"Arabian Gulf" and Other Fairytales

by Franck Salameh

A recent Kuwait Times news-story announced a $4.5m gift to George Washington University's Institute for Middle East Studies, courtesy of the Government of Kuwait. On the face of it this piece of news is less than newsworthy; endowed Chairs and research institutes supported by Middle Eastern governments with dubious human rights records and illusive academic credentials have become the bloodline of Middle East and Islamic Studies at America's leading universities. Harvard and Georgetown are beneficiaries of tens of millions of dollars in grants from such renowned donors as the House of Saud, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the al-Nahayan Charitable and Humanitarian Foundation, and the Bin Laden dynasty—all, incidentally, affiliated with states notorious for their poor Human Rights records. Likewise are Princeton, Columbia and Cornell recipients of donations from morally repugnant Middle Eastern regimes. The recent flurry of news about distinguished American academics lending their influence and expertise to burnish the less than savory reputation of Middle Eastern despots—a scheme Tufts University's Daniel W. Drezner termed "Scholars for Dollars"—is only the latest manifestation of this trend.[1] And so, George Washington's latest gift from Kuwait's al-Sabbaah dynasty is arguably another attempt by a "first among equals" at keeping up with the Joneses.

To be fair, universities solicit and receive grants from a variety of sources, most of them reputable and legitimate, philanthropic in nature, often with no strings attached; others with less than innocent intents, meant to curry favor and influence pre-determined outcomes. But even when university gifts stem from altruistic impulses—with the greater good and the advancement of knowledge as lodestars—they can be cause for alarm and can potentially taint an academic institution and prejudice its mission.

A case in point is the way in which the Kuwaiti Government—one of the world's worst human trafficking offenders[2]—spun its recent George Washington University donation for media and public relations gains, both in the US and at home. The Kuwait Times spoke with swagger of a longstanding "distinctive and solid" relationship between the Kuwaiti Government and George Washington University; it flaunted the fact that GW had awarded the Emir of Kuwait an Honorary Doctorate of Law in 2005, and claimed the university had established a Kuwait Chair to conduct "research and studies on the Arabian Gulf region."[3]

Ahem, exactly where in the world is "the Arabian Gulf region," and does George Washington University really do research and teach courses on "the Arabian Gulf"?

Laughable and false as it may sound, the phrase "Arabian Gulf" is perhaps not much cause for concern; especially when GW's homepage defined the Chair in question as one devoted explicitly to the study of the "Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs;" an artful choice of semantics that heeded the donor's dislikes—by omitting the adjective in "Persian Gulf"—and maintained for the university a modicum of academic integrity by feigning to indulge an "Arabian Gulf" fantasy. Still, this is a slippery slope in an academic field already fraught with emotions and ideological rivalries, and one long mired in political advocacy.

Speaking of the Persian Empire's importance during antiquity, the appellation Sinus Persicus (today, the "Persian Gulf") reflects a very old usage, one going back to Strabo (64BC-AD24), perhaps even to earlier Classical Greek and later Roman geographers. Even tenth century Arab cartographers, and Arabic-language maps in more recent times, have referred to the Persian Gulf as "Khaliij Faaris" ("the Gulf of Persia"), seemingly unbothered by its non-Arab pedigree. In 1917, the US State Department's Board of Geographical Names designated the Persian Gulf as the sole official name of the region in question.[4] The United Nations followed suit in 1975 and again in 1984.[5] Yet, it was recently revealed that the United States Navy has been using the term "Arabian Gulf" for decades, "out of deference for US allies in the region."[6] "Our [Arab] partners […] use [the Arabian Gulf], and so do we," said US Navy spokesman Lt. Myers Vasquez.[7]

Whether driven by ideological or pragmatic concerns, indulging such falsities and bowing to the neuroses of one's political partners can have dire consequences; especially when the partners in question are known practitioners of cultural suppression, oppression of minorities, historical revisionism, and rejection of minority narratives.

Seemingly bland terms such as "the Arabian Gulf" (or even the "Arab world," to name another of Arab nationalism's favored ideological talismans) are misleading at best. The "Arab Middle East"—an inaccurate construct, again "out of deference for US allies in the region"—is home to an estimated population of 300 million people.. Among them are 15 million Kurds, 15 million Copts, 25 million Berbers, 7 million Jews, and tens of millions of Armenians, Southern Sudanese, Maronites, Assyrians, and others, all of whom non-Arab "users" of a slew of Arabic-defined languages. Yet American political expediency, moral abdication—or "deference for US allies in the region"—seem unworried by this kind of pandering to Arabist assumptions and outmoded Arab colonialist models.

Albeit a Western coinage, colonialism and imperialism are not exclusively Western. And although they were wars waged against Muslims, the Crusades and Reconquista were delayed defensive endeavors, not colonial enterprises, and not a prelude to modern European Colonialism—as is often the portrayal in remorseful Western narratives.[8] Conquest and colonialism have, instead, been salient chapters in Muslim history (from the seventh century Arabians, to the fifteenth century Ottomans), and Muslim colonialists preceded their European charges down that path by close to a millennium.[9] The Iberian Peninsula, Central Eurasia, Western Asia, the Fertile Crescent, and Northern Africa were home to venerable civilizations prior to the Muslim-Arab conquests of the seventh century. What came to be called the "Arab world" during the twentieth century is anything but an exclusively Arab preserve. Pluralism and multiplicity of identities have been hallmarks of Middle Eastern history for millennia—even as modern Arabists seek to blur this reality. The Brill Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics writes that prior to the Arab conquests of the seventh century the region now misleadingly labeled the "Arab world"

had hosted many other cultures, including the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. […] The legacies of these pre-Islamic peoples and cultures did not all simply disappear with the advent of the Muslim Arabs. […] Peoples of the region resisted the forces of Arabicization, Islamicization, or both, [and] earlier cultures [have remained, alongside] groups convinced that their ancestors belonged to a people different from [the "Arabs".][10]

Yet, the Arab colonialist view of a cohesive uniform "Arab world," denuded of its pre-Arab heritage, seeps into America's official, academic, and popular Middle Eastern discourse. Never mind that a good third of Middle Easterners are not Arab; never mind that they still use languages and partake of collective memories distinct from those of Arabs; and never mind that their national names, place-names, and parameters of identity are explicitly non-Arab. The Arab die is cast, and "deference for US allies in the region" seems to justify shedding historical clarity and shirking academic decency.

Syro-Lebanese poet Adonis recently offered a devastating appraisal of this worldview. The image of the universe that Arabs have built around themselves and the political culture they spawned, he wrote, are completely closed to the outside world; Arabs and Arab nationalists are resentful, scornful, and loath to diversity.[11] Theirs is "a kind of culture, […] where the 'other' is Evil, Hell, Satan […] and where distinctness and plurality are rejected out of hand."[12] This is the monolithic Middle East that is being legitimized and intellectualized at America's leading universities today; a Middle East where the millenarian "Persian Gulf" is re-christened "Arabian," where a rich tapestry of cultures is deemed a uniform "Arab world," and where ancient pre-Arab peoples who so much as mutter]an idiom resembling "Arabic" are summarily anointed "Arabs."

[1] Daniel W. Drezner, "Thoughts about IR Scholars for Dollars", Foreign Policy, Tuesday March 8, 2011.
[2] United States State Department, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2009
[3] Kuwait Times, "Kuwait Gifts $4.5m to GW University," March 5, 2011
[4] See Franck Salameh's "Middlebury's Arabic Morass" in Middle East Quarterly, Vol. XIII, no. 3, Summer 2006, pp. 42-43.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Judson Berger, "U.S. Navy Rankles Iranians for Calling Persian Gulf 'Arabian Gulf'," FoxNews.com, December 10, 2010.
[7] Ibid
[8] Thomas F. Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006), pp. 1-3.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Kees Versteegh, Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Brill, 2009.
[11] Adonis, Identité Inachevée [Unfinished Identity], (Paris: Editions du Rocher, 2004), pp. 22-23.
[12] Ibid.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1977/arabian-gulf

Franck Salameh

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

Are the Palestinians Ready for Statehood?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Almost every week, the Palestinian Authority reaffirms its intention to seek the international community's recognition in September of an independent Palestinian state on the 1948 armistice lines.

Palestinian leaders in the West Bank say that the Palestinians are ready for statehood, and all what is needed now is that the United Nations recognize the state even without an agreement with Israel.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat revealed this week that the Palestinian leadership has prepared a draft document that would be presented to the UN in the coming weeks. The document, Erekat said, calls for official recognition of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, including east Jerusalem.

The Palestinians, he added, have reached the conclusion that there is no point in conducting peace talks with the government of Binyamin Netanyahu because of his refusal to withdraw from "all" the territories that were occupied in 1967.

The Palestinian Authority has also decided that it does not necessarily have to wait until September to seek UN recognition of the state. In recent months and weeks, Palestinian leaders have approached many countries, asking them to declare their recognition of a future Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines.

So far, a number of South American countries have responded positively. But these countries did not bother to ask Palestinian Authority leaders whether the Palestinians were prepared for statehood.

Had the South American governments checked, they would have discovered that the Palestinians already have two "states" – one in the West Bank and the second in the Gaza Strip. This has been the reality on the ground ever since Hamas managed to throw the Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007.

The Palestinian Authority is asking the world to recognize a state on the pre-1967 lines when it has no control over the Gaza Strip. Abbas cannot even visit his private residence in Gaza City because it has been occupied by Hamas.

Moreover, Abbas does not have a real mandate to negotiate or strike any deal with any party on behalf of a majority of Palestinians, particularly since his term in office expired in January 2009.

Abbas is seeking the world's recognition of a state when he knows that he also cannot even hold elections without Hamas's approval.

His recent announcement that he would hold presidential and legislative elections is not being taken seriously because of opposition from Hamas and other Palestinian groups.

Now Abbas is saying that he is ready to take the risk and travel to the Gaza Strip to try to convince Hamas to change its position and agree at least to the formation of a new Palestinian "unity" government. But this new initiative is also not being taken seriously, not even buy [by] his own Fatah faction: they believe Abbas is saying this only for local consumption, not only to show that he cares about unity, but also because they know that the gap between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is too wide and too difficult for this dispute to be solved at the moment.

Before seeking international recognition of an independent Palestinian state, the Palestinian Authority needs to get its act together and end the ongoing power struggle between the two Palestinian entities.

For now, it seems that everyone is against everyone in the Palestinian Authority: Abbas against Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is against Fatah, which is against Fayyad; the PLO is against Fatah, some of whose members are also against Abbas.

And then there is Fatah against Hamas, which is against all the others.

With such a mess, it is hard to say that the Palestinians are prepared for statehood.

Even if the UN does recognize such a state later this year, the reality on the ground will remain unchanged. While Abbas is aware of that, he is still hoping that a unilateral recognition of a state will increase international pressure on Israel to isolate it even further.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1981/palestinians-ready-for-statehood

Khaled Abu Toameh

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

No 'Revolution' for Egypt's Christians

by Raymond Ibrahim

On March 5, Muslims attacked, plundered, and set ablaze an ancient Coptic church in Sool, a village near Cairo, Egypt. Afterwards, throngs of Muslims gathered around the scorched building and pounded its walls down with sledge hammers—to cries of "Allahu Akbar!" Adding insult to injury, the attackers played "soccer" with the relic-remains of the church's saints and martyrs and transformed the desecrated church into a mosque (a live example of history, which witnessed countless churches seized and transformed into mosques). As a result of Christian girls being abducted and raped and overall terroriz[ing] of the Coptic community, thousands fled the village. (See this letter to Egypt's military leadership signed by twenty congressmen discussing this and similar anecdotes.)

This latest church rampage was initiated by Muslims killing each other over an affair between a Christian man and a Muslim woman—and then transferring their violence onto the Copts of the region and their church.

Muhammad Hassan

Radical sheikh Muhammad Hassan, who was commissioned to investigate the incident, recently shared his "findings" on Egyptian TV. After insisting to Coptic viewers that "Islam is a religion of peace, mercy, and justice," he said that the "Muslim youth" who attacked the church never intended to do so; rather, they went there searching for a Coptic man. After invading the church, they discovered ancient liturgical books in the Coptic script, and papers with the names of Muslims. These were interpreted as "sorcery"—hence, they destroyed the church. (The fact is, some Muslims venerate St. Mary and often submit their names at churches for intercession.)

Not once did Hassan condemn the Muslim perpetrators. He even referred to the Copts as "dhimmis" and "pact-holders," prompting outrage among Egypt's indigenous Christian population, or as one Copt put it: "Hassan wants to make Dhimmis out of us… I thought we were living in [a] country with a constitution and a police force and not in Mecca or Medina, 14 centuries ago. Or maybe this is a first step to later subject Christians to Jizya for protection."

As medieval as this entire anecdote is—and as anachronistic as Hassan's rationale of "sorcery" is—none of this is surprising. What is disappointing, however, is that the Egyptian army—recently touted as the noble "savior" of the Egyptian people—and the Arabic media—which provided 24-hour coverage of the Tahrir Square protests—have both blatantly demonstrated their bias against Egypt's Christians.

Portrayed in the Western media as magnanimous for restraining itself against Egypt's civilians during the recent uprisings, not only did the Egyptian army allow the wanton destruction of the church to go unfettered, but it also opened fire on Christians protesting the burning of the church, killing nine and seriously wounding at least a hundred, some beaten with electric batons. Coptic activist lawyer Sherif Ramzy, who was among those assaulted, said that the soldiers also cried "Allahu Akbar" before attacking the Copts, adding, "This only shows that the army is infiltrated by Islamists."

Nor was this the first time since Mubarak was ousted that the military attacked Copts: in late February, armed forces, including tanks, opened fire on a 5^th century monastery (as churches are accused of "sorcery," monasteries are accused of stockpiling weapons). Likewise, as Muslims spent some twenty hours pulverizing the church at Sool with sledge hammers, neither the military, nor state security ever appeared—and this near Cairo, Egypt's capital, not some inaccessible village.

Coptic protesters at Maspiro

Where has the Egyptian and Arab media been in all this? Not only have they tried to bypass all of these unpleasantries with scant or euphemistic mention ("sectarian strife"); but they also failed to cover the massive protests in front of Egypt's State TV building in Maspiro, where Copts rallied in an effort to get the world's attention, demanding the return of the church (which is now called "Mercy Mosque") and the return of the Copts back to their village. By some accounts, there were nearly two million protestors—including many Egyptian Muslims who rose up in support of their Christian countrymen. One would have thought all this newsworthy. As Wahid of the Arabic show Al Dalil put it:

Al Jazeera focused on every detail of Tahrir Square for twenty days. Where is Al Jazeera when Christians are attacked in Egypt, protesting and sleeping in the streets for ten days—or are they infidels, no good, or irrelevant dhimmis? You claim that you represent an objective and fair media in the Middle East—but where were you regarding what happened in Maspiro in Egypt? This confirms to us that you are one of the most terrible medias—a discriminating organization that treats events based on whether they deal with Muslims or not. But if it's about Christians, then we [i.e., Al Jazeera] don't deal with it. This is a media crisis of huge proportions. Till this day we do not have any media in the Middle East that is objective and that portrays the news as it truly is. (My translation.)

Aside from what all this bodes for the Copts, Western observers should also be concerned. For starters, that the Western media closely followed Al Jazeera's lead during the Tahrir Square protests, while being virtually clueless of these massive Christian uprisings, suggests that, when it comes to information on the Middle East, the Western mainstream media is heavily dependent on the Arab media, especially Al Jazeera. This is not to say that the West agrees with the point of view put forth by Al Jazeera. But it is to say that whether an issue even makes it to the Western media—makes it to the West's knowledge—is very much dependent on whether Islamist-leaning Al Jazeera wants to publicize it or not.

Mass protests in front of State TV lasted ten days

More troubling, these events unequivocally betray the Egyptian military's Islamist inclinations. This should not be surprising: as a grassroots movement, the Muslim Brotherhood has long been infiltrating Egypt's culture so that some of the youth—who make up the bulk of the army—have naturally been indoctrinated in an Islamist worldview. Indeed, the military, which keeps imprisoned some of the secular youth who initiated the original revolution, has just released a number of jihadists, including al-Zomar, who reasserted in his first interview the need for Egypt's Christians to pay the jizya tax, thereby confirming their inferior status under Muslim rule. Al-Zomar, of course, was not imprisoned because of his anti-Christian views, but because he was closely involved in the assassination of former President Sadat for making peace with Israel.

Thus the Egyptian military's Islamist leanings suggest that changes for the worse are coming—not just for the Copts, but internationally as well. Because the Islamist worldview is interrelated, Egypt's leadership may well prove to be as anti-American and anti-Israel for the very same reason it is anti-Christian—all are infidels, all are the enemy. The only difference is that the Copts are weak, whereas America and Israel are currently not—thus unabashed animosity for the former, latent hostility for the latter.

Original URL: http://www.meforum.org/2855/no-revolution-for-egypt-christians

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.

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

America's Descent into Strategic Dementia

by Caroline Glick

The US’s new war against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is the latest sign of its steady regional decline. In media interviews over the weekend, US military chief Adm. Michael Mullen was hard-pressed to explain either the goal of the military strikes in Libya or their strategic rationale.

Mullen’s difficulty explaining the purpose of this new war was indicative of the increasing irrationality of US foreign policy.

Traditionally, states have crafted their foreign policy to expand their wealth and bolster their national security. In this context, US foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally been directed towards advancing three goals: Guaranteeing the free flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Middle East to global market; strengthening regimes and governments that are in a position to advance this core US goal at the expense of US enemies; and fighting against regional forces like the pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.

Other competing interests have periodically interfered with US Middle East policy. And these have to greater or lesser degrees impaired the US’s ability to formulate and implement rational policies in the region.

These competing interests have included the desire to placate somewhat friendly Arab regimes that are stressed by or dominated by anti-US forces; a desire to foster good relations with Europe; and a desire to win the support of the US media.

Under the Obama administration, these competing interests have not merely influenced US policy in the Middle East. They have dominated it. Core American interests have been thrown to the wayside.

BEFORE CONSIDERING the deleterious impact this descent into strategic dementia has had on US interests, it is necessary to consider the motivations of the various sides to the foreign policy debate in the US today.

All of the sides have contributed to the fact that US Middle East policy is now firmly submerged in a morass of strategic insanity.

The first side in the debate is the anti-imperialist camp, represented by President Barack Obama himself. Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama’s foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony.

Obama looks to the UN as a vehicle for tethering the US superpower. He views US allies in the Middle East and around the world with suspicion because he feels that as US allies, they are complicit with US imperialism.

Given his view, Obama’s instincts dictate that he do nothing to advance the US’s core interests in the Middle East. Consider his policies towards Iran. The Iranian regime threatens all of the US’s core regional interests.

And yet, Obama has refused to lift a finger against the mullahs.

Operating under the assumption that US enemies are right to hate America due to its global hegemony, when the mullahs stole the 2009 presidential elections for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and then violently repressed the pro-Western opposition Green Movement, Obama sided with the mullahs.

Aside from its imperative to lash out at Israel, Obama’s ideological predisposition would permit him to happily sit on the sidelines and do nothing against US foe or friend alike. But given Obama’s basic suspicion of US allies, to the extent he has bowed to pressure to take action in the Middle East, he has always done so to the detriment of US allies.

Obama’s treatment of ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak is case in point.

When the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition protests began in late January, Obama was perfectly happy to do nothing despite the US’s overwhelming national interest in preserving Mubarak in power. But when faced with domestic pressure to intervene against Mubarak, he did so with a vengeance.

Not only did Obama force Mubarak to resign. He prevented Mubarak from resigning in September and so ensured that the Brotherhood would dominate the transition period to the new regime.

Obama’s most outspoken opponents in the US foreign policy debate are the neoconservatives.

Like Obama, the neoconservatives are not motivated to act by concern for the US’s core regional interests. What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny.

In some cases, like Iran and Iraq, the neoconservatives’ view was in consonance with US strategic interests and so their policy recommendation of siding with regime opponents against the regimes was rational.

The problem with the neoconservative position is that it makes no distinction between liberal regime opponents and illiberal regime opponents. It can see no difference between pro-US despots and anti-US despots.

If there is noticeable opposition to tyrants, then the US must support that opposition.

This view is what informed the neoconservative bid to oust Mubarak last month and Gaddafi this month.

The fracture between the Obama camp and the neoconservative camp came to a head with Libya. Obama wished to sit on the sidelines and the neoconservatives pushed for intervention.

To an even greater degree than in Egypt, the debate was settled by the third US foreign policy camp – the opportunists. Led today by Clinton, the opportunist camp supports whoever they believe is going to make them most popular with the media and Europe.

In the case of Libya, the opportunist interests dictated military intervention against Gaddafi. Europe opposes Gaddafi because the French and the British bet early on that his opponents were winning. France recognized the opposition as the legitimate government two weeks ago.

Once Gaddafi’s counteroffensive began, France and Britain realized they would be harmed politically and economically if Gaddafi maintained power so they began calling for military strikes to overthrow him.

As for the media, they were quick to romanticize the amorphous “opposition” as freedom fighters.

Seeing the direction of the wind, Clinton jumped on the European-media bandwagon and forced Obama to agree to a military operation whose goal no one can define.

WHAT THE US foreign policy fights regarding Egypt and Libya indicate is that currently, a discussion about how events impact core US regional interests is completely absent from the discussion. Consequently, it should surprise no one that none of the policies the US is implementing in the region advance those core interests in any way. Indeed, they are being severely damaged.

Under Mubarak, Egypt advanced US interests in two main ways. First, by waging war against the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing the rise of Iranian power in the region, Mubarak weakened the regional forces that most threatened US interests. Second, by managing the Suez Canal in conformance with international maritime law, Egypt facilitated the smooth transport of petroleum products to global markets and prevented Iran from operating in the Mediterranean Sea.

Since Mubarak was ousted, the ruling military junta has taken actions that signal that Egypt is no longer interested in behaving in a manner that advances US interests.

Domestically, the junta has embarked on a course that all but guarantees the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in the fall.

Saturday’s referendum on constitutional amendments was a huge victory for the Brotherhood on two counts. First, it cemented Islamic law as the primary source of legislation and so paved the way for the Brotherhood’s transformation of Egypt into an Islamic state. Under Mubarak, that constitutional article meant nothing. Under the Brotherhood, it means everything.

Second, it set the date for parliamentary elections for September. Only the Brotherhood, and remnants of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party will be ready to stand for election so soon. The liberals have no chance of mounting a coherent campaign in just six months.

In anticipation of the Brotherhood’s rise to power, the military has begun realigning Egypt into the Iranian camp. This realignment is seen most openly in Egypt’s new support for Hamas. Mubarak opposed Hamas because it is part of the Brotherhood.

The junta supports it for the same reason. Newly appointed Foreign Minister Nabil el-Araby has already called for the opening of Egypt’s border with Hamasruled Gaza.

There can be little doubt Hamas’s massive rocket barrage against Israel on Saturday was the product of its sense that Egypt is now on its side.

As for the Suez Canal, the junta’s behavior so far is a cause for alarm. Binding UN Security Council Resolution 1747 from 2007 bars Iran from shipping arms. Yet last month the junta thumbed its nose at international law and permitted two Iranian naval ships to traverse the canal without being inspected.

According to military sources, one of the ships carried advanced armaments. These were illicitly transferred to the German merchant ship Victoria at Syria’s Latakia port. Last week, IDF naval commandos interdicted the Victoria with its Iranian weaponry en route to Gaza via Alexandria.

Add to that Egypt’s decision to abrogate its contractual obligation to supply Israel with natural gas and we see that the junta is willing to suspend its commitment to international law in order to realign its foreign policy with Iran.

ON EVERY level, a post-Mubarak Egypt threatens the US core interests that Mubarak advanced.

Then there is Libya. One of the most astounding aspects of the US debate on Libya in recent weeks has been the scant attention paid to the nature of the rebels.

The rebels are reportedly represented by the so-called National Transitional Council led by several of Gaddafi’s former ministers.

But while these men – who are themselves competing for the leadership mantle – are the face of the NTC, it is unclear who stands behind them. Only nine of the NTC’s 31 members have been identified.

Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters by the neoconservatives, the opportunists, the Europeans and the Western media alike are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi’s opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US.

Under jihadist commander Abu Yahya Al- Libi, Libyan jihadists staged anti-regime uprisings in the mid-1990s. Like today, those uprisings’ central hubs were Benghazi and Darnah.

In 2007 Al-Libi merged his forces into al- Qaida. On March 18, while denouncing the US, France and Britain, Al-Libi called on his forces to overthrow Gaddafi.

A 2007 US Military Academy study of information on al-Qaida forces in Iraq indicate that by far, Eastern Libya made the largest per capita contribution to al-Qaida forces in Iraq.

None of this proves that the US is now assisting an al-Qaida takeover of Libya. But it certainly indicates that the forces being assisted by the US in Libya are probably no more sympathetic to US interests than Gaddafi is. At a minimum, the data indicate the US has no compelling national interest in helping the rebels in overthrow Gaddafi.

The significance of the US’s descent into strategic irrationality bodes ill not just for US allies, but for America itself. Until the US foreign policy community is again able to recognize and work to advance the US’s core interests in the Middle East, America’s policies will threaten both its allies and itself.

Original URL: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=213195

Caroline Glick

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

Your Tax Dollars Funding a Second Left Wing Radio Network: the BBC

by Thomas Lifson

As Republicans try to defund NPR, the Obama administration laughs in the face of critics and sends US taxpayer moneys to fund Britain's left wing BBC. Ben Dowell of the UK Guardian writes:

The BBC World Service is to receive a "significant" sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China.

In what the BBC said is the first deal of its kind, an agreement is expected to be signed later this month that will see US state department money - understood to be a low six-figure sum - given to the World Service to invest in developing anti-jamming technology and software. (snip)

The US government money comes as the World Service faces a 16% cut in its annual grant from the Foreign Office - a £46m reduction in its £236.7m budget over three years that will lead to about 650 job cuts. The money will be channelled through the World Service's charitable arm, the World Service Trust.

The BBC has a problem with political bias at least as bad as that of NPR. But that is no obstacle to shipping money, borrowed from China, to yet another left wing network. Don't worry: we'll just let our children pay for it when the Chinese come to collect.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/your_tax_dollars_funding_a_sec.html

Thomas Lifson

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

Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Calls for Bombing of Israel

by Ed Lasky

Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister has called for the bombing Of Israel.

Michael Rubin reports at Commentary Contentions

After assuring both Libyans and Turks that Turkey was not involved in airstrikes on Libya, Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç, of Turkey, said, "We wish that the United Nations had made such resolutions and countries had taken action in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and the other regions

This is exactly the problem I thought might arise from President Obama's endorsement of the trendy principle of "Responsibility to Protect". In yesterday's blog, "The Rise of Samantha Power and the risks for the American-Israel relationship," I speculated that the rationale Obama adopted to bomb Libya bore the risks of others adopting the same "principle" to justify punishing, if not bombing, Israel.

I wrote:

It is not hard to envision that this R2P concept, swirling through the United Nations and in international foreign policy circles, can one day be applied against Israel when that nation is forced to respond from attacks coming from the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon. Terrorists hide behind civilians; Israeli actions to defend themselves often happen in densely populated areas where civilian deaths are almost inevitable - despite all the precautions Israel takes to prevent them.

And noted Omri Ceren's excellent analysis of the history of this amorphous concept of the Responsibility to Protect and how it has already been used to criticize Israel. It seems that adversaries of Israel are eager to apply this concept to attack Israel, metaphorically and diplomatically, if not militarily (yet).

Barack Obama listened not to Congress but to the Arab League, the United Nations, and people like Samantha Power to launch military attacks. But he has also opened a Pandora's Box by endorsing the Responsibility to Protect as an international norm that can be used to justify attacks by those the so-called " international community" consider to be threatening civilians.

This is yet another irresponsible action by Barack Obama - one that bears with it the risk of being used to justify all sorts of mischief in the years ahead.

I also found it quite interesting that George Soros - a huge supporter of Barack Obama's campaign, funds efforts to promote Responsibility to Protect as an international norm. Samantha Power (who heavily influenced Obama to launch attacks on Libya) also is a supporter of the R2P movement and played a key role at a think tank (The International Crisis Group) heavily funded by George Soros.

The ties that bind.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/turkeys_deputy_prime_minister.html

Ed Lasky

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

The Unraveling Middle East, Part II

by David Walsh

[FrontPage Editor's note: the following is the second installment of a three-part series. Part III will appear in tomorrow's issue. To read Part I, click here.]

With the Middle East being swept by revolutionary chaos, Iran is the power that stands to gain most from the outcome. The countries affected by the turmoil, their strategic location, the large Shia populations in many of these nations and Iran’s close ties to Sunni Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood could give Teheran a hegemonic position in the region. Already, there is evidence to indicate this is occurring. On March 2, President Ahmadinejad warned the Saudi government not to move against that country’s Shia minority—numbering 2 million—on the planned “Day of Anger” protest set for March 11. This was followed the next day by Iran’s criticism of the Saudi decision to raise oil production by 500,000 barrels a day, to meet the shortfall caused by the fighting in Libya. The fact that Iran has so publicly stated its position regarding Saudi domestic and economic policy indicates growing confidence in Tehran regarding its status as a regional power.

A primary reason for Iran’s growing assertiveness is its capacity to use force. This includes not only Iran’s considerable armed forces, but also the capabilities of its surrogates. This combination enables Iran to wage war throughout Southwest Asia, and in key regions beyond.

Iran’s regular armed forces number some 290,000, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) providing another 155,000. Together, these forces field nearly 2,000 tanks, 340 fighter-bombers and over 200 naval vessels. The regular armed forces are tailored for conventional warfare. The IRGC is considered the most sound branch of the military. While it is tasked with defending Iranian territory, its air force controls Iran’s ballistic missiles, ensuring regime control over this vital component.

While Iran has older equipment in its inventory, it also deploys considerable quantities of modern weapons. These include some 500 T-72 tanks, 25 MiG-29 fighters and 30 Su-24 strike aircraft, and three Kilo-class attack submarines. Older equipment has been modernized, including F-14 Tomcats supplied to the Shah in the 1970s. Iran’s defense industries have also produced tanks and combat aircraft, and have reportedly developed a variant of the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile, embargoed by Moscow. Cooperation with foreign nations, including North Korea and China, has also taken place.

As for ballistic missiles, Iran is estimated to have 1,000 in service. Most worrisome is the Shahab 3, which has a range of 2,100 km, enough to reach the Aegean Sea. There are estimated to be several hundred Shahab 3s in service. The Shahab 5, developed from North Korea’s Taepodong 2, has a 6,000 km range, covering all of Europe (although it’s not been confirmed if these missiles are deployed).

Then there is the matter of WMD. In a report for Canada’s Mackenzie Institute, its president, John C. Thompson, notes that Iran has produced chemical weapons since the 1980-88 war with Iraq. As for nuclear weapons, while Iran’s program has suffered setbacks due to cyberwar attacks (namely Stuxtnet), Thompson states that “Iran has certainly had ample opportunity to amass a stockpile of radioactive material. They might not yet be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to Tel Aviv, but they could strew hundreds of kilos of radioactive dust over it.” The same could be said for any point in the Gulf.

To this should be added Iran’s proxies and allies. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has amassed thousands of rockets and battlefield missiles targeting Israel. It also has a large force of trained guerrillas that can invade northern Israel and seize key areas to forestall an Israeli drive into Lebanon. Hamas can similarly strike from Gaza, as recent attacks with Grad missiles on Beersheba show. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), backed by Iran and Syria, carried out major exercises in Gaza in February, which showed its enhanced ability to wage guerrilla war. Syria, with chemical weapons, a nuclear program, armed forces nearly 300,000 strong, 5,000 tanks, 555 combat aircraft, and over 850 surface-to-surface missiles (soon to include the Russian-made Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missile) presents a serious threat to the Golan Heights, and can send large forces into southern Lebanon in support of Hezbollah.

The presence of large Shia populations in Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain and other Gulf states simplifies Iranian efforts to destabilize these countries, paving the way for overt Iranian action. Teheran’s tactical alliance with the Taliban means that Allied forces could see a western front open in Afghanistan, with greater pressure in Pakistan. Somali pirates, supported by Islamist groups, have expanded their activities into the Indian Ocean, increasing the threat to Western shipping in the event of general war.

In other regions, Iran has useful allies. North Korea, with its enormous conventional forces and WMD, presents a continuing danger, particularly through its growing ballistic missile capabilities. Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, engaged in a major military buildup, can threaten Colombia and the Caribbean Basin, while its alliance with Iran has seen a sizeable Hezbollah presence emerge in the Western Hemisphere. Most alarmingly, according to Germany’s Die Welt newspaper, Tehran and Caracas signed an agreement in November 2010 to establish an Iranian military base in Venezuela. Jointly manned, this will house Iranian ballistic missiles like the Shahab 3, in range of the U.S. Iran has reportedly given permission for the use of these weapons by Venezuela in case of an “emergency.” If such weapons are deployed, they would give Iran the ability to mount a military strike on American soil.

There is also the matter of mass terror attacks against the West. Hezbollah has long engaged in such actions, and al-Qaeda could be counted on to take advantage of a global conflict to do the same. Given both groups’ presence in North America and Western Europe (as well as in vital oil producers like Mexico and Nigeria), attacks on political, economic and military targets are likely.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/21/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-ii/

David Walsh has a Ph.D from the London School of Economics and is the author of book, “The Military Balance in the Cold War: US Perceptions and Policy, 1976-85".

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

Surrendering to Anti-Israelism

by Richard Baehr

Pressure from the political left has shaken the pro-Israel consensus that has historically existed within the American Jewish community. This consensus has been attacked by such “luminaries” as former New Republic editor Peter Beinart for requiring progressive Jews, especially younger and generally less affiliated Jews, to “check their values at the door” when it comes to Israel. At the same time, the pro-Israel consensus has also had to confront the assault from Jewish or Jewish-affiliated activist groups from the burgeoning BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) movement against Israel. In essence, the pro-Israel consensus has come under attack from both the soft and hard left.

The soft left is unhappy with Jewish settlements in the West Bank and considers them to be an obstacle to peace with the Palestinian Authority, which they maintain would be easily realizable if only Israel would agree to withdraw from most of the settlements. While 60-plus years of history argues against this, the proponents of the “settlements are the real problem” view maintain they want to end Israel’s international isolation, and achieve the peace and security the nation and its citizens have always wanted. An equally, if not more important, side benefit is that a resolution to the conflict would make Israel less of a lightning rod in the salons that the soft left calls home.

The hard left believes Israel is an apartheid state (much like the former South Africa), born in original sin in 1948-1949, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were supposedly “driven out” during the war that accompanied the creation of the Jewish State. Additionally, Palestinians are now suffering through a “brutal occupation” (the words always go together) of the West Bank, now in its fifth decade, which was instituted following the Six Day War.

Recently, the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, convening in New Orleans last October, established a new initiative to fight the BDS movement. It created the Israel Action Network. Martin Raffel, the senior vice president of the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, and the new director of the IAN, described the initiative:

The project, which I am directing, will work alongside Israel and key organizational partners in the US and Canada, not only to stand up against anti-Israel initiatives, but also to anticipate and prepare for future challenges and actively promote a fair and balanced picture of the Middle East among key constituencies.

The General Assembly reportedly allocated $6 million to the IAN effort, not an inconsiderable sum, given the funding issues described earlier.

Now comes word that the IAN has made a decision as to the organizations that fit under the umbrella of its anti-BDS movement efforts. In a statement late last week, Raffel offered the following:

In my judgment, those groups that are unwilling to support the Jewish people’s right to build a national homeland in Israel — i.e., recognition of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state — place themselves outside the Jewish mainstream and cannot reasonably be seen as allies in our effort to counter the growing assault on Israel’s legitimacy.

But what to think about Zionists on the political left who have demonstrated consistent concern for Israel’s security, support Israel’s inalienable right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, and consider Israel to be the eternal home of the Jewish people — but have decided to express their opposition to specific policies of the Israeli government by refraining from participating in events taking place in the West Bank or purchasing goods produced there? I vigorously would argue that such actions are counter-productive in advancing the cause of peace based on two states that they espouse, a goal that we share. But this is not sufficient cause to place them outside the tent.

As the Reut Institute report on delegitimization stresses, it is these activists from the Zionist left who are best positioned to advocate to their liberal friends, who by all rights should be supportive of Israel as the region’s most democratic and most supportive society of women’s, LGBT, labor, and minority rights[.]

In essence, the Raffel statement acknowledged that there are two classes of BDS supporters — “good” boycotters and “bad” boycotters. The good boycotters need to be welcomed within the community’s big tent, since they share the broader Jewish community’s consensus view of Israel — i.e., good boycotters supposedly have “demonstrated consistent concern for Israel’s security, support Israel’s inalienable right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, and consider Israel to be the eternal home of the Jewish people.” If such boycotters exist as Raffel articulates, I have yet to find them or hear from them. In fact, the category of “good boycotters” is relatively indistinguishable from the “bad boycotters” when it comes to events and campaigns targeting Israel.

Raffel also argues that these acceptable boycotters are needed within the big community tent in order to help persuade the more hardline leftists that Israel deserves their support (for example, because of women’s rights, LGBT issues, labor, and minority rights). Presumably, if the bad boycotters (the delegitimizers of Israel) were educated by other progressives about all the progressive features of Israel’s society, then the bad boycotters could be persuaded to move along the political continuum, maybe even becoming good boycotters themselves.

That the organized Jewish community has come to such a state of incoherence brings to mind the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s article from 1993 about “defining deviancy down,” which analyzed how communities react to increases in deviant criminal behavior.

Moynihan argued that as the amount of deviant behavior increases, the community becomes incapable of recognizing all of it, and adjusts to the new reality by lowering its standards. So, behavior once thought deviant (but not the most deviant of all criminal behavior), is no longer considered so.

Could a better description be offered for Raffel’s recent comment? The evidence abounds: Hillel chapters, in large part funded by Jewish Federations, are wrestling with whether to accept bad boycotters, who oppose the Jewish state of Israel (e.g. Jewish Voices for Peace). Jewish Federations in New York and Washington, D.C. are being challenged for funding theatres or other groups whose purpose seems to be to undermine the Jewish State.

J-Street, an organization which repeatedly and falsely proclaims that it is pro-Israel, pro-peace, has become part of the Jewish mainstream, with its conferences addressed by Israeli leaders, members of Congress, and Obama administration officials. Its leader is a frequent visitor to the White House and an invited guest to the president’s briefings to Jewish leaders. The organized Jewish community sees the enemy, and by and large, seems to be ready to surrender and call the enemy a friend – all in an ill-advised effort to expand or maintain the semblance of a broad communal tent.

The problem for the organized Jewish community world is, unfortunately, far bigger than figuring out how to deal with boycotts. The sharp rise in intermarriage and the triumph of secular humanism among recent generations of increasingly prosperous and comfortable suburban Jewish Americans, have weakened ties between Jews and Israel, between Jews and synagogues, and between Jews and the organized Jewish community. Unlike prior generations, the new generation of Jews have not experienced the Holocaust, and do not understand the fear for Israel’s survival felt among older Jews.

The Jewish community is comfortably at home on the left. Young Jews remain politically active, but for many, Israel is no longer a core concern. Saving the planet, protecting abortion rights, saving Darfur, all draw a stronger response than supporting Israel. Until 1967, many of those on the left supported Israel as the weaker party, facing a vast Arab world bent on Israel’s destruction. The 1967 war changed the moral valence for the left — Israel became the occupier, the colonialist power. The Palestinians replaced the broader Arab world as the second party to the conflict, and were seen as the weaker party, deserving of the left’s sympathy and concern. The common causes shared between the far- and soft left on every other issue have made it easier for the former to join with those who oppose Israel. Furthermore, the large Jewish presence in the anti-Israel cause provides cover for the hard left, allowing it to appear, not anti-Semitic, but just anti-Israel or anti-Zionist.

The Jewish communal world seems to have chosen a fake consensus on Israel in lieu of unity among those who actually care about the country’s fate. Making nuanced arguments for good boycotters as opposed to bad ones is an absurdly weak posture for a pro-Israel community facing passionate opposition. It will inevitably serve to weaken the battle against the BDS movement, rather than expand the ranks of those fighting it. This is nothing less than defining anti-Israel deviancy down.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/21/surrendering-to-anti-israelism/

Richard Baehr

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

Anti-Semitism 2.0

by Mudar Zahran

The concept of the "evil Jew" has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionists, is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity. This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from "sanitized" news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.

Why would a Palestinian be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.

Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.

Such bias against Israel cannot be "accidental" or merely "unfortunate." No other nation has received the amount of scrutinizing, criticism, coverage, demonization and delegitimization. In fact the question to be asked is not whether there is bias against Israel; but rather why there is bias against Israel?

While honest coverage is a pride claimed by all modern media, news reports are assigned according to every editor's choice, this has resulted in a wide editorial bias against Israel and its actions. What makes things worse is the fact that there are no adverse consequences -- such as "lack of access" or physical retribution -- against whoever writes lies about Israel, an open society with a free press. More than 80 human rights non-governmental organizations operate within Israel, constantly monitoring and criticizing it with nothing to worry about -- either professionally or politically --therefore, anyone who misreports or misrepresents facts, or even who lies, is free to keep doing so -- including the the Israelis. For example, the English language newspaper of choice for foreign journalists, Ha'aretz, does not even contain a corrections column. Reporters are told only to write about "The Conflict," and if they do not file by six pm, they are out of a job -- while conflicts which are claiming lives, such as the slaughter of the Assyrians in Iraq, are forgotten. The global media seem to be so consumed by the conflict in Israel which, as dramatic as this may still be, still has claimed only a fraction of the total number of victims of other conflicts.

Bias against Israel does not stop with the media; international organizations exhibit a similar pattern. The recent governmental meltdowns in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have exposed that Arab dictators keep cash and property in Western countries, where they are able to roam freely, while many Israeli politicians have to think twice before they set a foot in Europe for fear of being arrested for "war crimes." Also, Israeli military actions seem to receive more scrutinizing from the international community than the rest of the world's militaries: the UN Security Council still stands reluctant to tackle Qadafi's ongoing atrocities against protesters, but shows no hesitation in investigating even wild claims against Israel.

Recent protests in Arab countries have provided further proof of the media's selective coverage. While young peaceful protesters are being shot by the Jordanian King's guards or attacked by what doctors describe as "a mysterious teargas" in Yemen, the media fail to provide proper coverage for any of that; on the other side, a car accident involving a Palestinian boy and an Israeli driver made global headline news.

Further, amid recent protests in Arab countries, most global media outlets refrained from taking a position on the power-contested Arab dictators; but they have never failed to present pre-packaged anti-Israeli positions when they cover Palestinian uprisings. This extends to perplexing twists: when the protests in Libya started, for example, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim scholar and no friend of Israel,, appeared on Al-Jazeera, saying, "Qaddafi has done to his people what the Zionists would never do to the Palestinians," yet this strong statement from an unlikely source never made it to the Western media.

Media bias against Israel dies not harm only Israelis; it comes at very dear price to us, the Palestinians. In July of 2010, for example, a seasoned journalist Robert Fisk interviewed a group of right-wing ultra-conservative East Bank-Jordanians who were calling on King Abdullah of Jordan to strip the Palestinian majority of their citizenship and property. The group, mostly made up of retired Jordanian servicemen and journalists were also calling for ending the peace treaty with Israel and "establishing it as an enemy state." Despite my attempts to contact Mr. Fisk –-along with another Jordanian-Palestinian journalist---to warn him of the people he was going to meet, he nonetheless, published an article entitled, "Why Is Jordan Occupied by Palestinians?" -- Which was mainly a manifesto for those with whom he had met. They then publicized the article as a global media victory for themselves, and drove the Palestinians of Jordan into even deeper fear for their own safety in a country where they are already oppressed by security agencies; virtually barred from any government or local authority positions, excluded from state universities, despite paying "a university tax", as well as other taxes and tariffs --which their fellow Jordanians of Bedouins heritage are exempted from-- and regularly and openly insulted by the government-run Jordanian media calling for them to be expelled.

The day before Mr. Fisk met with the extremist group, one of their members, a retired intelligence officer now turned writer, published an article calling on the Jordanian intelligence service to "chop off Mudar Zahran's head in the UK without any observance of diplomatic restraints;" would Mr. Fisk have met with an Israeli journalist calling for the Mossad to behead a Palestinian on British soil?

Anti-Semitism and the image of the "evil Jew" find their roots deep in Europe's intellectualism, from Shakespeare to Nietzsche, not to mention the fraudulent Franco-Russian Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The pretexts for Hitler's Nazi ideology existed vigorously before he came to power. Hitler probably manifested more of a crude exposure of a public trend, exacerbated by a terrible economy, except that the suffering Hitler brought to the world was not limited to Jews. It took the destruction of entire nations and the deaths of millions for people to realize that racism and extremism can be as dangerous to the oppressors and the haters as it is the oppressed and the hated.

As a result, European societies of today collectively renounce racism and anti-Semitism, but even though the haters encountered rejection and exclusion, they were nonetheless able to find an alternative pathway by prospering on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As it has raged -- and continues to rage -- for sixty years, the global media have found a lively source of news material that is endlessly interesting as a conflict between "two religions," "two ethnicities," and the line between the West, represented by Israel, and the East, represented by the Palestinians and Arabs in general.

This form of hatred is hurting us all; it must be countered.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1979/anti-semitism-20

Mudar Zahran

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

Incitement - the Engine Driving Global Terrorism

by Eli. E. Hertz

Incitement is the new uncontrollable, affordable and elusive weapon of mass destruction. Its brand of terrorism constitutes a major strategic threat to the foundation of the free world.

First Step Towards Eradicating Terrorism – Zero Tolerance for Incitement
The Muslim-Arab world fans the flames of hatred and violence against Israel, and against the United States and Westerners as a whole. Directly responsible for inciting terrorism and unleashing its lethal genie, Muslim-Arab leaders have produced uncontrollable, hard-to-detect mobile homicide bombers, a low-tech delivery system ready to attack anyone, anywhere, anytime.

In our high-tech world, terrorists have become the ultimate low-tech weapon of mass destruction, whether they are armed with belts packed with explosives or, in a worst-case scenario, carrying lethal biological (or chemical weapons) capable of spreading death and disease worldwide.1 The growing wave of terror thwarts peace in the Middle East and threatens the lives of Westerners throughout the world, from the heart of Manhattan to remote islands like Bali. Terrorism kills innocent victims everywhere and on all sides.

Political and religious incitement play a crucial role in mobilizing and motivating Palestinian suicide bombers. After the horrendous 2002 suicide bombing of a Passover Seder in a Netanya hotel, Fouad Ajami, a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University, wrote:
“The suicide bomber of the Passover massacre did not descend from the sky; he walked straight out of the culture of incitement let loose on the land, a menace hovering over Israel, a great Palestinian and Arab refusal to let that country be, to cede it a place among the nations, he partook of the culture all around him – the glee [that] greets those brutal deeds of terror, the cult that rises around the martyrs and their families.”2

Despite pledges to renounce violence against Israel, Arab leaders continue to incite, inflame and encourage Palestinians to pin every problem they face as individuals and as a society on Israel. This strategy of channeling frustrations into hatred and the desire for revenge against Israel is adopted both by Israel’s immediate Palestinian neighbors and Arab leaders throughout the Muslim-Arab world. Arab leaders lend support to the Palestinian cause with money and a combination of anti-Israeli and anti-American messages from government-controlled media outlets and educational systems. Sermons that legitimize violence in the name of Islam are encouraged, delivered by extremists throughout Muslim countries and in free countries in the West.

Read More

Original URL: http://www.mythsandfacts.com/article_view.asp?articleID=197

Eli. E. Hertz

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