Why Obama Administration Peace Process Policy Will Be A Total Waste of Time in 2011

by Barry Rubin

Since predicting the future is hard, to say the least, it's always interesting when one can clearly see a crisis looming months ahead of time. The usual pattern is for the impending problem to be ignored until the last minute, then it is suddenly discovered by journalists and policymakers with great astonishment.

Often, they then misdiagnose the causes of the problem precisely because they never understood why it happened in the first place.

In this case, the Palestinian Authority (PA) foreign minister--remember when the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement said that the PA wouldn't conduct foreign policy? Ha-ha-ha--Riyad Malki says he will seek recognition of a Palestinian state in September at the UN. For many years, Malki ran the terrorist group, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) on the West Bank. But it's ok! He quit.

So far, recognition has been obtained from Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador, with Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile considered next. Of course, almost 100 countries recognized the Palestinian state a long time ago, often 20 years ago, and that didn't change anything. Indeed, I was present when a unilateral declaration of independence was made near Algiers on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the PLO's parliament.

Everything the PA has obtained in the last 17 years has been due not to those diplomatic recognitions but to the 1993 agreement with Israel. To walk away from that agreement and negotiations in general would be a serious matter of violating every commitment the PA has understaken [sic]. It tells something about the PA's pattern of behavior and reliability in keeping agreements. But who cares, right?

More immediately, though, I have not seen a single article in any mass media outlet that makes these most simple and obvious points:

First, the PA has basically refused to negotiate with Israel for two full years, though one would scarcely know that from media coverage.

Second, this intransigence is now being parlayed into a unilateral action. The PA won't negotiate with Israel at all. Thus, it will not have to make any commitments, compromises, or concessions. It will simply get a state on a silver platter on all of the territory it claims.

That, at least is the strategy: If the world gives me everything I want who needs you?

I have also not seen a single mass media outlet even mention that the problem here is that the Palestinians would be offered a state without having to declare that this is their final demand. In other words, as the Palestinians have always wanted, the door would be open for a second round of conflict to wipe Israel off the map.

Who will be the big loser if this happens? In theory, you would think it would be Israel. But in fact even the PA realizes that this is going to have limited effect on the ground. The PA does need Israel for many things, including, for example, helping keep it from being overthrown by Hamas and passing through needed goods.

Even PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has admitted, in the words of an AP dispatch, "that the recognition drive at the UN will not necessarily bring realization of a state. But it helps the Palestinians enshrine their demand that the 1967 borders serve as the basis for drawing their nation's shape."

Or in Malki's words: "Such recognition would create political and legal pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces from the land of another state that is recognized within the 1967 borders by the international organization."

But it won't affect Israel very much at all. Nothing really will change.

By the way, let's remember that contrary to international practice, the PA cannot claim to be a state in those borders because it doesn't control that territory. And I'm referring here to the Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem, and much of the West Bank. Moreover, it is asking for recognition in contradiction to its existing treaty commitments. But again, who cares?

The UN General Assembly will no doubt accept Palestinian statehood by a resounding majority without that country making any commitments to peace, security guarantees, an end of the conflict, or anything else. Then the issue will go to the UN Security Council where the United States will veto it. Yes, President Barack Obama will do that. And so there will be no real change in the situation.

And that brings me back to my point. The big loser here is the United States. After all, why should the PA make any attempt whatsoever to negotiate seriously if at the end of nine months it can get everything it wants for free? How can the U.S. government ignore this reality?

In other words, the next nine months of U.S. policy on the peace process will be a complete and total waste of time. And nothing Israel does, for good or bad, will affect that reality.

There is, of course, something the U.S. government can do: maximum pressure on other states not to recognize; maximum pressure on the PA to drop the idea. Of course, this is not going to happen.

So, surer than the Titanic was going to hit that iceberg if it didn't change course, the Obama Administration is headed for getting a big hole in its side and taking on considerable water. Remember, you heard it here first. And you probably won't hear it anywhere else until about August.

Original URL: http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/01/obama-administration-peace-process-policy

Barry Rubin

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

Iran's Execution Binge

by Ethel C. Fenig

It seems that the UN's General Assembly's and Columbia University's favorite speaker, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, presides over a country that is not only building nuclear weapons to destroy hundreds of thousands of perceived enemies outside Iran but is also on an "execution binge" against its own people.

According to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

Since the beginning of the New Year, Iran has hanged 47 prisoners, or an average of about one person every eight hours. Iran executes more people per capita than any other country, and in absolute numbers, is second only to China.

(snip)

According to information received by and reported by the Campaign, the number of executions in Iran is apparently even higher than previously reported. Multiple and reliable reports indicate that secret, mass executions of more than a hundred have taken place in Mashad's Vakilabad prison.

Actually, in Iranian parlance, many of those executed aren't really Iranian; though they live in Iran, a large proportion of those executed are Kurds while others were from areas populated by other non Iranian ethnic groups. Juvenile criminals under 18 are also part of these mass judicial killings.

Torture is routinely used to extract confessions; after confessing there is a swift show trial, the victim is hung soon thereafter.

"The Iranian Judiciary is on an execution binge orchestrated by the intelligence and security agencies," stated Aaron Rhodes, a spokesperson for the Campaign.

"The execution of Kurdish activists, without fair trials and following torture, increasingly appears as a systematic, politically motivated process," he said.

One prisoner

reported in a letter to international organizations that he had been tortured while in prisons run by the Intelligence Ministry and the Revolutionary Guards, but according to Amnesty International, his request for an investigation was denied. He had refused to confess to committing any of the crimes for which he was convicted.

The international lack of reporting and protests against these horrors are telling. The silence is deafening.

Original URL: http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/01/iran-execution-binge

Ethel C. Fenig

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

Lebanon Enters a Tunnel, the End of Which Can't be Seen

by Jonathan Spyer

The political crisis in Lebanon precipitated by the resignation last week of ministers affiliated with the Hizbullah- led March 8 bloc is now entering its second stage. The countdown has already begun toward the issuing of indictments for the 2005 murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The indictments are expected to implicate Hizbullah members, including senior movement figures, in the killing.

Hassan Nasrallah, as indicated by his speech earlier this week, is desperately trying to build a Lebanese political fence around his movement, to protect it as much as possible from the impact of its members being indicted for the murder of a popular, mainstream Sunni politician. The March 14 movement of current Prime Minister Saad Hariri is seeking to frustrate this effort by Hizbullah.

At present, the focus of the action is on internal Lebanese political procedure. Hariri has been invited by President Michel Suleiman to stay on as a “caretaker” prime minister. Parliamentary consultations are set to begin to determine the make-up of the next Lebanese government. The result of these consultations is far from certain.

The Hizbullah-led March 8 bloc has made clear that it will be putting forward an alternative candidate for the prime ministership.

Omar Karami, the candidate of this bloc, is a former prime minister, the scion of a prominent Sunni political family in Lebanon, and is closely aligned with the Syrians. Hariri, meanwhile, is at the moment standing firm and looks set to contest the issue.

The March 8 and March 14 (pro-Hariri) blocs are roughly evenly matched in the 128- member Lebanese parliament.

At the moment, therefore, all eyes are on Druse strongman Walid Jumblatt, who controls 11 seats, and who has not yet clearly indicated which side he will support.

The indications are that he will favor Hariri’s leading a renewed “unity” government, although it is not clear if circumstances will make possible the formation of such a government.

If the current consultations fail to produce a quick result, with Hariri continuing as “caretaker” prime minister, then the prospect will open up for increased pressure on the government from Hizbullah. It is at this point that civil unrest, demonstrations and possibly sectarian violence will become a possibility, as Hizbullah seeks to raise the stakes and force Hariri to distance himself from the tribunal.

If, on the other hand, the new government is formed by March 8, this will represent an entirely new situation – namely, the rise to political power of the pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian bloc in Lebanon.

This, however, is widely considered to be a less-likely outcome.

Hizbullah and its backers have little to gain from an open seizure of power. As this issue is decided, international efforts of various kinds are frantically taking place to avoid renewed internecine conflict in Lebanon. Turkey and Qatar are among the regional states involved in these efforts. Saudi-Syrian contacts have not ended, and it is possible that they will yet produce some type of compromise formula.

With all the current maneuvering, two points need to be borne in mind.

First of all, this process is about Hizbullah’s legitimacy, not its physical power. What is at stake is the movement’s attempt to present itself as a patriotic, Arab movement engaged centrally in fighting Israel.

Should it be tainted with the murder of Hariri, the movement will instead come to be seen by millions across the Arab world as an alien, Shia force supported by non-Arab powers and engaging in activities that place it far outside the Arab political consensus.

Hizbullah dreads this outcome, and the possibility of it underlies its present obvious discomfort.

At the same time, what is not at stake is Hizbullah’s real-life dominance of Lebanon.

Whatever the outcome of the present crisis, the undeniable reality that the Iranian-sponsored Shia Islamist movement is the strongest force in the country will remain.

Hizbullah thus finds itself in the unfamiliar position of being without peer in terms of its physical strength, and yet unable to translate this reality at the present time into a situation to its liking politically.

The result is that the irresistible force of Saad Hariri’s (current) refusal to abandon the Tribunal tasked with finding his father’s killers is currently set against the immovable object of Hizbullah’s physical domination of the means of force in Lebanon.

What will be the outcome? As speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri put it in an interview with Asharq al-Awsat, Lebanon is currently entering “a tunnel whose beginning we know but whose end we don’t see.”

Original URL: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=204065

Jonathan Spyer

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

Hariri Vows to Seek Premiership Despite Hizbullah Pressure

by JPost.com Staff

Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Thursday promised he would seek to be the premier of a new government despite pressure from Hizbullah to step down, Reuters reported.

Talks to form a new Lebanese government were scheduled for next week.

Speaking defiantly of Hizbullah, Hariri told a crowd in Beirut, "They have put aside all solutions and demanded Saad al Hariri be excluded ... we will go to constitutional talks on Monday with me as a candidate," he said.

One week ago, Hizbullah toppled his government and sparked fears that the country's political crisis could descend into street battles.

Hariri's Western-backed government fell last week over a dispute linked to the UN tribunal investigating the assassination of his father, former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Many fear that Hizbullah — widely expected to be indicted by the court — will react violently if accused.

In a televised address, Hariri said he would continue efforts to solve the crisis diplomatically. The most recent talks, involving Qatar and Turkey, failed to reach a compromise.





"We will go to the consultations and we will give our opinion while committed to my nomination for the prime minister's post," the 40-year-old said, speaking in front of a poster of his father, who was killed in a massive truck bombing along Beirut's waterfront in 2005.

He also appealed for calm, saying: "Any drop of blood that falls from any Lebanese citizen is more important to me than any post."

Lebanese Druse leader Walid Jumblatt on Thursday said he is under great pressure not to name Hariri as the government's next premier despite earlier statements of support for him, Lebanese paper an-Nahar reported.

He told members of his party that insisting on Hariri as the country's new prime minister would lead to "catastrophic consequences" for the security of the Druse party, himself, and the Druse population in Hizbullah-controlled areas. He added that things "have become greater than him and his ability to maintain the middle ground in a harsh battle in which Hariri's regional and international backers only resort to statements, while his opponents (Hizbullah) turn to all manners of military and popular pressure," according to the report.

Jumblatt said that he is under pressure to name former Lebanese prime minister Omar Karami in place of Hariri.

Lebanese special police forces tightened security around the government palace and other official buildings Thursday amid growing fears that the country was headed toward violence.

A senior security official confirmed to The Associated Press that the security measures in and around Beirut stem from "concerns of movements on the ground by some parties." The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

Special police forces were seen hauling cement barriers around the government house in Beirut and putting up reinforcements around government buildings and banks. Armored personnel carriers deployed to many areas of the city.

Original URL:http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=204564

JPost.com Staff

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

King Abdicates

by Pamella Geller

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) told Politico Tuesday that in his upcoming hearings on radicalization among American Muslims, he was "not planning to call as witnesses such Muslim community critics as the Investigative Project on Terrorism's Steve Emerson and Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer, who have large followings among conservatives but are viewed as antagonists by many Muslims."

Based on this, it appears that this will be a show trial. Between Emerson and Spencer, the whole of it is covered. Emerson knows who all the players are and what groups and cells they are affiliated with. He knows who everyone is and what he's doing. For King to acquiesce in his marginalization is almost criminal. In Spencer's case, it's just as bad. Why wouldn't King discuss the texts and teachings of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and make recruits?

For King not to avail himself of Emerson's knowledge and Spencer's scholarship is an astounding case of willful blindness.

Methinks Representative King is a wee bit in over his head. I am filled with dread and sorrow at another lost opportunity. Doesn't King know he is going to be smeared and defamed for these hearings no matter what? So why not achieve something? Why not have the courage of your convictions?

The Muslim groups are worried about these hearings with good reason. "On the gonif brent a hittle" -- the Yiddish axiom translated means "on the thief, the hat burns." At the last yearly Muslim Public Affairs Council Conference (December 18, 2010), one of the questions moderator Salaam Al Marayati asked his panel concerned the future hearings of Congressman Peter King. One of the panelists, an attorney named Angela Oh, said that any person subpoenaed should hire an attorney and that the attorney should advise the committee that the person under subpoena would not appear. The other panelists agreed.

One of the other panelists, an attorney named Reem Salahi, made a lot of noise about King and the IRA. I have the feeling that they want the media to exploit this. The entire session was recorded and appeared on the MPAC website.

And so perhaps it is no surprise that Representative King has already conceded key points. But why? How could he in good conscience squander such an important, historic opportunity?

Politico said that "King aims ... to call retired law enforcement officials and people with 'the real life experience of coming from the Muslim community.' Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in the House and a critic of the hearings, will likely be a minority witness, according to both King and the Minnesota Democrat."

Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison is infamous for his pro-Hamas rallies and his pilgrimage to the Hajj in Saudi Arabia, paid for by the Muslim Brotherhood. He is testifying, but Emerson and Spencer aren't? What can King achieve?

King is going to call Zuhdi Jasser and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Jasser and Hirsi Ali are perfectly lovely, but to what end? Jasser's Islam does not exist. He does not have a theological leg to stand on. His mosque threw him out. Whatever he is practicing, it's not Islam, and he speaks for no one but himself. Also, Jasser has done some strange things: in May 2009, he made a last-minute effort to quash Geert Wilders' appearance on Capitol Hill under the aegis of Senator Kyl, calling Kyl's office the morning of the day Wilders was supposed to appear and stating that while Jasser had been in the Netherlands, Wilders refused to meet with Jasser because Wilders "doesn't meet with Muslims." That never happened, according to Wilders.

And when I interviewed Jasser back in 2007, he referred to Israel as occupied territory in the last five minutes of the interview. He blew his cover. Further, Jasser refutes Islamic anti-Semitism in the interview. He may be well-intentioned, but his approach and theology are just plain un-Islamic. Logan's Warning pointed out recently that Jasser has no following among Muslims and doesn't represent any Islamic tradition. So what's the point?

King probably thinks, as do other conservatives, that Jasser is the voice of reason in our cause of educating Americans about the threat of radical Islam. But in this, Jasser fails miserably. First off, there is no "reason" in Islam. There is only Islam. You cannot question, reason, or go off the reservation in any way. Hence, Jasser cannot educate about the threat, because he obfuscates the truth and has invented the Islam he follows.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is smart, fashionable, and a wonderful speaker. She is a great spokesperson, but she has removed herself from the front lines. She runs with a different crowd now. Yes, she can speak to the brutal oppression of women in Islam, but what can she bring to these hearings? If it's a former Muslim they want to hear from, who better than the world's leading scholar on Islam, Ibn Warraq?

That's all King really needs: Emerson, Spencer, and Ibn Warraq.

What a waste.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/king_abdicates.html

Pamella Geller

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

Flying the Terrorist Flag in Washington

by Mark Cantora

Sometimes a flag is not just a flag. In the current era of postmodern "whatever-ism," symbolic gestures are largely understood as just that -- a meaningless symbolic gesture. A low Presidential bow to a foreign sovereign is just a bow. The gift of an iPod to an allied sovereign is just a kitschy gift. And on January 18, 2011, a raised Palestinian flag in Washington, D.C. is just a flag -- a little wink and nod to the Arab residents of the disputed territories.

But in the Middle East, a symbol is never just a symbol. Even the smallest of gestures is packed with diplomatic meaning, and the policy ramifications of that gesture are almost always far-reaching.

For example, in the Old City of Jerusalem, a rickety old ladder placed outside a window in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre since sometime around 1852 has remained in the exact same location for 159 years. Why? Because in 1853, the Church's numerous religious sects and factions decided that the use OF and control over the different portions of the Church should stay the same in perpetuity. Any change in the control over the Church since that time is considered by all parties to be a severe provocation.

To the Western mind, this entire situation seems to involve a substantial measure of absurdity. "Surely," most Westerners think "the removal of a five-stepped ladder would not have any practical effects on the division of control over the Church. It's just a ladder." But in the historical-minded culture of the Middle East, this ladder is not just a ladder. It's an important symbol of the region's -- of the world's -- recognition of the power and prestige of different religious sects. Thus, the positioning of this ladder is considered so important that a metal grate has been erected over the window in order to keep anyone from changing the physical position of the ladder -- and the metaphysical positioning of the Church's sects.

A similarly significant issue arises from the unfurling of the Palestinian flag in Washington, D.C.

The Palestinian flag was informally adopted by the PLO terrorist organization after its creation in the 1960s. By the 1970s, the flag had been "officially" adopted as the flag of the PLO. Until the Madrid "Peace Conference" in 1991, the PLO was recognized by the United States as a terrorist organization. However, in 1993, the PLO "officially" renounced terrorism and violence and claimed to be a legitimate representative of the Palestinians and a partner for peace with the Israelis.

Lest anyone be mistaken in believing that the PLO's official renunciation of violence was worth more than the paper it was written on, the PLO commenced the Second Intifada in the year 2000, resulting in the deaths and injuries of thousands of Israelis. The PLO, all public statements aside, today remains very much a terrorist organization dedicated to violent attacks against Israelis and brutal repression against its own population. Just last month, the PLO imprisoned an atheist in the city of Qalqilya, simply because he wrote a blog supporting atheism. The Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, an armed paramilitary sub-faction of al-Fatah, itself an organization of the PLO, continues to attack Israeli citizens on a regular basis.

Thus, the Palestinian flag remains the flag of a terrorist organization, albeit a terrorist organization with more media savvy than its earlier incarnations.

So while numerous public places around the country (rightfully) ban the flying of the Confederate flag, and the courts have interpreted the Constitution as prohibiting most displays of the Ten Commandments, the raising in the nation's capital of a terrorist flag symbolizing the often murderous "struggle" of the Palestinians has now become acceptable.

The current administration has put much emphasis on the so-called "peace process" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The president has declared that this peace process requires "patience," and his secretary of state has proclaimed that "there is no substitute for face-to-face discussion" between the Israelis and Palestinians. But despite these empty platitudes, the current administration has decided to charge full steam ahead, in lockstep with the Palestinians' new strategy of getting the world to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state in all of the disputed territories.

In the Middle East, symbols matter. The waving of the Palestinian flag in Washington, D.C. sends a loud and clear message to Israel and the world: The United States is now one very big step closer to recognizing a Palestinian state, with or without security for the State of Israel.

And the United States is willing to fly a terrorist flag in Washington to send this profound and unfortunate message.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/flying_the_terrorist_flag_in_w.html

Mark Cantora

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

Who is Suhail Khan?

by Paul Sperry

Suhail Khan, a Bush administration veteran, has presented himself as a moderate, pro-American voice in the Muslim Community. But new videos cast serious doubt on that image he’s carefully groomed for himself in Washington.

Shockingly, they show this current American Conservative Union board member consorting with radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders-turned-terrorists, while exalting the death culture of jihadists.

Relevance: This self-proclaimed staunch Republican has made inroads into the GOP leadership on the Hill, where he’s lobbied to:

* Block opposition to the Ground Zero mosque;

* Pooh-pooh the threats from Muslim Brotherhood infiltration and the Shariah legal code it seeks to institutionalize in America;

* Downplay the rising tide of homegrown terror and radicalization, which Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., plans to investigate next month during his important Homeland Security Commitee hearings on the subject.

More alarming, Mr. Khan has — unwittingly or not — helped the bad guys infiltrate the government, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

Before 9/11, as White House gatekeeper to the Muslim community, he helped facilitate a White House meeting with Sami al-Arian, even though al-Arian had been under FBI investigation (al-Arian subsequently served time for terrorism and remains under house arrest for refusing to testify in a related terror case). As a Hill staffer in the mid-1990s, moreover, Mr. Khan convinced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to reserve a room in the Capitol for Muslims to pray. Consequently, according to Fox News, a parade of extremists — including cleric Anwar Awlaki, who the U.S. government now hopes to assassinate for his terrorist work for al-Qaida — led prayers and spoke there.

Mr. Khan is now a spokesman for the Congressional Muslim Staff Association, working with a Muslim convert named Jihad Saleh Williams (of all the Arabic names he could have picked, he chose Jihad). Mr. Khan spends a lot of time on the Hill. He’s briefed GOP leadership staff on various issues and has now cozied up to some of House Speaker John Boehner’s people. He’s even gained the trust of key staffers running the Republican Study Committee, the caucus for conservatives in the House.

None of them knew of his radical ties. Some told me they weren’t even aware he’s Muslim.

Now that the jig is up, Mr. Khan has gone into damage control mode. Last week, in a six-page letter to fellow ACU board members, including chairman David Keene, he tried to explain away the damning videos — which, among other things, show him receiving an award from the notorious Abdurahman Alamoudi, now behind bars as one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America. He claims he had no choice but to speak to Alamoudi’s group, that the Bush White House sent him, blah, blah.

But nobody at the White House forced him to speak in 1999 to the radical Islamic Society of North America, where he sounded at one point much like a jihadist, praising the “mujihadeen” who martyr themselves “for the cause of Islam,” and braying about how “the early Muslims loved death more than the oppressors loved life.” He invoked all the major hotspots of the jihadi circuit at the time: “Bosnia” … “Kashmir” … “Palestine” … “Iraq.” All the while, the video captures Mr. Khan wiping tears of anger from his cheeks. Here is a transcript from that section of his speech to ISNA:

“We are charged by almighty Allah to protect our fellow brothers and sisters and we know of many, so many, here in America and across the globe who are in dire need of protection … A Muslim is a brother to a Muslim. Neither he harms him nor does he hand him to another for harm. … Here in the United States, Muslims are often faced with discrimination, harassment and outright hatred. Mosques are burned. Islamic centers are vandalized, desecrated. Mosques and Islamic centers and schools face constant discriminatory zoning decisions. Muslim families are harassed and hindered from travel from at airports as they are profiled as quote unquote terrorists or security risks. … Our freedoms, my dear brothers and sisters, are under attack. Our freedom to associate with whomsoever we choose, to speak out politically and religiously, to travel, to practice our faith as Allah has instructed us as God-fearing men and women must be protected. And these rights must be defended with all the determination, all the resources, all the unyielding vigilance of the believing mujahid. … This is the mark of the Muslim. The earliest defenders of Islam would defend their more numerous and better equipped oppressors, because the early Muslims loved death, dying for the sake of almighty Allah, more than the oppressors of Muslims loved life. This must be the case where we– when we are fighting life’s other battles. … [W]hat are our oppressors going to do with people like us? We’re prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam.”

This is the kind of violent rhetoric you’d expect to hear from Osama bin Laden or Awlaki, not any “moderate” Muslim.

In that same 1999 speech, Mr. Khan also expressed disturbing hostility toward federal law enforcement and sympathy for terrorist suspects. At the time he was working for a congressman from a heavily Muslim district in Northern California to eliminate the Justice Department’s use of so-called “secret evidence” to deport Arab immigrants suspected of terrorism. Why would a supposedly rock-ribbed conservative undermine law enforcement’s efforts to fight terrorism?

What’s striking is that even now, with Alamoudi behind bars, Mr. Khan cannot bring himself to call his old patron the al-Qaida terrorist that he is. In his letter of defense to the ACU board, he refers to him as “Mr. Alamoudi” and “gentleman,” but never as terrorist. And “gentleman” is the term he used to describe Osama bin Laden’s deputy on the Fred Grandy radio show recently. Why would he show such deference to a monster responsible for slaughtering nearly 3,000 fellow Americans?

And, again, why would a Republican glorify the death culture of jihadists? Why would a “loyal American,” as he calls himself, accept an award from a known Islamic extremist such as Alamoudi who had talked about “destroying America”?

These are questions members of the Republican establishment who have promoted Mr. Khan to positions of power ought to start asking.

There are other concerns, as well.

Mr. Khan is the first-born son of Mahboob Khan, one of the founding fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in America, which according to its secret founding archives (seized by the FBI in 2004) is in America to “sabotage” it and “destroy” it “from within.”

There is no evidence tying Mahboob Khan directly to the drafting of the archives. However, the same trove of Brotherhood papers lists a mosque he founded — Santa Clara, Calif.- based MCA — as one of “our organizations.”

The “San Francisco Chronicle” has reported that at least twice in the 1990s, his father’s mosque hosted Ayman al-Zawahiri, now AQ’s No. 2, and helped raise money for him — all while Mr. Khan’s father was running the mosque as chairman of the board (as confirmed by the “San Jose Mercury News”). After the “Chronicle” and other major newspapers reported the Zawahiri fundraisers in 2001, Mr. Khan relocated from the White House to the Transportation Department.

Mr. Khan claims the reporting is false, but it’s based on the court testimony of past members of the mosque, and the “Chronicle” has never issued a retraction. Mr. Khan insists his late father was just a “Silicon Valley executive,” “a high-tech engineer in the Bay Area.” But his immigrant father’s work in America involved far more than that, as this video makes clear.

Also in the early 1990s, a leader in his father’s mosque hosted the Blind Sheik (of World Trade Center bombing fame) at his Santa Clara apartment, as I first reported in “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” which exposes the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its American front groups. For some strange reason, two of the most dangerous terrorists on the planet made mecca to, of all places, Santa Clara, Calif., back then. That same mosque leader, Omar Ahmad, whom the “Chronicle” has also described as a “spokesman” for the mosque, also happens to be founding chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He’s now an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history — U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation. Ahmad has told Muslims in the Bay Area that the Quran should replace the Constitution as the “highest authority in America.” He’s also praised suicide bombers who “kill themselves for Islam.”

Mr. Khan’s mother works for CAIR, and is listed alongside Ahmad as a member of the executive committee of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter. Malika Khan’s chapter last week put up a poster on its website advising Muslims: “Don’t talk to the FBI,” and “build a wall of resistance” against law enforcement.

But that’s not all. According to the “Contra Costa Times” and other local press, Mr. Khan’s family mosque has hosted several Taliban supporters, while raising money — unwittingly or not — for Hamas through its U.S. charitable front, the Holy Land Foundation. The mosque happens to be held in trust by another unindicted Holy Land co-conspirator — the North American Islamic Trust. The government recently blacklisted Saudi-funded NAIT as part of the Hamas fundraising conspiracy. It also happens to be the banker to the Muslim Brotherhood network in America.

But it’s not just the mosque that’s a concern. Mr. Khan’s father also founded the Santa Clara-based American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice, whose chairman defended the Taliban even after 9/11, according to the Associated Press. So what “peace” and what “justice” are we talking about here?

Despite these troubling family ties, Mr. Khan has vowed to carry on his “dear father’s shining legacy,” as he calls it. Before his conviction on terror charges, top Muslim Brotherhood leader Alamoudi said he hoped to see this “son of a dear, dear Brother” in the White House one day as “vice president … Allah Akbar!”

That should give everyone in Washington pause.

Original URL:http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/20/who-is-suhail-khan/

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”

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

Hosting Illegal Aliens From a Terrorist Haven

by Arnold Ahlert

Demonstrating, once again, that the Left has no regard for the safety and security of the American people, House Democrats led by Rep. Al Green (D-TX) have reintroduced a bill that will effectively give carte blanche to Pakistanis illegally residing in the country. The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) bill is targeted toward Pakistanis allegedly affected by the floods which ravaged that country in July of 2010. However, it allows people who do not legally qualify as refugees to remain in the United States for a period of twelve months providing they are Pakistani nationals “who ha(ve) been continuously physically present in the United States since July 22, 2010″ — regardless of their immigration status. Pakistan’s notoriety as an exporter of terrorism makes the TPS bill an exceedingly reckless measure. With it, illegal aliens from a terrorist haven will be given protected status to roam free within our borders and will have the ability to travel to and from their home country.

There is no question that Pakistan was devastated by flooding last July. According to the United Nations, “20,000,000 people, one-eighth of the population, and nearly 62,000 square miles, one-fifth of the country, have been significantly affected by destruction of property, livelihood, and infrastructure.” Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, perceived by many Pakistanis as more powerful than President Asif Ali Zardari, characterized the flooding as the “the worst natural calamity of (Pakistan’s) history.” ”As human misery continues to mount, we are seriously concerned with spread of epidemic diseases,” he said at the time.

For many Pakistanis, however, the response by the government to the crisis was unconscionably slow. President Zardari, whose support among his countrymen had already been flagging prior to the crisis (only one in five Pakstanis had a favorable view of him according to the Pew Research Center), refused to cancel a trip to France and Britain during the flooding, and returned to a country in which other entities had filled the leadership vacuum.

One of the entities filling the leadership vacuum was Pakistan’s military. Prior to the emergence of a democratic government in 2008, Pakistan had been under military control for nine years. Since gaining its independence from India in 1947, the country has been ruled by military governments for more than half of its 63 years. When 60,000 troops took part in responding to the floods, the perception that the military was the “real power” in the country once again gained traction. Such perceptions are detrimental to the efforts of the Obama administration, which has long been seeking to promote the idea of civilian government in a country long dominated by military rule.

Even more detrimental to both the Pakistani government as a well as our own, was the response to the disaster by militant Islamic factions. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) were extremely active in providing relief, setting up supply camps, taking donations to help the affected, and maintaining a presence in many areas beyond the reach of the government. Their ability to do what the government could not did not garnered sympathy from the public, much of which is convinced that Pakistan’s ruling class consists of politicians who only care about themselves.

Unfortunately, Rep. Green’s TPS bill is a problematic solution at best. Despite its claim that “(G)ranting temporary protected status to nationals of Pakistan is consistent with the interests of the United States and promotes the values and morals that have made the United States strong,” it is inarguable that Pakistan has been a training center for Islamic terrorists determined to wreak havoc in the West. Ramzi Yousef, who orchestrated the first attack at the World Trade Center in 1993 which killed six people and injured more than a 1,000, trained in Pakistan. So did would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid, along with several of the terrorists who killed 52 people in the London subway attack of 2005. Most recently, Faisal Shahzad who was convicted and given a life sentence for attempting to detonate a car bomb in Times Square on May 1, 2010, admitted he had received his training in that country as well.

Yet the most searing reminder of Pakistan-originated terror was the devastation wreaked by the 2008 attack in Mumbai by terrorists who killed 166 and wounded over 300 people. Two U.S. lawsuits filed in November 2010 contend that not only were the ten terrorists who precipitated the carnage trained in Pakistan, but that the government’s spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and its director general, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, had participated in the training. Pakistan denies the charges and has indicated that it will not allow Pasha to testify in court.

This is not the first time (nor likely the last) that the ISI has been accused of abetting the very same terrorists that the Pakistani government is officially committed to eradicating. Once again, the seemingly ubiquitous WikiLeaks documents suggested that the Pakistani government is allowing their spy agency, as reported by the NY Times, “to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.” Though such meetings have not been confirmed, American officials contend that such reports are “broadly consistent with other classified intelligence.” In other words, despite all the diplo-speak emanating from the Obama administration, epitomized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reference to the Pakistani-U.S. relationship as one of “partners joined in common cause”–along with the billions of dollars in aid we have provided to the civilian government–the idea that Pakistan is a staunch ally of the United States is an extremely dubious one at best.

Which brings us to the most questionable aspect of the TPS legislation, Section 4, paragraph (c):

“Consent To Travel Abroad–The Secretary of Homeland Security shall give the prior consent to travel abroad…to an alien who is granted temporary protected status pursuant to the designation made under this section, if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security that emergency and extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the alien require the alien to depart for a brief, temporary trip abroad. An alien returning to the United States in accordance with such an authorization shall be treated the same as any other returning alien provided temporary protected status under section 244 of such Act.”

Translation: Pakistanis, including those here illegally due to their “protected status,” can travel back and forth to Pakistan, as long as they “satisfy” the Department of Homeland Security’s definition of “extenuating circumstances” or an “emergency.” That would be the same DHS which has routinely tortured definitions, such as the war on terror (an “overseas contingency operation), suicide bombers (“man-caused disasters”), and Islamic radicals (unnamed “insurgents”). The same DHS whose leader, the clueless Janet Napolitano, claimed “the system worked” when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to blow up a Christmas Eve jetliner in 2009 was foiled by a fellow passenger. The same DHS which would have been forced to reconcile more carnage in Times Square–caused by a terrorist who went to Pakistan for training–once again foiled by an ordinary citizen without an iota of government help. The same DHS that is fully aware that training camps run by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT, Army of the Pure) the Pakistan-based jihadist group responsible for Mumbai, are still in business training future terrorists–in a country with a shaky civilian government possessing nuclear weapons.

Yet more importantly, Rep. Green’s bill is the fourth attempt to grant Pakistanis Temporary Protected Status. According to govtrack.us, two previous attempts were undertaken in 2005 and 2009. In December of 2010, a bill identical to Mr. Green’s, prepared by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Green, and eight other members of Congress, died in the lame-duck session. Assuming govtrack.com is accurate, the first two attempts to grant Pakistanis protected status occurred long before there were any floods in Pakistan, which undercuts the rationale Mr. Green, et al., are using to get this current incarnation enacted into law.

Thankfully, the three previous bills died when the 109th and 111th Congresses adjourned, and latest one has been tabled by the 112th. But one can only marvel at the mindset of politicians who, while rightly sympathetic to a humanitarian crisis, appear to be in utter denial of Pakistan’s major role in facilitating international terror. And their apparent faith in a Homeland Security Department to maintain faultless security with respect to Pakistani nationals traveling to Pakistan–and then back to the U.S.–borders on absurd. Self-preservation is presumably an instinct. Have we reached a point where political ideology trumps such an instinct in the minds of some of our elected officials?

Arnold Ahlert is a contributing columnist to the conservative website, JewishWorldReview.com.
Original URL:http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/20/protecting-illegal-aliens-from-a-terrorist-haven/

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

Hariri Indictment Spikes Lebanese Tensions

by IPT News

The United Nations' Special Tribunal for Lebanon handed over its first sealed indictment to The Hague Monday. Although its contents remain sealed, the Jerusalem Post reports that Hizballah's reaction indicates that it and its Iranian sponsors may be held responsible for the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Hizballah is treating the indictment as a political act by America and Israel, and is threatening to throw the small but diverse Middle Eastern nation back into civil war.

The indictment "marks the launch of the judicial phase of the tribunal's work. For the first time, a legal case has been launched by an international tribunal against those responsible for a political assassination in Lebanon," said chief tribunal prosecutor Daniel A. Bellemore in a video statement. "This step has been taken at the request and on behalf of the People of Lebanon and in fulfillment of a mandate from the United Nations Security Council."

Justice has a cost for Lebanon, where the tensions are at a boiling point. Schools in Beirut , the capital, were temporarily closed and small gatherings occurred in Hizballah-dominated neighbors in the southern neighborhoods of the city. "The gatherings this morning may signal preparations to mobilize in relation to the indictments handed down," a security official said. The Lebanese army spread its forces across the battle lines of central Beirut in response.

The indictment, sent to a pre-trial judge, is only the first step of Bellemare's promise to "do everything that is humanly and legally possible to ensure that the truth emerges and that those responsible for the crimes … are brought to justice." Hizballah and Iran don't see the action the same way, and the Iranian proxy has taken several steps to paralyze the Lebanese government from taking action against it.

Eleven ministers linked to the Hizballah-directed March 8 Alliance resigned from the national coalition government last week and forced its collapse. Hizballah argued that a transitional authority didn't have the legal right to receive an indictment, and attempted to delegitimize an international indictment as "politicized" and "serving US and Israeli interests in Lebanon and the region."

"The Lebanese are already divided over the legal and structural aspects of the [tribunal], which the opposition regards as another political tool in US and Israeli hands to target the country and the resistance," said the terrorist group in an article on its news website, Al Manar. "The resignation of the government raises question marks on the fate of the international tribunal and the indictment which, if issued now, will find no official authority to receive it."

Iran's reply to the indictment was decidedly quieter, with nothing mentioned about its alleged role, but some veiled threats. Iran's state-run IRIB featured an editorial, calling the tribunal a U.S. effort to "target the country's grassroots groups for their opposition to Washington's interference and their firm resistance to Israeli designs." The article contained no comment on the possible involvement of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened the U.S. and Israel during a recent speech to supporters in the Iranian city of Yazd, but stopped short of calling for Iranian involvement in the indictment. "With these actions, you are damaging your reputation. Stop your interference," he said. "If you don't stop your sedition (in Lebanon), then the Lebanese nation and regional countries will cut your nasty, plotting hand."

Despite Iran's silence to the formal legal action, Khamenei had previously registered his total disregard for the tribunal. "This court is a kangaroo court and every verdict it issues is rejected," declared the Iranian Supreme Leader on December 20^th. "We hope influential sides in Lebanon will act prudently, so the issue will not be turned into a problem."

And regardless of what the indictment holds, Hizballah's trump card comes from its powerful military apparatus.

In the last internal confrontation, a 2008 clash between the group and Lebanon's central government, Hizballah rapidly seized significant sections of the capital Beirut as well as half of country's territory. The battle was precipitated by the discovery of the government's discovery and effort to shut down a private communications network run by the terrorist organization, as well the attempt to remove Beirut airport's security chief, Wafic Shkeir, for spying on behalf of Hizballah.

Hizballah has leveled more than a veiled threat against Lebanese sovereignty. Al-Manar television cited a Hizballah source who "stressed that anything may happen after the indictment in the 2005 assassination case of former Premier Rafiq Hariri is announced."

Renewed violence also threatens the country's Arab Christians. Saudi Arabia pulled out of mediation efforts to resolve the political crisis in Lebanon, calling the circumstances "dangerous."

"If the situation reaches separation or partition of Lebanon, this means the end of Lebanon as a state that has this model of peaceful cohabitation between religions and ethnicities and different groups," Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told Al Arabiya television. "It would be a loss for the whole Arab nation."

Original URL:http://www.investigativeproject.org/2509/hariri-indictment-spikes-lebanese-tensions

IPT News

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

Europe's Muslim Lobby

by Soeren Kern

Europeans often fantasize about America's so-called Jewish lobby, which they claim has a chokehold over American finance, media and politics and is responsible for all manner of conspiratorial evil. But few Europeans like to talk about the growing influence of Europe's Muslim lobby, a conglomeration of hundreds of Muslim political and religious organizations -- many of which are media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam that openly pursue anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Semitic agendas and often receive financial support from Islamic fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.

In a Europe where Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years, Europe's Muslim lobby is becoming increasingly assertive and skilled at pressuring European policy-makers into implementing countless pro-Islamic policies, especially ones that institutionalize Islamic Sharia law. Muslim lobby groups are, in fact, transforming European society in ways unimaginable only a few years ago; critics say their ultimate goal is nothing less than the Islamification of Europe.

Some of the most effective Muslim lobby groups are located in Britain, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, and include organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB], Britain's largest Muslim umbrella body with around 500 affiliated national, regional and local organizations, mosques, charities and schools. It recently pressured the British government into adopting Islamic law and giving Sharia courts full powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The British government has quietly sanctioned the powers for Sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Whereas previously, the rulings of Sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims, rulings issued by a network of five Sharia courts are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in Birmingham, Bradford, London and Manchester and the network's headquarters are located in Nuneaton, Warwickshire; and two more courts are being planned for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Overall, at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed. A study by the Civitas think tank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques. The study warns of a "creeping" acceptance of Sharia principles in British law.)

Although the MCB, which represents half of the country's 3 million Muslims, presents itself as the moderate face of Islam in Britain, the group has its origins in the extreme orthodox politics of Pakistan. The MCB and some of its affiliates sympathize with, and have links to, conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by Sharia law.

Far from promoting moderate Islam, the MCB's real objective, critics say, is to help Muslims in Britain become more radical in their beliefs.

Among other positions, the MCB believes death is the appropriate penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. The group recently endorsed a pro-Hamas declaration that calls for Jihad against Jews and Israel, and condones attacks on British troops. The MCB also regularly makes headlines for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day ceremonies in Britain; it is also campaigning for the establishment of an alternative Genocide Memorial Day that will "incorporate similar tragedies."

Another Muslim group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom (MPACUK), has the outspoken aim of mobilizing Muslim voters to affect the outcome of British elections. During the general elections in 2010, MPACUK was pivotal in de-seating six members of parliament (MPs) who were perceived as being not sufficiently pro-Muslim.

During the 2005 general elections, MPACUK launched a smear campaign against Labour Party MP Lorna Fitzsimons. MPACUK distributed a leaflet claiming that Fitzsimons had done nothing to help the Palestinians because she was Jewish. Another leaflet said: "Lorna Fitzsimons is an ardent Zionist and a member of the most powerful anti-Muslim lobby in the world, the Israel lobby."

Fitzsimons is not in fact Jewish, and MPACUK later withdrew the leaflet. But MPACUK did succeed in unseating Fitzsimons; ever since then, many British MPs have been bending over backwards to appease Muslim voters.

MPACUK recently worked with Britain's Channel 4 television to produce a documentary titled "Operation Muslim Vote." With the aim of pressing for a larger participation of Muslims in British politics, the documentary tells the story of two MPACUK activists who head to northern England to take on the safe seats of several "pro-Zionist war mongering MPs."

MPACUK's website says its work is defined by the core principle of anti-Zionism: "MPACUK opposes the racist political ideology of Zionism and aims to counter the influence of the Zionist lobby. Openly available evidence demonstrates a Zionist agenda to dominate the Middle East and push a 'clash of civilisations' between Islam and 'The West'. We therefore believe that anti-Zionism is a strategic priority to counter the greatest and most urgent threat facing the Ummah [the Muslim Diaspora]."

Its website also says Muslims in Britain should be pro-actively engaged in mainstream media and politics as the most effective way to "reviving the fard (obligation) of Jihad."

Muslim lobby groups have also pressed the British government to enact the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates a new crime: intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds. Predictably, the new law has established new limits on free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.

The growing power of Europe's Muslim lobby was most recently demonstrated by the European Union's decision in mid-December to quietly abandon a new measure that would have required halal (religiously approved for Muslims) meat products to carry a label to help non-Muslim consumers identify their origins. With the exponential growth of Europe's Muslim population, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the non-Muslim population.

By bowing to Muslim pressure groups -- such as the World Halal Forum Europe and the Halal Monitoring Committee -- and dropping the halal labelling requirement, the EU is effectively establishing Sharia law as normative for Europe's meat industry. The halal controversy, in which Muslim lobby groups are seeking to impose the requirements of Islam, not just on their own people, but also on the rest of society, illustrates how the rise of Islam is influencing the daily lives of hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Europeans.

In France, which has the second-largest Muslim population on the continent after Germany, several Muslim lobby groups are vying to represent the country's estimated 4.1 million Muslims. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) serves as the official interlocutor with the French state in the regulation of Muslim religious activities, and as such it is the de facto representative of all French Muslims before the national government. The other main Muslim lobby groups are the Rally for French Muslims (RMF),backed by Morocco, and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF), close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Germany, home to Europe's largest Muslim population in absolute terms, the powerful Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), itself a branch of the Turkish government's religious affairs authority, has succeeded in persuading the city of Cologne to approve the construction of a new mega mosque. The futuristic mosque will hold up to 4,000 worshippers, and will have a large dome and two 55-meter (180 feet) minarets, each as tall as 18-story office towers. The 4,500-square-meter (48,000-square-foot) mosque, which has a price tag of €20 million ($26 million), is being financed by donations from more than 800 Muslim groups inside and outside Germany. Critics of the project say the mosque is a deliberate effort to spoil Cologne's skyline by taking attention away from the city's Gothic cathedral, a globally famous Christian landmark.

In recent months, Muslim lobby groups have also persuaded the German government to adapt Germany's secular education system so that it caters to Islamic preferences. The German Education Ministry has, for example, agreed to fund Islamic studies at several state universities to train Muslim prayer leaders and religion teachers. Germany's Education Minister, Annette Schavan, says: "We want as many imams as possible to be educated in Germany. Imams are bridge builders between their congregations and the communities in which their mosques stand." She states further that Germany would need 2,000 imams and teachers if all 16 states offered Islam courses.

Elsewhere in Germany, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Muslim lobby groups are working with the Culture Ministry to design Islam-friendly classes for public schools. The new guidelines recommend cancelling all school trips during the month of Ramadan; taking into account the sensitivities of Muslims when planning internships and school events; and assigning less schoolwork during Ramadan because fasting could lead to loss of performance and concentration among Muslim students.

In the German state of Lower Saxony, the German Muslim Central Council is urging the Education Ministry to include Islam in its schools' core curriculum as part of a politically correct initiative to counter growing anti-Islam sentiments in the country. In Berlin, the Ministry for Education, Science and Research recently published a guide called "Islam and School," which gives teachers practical advice on how to avoid offending Muslim students.

In Scandinavia, the Muslim Council of Sweden, an umbrella organization of Islamic groups in the country, is pressuring the Swedish government to implement special legislation for Muslims in Sweden. The demands include: the right to specific Islamic holidays; special public financing for the building of mosques; a demand that all divorces between Muslim couples be approved by an Imam; and that Imams should be allowed to teach Islam in public schools.

As Europe's Muslim population grows, Muslim lobby groups are also exerting significant influence on European policy in the Middle East, resulting in a notable hardening of official European attitudes toward Israel. Several European countries, for instance, eager to maintain good relations with local Muslim communities, are laying the political groundwork for the EU to recognize a Palestinian state, possibly as early as October 2011,even if negotiations for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not concluded -- a total abrogation of the UN's signed Oslo accords.

In December 2009, the EU adopted a resolution that for the first time explicitly calls for Jerusalem to become the future capital of a Palestinian state. The move not only reflects the EU's efforts to prejudge the outcome of issues reserved for permanent status negotiations, but in December 2010, an influential group of former EU leaders and officials published a letter urging the EU to implement sanctions against Israel.

Europe has also been "ground zero" for a series of anti-Israel lawsuits which exploit the legal principle of universal jurisdiction in order to harass current and former Israeli political and military leaders, with the twin aims of tying Israel's hands against Palestinian terror and delegitimizing the Jewish state. Such "lawfare" is often aided and abetted by Muslim lobby groups in Europe by means of financial and logistical support.

The steady demonization of Israel by European officialdom is also affecting the European street, where the line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is becoming dangerously blurred. A survey conducted by the University of Bielefeld, for example, shows that more than 50% of Germans equate Israel's policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews, and that 68% of Germans say that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, an official EU poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

Another report commissioned by the EU's Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) found that Muslim immigrants are largely responsible for the sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe.

Predictably, Muslim lobby groups pressured the EU into preventing that report from being released to the general public.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1817/europe-muslim-lobby

Soeren Kern

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