Egypt Speeding Toward Anarchy?

by Khaled Abu Toameh


Mubarak's repressive measures and the absence of a real democracy is playing into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists, who now appear to be more determined than ever to seize control of Egypt.

The Egyptian government's clampdown on secular reformists, including human rights activists and journalists, is driving many Egyptians toward the open arms of Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups. These extremists find fertile soil among disgruntled Egyptians and Arabs who are yearning for regime change.

If Egypt falls into the hands of the Muslim fundamentalists, the first thing the new government would do is abrogate the peace treaty with Israel and close down the Israeli embassy in Cairo. This is exactly what the Islamic Revolution of the Ayatollahs did when it took over Iran.

From there, the road to joining the Iranian-led axis of evil would be very short. The new regime in Cairo would distance itself from the US and the EU in favor of a political, economic and religious alliance with Iran and its proxies.

The New Year eve terror attack on a church in Alexandria, which claimed the lives of 21 Coptic Christians, is yet another indication of the deteriorating situation in Egypt.

The attack, which has triggered an anti-government Christian "intifada" in Alexandria, shows that Al-Qaeda -- and possibly other Islamic fundamentalist groups -- is determined to undermine the Western-backed regime of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Egypt's Coptic Christian minority has good reason to be afraid. The deadly attack on the church could be, according to Egyptian security sources, the first in a series of bombings targeting "infidels and Crusaders."

The Egyptian regime's failure to prevent the attack has left some local security experts wondering whether Muslim fundamentalists have managed to infiltrate the country's security apparatus.

Angry Christian protesters have vented their anger on the regime by staging violent street protests and assaulting policemen and local government officials.

The Egyptian Christians are not, however, the only ones disappointed with Mubarak's regime.

The recent parliamentary election in Egypt, which many Egyptians say was hijacked by the Mubarak regime, has sparked a local and international outcry. Candidates belonging to various opposition parties withdrew from the race in light of the authorities' campaign of intimidation against them.

Mubarak's refusal to name a successor has also contributed to the growing sense of insecurity and uncertainty in Egypt. Many Egyptians fear that the Muslim Brotherhood group, which enjoys tremendous popularity among Egyptians, would take control of Egypt after Mubarak's departure from the scene.

The best way to avoid such a scenario is by putting pressure on Mubarak to stop the crackdown on his opponents -- especially those who belong to secular and reformist parties and organizations, and to begin introducing democracy, human rights, and equality before the law. Otherwise, recent developments in Egypt suggest that the largest Arab country may be headed toward a dangerous state of lawlessness and anarchy.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1775/egypt-anarchy

Khaled Abu Toameh

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

Hamas Members Charged in Stadium Plot

by IPT News

Israeli police have charged five Hamas members with plotting terror attacks in Jerusalem, including a plan to fire a rocket into a Jerusalem soccer stadium during a game. The five, including two primary plotters, were arrested in November. The plot was only recently revealed following the lifting of an Israeli court gag order.

"From their Shin Bet interrogation… after Operation Cast Lead the two [primary plotters] began to plan a terror operation in Jerusalem, as part of which they examined the possibility of firing a missile at Teddy Stadium while a game was in progress," said a statement by Israel's security service, the Shin Bet. "The two went to a ridge overlooking the stadium in order to select the best place for an attack and carried out reconnaissance of the area, although the planning was not translated into action."

The two primary suspects, Mussa Hamada and Bassem Omri, were indicted on charges of "membership in and support for a terrorist organization, firearms offences and conspiracy to commit a crime." The plot was intended to be a revenge attack for Israel's January 2009 Operation Cast Lead, according to the indictment. The indictment also outlined their membership in Hamas, dating to 2000, and accused them of working with Hamas representatives at the al-Aqsa mosque for the past three years.

As part of the plot, Hamada and Omri also traveled several times to Saudi Arabia to meet with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the Shin Bet statement. "During one of the meetings, the Saudi representative gave Mussa Hamada money for the purchase of weapons and asked in return that he gather information on Jerusalem," the statement said. The Brotherhood also asked the two to conduct surveillance on targets in Jerusalem.

In 2001, two Palestinians died in an explosion near Teddy Stadium, which Israeli police said was caused by the premature explosion of a bomb they were assembling.

Original URL: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2467/hamas-members-charged-in-stadium-plot

IPT News

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

Material Support Investigation Moves Forward

by IPT News

Despite unfounded charges that the FBI is using criminal investigations in an attempt to silence anti-war activists, a probe into potential American support for terrorist groups by anti-war activists is moving forward.

A new round of subpoenas has been issued in the three-month-old investigation into whether Americans in Chicago and Minneapolis have provided material support to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), both designated terrorist organizations, Politico's Josh Gerstein reports.

Maureen Murphy, the managing editor of the Electronic Intifada, received a grand jury subpoena from the FBI on December 21, ordering her to appear before a grand jury in Chicago on January 25. Murphy is reportedly one of 23 "activists" from the Chicago and Minneapolis areas who have been called to testify in the investigation.

News of the case first came on September 24, when the FBI carried out raids in the two cities seeking evidence of support for the two terrorist organizations. "The warrants are seeking evidence in support of an ongoing Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation into activities concerning the material support of terrorism," said Steve Warfield, an FBI spokesman in Minneapolis.

Following the searches, the Justice Department reportedly issued subpoenas to a number of individuals, including the Electronic Intifada's Murphy, in connection with the investigation. Many, if not all of those subpoenaed refused to testify. Within weeks, those subpoenas were cancelled. It now appears that prosecutors are moving forward with the investigation, reissuing the orders to appear before a grand jury.

"Along with several others, I am being summoned to appear before the Grand Jury on Tuesday, January 25th, in the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago." Murphy said in a press release. "We are being targeted for the work we do to end US funding of the Israeli occupation, ending the war in Afghanistan and ending the occupation of Iraq. What is at stake for all of us is our right to dissent and organize to change harmful US foreign policy."

News of the September raids prompted a substantial outcry from civil liberties and Muslim-American advocacy organizations. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) attacked the searches as "a fishing expedition" and claimed the U.S. government showed "no regard for nonviolent work." Absent evidence that the targeted groups were "planning terrorist operations," MPAC said the justification offered for the raids is "absurd."

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) denounced the FBI for searching the Chicago home of Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network. Ahmed Rehab, executive director of CAIR's Chicago chapter, called the investigation "a waste of taxpayer dollars," "a new low," and "an example of FBI overreach when it comes to activism or commentary on the (Middle East) conflict."

As the IPT reported at the time, such comments show ignorance about what activity is barred under U.S. law. It isn't necessary for the government to show that someone was "planning terrorist operations" to demonstrate that the suspect is providing material support to terrorists.

The statute barring material support covers both violent and nonviolent help because Congress found foreign terror groups "are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contributions to such an organization facilitates that conduct. In upholding the law, the Supreme Court recently ruled that such support also "helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups – legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds – all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks."

Original URL: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2470/material-support-investigation-moves-forward

IPT News

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

Is Saudi Arabia Opening Up?

by Daniel Pipes

On Jan. 1, 1996, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz became regent and effective ruler of Saudi Arabia. His 15^th anniversary this week offers an opportunity to review the kingdom's changes under his leadership and whither it now heads.

The Saudi king, Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, 86.

His is perhaps the most unusual and opaque country on the planet, a place without a public movie theater, where women may not drive, where men sell women's lingerie, where a single-button self-destruct system can perhaps destroy the oil infrastructure, and where rulers spurn even the patina of democracy. In its place, they have developed some highly original and successful mechanisms to keep power.

Three features define the regime: controlling the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, subscribing to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, and possessing by far the world's largest petroleum reserve. Islam defines identity, Wahhabism inspires global ambitions, oil wealth funds the enterprise.

More profoundly, wealth beyond avarice permits Saudis to deal with modernity on their own terms. They shun jacket and tie, exclude women from the workspace, and even aspire to replace Greenwich Mean Time with Mecca Mean Time.

Not many years ago, the key debate in the kingdom was that between the monarchical and Taliban versions of Wahhabism – an extreme reading of Islam versus a fanatical one. But today, thanks in large part to Abdullah's efforts to "tame Wahhabi zeal," the most retrograde country has taken some cautious steps to join the modern world. These efforts have many dimensions, from children's education to mechanisms for selecting political leaders, but perhaps the most crucial one is the battle among the ulema, the Islamic men of religion, between reformers and hardliners.

The arcane terms of this dispute make it difficult for outsiders to follow. Fortunately, Roel Meijer, a Dutch Middle East specialist, provides an expert's guide to arguments in the kingdom in his article, "Reform in Saudi Arabia: The Gender-Segregation Debate." He demonstrates how gender mixing (ikhtilat in Arabic) inspires a debate central to the kingdom's future and how that debate has evolved.

Current stringencies about gender separation, he notes, reflect less age-old custom than the success of the Sahwa movement in the aftermath of two traumatic events in 1979 – the Iranian revolution and the seizure of the Grand Mosque of Mecca by Osama bin Laden-style radicals.

When Abdullah formally ascended to the monarchy in mid-2005, he ushered in an easing of what critics call gender apartheid. Two key recent events toward greater ikhtilat took place in 2009: a change of high government personnel in February and the September opening of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (known as KAUST), with its ostentatiously mixed-gender classes and even dances.

The Saudi crown prince, Sultan bin Abdulaziz, 82.

Debate over ikhtilat ensued, with jousting among royals, political figures, ulema, and intellectuals. "Although the position of women has improved since 9/11, ikhtilat demarcates the battle lines between reformists and conservatives [i.e., hardliners]. Any attempt to diminish its enforcement is regarded as a direct attack on the standing of conservatives and Islam itself."

Meijer concludes his survey of the debate by noting that "it is extremely difficult to determine whether reforms are successful and whether the liberals or conservatives are making gains. Although the general trend is in favor of the reformists, reform is piecemeal, hesitant, equivocal and strongly resisted."

The state under Abdullah has promoted a more open and tolerant Islam but, Meijer argues, "it is obvious from the ikhtilat debate that the battle has not been won. Many Saudis are fed up with the inordinate interference of religious authorities in their lives, and one can even speak of an anti-clerical movement. The liberals, however, speak a language that is alien to the world of official Wahhabism and the majority of Saudis and is therefore hardly likely to influence them."

In brief, Arabians are in mid-debate, with the future course of reform as yet unpredictable. Not only do elite and public opinion play a role, but, complicating matters, much hangs on the quirks of longevity and personality – in particular, how long Abdullah, 86, remains in charge and whether his ailing half-brother crown prince, Sultan bin Abdulaziz, 82, will succeed him.

Saudi Arabia being one of the world's most influential Muslim countries, the stakes involved are high, not just within the kingdom but for Islam and for Muslims generally. This debate deserves our full attention.

Original URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/9274/saudi-arabia-opening-up

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

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

Vulture in Saudi Custody Suspected as Mossad Agent

by Gil Ronen

Saudi Arabian security forces have captured a vulture that was carrying a global positioning satellite (GPS) transmitter and a ring etched with the words "Tel Aviv University." They suspect the bird of spying for Israel, Maariv-NRG reported Tuesday. The GPS and ring were connected to the bird as part of an long-term project by Israeli scientists that follows vultures' location and altitude for research purposes.

The arrest of the vulture - whose identification code is R65 - comes several weeks after an Egyptian official voiced the suspicion that a shark that attacked tourists off the Sinai shore was also acting on behalf of Mossad. The incidents appear to reflect a growing irrational hysteria among Arabs surrounding Israel's military prowess and the efficacy of its intelligence services.

Maariv said that the R65 was caught near the home of a sheikh in the community of Hayel in Saudi Arabia. The words "Tel Aviv University" etched in English on a ring clasped to its leg, and especially the transmitter, caused the finders to suspect espionage and alert the security forces.

Ohad Hatzofe, bird ecologist for the Nature and Parks Authority, said that the vulture story has been making the rounds in Arabic internet sites, including Al-Jazeera forums and Arabic military forums. "The subject is receiving great publicity and it is important that Saudi authorities understand that it is not true. There is also an international treaty of nature protection professionals, that forbids doing things like this," he added.

The researchers said that seven vultures that were marked n Israel in the last few years reached Saudi Arabia. Transmissions from four of them have ceased and they are presumed dead. One vulture - beside R65 - is still alive and flying around Saudi Arabia, after spending the winter in Sudan.

Original URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141529

Gil Ronen

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

A World Against Israel

by Joseph Pruder

The pan-Arab newspaper Ashraq Alawsat ^[1] based in London reported on December 25, 2010 that the Palestinians have adopted another strategy in an attempt to gain international recognition of a Palestinian state. “Indeed, the Palestinian side has achieved success in this regard, particularly in Latin America, with Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia officially recognizing an independent state of Palestine …, and Uruguay, Ecuador, and Paraguay expected to officially recognize the State of Palestine,” the paper said.

And it now appears that the 27 incorporated states of the European Union are ready ^[2] to follow the Latin American states in recognizing a Palestinian State along the 1967 borders, with France and Norway in the lead.

This hasty and deliberate act of support for a Palestinian state can only be attributed to the following: a) an act of defiance against the U.S., and the triumph of the radical axis of Chavez (Venezuela), Ahamdinejad (Iran), their new friend Lula of Brazil, and others (such as Cuba’s Castro); b) the failure of the Obama administration to exert its influence in South America. Obama’s appeasement of the aforementioned radicals convinced Argentina, Uruguay and other traditionally friendly states to go with the “strong horse” represented by Chavez in Latin America; c) the Latin Americans, much like the Europeans, seek to ingratiate themselves with the Arabs, and the greater Muslim world, and they do so believing that such action – which will be harmful to Israel — poses no serious consequences to them.

Given the large Arab populations in many of the Latin American countries, especially Argentina and Brazil, recognition of a Palestinian state will not have any negative domestic consequences either. It will, however, adversely impact the prospects of a real peace between Arab Palestinians and Israeli Jews.

The Fatah-led Palestinians of the West Bank, apart from their rivals, the Islamic Hamas of Gaza, are seeking to declare statehood unilaterally. They deliberately pulled out of negotiations with Israel, despite Israel’s concession of a 10-month building freeze, which ended last September.

In truth, Abu Mazen’s (Mahmoud Abbas) unelected ^[3] regime, which failed to stand for elections last January, has chosen the same path Arafat ^[4] took in the aftermath of the July 2000 Camp David Summit with President Bill Clinton and Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

When the moment of truth arrived, and all that was left to do after Barak had offered deep unilateral Israeli concessions was for Arafat to agree to a declaration of “End of Conflict,” Arafat turned away. He, the revolutionary who fought the Jews all of his adult life and encouraged others to join him, could not end the bloody conflict – possibly for fear it would end him.

For Arafat, much like Abu Mazen, real peace with Israel was a non-starter. The dream for Arafat, and now for Abu Mazen, was to delegitimize the Jewish State and take it over – if not at once, then in stages ^[5]. And the only deal Abu Mazen would sign is one in which he does not have to make a real peace: a people-to-people peace, or a real end of conflict. He could sign on to a “sort-of-peace,” that we in the West would consider a long cease-fire, but he will never agree ^[6] to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jews, as he recently stated.

Consequently, anti-Semitic incitement continues to be preached in Palestinian schools, mosques, and media. A new generation of Palestinians continues to be poisoned by the hatred of Jews and Israel, and members are ready to become martyrs for Allah and Palestine.

There are no signs to indicate that the Palestinians either in the West Bank or Gaza are willing to live in peace with Israel and recognize it as a Jewish State. Abu Mazen, assuming that he even sought real peace, is well aware of the fact that any signature other than that of a specific “hudna” or temporary peace would cost him his life.

Another misnomer that has entered the international lexicon is the “1967 borders ^[7].” Alan Baker, former legal advisor to Israel’s foreign ministry and Israel’s ambassador to Canada explained:

[S]uch borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries.

Baker, who is currently serving as director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, elaborated further on the issue of the 1967 borders:

UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 acknowledged the need for negotiation of secure and recognized boundaries. Prominent jurists and UN delegates, including from Brazil and Jordan, acknowledged that the previous lines cannot be considered as international boundaries. The series of agreements between the PLO and Israel (1993-1999) reaffirm the intention and commitment of the parties to negotiate permanent borders. During all phases of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, there was never any determination as to a border based on the 1967 lines.

Reacting to the Palestinians’ efforts to declare their state unilaterally without negotiations with Israel, the lame duck U.S. Congressman and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman (D-CA), who introduced a resolution on this issue (which passed unanimously on December 15, 2010) said: ”Pursuing ^[8] a non-negotiated path to statehood is a fool’s errand. Palestinians want a state, not a declaration. Their only way to achieve that is through direct negotiations with Israel.” Berman added, “If they try to circumvent negotiations, they’ll lose the support of a lot of people like me, and it will jeopardize their foreign aid as well.”

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who will replace Berman in the next Congressional session, was more direct in warning the Palestinians that U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) should be conditioned on the PA living up to its obligations to stop violence against Israel, recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a democratic Jewish state, and fulfilling other obligations. “These ^[8] unilateral efforts serve to undermine the prospects that those obligations might finally be met,” she said.

Abu Mazen and the PA leadership’s current campaign to get international recognition for Palestinian statehood amounts to shirking the obligations undertaken with the 1993 Oslo Accords. While a similar campaign was tried by Arafat in 1988 and abandoned, Abu Mazen believes that this effort would at the minimum extract additional concessions from Israel without the PA having to reciprocate. Abbas hopes, moreover, that in light of President Obama’s pro-Palestinian bias, he might let them get away with this unilateral and destructive effort, by abstaining from a possible U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood.

URLs in this post:

[1] Ashraq Alawsat: http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=23551

[2] ready: http://community.history.com/topic/26119

[3] unelected: http://reut-blog.org/2008/09/25/palestinian-elections-2009-hamas-fatah/

[4] Arafat: http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/6/rejectionism.htm

[5] stages: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_plo_phasedplan_1974.php

[6] never agree: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0.734.L-3969948.00.html

[7] 1967 borders: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID

[8] Pursuing: http://www.jpost/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=199299

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/03/a-world-against-israel/

Joseph Pruder

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

Denying the Jihad Against Christians

by Robert Spencer

An Islamic jihad-martyrdom suicide bomber murdered twenty-two people ^[1] and wounded eighty more at the Coptic Christian Church of the Saints in Alexandria, Egypt on New Year’s Eve. Predictably enough, this mass murder has not resulted in any worldwide revulsion against Islamic jihadists, or general recognition of how Islamic supremacists and jihadists are persecuting Christians not only in Egypt, but in Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, and elsewhere also. Instead, it has brought only new and imaginative twists on the usual evasion, obfuscation, denial and finger-pointing that generally follow jihad attacks.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak ^[2] was one of the first to muddy the waters, claiming that “foreign hands… a terrorist operation that is alien to us,” rather than homegrown jihadists, carried out the attack. “All of Egypt is targeted,” Mubarak went on, digging deeper. “This blind terrorism does not differentiate between Copts and Muslims.”

Yet no mosque was targeted, and no Muslim was killed. It was a remarkable coincidence that this “blind terrorism” that did not “differentiate between Copts and Muslims” struck at a Coptic church, killing only Christians and no Muslims at all.

But the facts didn’t stop Barack Obama, either. Obama’s statement ^[3] was better than Mubarak’s in that he acknowledged that “the perpetrators of this attack were clearly targeting Christian worshipers.” However, he also claimed that the attack killed and injured people “from both the Christian and Muslim communities.” No Muslims were actually killed or injured in the attack. And if the perpetrators (unnamed by Obama) were indeed “clearly targeting Christian worshipers,” what was Obama’s point in going out of his way to say that Muslims were hurt also? Did that claim make the crime more heinous in his eyes? Or did he think that it would mitigate the harsh reality of the fact that believing Muslims, acting in the name of Islam, were the anonymous perpetrators that he dared not name?

Others found more imaginative ways to try to mitigate that harsh reality. Lebanese Shi’ite leader Sheikh Abdel Amir Kabalan said ^[4]: “This terrorist act bears the fingerprints of Zionists who keep on targeting religious sights [sic] and are working to … sow discord between Muslims and Christians.” Iran’s PressTV ^[5], in an unsigned editorial, struck a tone so similar as to give the impression that a set of talking points were being circulated: “The fresh plot by terrorists to target churches is an organized Zionist scenario aimed at creating a rift between Muslims and Christians.”

This preposterous claim has been circulating for awhile. A Saudi Sheikh, Salman al-Awda, a member of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s International Union for Muslim Scholars, made the same assertion ^[6] about other recent jihad attacks against Christians in the Middle East: “These are tools in the hands of the Zionists, Israelis, Europeans, and Orientals, with the goal of damaging Islam.” Even one Middle Eastern Christian leader climbed on this bandwagon: the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III Laham declared ^[7] several weeks ago that Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East “is actually a conspiracy planned by Zionism and some Christians with Zionist orientations and it aims at undermining and giving a bad image of Islam.”

Mamdouh Nakhla of Egypt’s Al-Kalema Human Rights Center skewered both Mubarak’s claim that “foreign hands” had carried out the attack and the anti-Semitic conspiracy paranoia that pointed the finger at Israel. “The crime is local,” declared Nakhla, “and those who committed it are known…The Al Mujahedeen website threatens to repeat the attack in more churches. The site has addresses of churches and even how to make a bomb. Does security not know about it? Anyone who says that it was a foreign or Israeli plot is trying to play down the crime and is trying to clear those murderers of this massacre, and I consider them their accomplices.”

Accomplices were found elsewhere as well. Eyewitnesses stated ^[8] that security forces had left the area around the church about an hour before the explosion, but when enraged Copts started throwing stones at a nearby mosque, security forces immediately reappeared and starting firing tear gas at the Copts. Says Michael Meunier, president of the U.S. Copts Association: “Mubarak’s regime has not only ignored, but in many cases contributed to the alarming increase in anti-Coptic violence.”

Pope Benedict XVI ^[4], meanwhile, called for “concrete and constant engagement of leaders of nations” to ensure the safety of Middle Eastern Christians. In response, Ahmed al Tayeb, the Imam of Cairo’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, denounced ^[9] the Pope’s “interference” in the internal affairs of Egypt. Apparently Egyptian authorities can deal with their Zionist crypto-jihadists on their own, without meddling from the Vatican.

The denial and obfuscation is coming from other quarters as well. Human rights groups and many Christians in the West have been strangely silent about Muslim persecution of Christians. Many American Christians are surprised just to discover that there are ancient communities of Christians in Islamic lands at all. Extending a helping hand to them necessarily involves difficult issues of American relationships with Islamic countries, which is enough to make the task too daunting for most.

And so Islamic jihadists and Sharia supremacists continue, with ever increasing confidence and brutality, to prey on the Christians in their midst, while those who should be working to protect them make excuses and look the other way. And so in the absence of any realistic appraisal of these jihad attacks, nothing is more certain than that such attacks will continue to occur, both in Egypt and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

URLs in this post:

[1] murdered twenty-two people: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Death-toll-in-Egypt-church-bomb-blast-rises-to-22-/articleshow/7208421.cms

[2] Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/mubarak-blames-foreign-hand-for-church-attack-1.739242

[3] Obama’s statement: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/01/statement-president-terrorist-attacks-egypt-and-nigeria

[4] said: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pope+leads+condemnation+Egypt+church+attack/4048033/story.html

[5] PressTV: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/158351.html

[6] made the same assertion: http://translating-jihad.blogspot.com/2010/12/sheikh-al-awda-terrorists-work-in.html

[7] Gregory III Laham declared: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=122232#axzz17KeYYrWe

[8] Eyewitnesses stated: http://www.aina.org/news/20110101232613.htm

[9] denounced: http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201101021501-cro-ren1049-egypt_imam_of_al_azhar_criticises_pope_s_interference

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/03/denying-the-jihad-against-christians/

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch.

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

Alan Dershowitz, Won’t You Please Come Home?

by David Solway

When I read Alan Dershowitz, I sometimes feel like printing his face on the side of a milk carton and hoping someone will recognize him. Maybe that way he might be found and restored to his proper home. As I’ve written before, in such books as The Case for Israel ^[1], The Case for Peace ^[2] and The Case Against Israel’s Enemies ^[3], Dershowitz does yeoman service on behalf of the beleaguered and universally misprised Jewish state, establishing the country’s historical and juridical rights to existence. And yet, when it comes to the international figure who may well be the most serious threat to Israel’s well-being and perhaps even to its survival—by whom I mean not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but Barack Obama—Dershowitz’s pen tilts to the “sinister” side of the page as he no doubt meditates his still unwritten The Case for Obama.

For example, in a recent essay ^[4] exposing the lies and bigotry—indeed, the not-so-latent anti-Semitism of the Reverend Desmond Tutu—Dershowitz concludes by scrubbing clean the image of the American president. “I am confident,” he writes, “that President Obama was not aware of Tutu’s sordid history of anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions when he awarded him the Medal of Freedom.” This is pure nonsense. Obama surely has a team of researchers, advisers and vetters, trained to implement careful procedures of assessment, who would have made him intimately aware of Tutu’s unforgiveable ignominy and malevolence. After all, it’s not as if Tutu’s “anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions” are a closely guarded secret. A Google half-minute would have sufficed to reveal Tutu for who he is.

Further, Dershowitz must know that Obama also awarded the now much-tarnished Medal to Mary Robinson at the same time as Tutu. Robinson, of course, was one of the chief instigators of the Durban I conference on racism which quickly descended into a torrent of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist hatred, in which Israel was accused of being a practicing apartheid state and anyone visibly Jewish on the conference premises had to worry about personal safety. She also used her tenure as president of Ireland and as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to denigrate ^[5] the West and cashier Israeli rights. Robinson’s deep prejudice is perhaps even better known than Tutu’s, but the two of them make a heraldic couple, a marriage consummated in anti-Semitic heaven. By affecting to ignore so stark a violation of common decency as awarding high honors to the patently undeserving, Dershowitz once again slides behind the wheel of the president’s getaway car.

Obama has much to answer for but Dershowitz isn’t asking any probing questions. Obama’s duplicitous and historically inaccurate Cairo Address, in which among its many blunders and falsifications, we learn that Israel owes its inception primarily to the Holocaust, went right by him. “I think the Cairo speech could have been better,” was Dershowitz’s lame reaction ^[6]. Obama’s reneging on the settlement consensus worked out between Israel and the former American administration does not seem to trouble the learned scholar. Obama’s appointment of anti-Zionist figures, such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power, to positions of importance seems a matter of no interest. Obama’s friendships with clearly anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli agitators, like pastor Jeremiah Wright, former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers has not the slightest effect on Dershowitz’s loyalty to a president who espouses precisely what Dershowitz clearly deplores. As far as I know, Obama’s churlish and unprecedented treatment of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew not a disapproving peep from this great advocate of the Jewish state. Dershowitz does not so much as notice what National Post columnist George Jonas called ^[7] “the malodorous miasma of gall, social engineering zeal, anti-Semitism and Arabist agenda that emanates from the Obama administration.”

True, in recent articles for the Jerusalem Post ^[8] and the New York Post ^[9], Dershowitz has criticized the president for getting the ‘linkage” between Israeli settlements and Iran’s nuclear ambitions backwards. This moment of lèse majesté was softened by a concessive “With due respect to the man I supported for president” and has not resulted in an overt act of repudiation of the president’s muddled policies and painfully evident inclinations.

Dershowitz’s indifference to the blatantly obvious is something of a conundrum. He is far too astute not to see that Obama has no love for the tiny country he has spent much of his career defending. Dershowitz has long been among the most eloquent and erudite supporters of the Jewish state. His opposition to the “settlements” may or may not be misguided but, in book after book, he has consolidated the “case for Israel” about as well as anyone can be expected to. At the same time, despite his transient critique of Obama’s position on the Middle East, he remains staunchly in the president’s camp, a strong liberal and a voting Democrat. I frankly cannot see how one can have it both ways, since Barack Obama is manifestly no friend of Israel and liberal Democrats are far less likely to promote Israel’s welfare than are conservative Republicans. Something does not compute.

What is Dershowitz’s problem? Is it the liberal cocktail circuit’s come-hither? Is it the Lucullan mindscape of Harvard University—where, interestingly enough, Islamic facilitators ^[10] and academic revelers like Roy Mottahedeh (Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Islamic Studies Program) and Noah Feldman (Bemis Professor of International Law) prance about, without Dershowitz’s pushback? Is it the inability to reverse a lifelong commitment to an ideological cause? Is it Obama’s liberal-left agenda that attracts socialists and socialites alike, irrespective of massive failure? (American Jews are especially prone to this aberration.)

Maybe Dershowitz sees himself as a gentle mentor to the president, coddling him toward a more profound grasp of Middle East complexities? Are we dealing with what Czeslaw Milosz in The Captive Mind ^[11], borrowing from the Arabic, called “ketman,” the false stance adopted by a person “in order to find himself at one with others, in order not to be alone”? Or adherence to a social convention that issues in the evasion of unpalatable truths which are not in themselves that obscure, in other words, the usual politically correct response to the problems of the age? Or perhaps a cognitive scotoma, a blind spot that blots out an emotionally unacceptable part of reality? “I know Obama’s views on Israel,” says ^[6] Dershowitz, “I don’t agree with all of them, but he is definitely not anti-Israel.”

Earth to Dershowitz: It’s time to recalibrate your coordinates. Obama is never where one thinks he is—except far to the left of one’s rehabilitating gaze. Why would any intelligent person side with an administration that is visibly committed, to quote ^[12] the excellent Pamela Geller, “to weakening American power and collaborating with the ascension of the Muslim world,” the latter to Israel’s undeniable detriment? Or perhaps the issue should be framed differently. As star journalist and political author Mark Steyn suggests ^[13], “I suppose it’s conceivable that there are a few remaining suckers out there who still believe Barack Obama is the great post-partisan, fiscally responsible, pragmatic centrist he played so beguilingly just a year ago.”

Barack Obama is the litmus test for all conscientious citizens—blue state or red state, so to speak. For devoted liberals with brains, the question remains: Will they eventually contrive to disenchant themselves and emerge from the political hallucination to which they have so readily succumbed? And for advocates of the Jewish state, Obama should provoke a crisis of conviction, one which should not be allowed to go to waste.

Whatever the reason for Dershowitz’s sinuous temporizing and defection from the obvious, it would be a day of jubilation were the prodigal son to return home, that is, to a clear-sighted apprehension of the real relation between Washington and Jerusalem as it is currently being played out. For he has spent far too long sojourning in alien lands where deceit and stupefaction reign. There might be something, after all, to the apothegm from Ecclesiastes 10:2: “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.”

URLs in this post:

[1] The Case for Israel: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Israel-Alan-Dershowitz/dp/0471679526/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250606714&sr=1-2

[2] The Case for Peace: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Peace-Arab-Israeli-Conflict-Resolved/dp/047004585X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250606714&sr=1-8

[3] The Case Against Israel’s Enemies: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israels-Enemies-Exposing/dp/0470490055/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250606714&sr=1-1

[4] essay: http://frontpagemag.com../2010/12/24/tutu-and-the-jews/

[5] denigrate: http://www.politikditto.com/2009/08/obama-honors-anti-american-anti-semite.html

[6] reaction: http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=1106

[7] called: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=aada659b-313c-4bf3-a16f-8d4090be9689&k=99747

[8] Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=198806

[9] New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_UN3NR9M9yrIRcnD3wUYUjI

[10] Islamic facilitators: http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/03/16/dershowitz-silent-as-harvard-becomes-the-hub-for-sharia/

[11] The Captive Mind: http://www.amazon.com/Captive-Mind-Czeslaw-Milosz/dp/0679728562/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293392867&sr=1-1

[12] quote: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/12/islamic-supremacism-target-a-takeover-of-the-internet.html

[13] suggests: http://innerbanks.blogspot.com/2009/08/untangling-spaghetti.html

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/03/alan-dershowitz-won%E2%80%99t-you-please-come-home/

David Solway

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

Mossad Behind Slaughter of Egyptian Christians: Iran

by Rick Moran

Give them a "B+" for moxie but an "F" for originality; the official Iranian news agency is blaming the terrorist attack in Egypt that killed 21 Chirstians on - wait for it - the Israeli spy agency Mossad:

Although, at first glance, the finger is pointed at extremist Wahabi or Salafi groups, it goes without saying that no Muslim, whatever their political leanings may be, will ever commit such an inhumane act.

M'kay - so news travels slowly in that part of the world.

Attacks on churches in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia can be analyzed in the context of a Zionist scenario aimed at driving a wedge between Muslims and Arab Christians.

Since the emergence of Islam, Muslims and Christians in the East have always coexisted peacefully as Islam pays due respect to the freedom of divine faiths -- especially Christianity.

It's not hard for Middle Eastern Christians to be peaceful when they've got a boot on their neck.

The fresh plot by terrorists to target churches is an organized Zionist scenario aimed at creating a rift between Muslims and Christians.

Following its intelligence and security failures in Egypt and the apprehension of a number of Mossad agents by Egyptian intelligence apparatus, the Zionist regime of Israel is set to exact vengeance on the Egyptian nation.

For years, Israel and the United States have resorted to radical groups with no affiliation to divine faiths to carry out acts of terror against Christians in Islamic countries.

Based on this scenario, the Israeli regime urges deviant anti-religion groups to conduct terrorist operations against Christians.

These guys remind me of liberal bloggers; printing something with absolutely no proof and an analysis that any 4th grader could easily tear apart.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at this kind of nonsense. After all, President Ahmadinejad blames 9/11 on either Mossad or the US government, depending on what audience he is addressing. And this "analysis" will no doubt resonate with that sizable portion of Muslims who are conditioned to believe only the worst about Israel and the United States.

Still, if Iran ever wants to join other grown up nations, they better learn how to be a little more subtle in their propaganda, as well as adhering to standards that would demand at least one scintilla of evidence that what they are proposing is true.

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

Rick Moran

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

Al Qaeda's English-Language Magazine: Inspire

by Rachel Marsden

When nine young men of a common religion in the UK were recently charged with plotting to blow up various tourist sites -- Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, and the London Eye -- police reportedly found two issues of an English language Al Qaeda magazine named Inspire, published in Yemen. The UK Telegraph reports that articles recovered in the raid include titles like "How to make a pipe bomb in the kitchen of your mom," and "What to expect in jihad."

A few more issues were online at Public Intelligence's website; both government officials and terrorism specialists consider them to be authentic Al Qaeda publications, although Public Intelligence recommends scrutiny.

In a "special issue," published in November 2010 focuses on "Operation Hemorrhage": the explosion of a UPS plane after take-off from Dubai airport in September 2010; the issue opens by bragging about their cost savings in the operation, a bargain basement blowout at $4,200.

Next, an editorial signed by "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" explains how they did it: by sending an explosive package through each through UPS and FedEx -- one blew up upon leaving Dubai; the other made it to London before being intercepted thanks to a tip from the Saudis. The editorial laments that the American media did not properly credit Al Qaeda with the attack. It questions whether President Obama is wilfully [sic] ignorant, incompetent, or just clueless: "We would like to ask: Why didn't the enemy reveal the truth about what happened with the downed UPS plane? Is it because the enemy could not discover why the plane was brought down? Or was it because the Obama administration wanted to conceal the truth so it doesn't expose the failure of his administration especially that it was during an election season?"

Al Qaeda concludes that because they did not get proper credit, they are just going to lay low and repeat the act. So much for the theory that if you just ignore them, they will fade away.

Al Qaeda also has a bone to pick with the Saudi government for "interfering" with this special delivery meant for "Jewish synagogues" and "proving their love for Jews" in the process.

They brag that their confidence in the mission's success was so great that they dropped a copy of Charles Dickens's novel Great Expectations into one of the packages. Claiming that both packages were destined for synagogues in Chicago ("Obama's city"), they singled out a "gay and lesbian" synagogue for one of them.

Next is Ikrimah Al-Muhajir of the "Explosives Department" with the "technical details": "We have been blessed by Allah to be able to sidestep the metal detection equipment. That capability was a result of avoiding the use of metal altogether in our detonators. We have developed five such detonators." A photo of an airport body scanner accompanying the detailed construction and composition of the explosives features the caption: "Metal detectors are amateurish."

A 67-page "2010 summer issue" of the magazine features a page of "collection of quotes from friend and foe" around the world – with one such "friend" apparently being late-night comedian David Letterman, who joked, "In [President George W. Bush's book] Decision Points, he will reveal all the bad decisions and mistakes that George Bush made as president…this is volume one."

Letterman would perhaps be touched to know that by including him in this section, Al Qaeda considers him a political leader on a par with French President Sarkozy, US Secretary of Defence Bill Gates, and King Abdullah of Jordan.

Osama bin Laden himself weighs in on page 8, with an essay entitled, "The Way To Save The Earth." Bin Laden attacks "Bush Junior" on "global warming," and adds that Noam Chomsky is right in identifying capitalists as "the real terrorists."

On page 33 is the 8-page mom's kitchen pipe-bomb recipe from the "Al Qaeda Chef," followed by the article on things to expect in jihad, and lists expectations such as: language barrier; culture blending; bring a friend; and pack light because you'll be moving around a lot.

One of the editions has a list of emails at the end, in case anyone wants to contact or contribute to the publication. But they take care to add that lately they have been having problems getting to their emails.

Original URL:http://www.hudson-ny.org/1772/al-qaeda-magazine-inspire

Rachel Marsden

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