact with the projects and the support that Qatar offers to Jerusalem and its residents. He calls on the Arab peoples to fulfill their obligations to the holy city and its residents, who are standing strong, who are willing to suffer and are determined fighters.

According to an announcement that the Qatari Red Crescent distributed to the public, it has carried out many projects in Jerusalem during the past three years, including building a day care unit in al-Maqasid hospital and equipping it with medical instruments; building a women's clinic, purchasing ambulances and establishing a water supply network in the village of 'Atara.

This ends the content of the news item, which clearly indicates that Qatar is investing money in Jerusalem, the capital of sovereign Israel, as an activity directly aimed against Israel and its presence in Jerusalem.

Only one conclusion can be drawn from this news item: the Emir of Qatar has decided to begin a war to tear Jerusalem away from Israel, and this is against the Basic Law: Jerusalem, legislated by the Knesset. The Emir of Qatar uses whatever means are available to him - money and communications media - in this phase, which he uses without any constraints.

But the war will not stop in Jerusalem: the Emir of Qatar, using petrodollars, al-Jazeera and the influence that he has amassed in the Middle East and in the world at large, is trying to promote political Islam similar to that of the Muslim Brotherhood and to undermine the Western world,  and its presence and influence on the Arab world and Islam, and since Israel is - according to his view - a Western colonialist project, Qatar must act in order to wipe out Israel, just as Qatar has destroyed Qadhaffi in Libya, bin 'Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Saleh in Yemen and perhaps Asad in Syria as well. To the Emir of Qatar, Israel is no better than they are, and if it was worthwhile in his eyes to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims in order to get rid of those rulers, then money and many Muslims can be sacrificed to get rid of Israel too.

Israel must recognize the enemy, whose name is the Emir of Qatar, early enough in the war, before it is too late. Identifying the enemy belatedly might make it possible for him to grow, develop, become more powerful and take on dimensions that it will be difficult to cope with.

In the first and immediate phase, Israel must declare Qatar as an enemy state, and abolish any Qatari presence from Israel, especially the al-Jazeera channel. Just as Israel does not allow Hizb'Allah's al-Manar channel or Iran's al-'Alam channel to operate from its territory, Israel must also forbid al-Jazeera to operate from its territory. There is no reason that Israel - as a state that aims to survive as the state of the Jewish people residing in its historical capital - should allow Qatar to conduct media-based jihad against Israel from within Israel. The government of Israel must say to the Emir of Qatar: "You don't need to have offices and studios in Israel in order to conduct your jihad against us. Kindly take them somewhere else to conduct jihad against us."

In the second phase Israel must stop the economic jihad that is being waged by Qatar as it streams funds into the sovereign state of Israel. The monies of Qatar must be defined as funding terrorism, because the Emir of Qatar is the main supporter of Hamas: he is the first Arab leader who visited Gaza under the rule of Hamas, and gave Hamas approximately a half billion petrodollars to develop the terror industry in the state of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and there is no reason that Israel should allow him to turn Jerusalem into another Hamastan.

In the third phase Israel must conduct a world wide mission to expose the involvement of Qatar in the promotion of political Islam in Western countries, which it does using al-Jazeera in English and Qatari money that flows to those Islamist organizations in the West that identify with the Muslim Brotherhood. The ultimate goal of the Emir of Qatar is to promote the agenda of these organizations, whose purpose is to impose Islam upon the whole world. This purpose became clear to all when the Qatari al-Jazeera channel was specifically chosen by Usama bin Laden to broadcast his recordings during the years that he was in hiding.

The battle against the Qatari octopus and the various tentacles that it sends out to Israel and the Western world will require a change in legislation, because the current laws, which are built on principles of personal freedom are suitable to those who accept upon themselves the rules of the game which is the Western social and political system. But the Emir of Qatar, the main promoter of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world, takes advantage of the liberal and democratic principles that exist in Israel and in the Western world in order to instill the messages of political, illiberal and anti-democratic Islam, which he believes in and wishes to promote.

In a living body, the immune system must identify every enemy in order to fight it off. A body that does not identify dangerous invaders doesn't understand the danger that it represents to him, does not activate antibodies against them and its fate is sealed, because they grow and develop and when they are discovered, the situation is already irreversible. It is just as important for Israel to identify the enemy and stop its development before it is too late. Qatar is an enemy of Israel and the West, and all traces of its presence must be eradicated from our midst while the situation allows it. Western states are no different from Israel in this matter.

Full disclosure: the writer of these lines, as an Arabic speaker, is interviewed from time to time on al-Jazeera and presents the Israeli, Jewish, Zionist, Western position to the viewers. This does not detract from his opinion that Israel and the West must rid themselves of al-Jazeera.


Dr. Kedar is available for lectures

Dr. Mordechai Kedar
( is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.

Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

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

Barry Rubin: Can the U.S. Government Buy Moderation in the Middle East? No

by Barry Rubin

Can the Obama Administration turn radicals into moderates with money?

Way back in 1979, shortly after the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said that people in the West didn’t understand revolutionary Islamism. “They think,” he explained, “the revolution is all about the price of watermelons. It isn’t.” In other words, this is an ideological cause not a money-making attempt where people can be bribed.

Three Examples:

1. The Palestinian Case

On May 26, at the World Economic Forum in Jordan, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed a new plan. He wants to find $4 billion from investors. If he does this, he claims, the Palestinian economy will be doing great, people will be employed, and there will be peace.

Actually, this is a bribe to get the Palestinian Authority back to negotiations with Israel which would also mean, of course, that the Obama Administration can claim a foreign policy success. That’s $4 billion to buy a negotiations’ process that will meet a few times and break down in deadlock, as has happened over 20 years under far better potential conditions and additional billions of dollars of aid to the Palestinians. The initiative is also intended to get the Palestinian Authority to drop plans to seek statehood at the UN; file cases against Israel at the World Court; and to try to join other international institutions as an independent state.

What should the money be spent on according to Kerry? Why on tourism! No doubt tourists are just lining up to go to the West Bank (they certainly aren’t going to go to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip where the rockets’ red glare has a different meaning).

Notice incidentally that these are not productive investments. Perhaps he could have proposed investment in green energy. After all, the West Bank has much better prospects for solar power than does the United States.

The supposed uses to which the money would be put further signals that this is a political bribe. If this money is found Kerry said the result would be to:

“Increase the Palestinian GDP by as much as 50% over three years…and reduce unemployment by two-thirds…and increase the median wage by 40%.”

Should the secretary of state be talking on such a level of fantasy? Does a single one of his listeners believe this?

Tony Blair, to whom the tourism project was turned over by Kerry, has been the negotiator for the quartet for 11 years. Guess how many visits he has made to Jerusalem? Answer: 87. And basically he’s accomplished zero. Here is the short list of achievements that he even dares claim after 11 years, 87 trips, and vast amounts of money.

Kerry stated:

“Experts believe that we can increase the Palestinian GDP by as much as 50% over three years. Their most optimistic estimates foresee enough new jobs to cut unemployment by nearly two-thirds – to 8%, down from 21% today – and to increase the median annual wage along with it, by as much as 40%….”

How about their more pessimistic estimates or even their realistic ones? Kerry has chosen the worst possible plan, investment in an industry that is incredibly sensitive to political unrest.

Are Palestinians going to become hotel managers, waiters, lifeguards at swimming pools, and so on?

What will Hamas think about the influx of massive numbers of Western tourists?
The sale of alcohol?

Western women coming in wearing whatever they want?

What would happen to this investment if there was a single terrorist attack in the West Bank, much less one against tourists?

Might events in nearby Egypt and Syria affect Western tourism?

And while Israel is successful at tourism it is a developed country with far more to see. Remember east Jerusalem—the main tourist attraction—is controlled by Israel, not the Palestinian Authority. Once you get beyond Bethlehem which tourists can visit easily while spending a night in an Israeli hotel—what’s there to do in the West Bank?

Is this a good idea for a $4 billion investment?

Kerry continued:

“The economics will never work properly or fully without the political process….President Abbas, the economic approach is not a substitute for the political approach. The political approach is essential and it is our top priority. In fact, none of this vision…will happen without the context of the two-state solution.”

Question: If billions of dollars have not bought PA support for a two-state solution in 20 years why should anything change now?

Predictably, the PA reaction was that Israel would have to give still more concessions before it would do Israel and the United States the favor of returning to negotiations so that it could obtain a state, even though it is so weak that these two have to prop it up and it only controls half the territory it is bargaining for. No matter how much time and money Kerry takes to restart the “peace process” nothing is going to happen. It is remarkable that the West still doesn’t understand this. Or perhaps it does and is putting in all this effort for show?

2. Syria, the Bashar al-Assad Regime

For two years, during the first half of the Obama Administration, the United States tried to buy Syria out of its alliance with Iran by dangling trade and other financial inducements. We were assured that the Syrians would eagerly “sell out.” But of course this never happened.

3. Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood

After the civil war began, when the United States tried to isolate the Syrian branch of al-Qaida (Jabhat al-Nusra) in December 2012  by designating it as a terrorist group, even the Free Syrian Army, supposedly the moderates, denounced the move as did more than 30 Syrian Salafist rebel groups.  This was despite the offers of weapons and money. U.S. officials dealing with the Islamist rebel groups knew that they could not get them to do anything the United States wanted. Nevertheless, at the recent meeting of the Syrian opposition, the State Department spokesman explained:

“We have recognized the coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and we will work with Prime Minister Hitto. Our assistance will be channeled in large part through him and his team into these towns in liberated parts of Syria.”

Translation: One among several opposition groups–the one controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood–is recognized by the United States as the legitimate representative (even though many groups are boycotting it); the Muslim Brotherhood’s guy is the “prime minister;” and the U.S. government intends to disburse a total of $1 billion raised internationally through the Muslim Brotherhood. How much patronage will that buy for the Brotherhood?

Kerry also announced that $250 million in U.S. taxpayer money is going to go directly to a group directed by the Muslim Brotherhood to spend as it wishes, presumably to go mainly to local Brotherhood groups and militias.

But what was the Brotherhood-dominated in the so-called National Coalition which is the U.S. recognized opposition group doing at the same time? Answer: refusing to broaden its membership. Even proposals that the Brotherhood be left with two-thirds of the seats were ultimately rejected by the Brotherhood. And who were the proposed new members? Michel Kilo and his allies, courageous moderates who the West should have been supporting all along! After playing games on adding these people the Brotherhood leadership turned it down. Kilo’s moderate group by the way was not the one recognized by the United States as the “legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”  The National Coalition also leaves out the Kurds whose leadership is secular and, except for tokens, the Alawites, Druze, and Christians, too. It basically represents the roughly 25 or 30 percent who support the various Islamist rebel groups.

They also came up with a new scheme to empower the Brotherhood’s local councils within Syria as a basis for an internal opposition government that would disburse any funds. The situation is not good in rebel-controlled Syria as there is no source of money. Would the West raise funds that would be handed out by the Muslim Brotherhood to its supporters?

Turkey and Qatar, supposed U.S. partners, are doing everything possible to support the Brotherhood. Even the Saudis now see through these scheme and reportedly realize that their helping the Salafists is suicidal to their interests.

Why is it that the “official” Syrian opposition group refuses to broaden its base to non-Islamists but still gets U.S. support? Isn’t money and weaponry supposed to provide U.S. leverage?

Meanwhile, President Obama stated recently that the United States has spent $1 trillion–a considerable part of the deficit–on anti-terrorism measures.

For detailed accounts by two reliable observers of the Syrian scene see here and here.

Note: My colleague, Dr. Jonathan Spyer, was on a BBC show with a British Conservative member of parliament who insisted that Syria was a secular country and that none of the rebels were Islamists. This is the level of ignorance among many politicians and others in the West.

If you are interested in reading more about Syria, you’re welcome to read my book The Truth About Syria online or download it for free.

For a discussion of what I think U.S. policy toward terrorism and Islamism should be, see here.

Barry Rubin


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

Betrayal in Benghazi

by Colonel Phil Handley


The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.  Among America’s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.  Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi. The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog press” has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.  The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle.

It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference… mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.  
This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion. The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin *** and do nothing. The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.

Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local):

When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.”  At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down.”  By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various Command and Control Agencies… and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on. At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

So nothing could have been done, eh?  Nonsense.  If one assumes that tanker support really was not available… what about this:

·     When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.
·     By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours.

·     While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

·     The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM… which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.

·     Providing that  the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.

·     Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport, only one-half hour away.

·     As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act… screw them.  It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities straight and put America’s interests first.

The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive.

Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins”… and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug on Superman’s cape.”

Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief who was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rest for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day.  As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood “What difference did it make?”, or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone… and he didn’t understand the tactical situation?  YGBSM!

Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to “stand down?” Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty.  The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.

Colonel Phil “Hands” Handley, USAF (Ret.) is credited with the highest speed air-to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally for all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre, F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules. Additionally, he flew 275 combat missions during two tours in Southeast Asia in the F-4D and F-4E. His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Silver Star.


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

The "Grievances" Defense

by Peter Huessy

If grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing the grievances would remove the terrorism. The U.S. was warned, however, before 9/11, that it faced a "poisonous coalition" of terror groups, wealthy sheiks, military establishments and intelligence, all fueled with an apparently endless supply of indoctrinated recruits from madrassas and mosques. This coalition now has nuclear weapons. A credible case can be argued that the West has the right of self-defense.
The April terrorist attacks during the Boston Marathon killed and wounded scores of people. Machete-wielding thugs last week butchered a British soldier in full view of citizens on a London street. Simultaneously, in Sweden, a full five days of riots have seen burned cars, banks and schools, and assaulted citizens.

These attacks raise the uncomfortable question: "Why are we being attacked?"

A newly announced American policy to deal with such threats involves "addressing grievances and conflicts" that feed what is described as "extremism."

But will this work?

After 9/11, despite the impression of a nation coming together, almost immediately many pundits, media outlets and academics blamed America. We were, for example, attacked because "our chickens [were] coming home to roost." Three reasons were most often cited: our sanctions against Iraq; our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support for Israel.

Over a quarter of a century ago, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, our UN ambassador during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan's, first explained this tendency to "always blame America first." It flowed from a view that saw American military power as a harmful force in world politics. Steven Kinzer in All the Shah's Men argued in 2003, just two years later, that, "It is not far-fetched to draw a line through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution [1979] to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York." A decade later, former Congressman Ron Paul similarly argued the attacks of 9/11 were in retaliation for American troops being deployed in Saudi Arabia in 1990-1991, there to drive Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And on May 23, the administration sought to explain what it terms "violent extremism" as a reaction to the "thousands of civilians that have been killed" in Iraq and Afghanistan," implicitly by American intervention.

Even now, many weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, the "Blame America" syndrome is on full display.

The New York Times charged that the US had failed to assimilate the bombers' family, implying presumably, "What could anyone expect them to do other then bomb the Boston Marathon?"

Then the bombers were humanized. They were described as friendly school chums, attractive to women. The New York Times compared one of the bombers to the hero of that classic American book Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield.

Then came the "self-actualization" explanation for terrorism: apparently, as the two brothers were not members of any terrorist group but possibly just lone-wolf types, America had failed to "assimilate" them properly -- implying that their bombing was somehow our fault.

That rationalization was followed by strenuous efforts to avoid making any connection to their Islamic background, their travel to Dagestan, and their connection to a nearby Boston mosque from which a half dozen members and key leaders have been convicted of terrorist acts in the past decade.

In Sweden, similarly, the BBC said the rioting youths, while from predominant "immigrant areas," were unhappy about joblessness.

The mayor of London assured everyone that even while one of the butchers was "dripping blood and swearing by Almighty Allah 'We will never stop fighting you'," there was no connection to Islam to be drawn.

This compulsion to explain terrorism as driven by grievances against America continues as the politically correct narrative.

If "legitimate grievances" motivate terrorists, the thinking apparently goes, then such terrorism is justified.

Former President James Carter argued that Hamas's and Hezbollah's use of terrorism against Israel "is understandable" because after all they do not have a modern air force with which to fight.

If grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing these grievances would remove the terrorism.

If poverty is the problem, advocate more foreign assistance.

If Israel is the problem, establish a Palestinian State.

If the presence of the U.S. military in the Middle East is the issue, withdraw the military force.

If our negative attitude toward Islam is the problem, repeatedly citing Islam as a "religion of peace" wipes out the threat.

But if government officials' assertion that the US is not at war with Islam -- meant to convey to citizens of the Islamic world that they need not fear us and we will no longer "attack them " -- it also conveys the notion that many followers of Islam do not feel compelled to attack those whom they see as insufficiently "Muslim," let alone Jews, Christians, Hindus and others not of the Islamic faith.

That official view also ignores that in 732 and 1683, Islamic forces were twice defeated at the height of their attempted conquest of much of the known world -- the latter attempt on September 11, 1683, at the gates of Vienna, where a army led by a Polish king defeated an Islamic army many times its size.

The search for "grievances" implies it is simply coincidental that 30 of the 32 current "Most Wanted" by the FBI are Muslims, and that of the more than 2,200 terror attacks in 2012, over 2000 were undertaken my Muslims or in the name of Islam.

Critics of U.S. policy under the Bush administration claimed that it was our perceived status as a military "bully" in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, that propelled young Muslim men to "fight back."

But this analysis fails to take into account that long before the U.S. liberation of Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S., Israel and others -- even in the Muslim world -- were regularly and routinely being attacked and murdered by people "in the name of Islam".

The State Department regularly officially designates countries involved in funding, training or providing safe haven for terrorists as "state sponsors of terror." In the commentary about 9/11 and the intervening terrorism of the past decade, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya have routinely been identified as top sponsors of terrorism.

Although not thought of as terror masters, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia created the Taliban and thousands of Wahhabi mosques, and supports terrorist groups such as the PLO.

North Korea, Venezuela, China and other non-Islamic countries have also worked with, and supported, state sponsors of terror that are primarily "Islamic."

This factor appears to be missing in the current administration's analyses.

But for most in the media and the academic world, the role of either terror states or Islam is dismissed. Terrorism is reduced to legitimate grievances that the West, Israel and the United States are capable of addressing but have failed to clear up.

Ahmad Shah Massoud, however -- head of the Northern Alliance, the Afghani force that defeated the Soviet Union, and who was murdered just shortly before 9/11 -- had warned the U.S. that it faced a "poisonous coalition" of terror groups, wealthy sheiks, military establishments, and intelligence services, all fueled with an apparently endless supply of indoctrinated recruits from madrassas and mosques.

This coalition now has missiles and nuclear weapons.

If, however, the driving force behind terrorist attacks on the United States is a strategy to harm the United States and other Western nations, to eliminate their presence in the Middle East or terrorize them into agreeing to live under the laws of Islam, a credible case can be argued that the U.S. and its allies have the right of self-defense.

This is even truer if the threat the West faces is a force that seeks to establish totalitarian Islam throughout the Muslim world, then everywhere else. If the tip of the spear may indeed be a nuclear weapon, let us rethink what it means to "provide for the common defense."

Peter Huessy


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

Arab Spring Egypt's 'Legal' Persecution of Christians

by Raymond Ibrahim

Post "Arab Spring" Egypt continues exposing its true nature, including now legal persecution of Christians. Earlier this month, according to Fox News, Dimyana Abdel-Nour a "pale, young Christian woman sat handcuffed in the courtroom, accused of insulting Islam while teaching history of religions to fourth-graders." Her accusers are 10-year-old Muslim children who say she "showed disgust when she spoke of Islam in class."
According to Islamic law, the word of inferior Christians cannot stand against that of superior Muslims—even if they are resentful or confused children.

Released on bail, Dimyana is unable to talk and "suffering a nervous breakdown."
The report continues:
Criminalizing blasphemy was enshrined in the country's Islamist-backed constitution that was adopted in December. Writers, activists and even a famous television comedian have been accused of blasphemy since then. But Christians seem to be the favorite target of Islamist prosecutors. Their fragile cases — the main basis of the case against Abdel-Nour's case the testimony of children — are greeted with sympathy from courtroom judges with their own religious bias or who fear the wrath of Islamists, according to activists. The result is a growing number of Egyptians, including many Christians, who have been convicted and sent to prison for blasphemy…. Part of the Salafis' antagonism toward Christians is rooted in the belief that they were a protected group under Mubarak's regime while they, the Salafis, were persecuted. Now empowered, they may be out to exact revenge on the Christians....
Indeed, before President Obama threw Hosni Mubarak under the bus in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," Christians were at least legally protected: Muslim mobs were limited to lawless attacks on Christian churches and persons. But now that the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis are in charge, Egypt's Christians are now also experiencing legal persecution in the courtrooms, especially in the context of blasphemy.

The following cases of blasphemy laws targeting Christians, some of which were never reported in the West, represent a mere sampling of post "Arab Spring" Egypt. For many more such cases, including all around the Muslim world, see my new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (April, 2013, published by Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute.
    • In November 2012, an Egyptian court decreed that eight Christians living in America—seven native Egyptians, and one American, Pastor Terry Jones—be sent to Egypt and executed in connection with the 16-minute YouTube Muhammad video. The prosecution offered no real evidence against the Christians, most of whom deny any involvement, and instead relied on inciting Muslims against the accused by replaying the video in the courtroom.
    • Last September, 27-year-old Copt Albert Saber was accused of posting clips of the Muhammad movie—which he had actually downloaded from a Muslim site, not YouTube. Muslims attacked and evicted him and his mother from their home; he was arrested and is currently awaiting a multi-year sentence.
    • In March 2012, Makram Diab, a 49-year-old Christian, was sentenced in a 10-minute show trial to six years in prison for "insulting Muhammad." He had gotten into a religious argument with a Muslim colleague, who went on to protest that Diab had offended the prophet. The judge doubled the sentence to appease an angry mob, 2,500 strong, which had surrounded the courtroom demanding Diab's death.
    • In August 2012, Bishoy Kamil, a Copt in his 20s who worked as a teacher, was arrested and given six years in prison for posting cartoons deemed insulting to Islam and its prophet on Facebook. Like Diab, he was given more than double the maximum penalty to appease mob calls for his death.
    • In April 2012, Gamal Abdu Massud, a teenage Christian student, was sentenced to three years on accusations that he had posted a Muhammad cartoon on his Facebook account, which had only some 135 friends. Apparently the wrong "friend" saw it, for it was not long before local Muslims rioted, burning the Coptic teenager's house as well as the homes of five other Christians.
    • In June 2011, another Christian woman, Naima Wahib Habil, newly hired as director of a junior high school for girls, was sentenced to two years imprisonment on the accusation that she had torn a copy of the Koran in front of her students. The rumor inspired mob riots and calls for her death.
Human rights activist Magdi Khalil of Coptic Solidarity told me that in all these cases "Islamist prosecutors rely exclusively on circumstantial evidence. And the judges do not behave like impartial judges, but rather as demagogues haranguing an already frenzied mob, and then sacrificing the Copts to satisfy them. Nor do they allow any representation for the accused. Judges just show up and pass their verdicts in very brief mock trials."

Such is the new Egypt that Obama helped create—despite all the glaring warning signs that it would develop just like this. Christian persecution in Egypt has gone from being a common, though technically illegal, phenomenon, to being widespread, and now legal.

Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians. A Middle East and Islam expert, he is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.


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

Thought Criminals Arrested after London Horror

by Bruce Bawer


Ever since 9/11, every time some place or another on the planet has been struck by a major jihadist act, the mainstream media have reliably come out with stories about “backlash” against Muslims. Not accounts of actual backlash, mind you, but pieces in which various academics, public officials, Muslim leaders, and other sensitive souls have been described as wringing their hands over the dreaded possibility that some of us boorish infidels might respond to this latest action by going on the warpath against innocent Muslims. If these “backlash” articles have been such a staple of post-9/11 journalism, it’s obviously because they’ve offered the media an opportunity to focus not on the innumerable Muslim-on-infidel atrocities that have actually taken place but, rather, on hypothetical, and violent, infidel-on-Muslim responses – and thus to persist in casting Muslims in the role of victim, even while the bodies of those they have slaughtered in Islam’s name have yet to go cold.

Yet the fabled “backlash” has never really materialized –  not, at least, on anything remotely resembling the scale that the media have repeatedly predicted. On the contrary, with a very small number of minor, isolated exceptions, people in the non-Muslim world have routinely responded to Muslim violence with civilized restraint. Indeed, it’s hard to think of anything that more dramatically reflects the difference between the Islamic and Western cultures than the contrast between the brutality and scale of the jihadist attacks on the West in recent years and the extraordinarily low level and modest scale of actions taken against Muslim targets in revenge. This refusal of non-Muslims to take an eye-for-an-eye approach in response to jihadist acts is a remarkable testament to the native tolerance of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims – and, indeed, to the black-and-white distinction between pretty much every other religion in the world and Islam, which, alone among major faiths, instructs its adherents to see offense everywhere and to respond even to the merest cartoon with murderous violence on a global scale.

Yet now, it seems, things have changed. In the aftermath of the the brutal slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby on a London street, the British media have finally had a few cases of real “backlash” to report on. Or so, at least, that country’s newspapers would have us believe. “Woolwich attack provokes anti-Muslim backlash across UK,” blared a Telegraph headline. “The murder of soldier Lee Rigby has provoked a backlash of anger across the UK,” the Daily Mail reported. “Woolwich murder sparks anti-Muslim backlash,” a headline at the BBC website proclaimed.

For all these references to a nationwide “backlash,” however, details were scarce. Newspapers provided particulars on only one genuinely serious-sounding offense. On Sunday, two men “hurled petrol bombs” at a mosque in Grimsby, Lincolnshire. (The police, taking the crime seriously, apprehended the perpetrators without delay.) Although the Independent maintained on Tuesday that there had been no fewer than ten “Islamophobic attacks” on mosques since the Rigby killing, one searched in vain for specifics – which led one to wonder just what “attacks” meant in this context. (Bombs? Or slices of bacon tossed on the sidewalk?) “Fears that Muslim communities across the country are facing a sustained wave of attacks and intimidation,” began a Guardian article, “have intensified after it emerged that almost 200 Islamophobic incidents had been reported since the murder of British soldier Drummer Lee Rigby.” What were all these “incidents”? The article didn’t say.

The Mail mentioned another “incident,” one in which two men had been charged with “religiously aggravated threatening behaviour” at a London fast-food joint. But, again, no details. (Had they pulled a knife on somebody? Or gotten a drop of mustard on a Koran?)

Stateside, the New York Times, which gave the Stockholm riots short shrift, found space to report the claim by Fiyaz Mughal, head of a group called Faith Matters, “that graffiti had been scrawled on mosques and Muslim-owned businesses and that women’s head scarves had been yanked off.” Assuming these charges were true (and there’s good reason not to immediately accept their veracity, given the inflationary accusations leveled on such occasions by the likes of CAIR), the conduct in question is most assuredly inappropriate – but, needless to say, hardly in a league with decapitation. (Curiously, while the Times article was headlined “Call for Calm after 3 New Arrests in British Soldier’s Death,” and was devoted mostly to those arrests, its URL, as if to reflect the Times‘s real preoccupations, was about “anti-muslim-threats.”)

As it turned out, when the Telegraph, Mail, and innumerable smaller papers referred to a nationwide “backlash,” what they meant was not a wave of beatings, bombings, or anything like that. What they were talking about was, mostly, this: people around the United Kingdom had been exercising what they thought was their right to free speech by posting on Facebook and other social media comments that were critical of Islam. Period. And the British government – this is by far the most important part – was treating these speech acts as crimes. Why wasn’t that the headline – that British authorities were using the Rigby murder as an excuse not to finally take action against the countless Muslim “refugees,” “asylum seekers,” and so forth within its borders whom it has long known to be threats to public safety, but, rather, to clamp down on those few solid citizens who, in the wake of the murder, had dared to tweet the truth about the Religion of Peace?

But no: the British media were going along with the whole chilling business – reporting on criticism of Islam as if it was indeed a high crime, and reporting on the arrests of those who had engaged in such criticism as if arresting people for such acts were perfectly justifiable.

As of last Friday, according to the Mail, eleven persons had been picked up for anti-Muslim speech crimes. Among them were two Bristol men, aged 22 and 23, who had posted tweets “of an allegedly racist or anti-religious nature” and who had been taken into custody “under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred.” The Mail quoted a detective inspector as saying that the men’s tweets, which had been “directed against a section of our community,” were “completely unacceptable,” as they “cause…harm to our community.” The cop warned: “People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.”

He wasn’t alone in issuing such warnings. In connection with a similar arrest in Surrey, a police superintendent said: “Surrey Police will not tolerate language used in a public place, including on social media websites, which causes harassment, alarm or distress.” Another arrest, for posting an “offensive, indecent or menacing message” on Facebook, took place in Sussex. And another in Hampshire. And in what seemed to be related developments, the websites of several British newspapers, departing from their usual practice, blocked comments on articles related to the Rigby murder. Meanwhile, the English Defence League held a big march in London to protest both the murder and the Islamization of Britain that had made it possible. But where was the huge London rally of “moderate Muslims” condemning the murder? (Isn’t it interesting that almost nobody even bothers to ask that question anymore?)

On Monday, as if to remind everybody of the difference between “offensive”  statements and actual physical violence, three Muslim inmates in Full Sutton Prison responded to an ill-advised suggestion that they pray for Rigby by beating a guard within an inch of his life. The beating lasted five hours. One of the attackers called for his fellow inmates to join in a holy war. On the same day came the news that two war memorials in London had been defaced by unidentified vandals. And on Saturday, a Muslim convert, apparently inspired by the Rigby murder, stabbed a French soldier on the street of a Paris suburb.

It also emerged that at least one of the perpetrators of the Rigby killing, Michael Adebolajo, had been known to the British police for years – had, in fact, been arrested in Kenya in 2010 for joining a terrorist group, only to be freed on the recommendation of the British High Commissioner. Although that intervention by the Brits was not surprising, given the disinclination of U.K. authorities to round up even its most egregious Muslim enemies, it was hard not to notice the stark contrast between those authorities’ tolerance of bloodthirsty Islamic rhetoric within their borders (or sphere of influence) and the alacrity with which they’ve apprehended apparently peaceable citizens simply for telling the truth about Islam on Facebook or Twitter.

As the days went by, and the stories in the British papers about the Rigby murder and its aftermath gradually diminished in number and prominence, one thing lingered: the sad, newly intensified awareness that dhimmitude in Britain is growing apace and has become well-nigh reflexive. In other words, jihad (both hard and soft) is working like a charm. Are you old enough to remember the world before, say, the Satanic Verses fatwa? If so, can you imagine British police officials, way back then, ever making statements of the kind made in the past few days by those cops in Bristol and Surrey – statements warning that individuals making comments that cause “harm” or “distress” to Muslims will be subject to arrest and punishment? Such a thing would have been inconceivable in Churchill’s Britain, or Thatcher’s. The grim fact, alas, is that if the Rigby murder and its aftermath demonstrate anything, it’s that Islam is still very much on the march in Britain – and free speech increasingly in retreat.

Bruce Bawer


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