If Benghazi’s No Scandal, Why a Cover-Up?

by Jonathan S. Tobin


President Obama has been a broken record lately claiming over and over again that Republicans are promoting “phony scandals,” the chief of which is the effort to keep asking questions about the Benghazi terror attack that left four Americans dead last September. The White House has continued to insist that the notion that there was anything sinister about the administration’s conduct during or after attack is simply a political red herring not based in fact. Though many are still troubled by the failure to provide adequate protection for Americans in Benghazi, the decision not to send help as the attack unfolded as well as by the clearly false “talking points” that led current National Security Advisor Susan Rice to put out a false story about the incident being a case of film criticism run amok, for the most part the mainstream media has agreed with the White House’s conclusions and dropped the issue entirely.

But thanks to CNN’s Jake Tapper, there are new questions being raised about Benghazi that can’t be dismissed by presidential scorn or a catch phrase:

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

The main focus of this effort is to prevent their personnel from speaking not just to the media, but also to members of Congress. While it must be acknowledged that the spy agency is entrusted with our nation’s secrets, the all-out push described in Tapper’s report seems to speak more to a desire to silence whistle-blowers and to cover up any possible wrongdoing than anything else. If Benghazi is a “phony scandal,” Americans are entitled to ask why the government is behaving so suspiciously.
As Tapper writes:

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”
Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

We don’t need to know every aspect of the CIA’s mission in Benghazi. But given the obvious security failures and the inability of the United States to come to the aid of its besieged employees under fire, it’s worth asking what exactly were all those Americans doing that night and why were they doing it? Moreover, if there were so many witnesses available, why haven’t at least some of them been produced to answer these questions before Congress even in closed sessions? And if there were literally dozens more American personnel with knowledge of what happened there, we must again ask how the administration could have produced talking points about the incident that promoted the false narrative that it was not a terrorist attack.

Just as frustrating is the fact that just a few days earlier CNN interviewed one of the people identified by the FBI as a suspect in the Benghazi attack. That suspect has never been interviewed by the FBI or the Libyan government but was somehow tracked down by a journalist. At present, not a single one of the many terrorists who were responsible for killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans has been brought to justice and, to date, the American people haven’t received a serious answer as to why that should be.

At this point with so many unanswered questions about Benghazi, the administration should be facilitating the investigation of the attack rather than actually impeding it. We don’t know whether the code of omerta being imposed on CIA personnel is merely a function of bureaucratic inertia or a far more sinister attempt to prevent Congress and the public from finding out more about the failures of both the agency and the State Department. No one should make assumptions about wrongdoing, but given the unwillingness of the administration to apply its supposed belief in transparency to this question, it is, at the very least, reasonable to conclude that something is amiss here.

That these reports come as we are learning about the decision to shut down 21 U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East and to issue travel warnings to U.S. citizens because of a belief that al-Qaeda is plotting new terrorists attacks only adds more credence to the calls for more answers about the disaster in Benghazi. 

If there is no scandal concerning the events that led to Benghazi and its aftermath, there certainly appears to be something that resembles a cover up going on about it. The White House needs to drop the politicized refrain about “phony scandals” and start treating this issue seriously. It should direct the CIA to start answering questions from the Congress. The sooner it does, the better it will be for the president once we find out—as we inevitably will—what it is that they are trying to keep secret.
  

Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/08/02/if-benghazis-no-scandal-why-the-cover-up-cia-jake-tapper/

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

Water or Fuel to the Fire?

by Yoram Ettinger

The head of Israel's Shin Bet security service, Yoram Cohen, stated that 60 percent of released Palestinian terrorists revert to operational terrorism. Most of the 1,150 terrorists released in the May 21, 1985 Jibril exchange played a key role during the First Intifada. Over 50% of the Palestinian terrorists who were released between the 1993 Oslo Accord and the eruption of the Second Intifada participated in that wave of Palestinian terrorism. 

Mahmoud Abbas' commitment to embrace -- and not to condemn -- terrorists shed light on his prime values, which are consistent with his track record: A Holocaust denial Ph.D. from Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow; enrollment in KGB courses; the coordination of Palestine Liberation Organization ties with ruthless communist regimes in Eastern Europe; the logistical coordination of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre; collaboration with Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; and subversive and terrorist activities which led to his expulsion from Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

Mahmoud Abbas commemorates Palestinian terrorists -- who unlike freedom fighters systematically and deliberately assault civilians -- by naming kindergartens, schools, summer camps, streets, squares, community centers and sporting events for them. 

Releasing Palestinian terrorists upgrades their social status in a society which has been subjected, since 1994, to hate-education and incitement, in Abbas-controlled schools, mosques and the media. The Palestinian (hate) education system -- and not the Palestinian dialogue with Western policy makers and public opinion molders -- has been the most authentic reflection of Abbas' worldview. It constitutes the production line of terrorists and suicide bombers.

The prime goal of Palestinian terrorism is not the murder of Israeli civilians, but the erosion of their confidence in the capability of their government to avert lethal threats. Palestinian terrorism aims at humiliating Israel, undermining Israelis' trust in Israel's justice system, injuring Israel's posture of deterrence, wrecking Israel's image as a strategic asset and role model of counterterrorism and entrenching a national sense of weariness, leading to sweeping Israeli concessions.

Submission to pressure -- and releasing terrorists -- trigger a tailwind to the terrorism and a headwind to Israel's morale and national security. Releasing terrorists transforms them into terror-multipliers, a role model for young Palestinians. Most released terrorists partake in the upgrading of terror infrastructures: enlistment of new terrorists, fund raising, enhancement of motivation, planning terrorist acts, etc. 

According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "If the government succumbs [and releases terrorists], the terrorist scores an obvious victory. … Once the line of concessions is crossed, more atrocities and more demands are sure to follow, with the inexorable logic of blackmail in the face of weakness. … The terrorist objective is not negotiation but capitulation. … Government must be made to understand that if they acquiesce in terrorism, they are in practice supporting it. … [It] should be considered an act of collusion. … 

[Citizens] must not pressure their government to capitulate or to surrender to terrorism. … Such pressure can only be called a dereliction of civic duty. … Terrorism tries to evoke one feeling: fear. It is understandable that the one virtue most necessary to defeat terrorism is, therefore, the antithesis of fear: courage. … Confusion and vacillation facilitated the rise of terrorism. Clarity and courage will ensure its defeat." ("Terrorism: How the West Can Win," edited by Benjamin Netanyahu, 1986, pp. 201, 219, 226). 

Netanyahu added, in his 1995 Hebrew edition of "A Place in the Sun," that "the release of terrorists is a mistake the Israeli government repeats time and time again. … From the beginning, I saw the Jibril Exchange a fatal blow to Israel's efforts to form an international front against terrorism. How can Israel preach to the U.S. and the West … when Israel surrendered herself so shamefully? I was convinced that the release of a thousand terrorists would necessarily lead to a terrible escalation of violence, because these terrorists will be accepted as heroes, as an example to be imitated by young Palestinians. … It is clear now that the release of a thousand terrorists was one of the factors that provided a pool of fermenting violence and its leaders ignited the fire of the Intifada."

In 2013, Netanyahu defies his own books, speeches, political platforms and the legacy of Operation Jonathan -- the 1976 Entebbe hostage rescue. 

Israel's release of Palestinian terrorists and Abbas' embrace of these terrorists on one hand, and the war on terrorism and the pursuit of peace on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron. The U.S. pressure on Israel to release terrorists, while the U.S., rightly, opposes the release of terrorists (for example, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is about to be court-martialed for the 2009 murder of 13 U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood), constitutes moral hypocrisy that adds fuel to the fire of terrorism.

Yoram Ettinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5221

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

Dismantle the EU's "Political Wing"

by Peter Martino

The Muslim Brotherhood is embraced as a friend and partner of Europe, but Jewish sportsmen, artists and scientists are considered a dangerous threat to peace in the Middle East. The EU's policies towards Israel and the Jews has become so vicious, dishonest and unfair, that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the EU is an anti-Semitic organization. The sooner the "political wing" of this organization is dismantled, the better.

Last week, EU foreign policy commissioner Catherine Ashton published an article in the International Herald Tribune about her recent visit to Egypt, reaffirming the European Union's support for every significant political group in Egypt, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Rarely have the double standards of the EU been so blatantly obvious.

The article was published shortly after Lady Ashton, a British Baroness and former Labour politician with a past in the far-left Soviet-penetrated Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), had sent her fellow EU commissioners a letter informing them that the EU is about to impose binding requirements for labeling products produced by Jews in East Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights. At the same time, the EU has issued guidelines barring the 500,000 Jewish inhabitants of these regions from any EU funding, cooperation, awarding of scholarships, and research funds or prizes.

While the European Commission is waging a campaign against half a million Jews, its chief foreign representative is heaping praise on Jew-hating radical Islamists in Egypt. While in Egypt, Ashton even paid a visit to the deposed former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a man who has called Israelis "blood-suckers," "warmongers" and "descendants of apes and pigs." Perhaps she cheered him up with the news of the EU's anti-Jewish boycott.

Ashton's article in the Herald Tribune was entitled, "Moving Egypt back to the democratic path." Back to the democratic path? As if Egypt ever has been a democracy? Sorry to disappoint you, Lady Ashton, but the only democracy in the Middle East happens to be Israel. With the exception of Lebanon, there has never been a democracy in the entire region apart from Israel. What Ashton seems to imply in her article, however, is that during Morsi's one-year of tyranny in Egypt, it was "on the democratic path."

Ashton begins her article by describing how she noticed, on her drive into Cairo after dusk, that Egypt's rival groups had "put their differences on hold" for a few hours to break the daily fast during Ramadan. If the Egyptians are able to do that, she remarks, they are surely able to "make their respite from turmoil permanent" and establish "a stable, democratic Egypt."

The EU's leading foreign policy maker is so naive as to think that if a torturer pauses his torturing sessions for a while because he is hungry and needs to eat, this proves that there is some good in him. In her youth Ashton was a fellow traveler of the communists who advocated the West's unilateral disarmament; today she is still appeasing the enemies of freedom.

The problem with the Egyptians, Ashton says, is that they do not yet understand that democracy requires a shared understanding of how decisions should be taken, a degree of mutual respect, and a willingness to respect the rights of minorities. However, she emphasizes, the EU is willing to help them and teach them how to do it. Ashton says that she went to see representatives of the whole political spectrum, including the Muslim Brotherhood. "In every discussion, I confirmed that our support and friendship will continue," she writes. "I was encouraged that every single group I met, whatever their other differences, welcomed that commitment."

She calls Egypt a country that is "vital" for Europe. Hence, she says, the EU wants to play a role in helping "Egypt return to democracy." "Every significant group must be included" in the process, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Ashton adds. All detainees, "including Dr. Morsi and his close associates," must be released. "The EU is a long-term partner and friend of Egypt."

Just think about this a minute: the EU appeases the Egyptians, including the most radical Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, with promises of money and everlasting friendship, while at the at the same time the EU has decided to label products from Israel, a real democracy, that are made in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and in the process hurting more Arabs, who are employed there, than Jews. It has begun to boycott half a million Jews living in these areas as well as countless businesses and institutions based there, including the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

While Egypt's Muslim Brothers are told that they can count on Europe's support and friendship, Jewish sportsmen, artists and scientists no longer get any EU support if they are Jewish and live beyond the 1949 armistice lines. The EU wants "every significant group" included in the Middle East peace process -- except Jews who happen to live beyond the 1949 Green Line. The Muslim Brotherhood is embraced as a friend and partner of Europe, but Jewish sportsmen, artists and scientists are considered a dangerous threat to peace in the Middle East.

Will Baroness Ashton visit Jewish settlers when she happens to be in Judea and Samaria? Obviously not, since the EU advocates their discrimination and impoverishment. But in Egypt, she rushes to the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi to wish them well.

The EU's double standards are also apparent from its decision to cut all financial and commercial links to the Jews beyond the Green Line, while at the same time it refuses to include Hezbollah on its list of terrorist organizations by making a hypocritical distinction between the so-called "military wing" of the organization and its "political wing." This way, it remains possible to raise funds for Hezbollah -- both its "wings" -- in the 28 EU member states.

Have the Jews from Samaria and Judea ever bombed buses on the European continent, as Hezbollah did two years ago in the Bulgarian city of Burgas? Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, will now be boycotted by Ashton in his capacity as "commander in chief" of the organization, but not in his capacity as its "president," but 500,000 Jews get harassed across an armistice line, in their political as well as commercial, scientific and other interests, without making any distinction between various "wings" of their activities.

The EU's policies towards Israel and the Jews have become so vicious, dishonest and unfair that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the EU is an anti-Semitic organization. The sooner the "political wing" of this organization is dismantled and the EU returns to its origin as a free trade organization, the better.


Peter Martino

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3911/eu-political-wing

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

Daniel Pipes: On Closed Embassies, the Worldwide Travel Alert, and Wimpitude

by Daniel Pipes


In April, the city of Boston was effectively under military curfew because two terrorists were on the loose. Now, fears of al-Qaeda attacking has led the U.S. government to close 21 U.S. embassies in Muslim-majority countries and then issue a worldwide travel alert announcing that "Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests. U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said that the two steps result from "a significant threat stream" and so the authorities "are taking it seriously."

Comments:

(1) Don't know about you, but I find this pre-emptive cringing unworthy of a great country, even humiliating. Why do we allow a bunch of extremist thugs to close us down, rather than the reverse? For what purpose to we pay for the world's best military and largest intelligence services if not to protect ourselves from this sort of threat?

(2) This timidity fits into a larger pattern that I have long found reprehensible. Here's a comment of mine from 1998 I should like to resurrect, that responded to the double bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania almost exactly fifteen years ago, on Aug. 7, 1998:

It'll be a happy day when American embassies are again built in busy downtown intersections out of normal materials - and not, as they are now, bunkers located in distant lots surrounded by high fences. Such a change will only be possible when the safety of Americans depends not on walls, metal detectors and Marine guards, but on the deterrence established by years of terrible retribution against anyone who so much as harms a single American citizen.

Deterrence, not shuttering the bunkers we call embassies, is the solution. Maybe Obama's successor will understand this imperative. (August 3, 2013)


Daniel Pipes

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/08/on-closed-embassies-the-worldwide-travel-alert

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

John Kerry has been Flying Everywhere, but Getting Nowhere

by Michael Widlanski


 

Forget the headlines: John Kerry has been jetting everywhere and getting nowhere.

Kerry thinks putting the PLO in a room with Israelis will solve the “Palestinian-Israeli Conflict,” which he thinks is the most important issue facing the world.

“The core issue of instability in this region and in many other parts of the world is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” said Kerry.

Rarely have time, words and jet fuel been so wasted.

First Reason: The PLO does not want peace with Israel, only a piece of Israel, and then another piece of Israel. Palestinians  had several chances for a Palestinian state—in 1947, in 1949, in 1967 in 1981, in 2000, in 2006—but always overreached, trying to dismember Israel rather than build Palestine.

Late PLO leader Yasser Arafat said he did not want to be “mayor of the West Bank,” and he did not like fixing sewer lines, but preferred to build concrete bunkers.

Second Reason:  The PLO and the Palestinians have nothing to do with problems facing the world. Kerry and Obama think otherwise.

Kerry got off the plane and apparently concluded: a. Syria’s war—the Palestinians; b. Iran’s bomb—the Israelis; c. Egypt’s unrest—the Zionists;  d. problems with North Korea — the Israelis; e. trade crisis with China—the Palestinians; and  so on.

Before assuming Kerry bumped his head, like Hillary Clinton, we must recall that Obama sent Kerry abroad and also thinks “Palestine” is the center of the universe.

This need not mean that all foreign policy travel is a waste of tax dollars, because travel is often really good for the soul—and for policy.

“The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page, ” declared Augustine, centuries ago, and his words are even truer today.

We must see the world, taste other cultures, hear different tongues in order to grow. When we stay in the same place all the time our thoughts get as stiff as our muscles.

Mark Twain, the great writer-traveler, was a boat-hand on the Mississippi River, and he found that “travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” Twain warned against “vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.”

But, as Obama and Kerry have shown, travel is no guarantee of success.

Travel will not help world leaders who do not broaden themselves before going abroad, who do not really study history, culture or languages. Barack Obama is often called bright and worldly, but his policies and statements show he lives in his own Obama-centric world.

Obama thought Russian despot Vladimir Putin was his buddy. He pledged to be even more “flexible” with Putin if he (Obama) got re-elected, and he felt Chinese leaders would cooperate on economic and political matters. Sino-Russian support of terror, tyranny and Edward Snowden show how wrong Obama was.

Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made colossal errors, claiming a “re-start” in ties with Russia, but they could not even get the word “re-start” right in the big signs they placed in front of cameras at a Russian-US summit.

Westerners who grew close to Communist Russia and China were once called “fellow travelers.”  For Obama-Clinton-Kerry, a better term is “frequent fumblers.”

After four years in office and much travel abroad, Obama has a foreign policy built  on Obama’s initial gut feeling, not lessons learned from experience or travel. Mark Twain would call this “prejudice,” or “vegetating” because when Obama travels or sends Clinton or Kerry, he keeps his mind closed, effectively staying at home.

That explains why Obama-Clinton ignored warnings that Arab-Islamic terror might strike again on 9-11. The idea did not fit with their world view. They ignored reports from their Arabic-speaking ambassador in Libya, Chris Stevens, who told them repeatedly that Al-Qaeda was targeting Americans in Libya.

That is why Obama-Clinton felt Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was a better bet for America than President Hosni Mubarak. Obama’s gut, not empirical data, is why Obama says the Guantanamo base in Cuba caused terror rather than the truth: terror caused the need for the Guantanamo base to house terrorists.

That is why Obama believes hostility to the US among Arab extremists or by the regimes of Russia and China is tied mostly to imaginary offenses or insults inflicted by America. That is flat-out wrong. Real travel and real study could have mitigated the error, but the real cure is real inquiry and an open mind.

The dean of US foreign policy in the post-war era was George Kennan, who knew Russian and German well. Kennan felt many US officials did not recognize Soviet and Nazi goals early enough, fooled by myths circulated by those regimes.

Kennan felt US officials needed to take the time and effort to penetrate the cultures of the societies who were the main rivals to America in the world. That is still true.

To make good foreign policy one has to do more than travel by plane. One has to be able to travel with one’s mind.


Michael Widlanski

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/michael-widlanski/john-kerry-flying-everywhere-getting-nowhere/

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

WaPo Picture tells the Story its Text won't Touch

by Michael Berenhaus

The Washington Post recently published a picture (in a piece titled "Mideast peace talks set to begin") that inadvertently exposes the real intentions of the Palestinians, as opposed to their ostensible willingness to negotiate with Israel.  The WaPo has repeatedly presented the Palestinians as interested in only the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem. For instance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/wide-gaps-as-israelis-palestinians-return-to-negotiations-after-five-year-break/2013/07/30/34137fb2-f917-11e2-a954-358d90d5d72d_story.html

Beginning of sixth paragraph:  "The Palestinians seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-diplomat-reaching-an-israeli-palestinian-peace-deal-in-9-months-is-target-not-deadline/2013/07/31/5cd0fe20-f9fd-11e2-89f7-8599e3f77a67_story.html

Beginning of fourth paragraph:  "The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-and-palestinians-skeptical-as-their-negotiators-go-to-washington-for-talks/2013/07/29/2360a7d6-f81c-11e2-a954-358d90d5d72d_story.html

"The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem" (fourth paragraph)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-pms-coalition-partner-to-vote-against-freeing-palestinian-prisoners-as-part-of-deal/2013/07/28/670a91a4-f763-11e2-a954-358d90d5d72d_story.html

"Negotiators made progress in previous rounds, and the outlines of a deal have emerged - a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem" (paragraph 12)
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-21/world/40713944_1_peace-talks-border-talks-agreement

"The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem," (paragraph 13)


In the lower left hand picture on the second page of the article a Palestinian woman clutches a photo of her soon-to-be-released prisoner son. 

In a less conspicuous part of the picture just to the left of the photo, the woman clutches another photo that shows all of Israel with a Palestinian flag running through it. What is typically reported by The Washington Post and most news organizations, not to mention the European Union and the United States, is that the Palestinians are looking for a homeland in Gaza, the West Bank, and the eastern part of Jerusalem.  The picture published in the Post portrays a far different reality, one that is right out in the open for all to see, yet no one cares to acknowledge.  The Palestinians are neither interested in nor prepared to accept a state in Gaza, the West Bank, and the eastern part of Jerusalem - they want the entire area including Israel.  They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  What more proof does the world need to see to recognize the true motivations of the Palestinian movement?

Michael Berenhaus

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/wapo_picture_tells_the_story_its_text_wont_touch.html

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

Britain: Muslim Prison Population Up 200%

by Soeren Kern

"Nowadays jails are run mostly by Muslims ... It hurts as a Muslim to have someone disrespect my religion. If we deal with him one time, with violence, and show him what time it is, he will never disrespect our religion again ... For Muslims, you'd say it's good, but for non-Muslims, it's very, very bad." — Jay, five-time former inmate, quoted by the BBC

The number of Muslim convicts in British prisons has surpassed the 11,000 mark for the first time, according to data included in a new report produced by the British Parliament.

The statistics -- from a July 29 House of Commons research report entitled, "Prison Population Statistics" -- show that the number of Muslim inmates in England and Wales jumped to 11,248 in 2012, up from 3,681 in 1997. Stated another way, over the past 15 years, the number of Muslims in British prisons has jumped by more than 200%.

The rate of increase of Muslim inmates in British prisons is eight times faster than that of the overall prison population, and the numbers show a clear overrepresentation of Muslim convicts: Muslims, who make up roughly 5% of the British population as a whole, now make up 13% of the British prison population (compared to just 6% in 1997).

The growth in the number of Muslim inmates is fueling fears that British prisons are becoming hotbeds for Islamic radicalization.

Although most of the Muslims in British prisons are immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, an increasing number of Muslim inmates are converts to Islam.

According to a research report recently commissioned by the British Ministry of Justice, many non-Muslim inmates in British prisons are being bullied into conversion or are embracing Islam in exchange for promises of protection from physical assault.

The study examines the Islamic "gang culture" inside the Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire, which houses around 500 of the most dangerous prisoners in Britain. Researchers from the Cambridge Institute of Criminology who wrote the report found that more than one third (39%) of the prisoners at Whitemoor are Muslims.

Prisoners told the researchers that they had felt overwhelming pressure to convert. In some instances, they said, Muslim inmates had left Islamic literature in their cells and ordered them to "read this." In other instances, inmates were promised that if they converted to Islam, they would be safe from physical assault.

The report states that if loners, including sex offenders, converted to Islam, fellow Muslims would defend them; they could thereby gain safety from a large and dominant group. Others used their newly acquired faith as a tool for status in establishing influence.

Non-Muslims and prison officers inside Whitemoor described Islam as an "organized gang" and a "protection racket," which "glorified terrorist behavior and exploited the fear related to it."

Prison guards said there were "proper Al-Qaeda" members in the prison who were regarded with "awe" by younger inmates. Some prisoners described Whitemoor as a "recruiting drive for the Taliban" and fertile ground for hatred and a new generation of extremists.

Guards also said they had a policy of "appeasement" towards the powerful and growing Islamic prison population, particularly convicted terrorists who were feared to be recruiting future extremists.

The report states: "The threat of assaults motivated by religious fanaticism or extremist ideology added weight to the atmosphere at Whitemoor," and continues: "The new population mix, including high numbers of Muslim prisoners, was disrupting established hierarchies in the prison. Social relations among prisoners had become complex and less visible. Too much power flowed among some groups of prisoners, with some real risks of serious violence. There were high levels of fear in the prison. In particular, there were tensions and fears relating to 'extremism' and 'radicalization.'"

The report concludes: "More prominent, in practice, were pressures (and temptations) felt by some prisoners to convert to Islam. Conditions in the prison made participation in Islamic practices the most 'available' option for those looking for belonging, meaning, 'brotherhood,' trust and friendship."

Meanwhile, British media recently reported that Dale Cregan, a notorious quadruple murderer who is serving a life sentence at the Manchester Prison, is being targeted by extremist Muslims who want to convert him to Islam.

Cregan, who is of Irish Catholic background, is said to be afraid of rival gang members who have offered a bounty to anyone who attacks him in prison. Muslims have offered to protect Cregan if he converts to Islam. According to prison officials, Cregan is so well known that if he converts to Islam, it would be seen as a way to further increase the influence of Muslim gangs inside the prison.

Watchtower or Minaret? Manchester prison, with it's minaret-like watchtower at right, houses the murderer Dale Cregan. A Muslim gang is reported to be pressuring Cregan to convert to Islam. (Source: Stemonitis)

The growing problem of Muslim gangs taking over British prisons was the topic of a recent BBC investigation. The program includes an interview with a former inmate named Jay, who says, "Muslims run it. Muslims run the prisons and there's nothing the screws [British slang for a prison guard] can do about it. For a Muslim you'd say it's good but for a non-Muslim, it's very, very bad."

Jay, who has been in and out of prison for most of his life, openly admits helping to convert non-Muslim inmates to Islam, and has meted out violence against anyone who dares to "disrespect" his religion.

According to Jay, "It hurts as a Muslim to have someone disrespect my religion. If we deal with him one time, with violence, and show him what time it is, he will never disrespect our religion again."
Jay first went to prison when he was 15 and says there were hardly any Muslims inmates back then. "At the beginning not many knew about Islam. There weren't many converts. The mosque was empty, but nowadays jails are run mostly by the Muslims," he says.

"There are certain brothers that convert purely on the basis that they read Islam and they want to believe in something that does good for them. Then other people because they want to be looked after. I've been in jail five times," he says, "and on my last occasion, I've seen jails being run by Muslim inmates. Muslim prayers on a Friday are very, very busy. In some prisons there's no space. In one jail I was in, they do the prayers in two sessions because there's no space."

The BBC investigation also includes an interview with the national chairman of the Prison Officers Association, Colin Moses, who says: "People are being radicalized, forcibly radicalized by these gangs. We see it as a real danger, now and for the future of prisons."

Moses says that those who are in gangs or have converted to Islam often do it to carry out criminal activities. "As the Muslim population grows, the gangs are becoming more and more prevalent by the week and they fight to take control of the drug trade and the dealing of mobile phones in prison. This will make our prisons even more violent," he says.

Speaking anonymously, a former prison officer who worked at the Long Lartin Prison in Worcestershire talks about cases where non-Muslim prisoners were seriously assaulted and intimidated for refusing to abide by unofficial rules imposed by Muslim gangs, for example about eating pork or listening to Western music.

Writing in the July 2013 issue of the prisoner's magazine, Inside Time, a "long serving prisoner" at Long Lartin has this to say: "We are able to cook our own food here but if we attempt to cook pork in the communal kitchen it is deemed dangerous, even a threat to your life. The kitchen is usually occupied by 90% Muslims and we have been told if we cook pork we will be stabbed. There have been incidents here where people have been targeted and pressured and bullied into converting to Islam."

He adds: "I am writing to inform people of these radical extremists views in this prison where I see no official steps being taken to combat them. Young Muslim men are being radicalized in here and one day they may commit acts of terrorism in this country. There seems to be nothing being done here to stop it and people are scared to speak out. I hope we get some feedback from this; it needs to be sorted out."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3913/uk-muslim-prison-population

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

Fixing Palestine

by Shoshana Bryen

The greatest success of the Arab States against Israel (there aren't many) has been to change the terms of reference. In 1947, the Arabs unanimously rejected the UN Partition Plan for Palestine and in 1948 attacked Israel, Goliath against David. Through 1956, 1967, and 1973 Israel was understood to be on the receiving end of the enormous wealth, fury and rejection of the Arab States -- hence the name, "Arab-Israel conflict." But with the exercise of the Arab oil weapon international priorities were transformed, the first priority being not to irritate Saudi Arabia. The Arab States let themselves off the hook, passing the onus of rejectionist thuggery on to Israel, the Goliathite aggressor against the Davidish Palestinians. Now there is the "Palestinian-Israeli conflict," reflecting the preference of the Arab States and priorities of Washington. 

To read the Washington newspapers this week, which are representative, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are meeting under the auspices of the American government to make Palestine. The Palestinians and Secretary of State John Kerry allowed it to be known that the Israelis were asked/pushed/threatened to provide a prisoner release, a settlement freeze, and a commitment to begin negotiations on the 1949 Armistice Line (the so-called 1967 border). The Palestinians were asked to provide... well, nothing, actually because that's not the issue.

The Washington Post subhead on page one read, "Jewish Settlements Pose Major Test." It could equally have read, "Palestinian Veneration of Terrorists Dalal Mugrahi, Wafa Idriss, Um Nadal and Ahlam al Tamimi Poses Major Test." Or "Fatah's Lack of Authority to Negotiate on behalf of Hamas or Gaza Poses Major Test." Or "Abbas's Announcement that No Jews will be Allowed in Palestine Poses Major Test."

Its competitor, The Washington Times, listed five substantive issues for discussion:

The final borders of an independent Palestinian State.
Security guarantees for Israel and the composition of a future Palestinian security force.
The status of Jerusalem, which each side claims.
The limits of the "right of return" for Palestinians who left following the formation of Israel in 1948 and their families.
The future of Jewish settlements on land claimed by the Palestinians.

The image emerges of Palestinians who need to claim their state and their rights from Israel. Israel, it appears, has no corresponding claims on the Palestinians. But each Washington Times issue should be turned the other way around to protect Israel's claims:

Israel is entitled to the "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" that are the promise of UN Resolution 242. That obligation accrues to the Arab States that made war against Israel in 1967 and Israel is entitled to have them end it.
Israel is entitled to an end to the Palestinian and Arab state of war against it. An agreement that leaves Israel in need of outside "guarantees" indicates that the U.S. believes Israel should plan to be no more secure, and may in fact be less secure, than it is now.
Israel is entitled to protection of Jewish rights in Jerusalem. Having accepted the 1947 UN decision to make Jerusalem corpus separatum, Israel lost access to the Holy City and lost much of Jewish patrimony there to the illegal Jordanian occupation.
Israel is entitled to redress for more than 800,000 Jews, some of whose families had resided in Arab countries for a millennium, who were made refugees in the mid-20th Century by the Arab States.
Israel is entitled to the legitimation of its sovereignty. Official Palestinian maps, and textbooks in PA schools, indicate that Tel Aviv, Netanya and Ashkelon are all Jewish "settlements."

The special American envoy to the talks, Martin Indyk, is a purveyor of the theme that Israel is required to "fix" the Palestinian problem. In an IDF radio interview more than a year ago, Indyk said, "I think that the heart of the matter is that the maximum concession that this government of Israel would be prepared to make, fall far short of the minimum requirements that Abu Mazen will insist on."

The "heart of the matter" is that Israel can't give enough to make the Palestinians happy. What are the Palestinians offering to make Israel happy? Where is the Palestinian "concession" to Israel's legitimacy, security and peace? What if the Palestinian offer falls "far short of the minimum requirements" that the Government of Israel will insist upon? It doesn't appear to have crossed his mind.

Former diplomat and envoy to many, many "peace talks," Aaron David Miller, wrote recently about clues to watch for during the talks and favors written texts, outlines and maps. "Maps, perhaps more than any other single element... are a critical sign of seriousness or lack of seriousness. If we're talking borders, then maps, particularly those presented by Israel, will become an early test of whether this is serious."

He is almost right.

Maps presented by Israel, however, are already a fairly well known quantity. They will look more or less, give or take, like the outline of the West Bank (and Gaza under some future circumstance) with the "major settlement blocs" ending up inside Israel. The better question -- and the better test of seriousness -- is whether the Palestinians come with a map and where they place the sovereign State of Israel on that map.

Without sharper focus on Israel's rights and requirements as well as Palestinian interests and goals the process deserves to fail.

Shoshana Bryen

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/fixing_palestine.html

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

Ramallah vs. the "Peace Process"

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Abbas may be conducting peace talks with Israel, but at the same time he is also backing campaigns that promote boycotts and hatred of Israel. What Secretary Kerry and the U.S. need to understand is that Abbas has failed to prepare his people for the possibility of peace.

If Mahmoud Abbas does not have the power or courage to allow an Israel-based clothing shop to open branch near his residence in Ramallah, how will he ever be able to make peace with Israel?

This is the question some Palestinian businessmen have been asking during the past few days in light of an organized campaign to prevent the Fox clothing chain from opening a store in the city.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's strenuous efforts to resume peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority led two Israeli Arab businessmen to take the initiative and open the first Fox store in the West Bank.

After investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovations and the training of employees, the two businessmen soon found themselves at the center of a protest organized by "Anti-normalization" activists and journalists.

Opening soon in Ramallah? A Fox clothing store in Israel. (Source: Tzvia/Wikimedia Commons)

Facing daily threats, the two entrepreneurs decided to call off the project, which would have provided jobs to nearly 150 Palestinians.

Although the Palestinian Authority gave permission to the two businessmen to open the Ramallah Fox branch, it was yet unable to do anything to protect them against the threats, including calls for fire-bombing the store.

The opening of a clothing store in Ramallah may be a minor issue, especially compared with the major and explosive issues facing Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.

But this incident, in which a clothing shop is forced -- under threats -- to withdraw plans to open branch in a Palestinian city, is an indication of what awaits Abbas if and when he dares to reach any agreement with Israel.

The same "anti-normalization" movement which Abbas supports will be the first to turn against him if he strikes a deal with Israel.

Although Fox clothes are immensely popular among young Palestinian men and women, the fashion retailer did not have a branch in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

While many Palestinian merchants have been quietly selling Fox clothes in several Palestinian cities, they are particularly afraid of the strong "anti-normalization" movement that prohibits any form of contact with Israelis.

Ironically, this movement is fully supported by the same Palestinian Authority and Fatah leaders whose leaders do not hesitate to conduct public meetings with Israelis, in addition to security coordination with the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank.

Just this week, senior Fatah officials were invited to the Knesset for talks with Israeli colleagues about peace and coexistence; and earlier, Fatah leaders in Ramallah hosted scores of Israeli politicians, including members of the Likud and Shas parties, to an event organized by the joint Israeli-Palestinian Geneva Initiative group.

The campaign against the opening of a Fox store in Ramallah also coincided with the launching of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington.

While Palestinian activists were busy threatening the owners of the clothing store, their representatives, Saeb Erekat and Mohamed Shtayyeh, were sitting with Israeli minister Tzipi Livni in Washington and talking about ways of achieving peace and coexistence between the two sides.

What Kerry and the U.S. Administration need to understand is that Abbas has failed to prepare his people for the possibility of peace with Israel. Abbas may be conducting peace talks with Israel, but at the same time he is also backing campaigns that promote boycotts and hatred of Israel. It is important to talk peace. But it is even more important to educate people about peace -- something that neither Yasser Arafat nor his successor, Abbas, have done for the past two decades.


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3908/ramallah-peace-process

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

Hamas Can’t Be Wished Away in Gaza

by Jonathan S. Tobin


Even optimists about the new round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks acknowledge that the Hamas problem makes it difficult to imagine an actual agreement coming out of the negotiations. So long as Gaza is ruled by Hamas and Hamas is unwilling to recognize Israel’s existence, let alone its legitimacy, how could any accord survive? But some are seeking to downplay this all-too-obvious flaw in Secretary of State John Kerry’s reasoning in making his diplomatic push by arguing that the Islamist rulers of Gaza (which contains 40 percent of the Arab population of the disputed territories) are either weak or about to fall.

The glass-half-full peace process scenario seems to rest on the assumption that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas will get a major boost in popularity if he is able to win, with the help of American pressure, an Israeli withdrawal and an independent state. The hope is that this will render Hamas’s opposition ineffective. An even more wildly optimistic scenario goes so far as to envisage Hamas falling from power or becoming so weak that talk of a merger with Fatah becomes a reality, thus ending the Palestinian schism and easing the way to peace.

Unfortunately, this sort of optimism tells us more about the desire on the part of some in both the United States and Israel to ignore the reality of Palestinian politics than it does about the possibility of regime change in Gaza. For example, even if we take all the assertions in veteran Israeli journalist and author Ehud Yaari’s analysis of the situation in Gaza in the New Republic at face value, there is very little reason to believe that the downturn in Hamas’s fortunes will be translated into it being more amenable to peace or a genuine chance that it will loosen its hold on power.


Yaari is right when he asserts this isn’t the best of times for the Hamas regime. The fall of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt is a body blow to the Palestinian group that traces its own origins back to that organization. Though relations with the recently toppled Morsi government were not always smooth, his military successors are openly hostile to Hamas. They have not only shut down the border with Gaza and closed many smuggling tunnels, they have publicly charged Hamas with providing assistance to Brotherhood efforts to subvert the new regime as well as implicating it in violence and murders associated with Morsi’s escape from a Mubarak regime jail in 2011. This has not only deepened its isolation but shut down a vital source of funds.

While significant in and of itself, the loss of Egypt is all the more devastating to Hamas because of its decision to part ways with Iran in the last year. Siding with the Syrian rebels and discarding its formerly close ties with Tehran may have made sense in 2012 for a Hamas that thought it could count on both Egypt and Turkey. Iran was once Hamas’s primary source of both funding and weapons, but the Islamists thought they were better off sticking with the Sunnis against the Shiites. But the ability of the Assad regime to hold onto power in Damascus with the aid of Iran and Hezbollah is making it look as if they backed the wrong horse. With the Turks and the Gulf states that have pledged money to keep Hamas afloat primarily interested in the Syrian struggle these days, Gaza now finds itself more isolated than ever. That has also accentuated the split in the Hamas high command that has always existed between the Gaza leadership and its political bureau abroad.

All this has also strengthened the heretofore-marginal Islamic Jihad terror group that now represents itself as the true face of Palestinian resistance instead of a Hamas that is seen by some radicals as at fault for seeking to preserve the current cease-fire with Israel. As the New York Times reports today, Iran’s increased funding of the group in the wake of its dispute with Hamas over Syria has raised its profile and its ability to compete with the bigger terror group for popularity in Gaza.

But however serious these problems may be, they do not at present constitute anything that comes even close to a mortal threat to Hamas. The group’s iron grip on Gazan society remains undiminished. Though it is broke, even in times of plenty it has always depended on UNRWA, the United Nations agency devoted to aiding and perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem, to take care of the strip’s poor.

Moreover, Hamas officials are as capable of seeing which way the wind is blowing in the Middle East as anyone else and have launched diplomatic initiatives to get back into Tehran’s good graces. Though these efforts have, as yet, yielded no concrete results, should they deem it necessary, there is little doubt that Hamas will bend to Iran’s will in order to keep themselves afloat.

Moreover, the expectation that the peace talks will sink Hamas’s standing among Palestinians has it backwards. Should the negotiations succeed, Hamas will be well placed to blast Abbas for betraying the refugees and Palestinian hopes of destroying Israel. Should they fail, they will assail him for groveling to the Jews and America. Either way, they are set up to make political hay and mayhem from Kerry’s folly.

The fantasy of Hamas fading away is just that. In spite of its serious problems, the Islamist group is in no imminent danger. The same can’t be said of its Palestinian rivals and no amount of optimism about the talks can change that.
 

Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/08/01/hamas-cant-be-wished-away-in-gaza/

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