Saturday, December 13, 2014

Facing "Palestine" With Truth: An Uncommon Perspective - Prof. Louis Rene Beres

by Prof. Louis Rene Beres

Israel will not be the only one to suffer from a "Palestinian State", should one arise.

Credo quia absurdum.  "I believe because it is absurd." Almost everywhere, individual countries and amalgams of countries (European Union is the latest such amalgam) are falling over themselves to endorse "Palestine." Systematically ignoring long-term deceptions associated with demands for Palestinian sovereignty - and also relevant contradictions between recognition and statehood under international law - such endorsements will further undermine regional stability.

Pertinent calculations here are not complicated. Most plainly, the destabilizing impact of a 23rd Arab sovereignty would be most immediately injurious to Israel. Over time, however, certain state advocates of "Palestine" could suffer consequent harms, including purportedly well-intentioned European countries, and even the United States. This is because a Palestinian state would quickly become another preferred launching site for assorted multiple forms of Jihadist terrorism.

"Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas," explained Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu before the U.N. General Assembly last September: "They all have the same ideology; they all seek to establish a global militant Islam, where there is no freedom." Netanyahu was correct.

Back in September, Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, now working together with his "partners" in Hamas, asked the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for full Israeli withdrawal from Judea/Samaria ('West Bank'), including East Jerusalem.

Notwithstanding his obligatory public acceptance of a "Two-State Solution," all major Palestinian media continue to say otherwise. For them, even officially, Israel remains "Occupied Palestine." For them, even officially, the only acceptable Palestinian solution calls for a single new Arab state, a homogeneously Islamic country in all of the land currently circumscribed by Israel, 'West Bank', and Gaza.

It's not complicated. "Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea," affirmed Khalida Jarrar, Palestinian PA Parliament Member, on April 16, 2014. "We must not cede this narrative. From the River to the Sea....Palestine belongs to the Palestinians; and the heart of the matter is the right of return, our cause is the right of return."         

Since 2005, when Israel "disengaged" from Gaza in the hope of receiving a suitable quid pro quo from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, the only use to which this land has been put is as a conspicuous staging area for expanded war and terror.

The intended Palestinian solution for Israel remains a fixedly "final" one. This unambiguously exterminatory remedy is inscribed on all official Palestinian maps. Cartographically, at least, Israel has already been "liquidated."

Liquidation is the actual term used most frequently by Arab sources, since 1948, to describe their uniformly annihilationist attitudes toward Israel.[1]

What will happen when Palestine allegedly becomes a state? Within a few hours of any formal Palestinian "declaration of independence," Arab citizens of Israel -  now, over 1.8 million - will begin to transform their initially benign celebrations into full-scale riots and intifadas. Such "spontaneous" violence would serve to display this Israeli-Arab population's open and now overriding loyalty to Palestine.

Significantly, these Arabs wouldn't feel any corresponding need to actually move to the new Palestinian state. After all, they would then already understand that what is "Occupied Palestine" (Israel) would soon be "absorbed" into the new state. Then, irony of ironies, although these almost two million Arabs had themselves been full citizens of  a Jewish State, Palestine would become statutorily Judenrein, or "free of Jews."

 For Israel, this will represent the "international community's best idea of "justice."

For Israel, which will have to fight for its life yet again, the  security costs of staving off aggression and "absorption" could quickly become overwhelming. The core enemy, now, even after a legally problematic bestowal of Palestinian sovereignty, would not be Palestine per se, but rather an enlarged and conglomerate Arab/Islamist adversary, this one encompassing a broad alliance of both state and sub-state opponents.

It is even possible, in these entirely predictable circumstances, that certain mobilized IDF elements would have to be placed in direct confrontation with ISIS, or ISIS-related foes.
"Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas."

In the short run, after formalization of Palestine, security dangers to Israel would center upon very bitter internal unrest, and on those corollary perils originating from domestic terror attacks, expanded border incursions from Palestine, and external (Palestine-based) rocket launches. In the longer term, Israel, now dangerously bereft of needed strategic depth, would face a steadily deteriorating "correlation of forces," that is, an overall weakening of Israeli military capacity. This weakening, in turn, could substantially enlarge the probability of conventional war with other Arab states, and also of conventional terror attacks.

If such attenuations of Israeli power were to take place simultaneously with Iranian nuclearization, a reasonably plausible expectation, the single most catastrophic consequence of Palestine could eventually include nuclear war fighting. This sober assessment is identified here not because a Palestinian state would have any direct nuclear capabilities itself, but because that state's creation would nonetheless contribute to an increasingly corrosive regional balance of power.

The precise hazards, to Israel, of a nuclear Iran, could be affected by what happens throughout the region, along the most primary Sunni-Shia axes of conflict, especially if ISIS were to make any further progress in its ongoing territorial takeovers, within sectors of Iraq and Syria. Another still widely-ignored factor in all of this prospective regional transformation is the growing probability of a new Cold War between Russia and the United States. However ignored thus far, such hardening bipolarity could strongly impact the nature and function of core Middle Eastern alignments.

A still under-examined result of Palestinian independence would be the meaningfully enlarged threat to Israel (a country smaller than America's Lake Michigan) of nuclear war and nuclear terror. Understanding this, Palestine's emergence could spawn tangibly enlarged efforts in Jerusalem/Tel Aviv to properly strengthen Israel's traditionally "ambiguous" nuclear deterrent. Quickly, such indispensable measures could embrace a more-or-less dramatic shift to an openly declared nuclear strategy, one including explicit statements about nuclear basing and nuclear targeting doctrine.

From a more narrowly legal perspective, there is one additional point.  Under governing international law, the always-binding requirements of statehood are expressed at the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States ("Montevideo Convention"),  a treaty which entered into force in 1934. Among other things, this authoritative pact clarifies that statehood is independent of recognition.

In the matter of prospective Palestinian statehood, this means that Palestine could not become a proper sovereign entity in consequence of assorted national approvals, whether within the United Nations, or outside of its particular collective jurisdiction. No matter how many separate states might choose to support Palestinian statehood, and no matter how respected or powerful these approving states might be, such support would be overridden by the specific, codified, and still unrealized expectations of "Montevideo."
So says international law.

In the end, as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated before the U.N. General Assembly last September, "The people of Israel are not the occupiers in the land of Israel." The Mandate for Palestine (1922) merely reaffirmed the already-longstanding Jewish legal right to settle anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an authorization further codified and protected at Article 80 of the U.N. Charter.

No state can be obligated to commit national suicide. It is not Israel's legal or moral obligation to carve another enemy Arab state out of its own still-living body. To understand this utterly rudimentary perquisite of sovereignty would be to the everlasting benefit not only of the singularly beleaguered Jewish State, but also to every other country that now seeks more durable protection from ever-widening Jihadist terror.

[1] See Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes To Israel (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972), especially Chapter 1.

Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and international law. His most recent publications on these topics can be found at the Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Brown Journal of World Affairs; Israel Journal of Foreign AffairsParameters: Journal of the U.S. Army War College; and Oxford University Press. Professor Beres also writes for U.S.  News & World Report; The AtlanticThe Jerusalem PostIsrael National News; andThe Washington Times. He was born in Zürich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II.


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

Imam Joe Biden Schools an Infidel - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

The idea that new Israeli concessions will end the Palestinian jihad against Israel and make possible a two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace is based on a determined refusal to consider the possibility that the Palestinians really mean the jihadist rhetoric that they pump out endlessly on official Palestinian Authority and Hamas airwaves about destroying Israel utterly.

6a00d83451c36069e20168eb9dbef6970cThe courageous ex-Muslim human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently recounted that at a speech in Washington not long ago, she met Vice President Joe Biden. Biden seized the opportunity to tell her that “ISIS had nothing to do with Islam.” Hirsi Ali politely disagreed, whereupon Biden began a lesson in the teachings of the Religion of Peace: “Let me tell you one or two things about Islam.”

Unfortunately, Hirsi Ali didn’t hear much of Imam Joe’s Islamic wisdom: “I politely left the conversation at that. I wasn’t used to arguing with vice presidents.”

This wasn’t just Joe being Joe, saying another foolish thing that, if he were a conservative Republican, would have ended his political career in an avalanche of ridicule long ago. For in confronting Hirsi Ali and assuming he knew more about Islam than she does, Biden was reflecting what virtually every policymaker in Washington believes – on both sides of the aisle.

Even though Ayaan Hirsi Ali was raised a Muslim in a Muslim country, and educated in Islam from an extremely early age, and despite the fact that Joe Biden has almost certainly never opened a Qur’an, Biden was sure that what she said about Islam must be wrong – it just had to be. Why? Because her opinion of the religion was negative, and the possibility that such a view could have any merit whatsoever is inconceivable in Washington circles. Those who hold it must be ignorant.

It’s almost certain that Biden would never have confronted Karen Armstrong in a similar way. If Biden is familiar with what Armstrong says about Islam, such as her world-historically ridiculous claim that “Muhammad eventually abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Gandhi,” he would no doubt warmly approve and even applaud. This would not be because Armstrong has done more formal study of Islam than has Hirsi Ali – she hasn’t. Nor would it be because Imam Joe himself made a careful and judicious examination of Islamic texts and teachings, and came to the reasoned conclusion that Armstrong’s representation of Islam was more accurate and true to the ding an sich than Hirsi Ali’s.

On the contrary, Biden would favor Armstrong’s Islam over Hirsi Ali’s solely and wholly because the former confirms his view of the world and appears to bear out what he wishes were true, and the latter does not. This is likewise the stance of all of Biden’s colleagues in the Obama Administration. John Kerry, like Biden, confidently takes a stand on what he believes Islam is all about, based not on any study of his own or anyone else, but on what he wishes is true and hopes is true.

Indeed, on these fantasies are based numerous foreign and domestic policies. The idea that new Israeli concessions will end the Palestinian jihad against Israel and make possible a two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace is based on a determined refusal to consider the possibility that the Palestinians really mean the jihadist rhetoric that they pump out endlessly on official Palestinian Authority and Hamas airwaves about destroying Israel utterly.

The idea that stable, secular, Western-oriented republics could ever have been constructed in Afghanistan or Iraq was based on a refusal to confront what Sharia really is and to study the degree to which the populations in both countries were attached to it. Ultimately, the United States oversaw the adoption of Constitutions in both countries that enshrined Sharia as the highest law of the land – something that would never have been done had not Washington policymakers been listening to smooth apologists who assured them that Sharia was benign and completely compatible with republican government and Western principles of human rights.

Those policymakers are still entrenched, despite their abysmal track record. There is no accountability for them, for those who would hold them accountable believe in the same fantasies that led to the policy errors. Joe Biden’s interaction with Ayaan Hirsi Ali played out with dreary predictability: it was inevitable that Biden would think his fantasies and wishful thinking to be defensible, established fact, and unthinkable that he would regard the judgment of a Somali ex-Muslim woman with unconscious ethnocentric and chauvinistic paternalism: she is just wounded by her anomalous experiences, he might have thought to himself, while Joe Biden – Joe Biden! – man of the world, savvy political thinker, diplomat, statesman, and humorist, would gently and affably set her straight, and introduce her to the pluralistic open-mindedness that are the hallmarks of what make us great in the West.

That open-mindedness, that openness to non-Western cultures and people, the linchpin of the multiculturalist imperative, is what Biden and Kerry treasure so much and are trying to protect when they assure the world that Islam is a religion of peace and that those who commit violence in its name are violating its core principles. But even as they preen about their open-mindedness, Biden and Kerry and the rest are actually quite close-minded. When he heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak, Biden had an opportunity to hear truths that existed outside of his habits of thought. A truly open-minded person would have adjusted his thinking to fit reality.

Instead, Biden placed himself in the preposterous position of attempting to lecture an ex-Muslim, someone who had once revered the Qur’an and studied it deeply, about the true tenets of Islam. In this latest exercise in making himself ridiculous, Biden is a symbol of the entire Western world, staking its life and future on fantasy and wishful thinking. In response to his foolish nonsense, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was polite. If they ever encounter Biden face to face, those pious believers in Islam who know that what she says about their religion is accurate, and hate her for revealing it, will be substantially less so.

Robert Spencer


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

BDS is about Israel, not Settlements - Tom Wilson

by Tom Wilson

Hat Tip: Sefton Bergson

Listening to the words of BDS leaders such as Omar Barghouti you soon realize that the end goal of BDS is nothing less than the total elimination of the Jewish state. But unlike Barghouti, most of the BDS movement has the common sense not to state this so publicly. 

The campaign to boycott Israel–the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement–is undoubtedly a fringe campaign. But where this small band of anti-Israel extremists have experienced some traction is among those whom they have been able to convince that BDS is only against settlements. The argument goes that a boycott of Israeli settler produce will somehow persuade the Israelis to abandon their security concerns and bring an end to their so-called occupation of the West Bank. Yet one only has to look to how BDS conducts its campaigns in practice to see that this alleged concern with the “occupation” is just one of many disingenuous claims from what is, at its heart, an entirely disingenuous movement.

Listening to the words of BDS leaders such as Omar Barghouti you soon realize that the end goal of BDS is nothing less than the total elimination of the Jewish state. But unlike Barghouti, most of the BDS movement has the common sense not to state this so publicly. As such, BDS efforts have been ostensibly focused around boycotting settlements; although in practice this still allows campaigners to attack most Israeli companies by making flimsy arguments about guilt by association. So for instance the Israeli national theater company Habima was targeted on the grounds that it had previously performed in settlements. In Europe this argument is beginning to take hold. Supermarket chains, churches, city councils, and now EU diplomats are all coming round to the idea that boycotting the Jewish state outright may be going too far, but boycotting Jews who dare to live on the “wrong side” of a defunct armistice line is perfectly acceptable.

For BDS, SodaStream was the ideal target. This high-profile company, with its popular products and Super Bowl commercials featuring Scarlett Johansson, had one of its factories just to the east of Jerusalem in the West Bank. The fact that SodaStream boasted of being the largest commercial employer of Palestinians in the world did nothing to dissuade BDS from its efforts. Indeed, just a few months back when it was announced that SodaStream would relocate its factory from the West Bank to the Israeli Negev, BDS expressed no remorse for the Palestinian workers losing their jobs, but only exuberance at their own apparent victory.

Still, now that SodaStream is relocating from the West Bank BDS will be dropping the boycott, right? Wrong! As if proof was needed that fleeing the settlements will do nothing to appease those who simply hate the Jewish state in its entirety, BDSniks have said that they will continue to boycott SodaStream. Now the pretext for boycotting is the allegation that the new factory will be based “close to” a town being built to provide local Bedouin with housing. And supposedly this renders SodaStream “implicated in the displacement of Palestinians.” One can scarcely believe that the movement’s leaders believe such claims, but then these are the feeble excuses of bigots trying to hide and justify their unacceptable agenda.

The true character of BDS is becoming increasingly apparent as the boycotters shift their attention toward targets that even they can’t bracket in with settlements and “stolen land,” except of course for the fact that BDS clearly considers all of Israel stolen land and any Jewish enterprise on that land to be a pollution. Israeli-Arabs are of course exempt from boycotts. Because at its core BDS is a movement that makes ethnicity the dividing line that determines who is to be boycotted and who isn’t. As such, it comes as no surprise that BDS activists in the UK have launched action against Sabon, an Israeli cosmetics company that has always been based within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.

Sabon opened its first luxury cosmetics store in London at the beginning of November and BDSers were demonstrating outside within just four days of its arrival. Over the weekend activists staged a particularly aggressive gathering, in which one of the ringleaders was heard employing the most shameless blood libel language, barking coldly down the megaphone: “you don’t want to be going into this shop, buying beautiful smelling lotions to smear over your body, because if you do you will be smearing yourself in the blood of Palestinians.” And yet this particular Saturday morning protest appears to have been spearheaded by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, the extremist fringe of an already extremist sect.

As can be seen in the video, the activists are few in number and their efforts have consistently failed to persuade consumers to reject Israeli products. Yet by standing in front of the entrance of Israeli owned stores, intimidating shoppers from stepping inside, it only takes a handful dedicated fanatics to get a stranglehold on a small store. Just a few streets over from the new Sabon outlet is the storefront that was once home to London’s Ahava Dead Sea spa. But in 2011 BDS activists succeeded in hounding Ahava out, not by persuading customers with their arguments, but rather by creating so much noise and disturbance on the salubrious Covent Garden street that–under pressure from surrounding businesses–the building owner eventually discontinued Ahava’s lease. The protesters now seek to do the same to Sabon simply because it, like Ahava and SodaStream, is owned by Israeli Jews.

A few years ago the fierce critic of Israel Norman Finkelstein attacked some on his own side, calling BDS “a cult.” It is a cult, but more than that, it’s also a fundamentally racist movement, and that is what the world needs to be hearing about BDS.

Tom Wilson


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

Beduin trackers, always out in front - Yaakov Lappin

by Yaakov Lappin

A dangerous and essential role is uniquely filled by Beduin, who serve as IDF trackers on every border and across the West Bank.

This month, the trackers received recruits from across the country during the November draft cycle, and senior Beduin trackers provided The Jerusalem Post with an inside glimpse into life as a tracker on the front lines of Israel’s security.

Senior Warrant Officer Salah Mawasi, head of the Tracker’s Training Branch at the Central Command’s training center in Lachish, said the task of his school is to fine-tune the inherent skills that enable soldiers to notice when something unnatural has disturbed the ground.

“Certainly, we [Beduin] have the tools. I teach them how to detect footprints, and engage in pursuits; we hold exercises to train in detecting changes on the ground. We must maintain a sharp eye and spot the smallest changes in the dirt, to notice any disturbed weeds or a rock out of place,” he said.

“We always train in accordance with the changing security reality. We do not freeze on the spot and train for old threats,” the officer added.

Adapting to current threats has involved an increased emphasis on training in tunnel detection.

“It’s not new but now, we spend many more hours in training on this,” said Mawasi. “We have to be able to detect explosives. We study in accordance with the developments in a given sector.”

Senior trackers also come to the training center for refresher courses, aimed at maintaining their readiness.

Unlike member of other minorities serving in the IDF, like Druse and Circassians, Beduin volunteer for military service.

“Usually, Beduin trackers have low figures on education,” explained Mawasi. “Many Beduin join this unit because they have a sense that they can develop here, and learn the trade. Beduin have excelled in tracking since the days of the Palmah in 1947.

Some want to be trackers because their fathers and grandfathers did it; family and tribal links are still a significant influence.

“The numbers of recruits rise and fall because this is voluntary. Receiving a call-up is not the final stage; only when they arrive at the IDF reception and sorting base, and receive a uniform, do they become soldiers.

“That’s why I was at the base this morning, personally receiving the volunteers and offering advice, encouragement and information. I spoke to them as a father.”

“We had one recruit who was a married 28-yearold,” Mawasi recalled. “He arrived, accompanied by his wife. It was very emotional, seeing him board the bus that took him to the absorption base.”

Part of the IDF’s efforts to secure volunteers each year include talks to students at schools, and their parents.

“Our center is the only one that trains trackers.

I’m one of the people who set it up in 1997. Our mission is to turn civilians into combat soldiers, giving them infantry rifle skills; then they begin a tracking course lasting several weeks,” he said.

“First they are combat soldiers, and only then trackers. They’ll learn about fallen members of the unit, and take part in a completion ceremony.”

St.-Sgt. Maj. Bassel Diav is a senior tracker in the Samaria regional brigade, based around Nablus. On a daily basis, he said, his unit clears roads, defends Israeli communities and most importantly, ensures the area is free from bombs planted by terrorists.

“We take the threat of explosives seriously,” said Diav. “We also take part in responses to general security incidents, like riot dispersal. We are combat soldiers first.”

In recent months, there has been no rise or drop in the number of explosive devices planted in the area, he said, noting that “the rate has been constant.”

“After rioters throw a Molotov cocktail, I can tell you which direction it came from, and how many people were involved. We then take part in the pursuit,” he said.

Unlike border regions, Samaria is considered a “depth sector” by the IDF – meaning there is no defined front line that has to be guarded, and no zone where cross-border trespassers can be detected.

“We get a lot of information from civilian reports.

It’s a complex and very challenging sector,” said the officer.

“When the IDF announces it uncovered an explosive, that’s usually us. We have uncovered many in recent days. Our professionalism comes from the length of time we’ve been deployed here – over 10 years. It means we are very serious about our work,” he added.

On any given day, terrorists may try to plant explosives and camouflage them into the local surroundings.

When that happens, Diav and his unit are in a race against time to locate the threats.

“We hold drills to learn how to overcome techniques to hide the bombs. We learn how to deal with remote control bombs, and study past incidents.

The trackers are always leading the force; we are always in danger. At nights, it’s just us, with the flashlights,” said Diav.

Asked what his message is to the latest round of volunteers, the officer said, “Use us, the veteran trackers, and milk us for information. The new generation relies on hi-tech and computers, but we can teach them things based on years of experience, about how terrorists attempt to deceive us. They can learn from us.

“Finishing basic training does not mean they finished training. I’ve been in this role for 15 years, and I’m still learning.”

Yaakov Lappin


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

Texas State Bill Will Nullify All Federal Unconstitutional Acts - Joe Wolverton II, J.D

by Joe Wolverton II, J.D

Flynn’s bill, officially titled the Texas Balance of Powers Act, is a full-throated defiance of federal tyranny and attempts to subjugate the states into nothing more that administrative sub-units of the plutocracy on the Potomac.

Texas lawmaker Dan Flynn has introduced legislation that would invalidate within the sovereign borders of his state every act of the federal government that exceeds its constitutionally derived authority.

State Representative Dan Flynn’s bill — House Bill 98 — denies to the federal government:
the power to take any legislative, executive, or judicial action that violates the constitution, specifically including those actions that unconstitutionally undermine, diminish, or disregard the balance of powers between the states and the federal government established by the constitution.

Flynn goes on to cite chapter and verse of the Constitution and the principles of federalism in defense of his position that the state of Texas retains the power to refuse to carry out federal mandates that are not specifically authorized in the Constitution’s enumeration of federal powers.
Beyond his understanding of core concepts of federalism, Flynn is to be commended for the bold warning he included in his legislation:

This Act serves as notice from this state to the federal government to cease and desist any and all unconstitutional activities that are outside the scope of the power delegated to it by the United States Constitution, including those activities that unconstitutionally undermine, diminish, or disregard the balance of powers between the states and the federal government established by the constitution.
This state and its people retain their sovereign power to regulate the affairs of this state, subject only to the limitations prescribed by the United States Constitution.

Nothing more needs to be said. Flynn’s bill, officially titled the Texas Balance of Powers Act, is a full-throated defiance of federal tyranny and attempts to subjugate the states into nothing more that administrative sub-units of the plutocracy on the Potomac.

Representative Flynn seems to appreciate the fact that states are not left defenseless in the battle to fight the cancer of consolidation. There is a remedy — a “rightful remedy” — that can immediately retrench the federal government’s constant overreaching. This antidote can stop the poison of all unconstitutional federal acts and executive orders at the state borders and prevent them from working on the people. 

The remedy for federal tyranny is nullification, and applying it liberally will leave our states and our nation healthier and happier.

The bill creates a Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification composed of key officers in the Texas state government that will be charged with "review[ing] any federal action to determine whether the action is an unconstitutional federal action."

Texas — and her sister states — retain this right of refusal owing to their role as creators of the federal government.

The states created the federal government and reserve the right to resist the exercise by Congress of any powers not specifically granted to it by the states in the Constitution.

The documents sent by the states to Congress announcing their ratification of the Constitution provide additional evidence of the founding generation’s appreciation of the states’ and federal government’s respective roles as creator and creation. In nearly every one of these letters, the state legislature or ratifying convention delegation explicitly remind Congress that the consent of the states formed the federal government.

Delaware, for example, declared: "We the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the City of Philadelphia."

New Jersey expressed a similar understanding of the parties to the constitutional compact: "Whereas a convention of Delegates from the following States, vizt. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, met at Philadelphia for the purpose of deliberating on, and forming a constitution for the United States of America."

Georgia’s ratification notice letter also recorded the states’ role as creators of the new federal government: "Whereas the form of a Constitution for the Government of the United States of America, was, on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, agreed upon and reported to Congress by the Deputies of the said United States convened in Philadelphia."

And on, and on, and on. The ratifying conventions called throughout the 13 states understood that the delegates sent to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 created a general government of limited power, retaining for themselves nearly the full panoply of powers they had exercised successfully for over a century. 

If nullification is to be successfully deployed and defended, other states lawmakers must follow Dan Flynn’s example and remember that the Constitution is a creature of the states and that the federal government was given very few and very limited powers over objects of national importance. 

As the Texas Balance of Powers Act makes clear, any act of Congress, the courts, or the president that exceeds that small scope is null, void, and of no legal effect. No exceptions. James Madison said it best in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” 

There are those commentators, however, who insist that the Civil War settled the question of sovereignty and supremacy once and for all. They are wrong.

The Civil War made one thing clear: The federal government believes (and the Confederacy was forced to concede) that might makes right. The Union army defeated the army of the Confederacy, therefore, so the thinking goes, secession is no longer a constitutional remedy available to states. Might makes right.

Only it doesn’t. 

Think of it this way. Assume my neighbor and I disagree over the exact location of the boundary line between our properties. One day, while I’m out building a shed that my neighbor believes encroaches on his property, we start arguing, and the argument escalates to a full-fledged fist fight and I knock out my neighbor. Does that mean that the location of our mutual property line has been settled? Does the pummeling of my neighbor make my opinion of the location of that line the legal boundary? 
Of course not. 

Might, it seems, does not make right, neither in boundary disputes regarding land nor in similar conflicts over state sovereignty.

Nullification, as defined by Jefferson and Madison, and understood so well by Representative Flynn, is the most powerful weapon against the federal assault on state sovereignty and individual liberty. By applying the principles repeated in HB 98, states can simultaneously rebuild the walls of sovereignty once protected by the Constitution, in particular the Tenth Amendment, and drive the forces of federal consolidation back inside the constitutional cage meant to restrain them.

During this session of the Texas legislation, Representative Flynn will sponsor many important bills. “Today we filed bills that support the free exercise of faith, family, and freedom,” said Representative Flynn in a press release. 

These bills included needed Second Amendment legislation, others to save taxpayer dollars with local water utility districts, assuring American law is practiced in American Courts, that district farmers and ranchers have the right to farm and ranch and sell their products without government interference, the free exercise of religion, and a law requiring students to take a semester on the U.S. Constitution prior to graduation from high school.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton.

Joe Wolverton II, J.D


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

Martyrdom by Heart Attack - Leo Rennert

by Leo Rennert

Given these findings, one might have expected that the Washington Post would run a piece stressing the actual contents of the autopsy and the clear indication that a bum heart, not Israeli brutality, caused Abu Ein’s death.

Ziad Abu Ein, a prominent Palestinian official with a legacy of lethal terrorism, died during a clash with Israeli soldiers.  And thus immediately became a national martyr.  Without waiting for an autopsy, Palestinian leaders from Mahmoud Abbas on down charged that Abu Ein was killed by harsh blows from Israeli forces.  He was murdered, they alleged.

The autopsy, conducted by two doctors from Israel’s National Institute of Forensic Medicine, who were joined by Palestinian forensic specialists and Jordanian doctors, told a different story.  Abu Ein died of a heart attack.  His heart was riddled with plaque, and this was not the first time that he had had a heart attack. 

Given these findings, one might have expected that the Washington Post would run a piece stressing the actual contents of the autopsy and the clear indication that a bum heart, not Israeli brutality, caused Abu Ein’s death.

One would have expected this, but one also would have been wrong. 

Instead of a thorough article on the autopsy, Post correspondents William Booth and Ruth Eglash filed a report that gives equal and even preferential weight to continuing Palestinian insistence that Israel killed Abu Ein.  According to their article, the jury is still out.  The autopsy is inconclusive (“Dispute arises over cause of Palestinian official’s death – Countering accusations Abu Ein was hit, Israel cites heart problems” page A11, Dec. 12).  The headline has no mention that an autopsy even exists.

Booth and Eglash start their article by raising “one question – What killed a prominent Palestinian cabinet minister?”  The autopsy gets immediately sidelined.  During the funeral, “Israeli and Palestinian authorities tussled over the precise cause of his death,” they write.

But what about the actual findings of the autopsy?  The first description of the presumed findings comes from Palestinian Civil Affairs Minister Hussein al-Sheikh, who says in the fifth paragraph that the autopsy found that Abu Ein died from “being struck, inhaling tear gas and a delay in providing medical attention.”

Wrong.  The autopsy reports no such thing.  The Post uncritically accepts a lie.

It’s not until the next paragraph – the sixth one – that Post reporters finally provide a glimpse of the autopsy and what it actually revealed.

“Israel’s Health Ministry announced that the autopsy showed that Abu Ein’s death was ‘caused by a blockage of the coronary artery due to hemorrhaging underneath a layer of atherosclerotic plaque,’” Booth and Eglash report.  “The poor condition of the deceased’s heart caused him to be more sensitive to stress.”

Yes, finally, but even then the Post ignores the most damning paragraph of the autopsy: “The deceased suffered from ischemic heart disease; blood vessels in his heart were found to be over 80 percent blocked by plaque. Old scars indicating that he suffered from previous myocardial infarctions were also found.”  In other words, Abu Ein’s damaged heart was barely functioning.

Yet, at the Post, a Palestinian propaganda lie ranks higher than scientific autopsy findings.

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


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

Pathological findings - Ruthie Blum

by Ruthie Blum

To put it simplistically, the key divide that separates the two main parliamentary blocs concerns the issue of whether the onus for a peaceful two-state solution rests on Israel.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro delivered the keynote address at a conference on "America's Standing in the World" held at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. In his speech, Shapiro warned Israelis not to assume that the results of last month's midterm elections have made his bosses in Washington powerless in pressing for Palestinian statehood.

"Here is a caution, lest anyone jump to conclusions," he said. "Divided government, in which one party controls Congress and the other the Executive Branch, does not necessarily mean foreign policy gridlock."

On the contrary, he added, "Presidents often surge and engage even more intensively in national security affairs in their final years in office."

Don't worry, Mr. Ambassador. Israel is under no illusions on that score. Obsessions die hard, after all. And an American administration that is enabling Iran to laugh its way to nuclear armament (among other international catastrophes) has but one piece of low-hanging fruit to pick -- and pick on -- before going down in history as the disaster it has been all along.

Nothing new there. 

Nor was it a surprise that the State Department rushed to dispel rumors, based on a Haaretz report earlier this month, that the U.S. was about to threaten Israel with sanctions over settlement construction. Though neither the Obama administration nor the extreme left-wing Israeli newspaper is trustworthy, in this case, the latter sounded plausible -- which goes to show how much faith Israel has lost in its strongest ally.

It is in this context that two recent events must be taken. One is the fall of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on December 2, paving the way for new elections in March. The other is the death of senior Palestinian Authority official Ziad Abu Ein on Wednesday. 

Netanyahu's coalition collapsed as a result of internal battles regarding the so-called "peace process" -- a euphemism for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. To put it simplistically, the key divide that separates the two main parliamentary blocs concerns the issue of whether the onus for a peaceful two-state solution rests on Israel. Those who believe it does understand American pressure. Those who pay attention to Palestinian words and deeds -- which jibe with global jihad -- view the Jewish state as under assault.

The story of Abu Ein illustrates all of the above.

During an altercation between Palestinian protesters and Israeli border police near at a closed military zone in Samaria, Abu Ein -- who heads the Palestinian Liberation Organization's "Commission against the Separation Wall and Settlements" -- collapsed and subsequently died. 

A video of the incident shows Abu Ein screaming hysterically at Israeli forces attempting to put a stop to the protest. One border policeman is seen shoving Abu Ein and grabbing him by the neck. An Israeli officer intervenes, ordering his men not to lay a hand on anyone, particularly not Abu Ein, whom he refers to as a "minister."

Gasping, Abu Ein faints and a female Israeli paramedic begins to treat him. However, as was reported from the scene by Sky News Middle East correspondent Tom Rayner, she was prevented from delivering first aid by Palestinians, who whisked him into a car to take him to the hospital.

Israel's response was swift. The border policeman who grabbed Abu Ein was suspended pending further investigation. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon expressed "sorrow over [Abu Ein's] death," and a wish for continued "coordination with the PA." 

Netanyahu sent a message to the PA about the need to "calm the situation and act responsibly."

In addition, Israel asked Palestinian and Jordanian forensic specialists to be present at Abu Ein's autopsy.

This is despite the fact that the 55-year-old Abu Ein was a terrorist who took part in the 1979 bombing of a bunch of teenagers on Lag Ba'omer in Tiberias, which left two 16-year-old boys dead and 36 other kids wounded.

Following the attack, Abu Ein absconded to the U.S. He was extradited to Israel in 1981, where he was later sentenced to life imprisonment. But in 1985, he was released in the Jibril agreement -- a deal made by then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, according to which 1,150 terrorists were exchanged for three Israeli soldiers taken prisoner during the 1982 Lebanon War. 

PA President Mahmoud Abbas reacted to Abu Ein's death as the enemy of Israel he is. He promptly accused Israel of "barbaric" murder, while hailing Abu Ein, who was buried on Thursday amid mass anti-Israel vitriol, as a "martyr." Palestinian Prime Minister Rami al-Hamdallah piped in, asserting that the Israeli army had "assassinated" Abu Ein. And then the PA announced that it was halting all forms of cooperation with Israel.

As for the autopsy: The Israeli findings were that Abu Ein's death "was caused by a blockage of the coronary artery due to hemorrhaging underneath a layer of atherosclerotic plaque. The bleeding could have been caused by stress."

The Palestinian doctor disagreed, claiming that Abu Ein died from a blow to his body, not of natural causes.

Sounds like a postmortem of the "two-state solution," which never existed from the Palestinian side.

Indeed, it is this overall pathology -- characterized by an endless cycle of Israeli capitulation for a negotiated settlement, alongside Palestinian aspirations for Western-sanctioned jihad -- that needs to be eradicated and then given a forensic exam. 

Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"


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

Precision Guidance Fuze for IDF's Artillery - IsraelDefense

by IsraelDefense

Pursuant to Operation Protective Edge, the IDF Ground Arm has decided to complete the development process and initiate procurement in the context of the "precision artillery shell" project

The IDF Ground Arm has decided to complete the development process and initiate procurement in the context of the "precision artillery shell" project.

MAFAT, IMOD's Weapon System & Future Technological Infrastructure Research & Development Administration, had initially supported two primary projects involving the manufacture of precision guidance fuzes for artillery shells: the fuze designated "Top Gun" by IAI and the fuze designated "Silver Bullet" by Rokar, a subsidiary of the BAE Systems Group. 

The fuze is intended to convert any "dumb" artillery shell into a precision-guided munition. 

The idea behind the development effort was to convert "standard" artillery layouts, that are part of every military organization around the world, into systems possessing the ability to launch precision-guided munitions with an accuracy radius of ten meters, for a price that may be regarded as relatively inexpensive, so that ground forces may be able to afford the acquisition of the new measure. 

In the case of the Silver Bullet fuze, the shell leaves the muzzle of the gun with the fins already deployed. The location data of the shell are continuously transmitted and picked up by a two-way antenna. The uploading of target data into the computer inside the fuze is accomplished through wireless communication. 

The Top Gun fuze by IAI also passed a series of trials in previous years. In the Top Gun fuze, the fins are deployed after the shell has left the muzzle of the gun. They are identical in size and function much like the wings of an aircraft. 

The IDF Ground Arm made a decision to acquire "a precision guidance fuze" and will select one of the options being offered. 

Converting "dumb" artillery shells into precision-guided munitions can be a significant force multiplier for any artillery unit. Converting standard shells into precision-guided munitions will also make it possible to engage targets in densely-populated combat zones that characterize the modern battlefield, as concerns about hitting uninvolved parties – as was the case during Operation Protective Edge – will be minimized.



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

Senate will vote on Cromnibus on Monday - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

There's not much chance that the Cruz amendment can get the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. But Warren's Wall Street amendment might have a chance. It would probably need some GOP support to make it, but with Senator Vitter co-sponsoring the bill, a few Republicans might bolt and join the liberals.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has laid the groundwork for a vote on the continuing resolution to fund the government through September 30 on Monday.

But fierce maneuvering by Senators opposed to the measure blew up Reid's and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's plans to adjourn for the weekend. 

There is a two track opposition to the spending bill. Senator Ted Cruz is demanding a vote on an amendment that would block the president's immigration executive orders by defunding agencies responsible for implementing it. And Senator Elizabeth Warren wants language that would allow Wall Street to recoup some losses from derivatives excised from the bill.

Neither measure has majority support - yet. But if either amendment passes, the budget deal would blow up and the government would be forced to curtail its activities.

CNN reports on some of the maneuvering:
The Senate was expected to vote Monday on the $1.1 trillion package, which has already passed the House, Sens. Mitch McConnell and Barbara Mikulski said late Friday.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid had made a procedural move to set up a vote on final passage in the Senate no later than Monday.
McConnell, the incoming Senate majority leader, had reached a deal with Reid to adjourn for the weekend and resume Monday to clear the bill.
Late-night maneuver
But in a surprise development, some of McConnell's junior members defied the agreement after he left.
Reid tried to get unanimous consent for an adjournment until Monday when there would be enough votes to end a filibuster, but Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, objected because Reid would not guarantee a vote on an amendment dealing with immigration funding.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also joined the objection, forcing the Senate to meet on Saturday.
Reid then announced to an almost empty chamber that the Senate will be in session beginning at noon Saturday.
It's unclear whether both sides will speed things up enough for a vote on the spending package over the weekend.
Will the government keep operating?
The Senate was facing a Saturday deadline to approve the spending bill and avert a government shutdown, but that was pushed back.
Earlier Friday, the House approved a five-day stopgap bill to make sure the government was continually funded. To keep the government operating, the Senate is expected to approve a five-day continuing resolution on Saturday.
The chamber has been sifting through many of the same arguments that tied up the House on Thursday, when disagreements over immigration and provisions related to Wall Street and campaign finance nearly derailed the bill. Senate lawmakers wanted votes on amendments that would address those issues.
Two votes are expected Monday: a procedural vote to block filibuster and end debate on the bill, and a second one on the final passage.
There's not much chance that the Cruz amendment can get the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. But Warren's Wall Street amendment might have a chance. It would probably need some GOP support to make it, but with Senator Vitter co-sponsoring the bill, a few Republicans might bolt and join the liberals. 

Nancy Pelosi and Warren are making the Wall Street issue a litmus test for Democrats - and their base is responding enthusiastically. But President Obama has finally come off the sidelines and endorsed the House version of Cromnibus, making Warren's quest a lot more difficult.

It's uncertain whether House Republicans are wedded to the Wall Street derivative language, and they could vote for a final Cromnibus bill without it. Nor is it certain that Senate Democrats, if stymied in their effort to take out the offending Wall Street goodie, would vote for the package anyway. And some conservatives might not vote for Cromnibus if the immigration funding remains.

Reid and McConnell have their work cut out for them if they want the spending bill passed. 

Rick Moran


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

Mark LeVine Unhinged on Facebook - Cinnamon Stillwell

by Cinnamon Stillwell

The scandal isn’t so much that the University of Illinois rescinded its preliminary tenure offer after learning about Salaita’s incitement on twitter; rather, it’s that he was seriously considered in the first place.
With his immature, petulant, and hateful outbursts, LeVine has shown his true face. When hotheaded advocates take the place of objective scholars, this is the result. And it isn’t pretty.

ahqdefaultUC Irvine history professor Mark LeVine, who recently suffered a meltdown after being called “anti-Israeli,” has since proven the point by posting this profanity-laden, unhinged rant on Facebook:

[P]eople like Carey Nelson and other “machers” [Yiddish for a self-important person] in the American Jewish community get up in arms about BDS [boycott, divestment, sanctions]. Well, Cary Nelson and the rest of you: F— you. Call me uncivil, but still, f— you. F— all of you who want to make arguments about civility and how Israel wants peace when this is what Israel does, it’s “mowing the lawn” and “defending” freedom. This is, in no uncertain terms, genocide. If you want to argue about it, come to Gaza with me. Come look at Palestinians in the eye and talk about how uncivil Steven Salaita is and how you are in fact a “critic” of Israel. There is only one criticism of Israel that is relevant: It is a state grown, funded, and feeding off the destruction of another people. It is not legitimate. It must be dismantled, the same way that the other racist, psychopathic states across the region must be dismantled. And everyone who enables it is morally complicit in its crimes, including you.
LeVine was commenting on a photograph from French freelance photographer Anne Paq, who, according to her bio, has been “based in Palestine since 2003,” and who specializes in the sort of emotionally-charged—and, all too often, staged or manipulated—imagery regularly employed by Hamas and others to demonize Israel in the international media. Paq’s photograph certainly elicited that reaction in LeVine, who, one can safely assume, would be quick to “dismantle” the allegedly illegitimate nation of Israel long before he gets to the other unnamed “racist, psychopathic states.”

LeVine’s primary target is Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences and past president of the American Association of University Professors. Nelson has been an outspoken opponent of BDS, including co-editing the recently published book of essays, The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel. His principled defense of academic freedom has not gone over well with BDS supporters such as LeVine, who signed an August, 2014 letter calling on Middle East studies scholars and librarians to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Accordingly, at the annual Middle East Studies Association (MESA) convention last month, members voted overwhelmingly in favor a resolution that sets the stage for MESA to adopt BDS in 2015.

In his diatribe, LeVine alludes to Nelson’s public support of UIUC’s decision to withdraw an offer of tenured professorship to former Virginia Tech University English professor Steven Salaita. UIUC made its choice based on Salaita’s atrocious academic record and inflammatory, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Twitter posts, which went far beyond incivility, the charge leveled at the time by some of his critics.

As LeVine demonstrates with his ad nauseam repetition of “uncivil” and “civility,” the terms have become rallying cries both for Salaita’s defenders and for the now-famous ex-academic himself, who, speaking on the “Scholars Under Attack” panel at the annual meeting of the American Studies Association in November, made this inane proclamation:

Civility is the language of genocide. It’s inherently a deeply violent word. It’s a word whose connotations can be seen as nothing if not as racist.
Indeed, Salaita has become a cause célèbre in academia, even warranting his own panel at the recent MESA convention, at which he was hailed as a hero and a martyr. LeVine sees him as a victim of nefarious forces, ludicrously blaming his “dehiring” on the “wrath of pro-Israel conservatives in the United States.” Lost amidst the pity party is the fact that Salaita’s “scholarship” was never up to the task. As Michael Rubin, writing for Commentary, put it:

The scandal isn’t so much that the University of Illinois rescinded its preliminary tenure offer after learning about Salaita’s incitement on twitter; rather, it’s that he was seriously considered in the first place.
It’s not difficult to ascertain why LeVine would defend Salaita: both of them embody the activist academic that has overtaken the field of Middle East studies; both are incredibly thin-skinned; both are prone to posting juvenile, profanity-riddled rants on social media; and both, LeVine’s disingenuous protestations notwithstanding, are unambiguously anti-Israel.

Nor is it a mystery as to why LeVine would accuse Nelson of being “morally complicit” in Israel’s purported “crimes,” given that he sees those who “enable” the nation simply by supporting its existence to be responsible for (an imaginary) “genocide.”

With his immature, petulant, and hateful outbursts, LeVine has shown his true face. When hotheaded advocates take the place of objective scholars, this is the result. And it isn’t pretty.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at


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

Thursday, December 11, 2014

An Arab Prince Denounces Islamism - Daniel Pipes

by Daniel Pipes

In a remarkable but thus-far unnoticed address on Dec. 5, Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain (an island kingdom in the Persian Gulf and home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet), candidly analyzed the Islamist enemy and suggested important ways to fight it.

Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa on Dec. 5, discussing the enemy's identity.

He has much to teach Westerners (starting with his hapless UK counterpart, Crown Prince Charles), if only we would listen. Yes, some Western leaders speak about confronting the Islamist ideology, but the majority avoids this issue by resorting to euphemism, obfuscation, and cowardice. Most frustrating are those leaders (like Tony Blair) who deliver powerful speeches without follow-through.

Tony Blair gave fine speeches on Islamism as British prime minister but did not followed up on them.

Prince Salman, 45 and widely acknowledged to be the Bahraini royal family's principal reformer, opens his remarks by addressing the inaccuracy of the phrase, "War on Terror." The time has come, he says "for us to get rid of" a term that dates back to 9/11. "It is a bit misleading, it is not the entirety and the totality of our conflict" but merely a "tool" and a tactic.

He goes on in flawless English to place the current conflict in historical context: "If I think back in the last century, we faced a very different foe. We faced communism and we faced it together. But when we faced communism we understood it as an ideology. Terrorism is not an ideology."

He notes that "we are not only fighting terrorists, we are fighting theocrats." As Salman uses this term, theocrats are men "placed at the top of a religious ideology who [have] the power by religious edict to strip someone … of their hereafter – and use [religious power] for political gains." They are also tyrants, isolationists, and misogynists who will need to be fought "for a very long time." He scorns them for being "very much like the seventeenth century" and having "no place in our modern twenty-first" century.

He urges us "to discard the term 'War on Terror' and focus instead on the real threat, which is the rise of these evil theocracies"; to this end, he proposes to replace "War on Terror" with his formulation: a "War on Theocrats." This concept, he hopes, will make it possible to "start to put together the military, social, and political – and maybe even economic – policies in a holistic manner to counter this, as we did with communism." In perhaps the outstanding line of the speech, he states that "it is the ideology itself that must be combatted. It must be named, it must be shamed, it must be contained, and eventually it must be defeated."

So far, perfect. But Salman avoids the bitter reality that the "twisted" and "barbaric" ideology he describes is specifically Islamic and the theocrats are all Muslim: "this war that we are engaged in cannot be against Islam, … Christianity, … Judaism, … Buddhism." So, when naming this ideology, Salman dithers and generalizes. He proffers an inept neologism ("theo-crism"), then harkens back to World War II for "fascist theocracy." He implicitly rejects "Islamism," saying he does not want a "debate about certain political parties, whether they're Islamist or not."

I submit that Islamism is precisely the term he seeks for the enemy ideology; and we are engaged in a "War on Islamism." Salman understands the problem well –the transformation of Islam into a totalitarian ideology. But he seeks refuge in the pretense that Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism all share this affliction. Better that he – and other forthright Muslims – accept the ineluctable reality that Islam alone contains a totalitarian temptation.

On the positive side, Salman's remarks fit into a growing trend among Muslim politicians directly to confront the Islamist danger. Two recent examples:
  • In an important conceptual breakthrough, the nearby United Arab Emirates government has placed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and many other non-violent groups on its terrorism list on the grounds that they engage in incitement, funding, and the other precursors of terrorism.
  • The government of Egypt issued an INTERPOL arrest bulletin for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, 88, the hugely influential spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, for "incitement and assistance to commit intentional murder, helping … prisoners to escape, arson, vandalism and theft."

The Egyptian government put out an arrest warrant for the Muslim Brotherhood's deep thinker, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

This new tendency has great importance. As I often say, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. Now, we may add another influential leader, indeed a crown prince, to the ranks of those Muslims who wish to find a solution. 

Daniel Pipes ( is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.


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