Terrorists Actively Seeking to Kidnap Soldiers

by Gavriel Queenann

IDF officials say there have been at least five attempts to kidnap soldiers in Israel's north since the Gilad Shalit was released by Hamas on 18 October 2011.

Israel's government released 1,027 terrorists in exchange for Shalit who was held in Hamas-run Gaza for over five years. The terrorists released were responsible for a collective 569 Israeli deaths.

The deal resulted in Hamas declaring 'victory' over Israel and declaring a new drive to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

"You can see a direct correlation between the return of Shalit and kidnapping attempts," IDF Northern Command Provost Marshal Lt Colonel Nir Golan told Israel's News 2.

"The terrorist organizations know that Israel is willing to pay high prices for the return a soldier and their motivation to kidnap a soldier is very high," Golan added.

The IDF has been very concerned about terror groups kidnapping a soldier. IDF are very much concerned kidnapping. Recently, military police have staged their own kidnappings of soldiers seeking rides on the roadside to drive home the need for vigilance.

However, Golan says there are still many soldiers who still hitch-hiking, "It is especially noticeable in places where public transportation is infrequent or non-existent."

Ministry of Defense Operations Director Maj. Gen. Shmulik Calmi said, "There are many disturbing trends and incidents that indicate an intent to kidnap our soldiers and we continue to refine our procedures.

"Unfortunately, as disturbing reports as the reports are, they are very common and we are quite used to it," he added.

Gavriel Queenann

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152601#.TzP2XoFvIi5

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

US May Seek to 'Militarize' Syria Crisis

by Rick Moran

It's exactly what Russia and China hoped to avoid with their veto at the UN last weekend; the western powers flexing their military muscles again in the Middle East.

At the moment, diplomacy appears to be the preferred course. But the Obama administration is apparently seriously looking over its options in the event that the military is employed in some capacity to stop the slaughter in Syria.

Telegraph:

The official from the State Department told The Daily Telegraph that while the White House wants to exhaust all its diplomatic options, the debate in Washington has shifted away from diplomacy and towards more robust action since Russia and China blocked a United Nations resolution condemning Syria.

The Pentagon's Central Command has begun a preliminary internal review of US military capabilities in the region, which one senior official called a "scoping exercise" that would provide options for the president if and when they were requested.

The White House said it was talking to allies about holding a "Friends of Syria" meeting in the near future and was considering delivering humanitarian aid to affected areas in the country.

"We are, of course, looking at humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, and we have for some time. We're consulting with our international partners, and we anticipate this being one of the focuses of the discussions that we'll have," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary.

Influential figures in Washington have recommended setting up a "humanitarian corridor" or safe haven, while others, such as Senator John McCain, have said it was time to consider arming the rebels of the Free Syrian Army.

The "corridor" idea was first advanced by Turkey weeks ago. It wouldn't solve much and leave those who are guarding the corridor wide open to Syrian army attacks. Clearly, a corridor would require massive air power to protect those who are keeping the corridor open.

Arming the Syria rebels would probably be a disaster. The last thing anyone wants in Syria is a full blown civil war and inviting the rebels to turn Syria's big cities into free fire zones, killing as many civilians as Assad.

This is a problem for the Arab League. If they request international assistance, then we can revisit the intervention scenario. Until then, it would seem prudent to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/us_may_seek_to_militarize_syria_crisis.html

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

Islamists Do Not Flee Tyranny, They Bring It With Them

by Manda Zand Ervin

Radical Islamists claiming to be moderates are energetically inverting for Americans who are the victims and who are the bullies.

The film The Third Jihad has become another excuse for the mainstream media, especially the New York Times, to show yet again just what Cultural Imperialists they can be. Once more, these self-proclaimed moral authorities have taken it upon themselves to stand with the Muslim "victims" against the so-called "bullies," unwittingly inverting who are the victims and who are the bullies --and as if we cannot fend for ourselves and need the protection of their Cultural Imperialist Censorship.

American Muslims are largely made up of immigrants from 57 different Muslim-majority countries –- every one of which discriminates against all other religions, and whose leaders and clergy call for all non-Muslims, the "infidels," to be killed, as prescribed by Sharia law. In recent months we have witnessed the ever-increasing attacks on, and persecution of, Christians in Muslim countries.

In these very Muslim-majority countries, even Muslims of different sects are discriminated against and abused. In Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Shia Muslims are treated as second-class citizens (or Dhimmis) and kept separate from the Sunni majority; and Christians, hired to work, are kept inside the walled communities.

The Shia Islamic regime in Iran has, in turn, been killing the Sunni Muslims, persecuting the peaceful Sufis, and tearing down their Mosques and meeting halls. This religious discrimination, practiced under Sharia law for 1400 years, is now the culture that Islamists are propagating and spurring on in the Muslim world.

Most American Muslims have run away from the political and radical Islamism that has now begun to spread like wildfire here in America. We non-Islamist Muslims came to live not only in prosperity, but also in freedom, equality and in a democratic society – not a single one of which is provided under the regimes of our native countries which we were forced to leave behind.

Here in America the Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, even Wahhabis and all other sects of Islam live without discrimination. We live in freedom, and those people who practice have even learned to share Mosques. We have learned to respect not only all other Muslims but all other people as well, no matter what their religious beliefs.

Although our adopted country has been attacked by Radical Islamists, we have never been blamed for their violence by our non-Muslim compatriots.

A small number of these same Radical Islamists who discriminate against us in our countries of origin are now in America armed with petrodollars, and falsely claiming to be "moderate," and to represent this highly diverse group of Americans; they are also crying crocodile tears of discrimination against Muslims in America.

The problem is, these Radical Islamists and their allies and supporters among America's mainstream media, as well as academia and ideological elite who are being used by the Islamists, and in turn, are using the Islamists to wreak their own political ideological havoc.

In the middle of this culture stand American Muslims, the "silent majority," living in the society of their dreams and minding their own business, but who are worried about the consequences of this thickening alliance between Islamists and well-intentioned -- but woefully misguided -- Liberals whom we are forced to suffer.

The story of The Third Jihad, which the silent majority is happy to see, is a fair and true account of the issues of today's Islamism. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant Muslim, narrated the film because it was not about his religion, Islam; it was about an ideology called Political Islamism that is in the business of terrorizing Muslims and non-Muslims alike. These Islamists did not come here to escape tyranny; they brought it with them.

The mainstream media, however, are opposing this short film to further their political agenda by attacking the New York Police Department [NYPD], who lost so many of its members trying to save people from the burning towers of the World Trade Center 11 years ago -- the same NYPD they will harshly criticize if they are not as quickly responsive to the next Islamist terrorist attacks.

Worse, the mainstream media are criticizing the NYPD for merely watching the film – the media could not even bestir themselves to do the most minimal due diligence about the contents of the film or to address its contents.

One of the treasured freedoms we came here for, which exits nowhere else, is freedom of speech: Why should the NYPD not watch this documentary? It often appears to us that the Islamists and the Liberals do not want people to hear any version but their own.

We, the American Muslims, refuse the interference of these political ideologies in our religion. We refuse to become a political tool for the Islamists and American cultural imperialists.

We stand by the The Third Jihad, the NYPD's watching it, and the priceless freedom of speech.

Manda Zand Ervin

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2832/islamists-tyranny

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

Qatar Financing Wahhabi Islam in France, Italy, Ireland and Spain

by Soeren Kern

Qatar, the most fraudulent "moderate," is "sparing no effort" to spread Wahhabi Islam across "the whole world," discouraging integration, encouraging jihad.

The Persian Gulf Emirate of Qatar says it plans to invest €50 million ($65 million) in French suburbs that are home to hundreds of thousands of disgruntled Muslim immigrants.

Qatar says its investment is intended to support small businesses in disadvantaged Muslim neighborhoods. But Qatar, like Saudi Arabia, subscribes to the ultra-conservative Wahhabi sect of Islam, and critics say the emirate's real objective is to peddle its religious ideology among Muslims in France and other parts of Europe.

Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who has long cultivated an image as a pro-Western reformist and modernizer, recently vowed to "spare no effort" to spread the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam across "the whole world."

The promotion of Islamic extremist ideologies -- particularly Wahhabism, which not only discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims -- threatens to further radicalize Muslim immigrants in France, analysts say.

The Qatari investments are being targeted in blighted French suburban slums known in France as banlieues, where up to one million or more mostly unemployed Muslim immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East eke out an impoverished existence.

The banlieues are already being exploited by Islamist preachers from countries such as Morocco and Turkey, which are leveraging the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in France to create "separate Islamic societies" ruled by Islamic Sharia law, according to a recent study which examines the rise of Islam in France.

The 2,200-page report, "Banlieue de la République" (Suburbs of the Republic) -- commissioned by the influential French think tank L'Institut Montaigne, and directed by Gilles Kepel, a well-known specialist on the Muslim world -- describes how Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and identity in favor of Islam.

The report shows how Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris and warns that France is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

France, which has between five and six million Muslims, has the largest Muslim population in the European Union.

The study says that Muslim religious institutions and practices are increasingly displacing those of the state and the French Republic, which has a strong secular tradition.

Among other findings, the report describes the proliferation of mosques, Koranic schools and makeshift prayer rooms in the banlieues. The religious orientations of these mosques are heavily influenced by the national origin of the founder or president of a given mosque.

This is contributing to a "new sociology of Muslim believers" composed mainly of undereducated low-income immigrants who depend on financial support from countries such as Morocco, Turkey, Tunisia -- and now Qatar -- all of which are pursuing their own objectives in France.

Nabil Ennasri, the president of a Muslim activist group called the Collectif des Musulmans de France (CMF), says Qatar is keen to exert its influence over the Muslims in France. He says: "France has a large Muslim population of Arab heritage, which will one day, whether it is welcome or not, play an important role in French politics. Investing in this population is a way of recruiting supporters who will -- consciously or unconsciously -- further Qatari interests."

With less than 100 days to go before the presidential elections in France, the phenomenon of foreign Muslim governments competing for influence over Muslim immigrants in France has become a campaign issue.

Marine Le Pen, who leads the right wing National Front party, recently warned that Qatar's influence over French Muslims was growing. She also said that, if elected, she would defend French sovereignty from the meddling of Islamist governments that support political religious movements in France and threaten to "destabilize our country."

"The massive investments which Qatar has made in suburbs are made because of the very high proportion of Muslims who are in the French suburbs," Le Pen said. "We are allowing a foreign country to choose its investments on the basis of the religion of this or that part of the French population or of French territory. I think this situation could be very dangerous."

Le Pen also said Qatar was "playing a double game" by presenting itself as an "enlightened" country to Western democracies while at the same time supporting Islamist groups in the Middle East and North Africa.

"I say solemnly, the Qataris are financial supporters of Islamic fundamentalists, madmen of Sharia. The French have a right to know that, especially in Libya, the jihadists who are now in power and whose first action was to apply Sharia, were financed and armed by Qatar," she said.

Qatar played a key role in the overthrow of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya by providing the insurgents with money, weapons and hundreds of troops. But Qatar has also been criticized for undermining Libya's new interim government by continuing to arm militant Islamists.

More recently, an army of Wahhabi fighters armed and funded by Qatar has reportedly amassed on the Turkish-Syrian border with the intent of removing Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, presumably with the objective of importing Wahhabi Islam to a post-Assad Syria.

Qatar has also provided aid to Hamas terrorist groups, offered support to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, and reached out to Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan who has been indicted for war crimes in Darfur.

Qatar also hosts the controversial Al-Jazeera television network, which includes among its presenters Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has praised suicide bombings and is banned from entering Britain and the United States.

Back in Europe, Qatar is also building a multi-million euro mega-mosque on the southern Italian island of Sicily. Supporters of the mosque -- to be built in the medieval town of Salemi in southwestern Sicily -- hope it will become a reference point for all of the 1.5 million Muslims in Italy.

Some 60% of the mosques in Italy are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is heavily influenced by the Wahhabi ideology subsidized by Qatar as well as Saudi Arabia.

In Ireland, Qatar recently donated €800,000 to build a mega-mosque in the city of Cork. Ireland's Muslim population has grown tenfold in 20 years, making Islam the fastest-growing religion in the country. According to the Irish Times, "the Muslim Brotherhood influence constitutes one of the strongest elements of Islam in Ireland."

In Spain, speculation is rife that the massive bullfighting ring in Barcelona known as La Monumental is about to be converted into a mega-mosque. Bullfighting has been outlawed in Barcelona effective January 1, 2012 and rumor has it that the 20,000-seat stadium is about to be sold to Qatar's rival, the Emir of Dubai, who wants to convert La Monumental into the third-largest mosque in the world.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2833/qatar-financing-wahhabi-islam-europe

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

Mordechai Kedar: A Question of Sovereignty

by Mordechai Kedar

For generations, countries in the Middle East have been in the "cross-hairs" of the Western countries: Europe, the United States and Canada. The colonialism of the previous centuries resulted in the conquest, control and exploitation of natural resources. During the twentieth century, colonialism underwent a change of character. It became characterized by political hegemony, taking over the state security apparatus and buying the support of economically corrupt individuals with money. During the past twenty years a new form of Western influence on Middle Eastern countries has developed: influence by means of "civil society organizations" (NGOs), which are underwritten with Western funds.

In the Arab world, thousands of these organizations are active, and the great majority of them act with the approval of the government since these organizations lighten the burden on the government, and help the society to adopt and implement modern and rational characteristics such as democracy and the rule of law, and to marginalize traditional qualities such as tradition, tribalism and belief in evil spirits. There are organizations that deal with health and establish clinics that provide the population with medical care. Another important subject that many organizations deal with is the status of women, and many of these deal with instruction to women, in subjects ranging from mathematics to how to start up a business. Others establish clinics for women's medicine, and others teach them handiwork. The Western volunteers who work in these organizations are motivated by dedication to the people that their organization serves, and live many times in clearly uncomfortable conditions. They sacrifice their comfort and sometimes also their health and even their lives, when they are attacked by local people who object to their activities.

Sometimes the local government harasses these organizations, principally when it seems to the government that they are subverting it and encouraging deeds that should not be done according to the view of the people in power. This is the way it is now in Egypt, which has closed a number of organizations that deal with education towards democracy, and where nineteen American volunteers, together with local Egyptian operatives are about to stand trial for their activities. This matter severely clouds Egypt-U.S. relations. The Egyptian government's claim is that these operatives transgressed Egyptian law because they ran organizations without permission, but everyone knows that this claim is only a fig leaf to hide the truth: the government of Egypt does not want foreigners to be involved in its internal matters or to educate its populace in a way that the government doesn't agree with.

Moreover, there is the issue of national pride, which in Egypt has been emphasized and developed in a special way during the past year, after the Egyptian people succeeded in overthrowing the rule of the ruler who humiliated and degraded them for many years by imposing a dictatorial and debasing regime upon them, under the auspices of the Americans. The feeling that encompassed the Egyptians as a result of the overthrow of Mubarak a year ago is one of great pride that they succeeded to remove the "Sphinx" that oppressed them, tortured them and refused them their rights and their honor. They did this with their own hands, although many people sacrificed their lives, and immediately after the success in removing him, they had the feeling of "Yes, we can!!". This feeling brings them out again and again to the streets in protest against the continuation of the rule of the Supreme Military Council, since those youngsters in Tahrir Square did not sacrifice themselves in order to remove the old officers out the door, so that young officers would be able to come in by the window.

On the other hand, the Supreme Military Council, who runs the government as General Tantawi sees fit, does not agree with the excessive freedom (in its opinion) that the Egyptian people have gained and sees foreign organizations as part of the problem, because it suspects them of sticking their noses into Egypt's internal affairs and encouraging Egyptian youth to organize and become more active and effective in activities against the new military dictatorship, which has developed in Egypt during the past half year.

At issue are about nine organizations, four of which are Egyptian, four American and one German, and putting 43 people on trial for receiving foreign funding illegally: 16 Egyptians, 19 Americans, 5 Serbians and 3 Germans. They are also accused of collecting information in order to transfer it to the United States, and for drumming up support for Egyptian candidates and parties "in the service of foreign interests." And indeed, the "sin" of these organizations is that they supported the Egyptian secular, liberal youth, and the parties who represented them, who lost the elections. The American organization "Freedom House" indeed admitted that it sent people to Egypt who would educate the Egyptian press on how to conduct a free press. Other organizations dealt with spreading the ideas involved with civil society, and promotion of fair democratic elections. Despite this, spokesmen of the American organizations emphasize that they complied with all of the instructions on Egyptian Law and all of their activities were transparent and open.

The Egyptian organizations that are under investigation, "The National Democratic Institute" and "The International Republican Institute", are being investigated for the suspicion of the subversion of Mubarak's regime that eventually led to his downfall. Many suspect that the whole matter of the investigations is actually a power struggle between the Supreme Military Council and the Muslim Brotherhood; a struggle in which the officers try to show the "brothers" their strength by standing firm even against the great and powerful America, which supplies Egypt with the money and food that are so essential at this time.

The Egyptian decision to close down the organizations and to bring the volunteers to trial has created great tension in the relationship between Egypt and the United states. Washington (President Obama, the members of his staff, and members of Congress) is trying to pressure the Egyptian government to stop the process of bringing the 19 volunteers to trial, and to free them forthwith. Washington also threatens to stop its military and civilian support to Egypt, which could bring many Egyptians to a state of starvation.

The question is what causes the Egyptian government - the military, and the civilian which is activated by the military - to enter into a conflict such as this especially with the United States. There are several possible answers to this question, and the most important among them is the will of the Egyptian regime to find who is guilty for the revolution not having brought forth the hoped-for fruit. The economy is collapsing, tourism has disappeared, poverty is increasing, unemployment is spreading, the treasury is empty, the military continues to rule with cruelty and rigidity, and without a shred of sensitivity, and there are still some Mubarak loyalists who remain in power. A situation like this creates a strong desire to find a scapegoat who can be blamed for the failure. Israel cannot be the scapegoat, because that would mean that a small and contemptible country like the "Zionist Entity" has succeeded to destroy the Egyptian revolution. Therefore, a big strong country that can be blamed for the failure of the revolution must be sought, and what country is bigger and more powerful than the United States?

We saw something similar in 1967 at the beginning of the Six Day War, when it became clear that Abd al-Naser, president of Egypt, and Husein, King of Jordan, when they understood that their Air Forces had been destroyed on the ground in an attack by the Israeli Air Force. They discussed by telephone the possibilities of accusing the United States of the bombing, because if it was known that Israel had done this, it would be a great humiliation for them, that such a small country (certainly according to Israel's size before the Six Day War) succeeded within one short day to destroy their Air Forces on the ground. The discussion between Abd al-Naser and Husein was recorded by Israeli Intelligence and after the Arabic radio stations publicized that the Americans attacked the Arab Force bases, Israel broadcast the discussion by means of "the Voice of Israel in Arabic". The broadcast of this deception caused the two rulers tremendous humiliation, since they had been caught "red handed" as a pair of liars plotting their deception.

To the religious Egyptian Muslims, who are the great majority in Egypt, it's easy to accuse the United States of plots against Egypt, because they have an underlying assumption that the United States hates Islam, and will do anything in its power to undermine the new majority of Islam in the Egyptian parliament, and to restore the Land of the Nile to those who are guided by secular and liberal principles. Organizations of civil society (NGOs) that spread ideas foreign to Islam like democracy and which are funded by the United States are the ideal scapegoat for the religious Egyptians who are frustrated by the failure of the revolution.

Beyond a search for whom to blame for the failure of the revolution, it might be that there is in Egypt and in the investigation of the Americans also a bit of revenge against the United States because it supported Mubarak and his cruel regime for years. Even so, these things should be seen in context, because the Egyptian on the street sees that many state leaders don't mind making serious accusations against the United States: This is what Chavez, the president of Venezuela does: this is what Mahmud Ahmadi-Najad, the president of Iran, does, and even the prime minister of Israel, who dares to build apartments in Jerusalem over the strong objections of the White House.

The fact that the Egyptian government, despite the difficult problems in which it finds itself, feels that it can now oppose the United States stems from the International weakness that the greatest super power in the world projects. Despite American hints of reduction in support to Egypt because of this matter, it appears that the Egyptian officers think that the United States will not dare to cut off foreign aid because it might cause an increase in the living expenses for millions of Egyptians who, without the American support, would starve to death. And whom would they accuse for this? Not the United States? And so - in their opinion, they can push their luck with the Americans because they believe that the Americans will not dare to stop the shipments of food to Egypt. (Gaza serves as an example too, that it is possible to shoot missiles at a country, and that country will continue to feed those who are shooting missiles at it.)

The discussion in Egypt about American "foreign funding" can also point in the opposite direction, when spokesmen for the secular parties, who are accused of accepting funds from the United States for their organizations, accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of taking funds from an "external source". An "external source", in this framework is a code name for two bodies: Iran and Al-Qaeda.

It is interesting that there are Americans who express understanding of the Egyptian action against the foreign-funded NGOs. One of them said this week: "What would we do if another country was getting involved in our internal affairs"? Others in Washington are trying to solve the problem quietly, behind the scenes, in a way that puts the United States in the role of the responsible adult, who on one hand continues to feed the naughty Egyptians, and on the other hand brings back to the United States 19 American citizens who were only guilty of wanting to bring Western democracy to an Arab country, which chose rather, the Islam of the Middle East.

However, we must remember that Israel is in the same boat as Egypt. Who funds the New Israel Fund? Who clumsily interferes in the democratic process in Israel? Who funds the organizations that dull the Jewish and Zionist character of Israel? Who pours money into a "peace" plan the sole purpose of which is to weaken the stamina of the people who dwell in Zion?

A country that compromises its independence and sovereignty, and behaves like a beggar in the souk has no one to blame but itself when others come to stir its pot.

===============

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

Translated from Hebrew by Sally.

Links to Dr. Kedar's recent articles on this blog:

• The Death Throes of the Lion
• Mordechai Kedar: An Old Governmental System in FormationFrustration and Extortion
• Thank You, Hamas
• Drums of War in the Gulf
• 2011: The Year of the Arab Winter
• And This is the Gate of Heaven

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

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

Obama’s Anti-Israel Sell-Out Continues

by Ben Shapiro

Let’s say you’re Israel. An enemy dedicated to your destruction is developing the means to wipe you off the face of the earth, with the covert and overt help of world powers like Russia and China. It’s only a matter of months before that enemy achieves its goals – and when it does you will not be able to stop the mushroom cloud rising over your cities.

So you come up with a sophisticated military plan to strike your foe in an extraordinarily targeted fashion. And you ask for the help of your longtime ally – virtually your only ally – the United States. All you want is covert logistical support … and secrecy. Secrecy is of the utmost importance, since a full-scale aerial assault on your enemy is unfeasible.

Let’s say you’re Israel. What would you say if the United States promptly proceeded to broadcast your military plans to the rest of the world?

Two little words come to mind. And neither of them is “thanks.”

That’s precisely what happened this week, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced via the Washington Post that “there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.” What was the point of spilling the beans? To scuttle the attack, of course. According to the Post, “President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold.”

This has become pattern for the Obama Administration. Back in June 2010, you’ll recall, the London Times reported that the Saudi Arabians had cut a deal with the Israelis to allow them to use Saudi airspace for a strike on Iran. Where did the Times learn this? According to the Jerusalem Post, “The report cited a US defense source as saying the Saudis have already done tests to ensure no jet is shot down in the event of an Israeli attack. The source added that the U.S. State Department is aware of the agreement.”

Well, isn’t that odd – two blown secrets, two references to the U.S. Defense Department.

The real problem isn’t just the blown secret, of course. It’s the signal it sends to the Iranian regime. By letting the cat out of the bag, the United States has signaled to the Iranians that the Israelis are on their own – that the Israelis are in fact a rogue state operating outside the bounds of conventional international politics. By signaling open opposition to the Israelis defending themselves, the Obama Administration has demonstrated to the Iranians in crystalline fashion that even if Iran develops weapons, and even if the Iranians hand those weapons off to a terrorist group for use against Israel, America may stand idly by.

There is an obvious question here: why? Why is the Obama Administration so intent on stopping an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities?

There are three answers. The first is ideological, the second political, the third electoral.

First, the ideological. President Obama believes that he is a global leader, and that in order to be viewed as a global leader, he must play “honest broker” between America’s allies and her enemies. That means that if Israel has covert nuclear weapons, Iran might as well have them too – for the sake of fairness, you understand. Obama has made every effort throughout his tenure to reach out to Islamists across the Middle East, from Tunisia to Libya to Iraq to Egypt to Afghanistan – and he has succeeded in empowering Islamists to attack Western interests across the region. In Obama’s “world citizen” view, this is a good thing: if America is willing to subsume her own interests in favor of the interests of others, Obama believes, such international altruism will bear the fruits of peace.

Second, the political. There is something bizarre about using the Defense Department as a leak-source for anti-Israel activity. Typically, the Arabist State Department is all too happy to undermine Israel; the Defense Department, which works closely with the Israelis, is the friend of Israel in the room. But Obama has a political problem: he’s seen as weak. That means he must use the Defense Department as a tool for his pusillanimous foreign policy. Ripping the steel out of the Defense Department’s spine has become a mission for the Administration; if Obama can get the Defense Department to fall in line behind him, he can look the hawk while playing the dove.

Finally, the electoral. Wonder why Panetta said Israel might attack in April, May, or June? Why not July, August, September? The answer’s obvious: Obama is hoping to delay an Israeli strike for several months. If it does happen close to the election, he’ll back Israel’s play to make a stab at the Jewish vote in Florida. It would create a rally-round-the-flag situation for many Americans close to November 6 – a perfect storm for Obama.

All of these considerations undoubtedly came into play. Only one consideration did not: the safety and security of America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. That was a minor matter for Obama and his cronies. After all, when you’re president of the world, what does a few hundred thousand Jews matter here or there?

Ben Shapiro

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/08/obamas-anti-israel-sell-out-continues/

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

Obama Bundlers Gone Wild

by Michelle Malkin

The White House didn’t blow a dog whistle for deep-pocketed liberal donors on Monday. No, the administration whipped out a supersized vuvuzela. Blaring message: Let loose the campaign finance-bundling hounds of super PAC war!

President Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations before assuming 2012 re-election duties, announced the super PAC super-flip-flop in a mass e-mail to supporters and a blog post published on the left-wing Huffington Post website. In a related conference call to major campaign finance bundlers, Messina encouraged these high-dollar donors to start funding Priorities USA Action. That’s the Democratic super PAC founded by former White House staffers Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney.

Super PACs and campaigns are barred from coordinating with each other. Nevertheless, Messina said that “senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events.” Of course, they “won’t be soliciting contributions.” Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

This brazen about-face for Team Obama is a goldmine of campaign lies, contortions and epic hypocrisy. Let us count the ways.

— A bundle of contradictions. “Bundling” is the rustling up of aggregate contributions from friends, business associates and employees, a practice to circumvent individual donation limits that Obama has long condemned. When he announced his presidential intentions in 2007, candidate Obama decried “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who’ve turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” He indignantly singled out “the best bundlers” who get the “greatest access” to power.

Last week, Obama acknowledged raising at least $74 million through his team of big-time bundlers who have been showered with access, tax dollars and plum patronage positions. This elite group of Hollywood celebrities (such as open-borders actress Eva Longoria), political cronies (such as Chicago bagman Louis “The Vacuum” Susman) and politically correct businessmen (such as bankrupt Solyndra investor George Kaiser) now totals a whopping 445 gold-card members.

— The roar of the revolving door. In his Monday announcement, Messina bragged about how the White House has enacted “sweeping” reforms to “close the revolving door between government and lobbyists.” In truth, the administration has widened the carousel and removed the brakes. The Obama-cheerleading Fishwrap of Record (The New York Times) itself identified at least 15 bundlers “involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies.”

Moreover, “at least 68 of 350 Obama bundlers for the 2012 election or their spouses have served in the administration in some capacity; at least 250 of the bundlers visited the White House, and another 30 have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so in the future,” according to a recent iWatch News report.

Several first-time 2012 bundlers already have snagged administration posts:

— Norma Lee Funger, of Potomac, Md., who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama, was appointed last month to the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

— Glenn S. Gerstell, of Washington, D.C., who bundled the same amount, was appointed to the National Infrastructure Advisory Commission last fall.

— Richard Binder, of Bethesda, Md., another $50,000 to $100,000 bundler, was appointed to the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health last spring.

And note: The most transparent administration ever still refuses to disclose recusal orders involving the nearly 100 lobbyists and ex-lobbyists on its payroll.

— Super PAC super-hypocrisy. “Super PACs” are federal political action committees that only make independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, candidates. Their birth and growth were fueled indirectly by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling in 2010. The decision overturned severe campaign finance restrictions that essentially criminalized certain forms of political speech. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it during oral arguments: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.”

Until this week, the Obama administration vehemently condemned the Citizens United decision and vowed to eschew super PACs. The entities are a “threat to our democracy,” Obama railed two years ago. The ruling would “open the floodgates for special interests,” he warned. And last July, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt kept talking the anti-super PAC talk. “Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs,” he asserted. Now? President Obama and his wife won’t fundraise for the democracy-undermining super PACs. But countless other Cabinet members and advisers, partying with Obama bundlers gone wild, will.

In 2008, Obama lambasted rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for criticizing independent expenditures while raking in big PAC bucks: “So you can’t say yesterday you don’t believe in them, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent on you. You can’t just talk the talk.”

Obama 2012 campaign motto: Empty talk? Yes, we can!

Michelle Malkin

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/08/obama-bundlers-gone-wild/

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

Islam and Free Speech: OIC vs. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

by Michael Curtis

One of the important early contributions of James Madison to American life was his impact on the framing of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1776. One section stated that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience." Another declared that "any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution went even further with the provision that Congress should make no law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or abridge the freedom of speech or of the press.

As a result of Islamic activity in recent years the question has arisen in Western countries whether tension or incompatibility exists between the two principles, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and whether restrictions should be imposed on speech critical of religions or religious beliefs. Should those beliefs and belief systems be protected from adverse comment? Equally should not those who may be offended by such comment tolerate the legitimate exercise of free expression in democratic societies?

In the contemporary world two general problems have arisen on this issue: Islamic attempts to ban criticism of their religion and its Prophet by sponsoring resolutions in international forums condemning "defamation of religions," and the increase in laws on hate speech and blasphemy.

In April 1999 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (now the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC) for the first time adopted a resolution "Defamation of Religions" introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference that purported to be concerned with "negative stereotyping of religions." It was really primarily interested in countering what it called the view that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism." Since then this strategy has been incessantly repeated in international organizations, in the UN General Assembly, from 2005, and in the UN Human Rights Council, from 1999 to the present, which have passed resolutions aimed at "combatting the defamation of Islam." One example of many was the resolution of the UN General Assembly 62/154 of December 18, 2007 which noted with concern that "defamation of religions could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights of their adherents."

Two issues are relevant. The fundamental problem is that in this and all similar resolutions the only specific reference to religions was Islam, and "the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims." The call is always to combat effectively defamation of all religions and incitements to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular." The major player in this strategy is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), formerly the Organization of Islamic Conference, a group of 57 Muslim countries, with a headquarters in Saudi Arabia. It has called for legislation by states to prohibit the defamation of religions, thus seeking to criminalize incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.

The other issue is that international human rights laws exist to protect individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, not religions as such. The OIC's strategy is contrary to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, that stated in Article 19; "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." The OIC"s objective is to limit freedom of expression on religion.

Only in July 2011 was there a change with a statement by the Human Rights Committee, (HRC), a body of 18 independent experts, "of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights," set up to examine compliance with the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force in 1976, that provided for freedom of expression. It found that blasphemy laws, such as those in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, are in essence restrictions on free speech. The penal code of Pakistan proscribes imprisonment and even death for insults to religion and to the prophet Muhammad. Blasphemy laws tend to be broad in scope and political weapons to stifle dissent. The statement of HRC, General Comment No. 34, a comment on Article 19 of the 1966 International Covenant, said that blasphemy laws and prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief systems, were incompatible with universal human rights standards. Though recognizing the difficulty in implementing the goal, the Committee reaffirmed the central importance of freedom of expression that is crucial for transparency and accountability that in turn are essential for human rights.

This conclusion is eminently justified because the activity of the OIC is clearly a violation of the universality of human rights, though the OIC claims that the 1990 Cairo Declaration is not an alternative competing worldview on human rights. That Cairo Document, approved on August 5, 1990 by the then 45 members of the OIC, declared, Art 22 (a), that "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia," and in Art 22 (c) that "Information…may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets," and in Art 24 that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia."

Hate speech laws in a number of European countries have, since the defeat of Nazi Germany, tried to prevent or punish incitement to religious and racial hatred. No universal definitional agreement of "hate speech" exists. Though the primary original intention, after Nazism, was to reduce expressions of antisemitism, laws for some time have been used to punish speech regarded as insulting to a race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion, and expressions of hatred founded on intolerance including religious intolerance. In particular, Islamic groups, to prevent criticism, have tried to use them or to misinterpret the European and International Covenants on Human Rights and the Elimination of Religious Discrimination on which the laws are based.

It seems to be clear that case law decided by the European Court of Human Rights has established that expressions constituting hate speech which are insulting to particular individuals or groups can be restricted by governments in their national law. Yet some ambiguity remains. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (The European Commission for Democracy in Law), a group of independent experts and distinguished academics, was established in 1990 as the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional issues. The Commission on October 17-18, 2008 concluded that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished, and that in democratic countries it was neither necessary nor desirable to create an offence of religious insult (insult to religious feelings) without the element of incitement to hatred as an essential component.

In December 12-14, 2011 the OIC met in Washington, D.C. with the Obama Administration to discuss what has become known as the Istanbul Process, the issue of implementing the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 adopted without a vote on March 24, 2011. This Resolution reaffirmed the obligation of states to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. It condemned any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and expressed deep concern about "derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief." It was noticeable that this Resolution did not use the term "defamation" of religions but used a softer term, "persons based on their religion or belief." The Resolution urged states "to take effective measures" to prevent discrimination against such persons. This Resolution was approved, a week after the D.C. meeting, unanimously by the UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011.

The first such meeting, launched by the Secretary-General of the OIC , to implement 16/18 was held in Istanbul in July 2011, and the third will be hosted, at the tentative date of July 2012, by the European Union. The irony in the D.C. meeting and in the Resolution is that the OIC has been active in trying to limit freedom of expression about its religion rather than protecting freedom of religion as a whole. This has been evident since the Cairo Declaration by the OIC in 1990 that declared that free speech must be consistent with sharia law. The OIC intent is to limit rather than to protect speech.

All too many attacks on free speech have been made in recent years by Islamic groups in the Western world. In April 2011 an episode of "South Park" was censured because of uncomplimentary remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. Earlier incidents are well known. Salman Rushdie was victimized by a fatwa by the Ayatollah Khomeini ordering him to be killed for writing The Satanic Verses, which the Iranian leader held to be blasphemous. Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker of Submission, a film that connected the mistreatment of Muslim women to the Koran, was murdered by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim in 2004. The editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, was threatened for publishing 12 cartoons of the prophet on September 30, 2005. The consequence was riots by Muslims who killed over 100 people. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders was indicted for his comments on Islam and Muslims and threatened for his film Fitna with its critical passages about the Koran. It took several years of proceedings before he was acquitted. The unorthodox French author Michel Houellebecq was indicted, though acquitted, for calling Islam "stupid" and "dangerous." The film star Brigitte Bardot was convicted on a number of occasions for critical remarks which were held to be racial hatred about Muslims The office of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly, was firebombed in 2011 after it had published a story that the prophet was to be a guest editor for a special edition of the journal, which would be renamed Sharia Hebdo in order to celebrate Islamic victory in Tunisia. Arrest warrants were issued first in Switzerland in 2002 and then in Italy in 2005 for the writer Oriana Fallaci for alleged remarks offensive to Islam in her book, The Force of Reason. The remarks of Pope Benedict XVI, critical of the practice of forced religious conversion, at a speech at Regensburg University on September 20, 2006 were held to be "unfortunate and unwarranted" -- just to name a few incidents.

The democratic world must take care that any action based on the UNHRC's Resolution 16/18, "Combatting intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief" does not diminish the fundamental right to free speech.

Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University, and author of the forthcoming book, Should Israel Exist? A sovereign nation under assault by the international community.

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2828/islam-free-speech-oic

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

Hacked: Bashar al-Assad

by Gavriel Queenann

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's notion of security apparently includes using 123456 as a computer password.

According to the site Mashable the Hacktivist group, Anonymous leaked Assad's password while in the process of raiding his bureau's emails and uploading them to the web.

"The string of consecutive numbers is the second-weakest password according to a 2011 study," the Mashable report said. "Topping the list are 'password,' '123456,' '12345678,' "qwerty," and 'abc123,'" the group explained.

According to reports in Israel's Hebrew-language press some 78 members of Assad's bureau had their email hacked. Among those hacked were the minister of presidential affairs, Mansour Fadlallah Azzam, and Assad's media adviser, Bouthaina Shaaban.

The Mashable report said one email that included documents intended to prepare Assad for his December 2011 interview with Barbara Walters. The leaked email reportedly advised Assad to emphasize the openness of Facebook and YouTube to show "the true situation in Syria."

It also allegedly suggested Syria's restrictions of foreign journalists be spun to protect the country from "misrepresentation."

The Syrian President's cyber-security faux pax was exposed as his regime faces mounting internal and international pressure, and many predict his downfall.

Damascus' economy is languishing under an extensive raft of sanctions from the United States, European Union, and Arab League, but has been shielded from universal sanctions by Russia. Moscow has billions of investments tied up in Syria.

The regime also faces a growing insurgency by the Free Syrian Army. Comprised mostly of Syrian army defectors armed with light infantry weapons, the gorup has mounted numerous deadly attacks and is said to control significant chunks of the north.

Amid the growing chaos, Sunni terror groups, including Al Qaeda, have launched a series of attacks as well.

United Nations Human Rights officials have stopped counting the dead in Assad's nearly year-long bloody crackdown on anti-regime protesters, which has claimed more than 6,000 civilian lives.

Assad's regime says over 2,000 members of the security forces have been killed in clashes as well.

Gavriel Queenann

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152532#.TzL8H4FvIi5

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

Blame the UN's Power on George H.W. Bush

by Daniel Pipes

If Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor were the naïfs who foisted the United Nations on the world, George H. W. Bush was responsible for its revival as a political force.

From about 1950 to 1990, the United Nations Security Council was essentially toothless, as the Soviet and U.S. governments disagreed on issue after issue. As a result, anyone wanting to get things done generally by-passed this forum, from the Berlin problem to the Vietnam War to Arab-Israeli negotiations.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 constituted the first post-Cold War crisis. The great powers could have handled it any number of ways – in NATO, with a "coalition of the willing," or with a new organization – but Bush (himself a former U.S. ambassador to the UN) took the matter to the Security Council for decision making.

I opposed this decision at the time, seeing it as investing unwonted authority that would long outlast the Kuwait crisis in a morally decadent and politically hostile institution. Indeed, Bush's action had this effect – and we live with the rueful consequences today. UNSC votes on Iraq, Libya, and Syria have had a major impact, permitting a semi-despotism in Moscow and a full-scale one in Peking to exert a major influence on the decisions of democratic states.

Comments:

(1) A bipartisan folly: a Democrat founded the organization and a Republican turned it into today's powerhouse.

(2) Counter-history: the 2003 invasion of Iraq would likely have turned out very differently if not for the UNSC.

(3) Another Bush: George W. Bush build on his father's mistake by begging the UNSC for resolution after resolution on the Iraq issue.

(4) Syria: It is particularly painful to watch the weight of vetoes by the Russian and Chinese governments of a resolution calling on the Syrian president to leave office. How can the democracies allow dictators protecting their own to stymie their own policy?

(5) The future: presumably, only an American president can dismiss the UNSC and transfer its authority to an organization of only democratically-elected governments. Republican candidates are good on this issue while Barack Obama will imbue the UNSC with yet more power. (February 8, 2012)

Daniel Pipes

Source: National Review Online: The Corner; http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/02/blame-un-power-on-george-h-w-bush

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