Monday, May 30, 2011
Why Palestinians Want YouTube to Remove This
by HonestView
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN-xQco7Vy8&feature=player_embedded
HonestView
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
End the Refugee Problem
by Nicole Brackman and Asaf Romirowsky
In President Barack Obama’s speech of May 19, he credits the recent “Arab Spring” with opening the first windows onto the prospect of burgeoning democracy across the Arab world. Crediting technology and the availability of information via the Internet with revealing the possibility of freedom to the oppressed masses under the thumbs of dictators, the president described his vision of a grass-roots inspired movement to grace Arab states with democratic governments and its people with human rights and the dignity of freedom.
However, the president – and the Department of State – is still convinced that the “root cause” of problems in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The reality on the ground paints quite a different picture. While Obama began by examining the rising unrest across the Arab world and its potential consequences both for those countries and the world at large, in the end the focus reverted by force of habit to the perennial “black sheep” of the Middle East – Israel and the Palestinian conflict. Despite overwhelming evidence that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not in fact responsible for all the region’s ills, the president’s (and the State Department) reflex is to conflate the “lack of progress” in Israeli/Palestinian negotiations to an absurd magnitude.
Historically, US presidents at the behest of the Department of State, have remained fixated on what Israel should “do” to “advance the cause of peace” at the expense of discerning the trends of disquiet rolling through the Middle East in ways which have profoundly threatened regional (and global) stability. In that regard, Obama is no different. That said, Obama did state that resolution between Israelis and Palestinians will come about by basing the disposition of territory on the 1948 Armistice lines. Though that expectation is a foregone conclusion in the eyes of all but Israel (which - somewhat naively - insists that there be no preconditions to negotiations), President Obama laid down the gauntlet to Israel.
In a departure for American foreign policy, Obama did not preface his statement by saying that the 1967 boundaries are a “Palestinian goal” but rather articulated it as a specifically American initiative. This contravenes stated US policy to protect Israel’s security; the 1948 Armistice lines, which were hardly defensible in 1967, are only more precarious now.
There are real (and realistic) ways for the President to assert American interests in the “peace process” and take concrete steps not only toward establishing a real premise for a workable negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis – but also toward improving and gaining traction in bilateral relationships with Arab countries. Palestinian “refugeeness” has become a central symbol of their struggle and the raison d'être of their cause; Palestinian proponents argue that as long as they are refugees, no peace with Israel can ever come about.
The End of UNRWA?
This issue has been poorly understood and handled by America since the 1950s. It has been used – first by the Arab League, then by the Palestinians themselves – as a diversion; as a “ticking bomb;” and as an ideological, no-holds-barred, Armageddon-esque threat to topple negotiations and destroy Israel from within and without. The US helps perpetuate the quagmire through continued financial support of UNRWA (the UN body solely devoted to aiding Palestinian refugees) notwithstanding clear evidence that UNRWA has been co-opted by terrorist elements and despite directives from the US Congress to demand by UNRWA transparency and accountability.
Defusing this threat is not only possible, but relatively simple (although not easy). The United States has disparate interests in, relationships with, and goals for Arab states which have significant Palestinian refugee populations (Palestinian Authority; Gaza; Jordan; Syria; Lebanon). Conversely each of those states (or entities) have something they want or need from the US. Treating the Palestinian refugee issue as a matter for bilateral negotiations between America and each state significantly mutes the ideological component, and defuses its potential use as a “weapon” in negotiations.
This strategy re-focuses the context of the refugee issue - making it a matter for logistical and operational-oriented solutions. It obliges the Arab states to confront their own responsibility for the treatment of the Palestinians within their borders as chattel (not to mention their outright persecution in Syria and Lebanon) and highlights the incongruous irony that Palestinians are still living in refugee “camps” while under the autonomous jurisdiction of their own (ostensibly democratically elected) governments in the Palestinian Authority areas and Gaza.
Such a refocusing is also a boon for US policy interests, both in the short and long term. In re-evaluating a long-held but faulty axiom of 20th century American foreign policy, the Obama administration can signal its intent to establish “cooperative dominance” that is oriented toward productive results rather than ideological posturing for the new, 21st century realities in the Middle East. President Obama can establish a pattern of pragmatic diplomacy that alerts both the new and old Arab regimes that the United States is interested not in ceaseless dogmatic whining but in brass-tacks negotiating intended to produce real payoffs.
Finally, employing such approach would go a long way toward compelling the Arabs and Palestinians to stop rewriting history to accommodate the myth that the West (and specifically Israel) created the refugee problem. Palestinian recidivism and a selective historical memory prevent the acknowledgement that it was the Arab rejection of UN Resolution 181 and the Partition Plan that created the Palestinian refugee problem. Ending the refugee problem means (among other things) dismantling UNRWA and other enabling NGOs and requiring the Palestinians and Arab states to step up and take responsibility for both past actions and the future disposition of those who would be citizens.
As Israel absorbed approximately a million Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim nations in the wake of independence in 1948 alone, it is time for the Palestinians to be freed of refugee “servitude” by their leaders. Whatever the timetable for an independent Palestinian state – and it is coming, as part of a viable two-state solution – it is long past due that Palestinian and Arab leaders stop using their people as negotiating chips and start recognizing them as citizens with full rights where they live today.
Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-4075292,00.html
Nicole Brackman and Asaf Romirowsky
Nicole Brackman, Ph.D. is a former Soref Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Asaf Romirowsky is a Philadelphia-based Middle East analyst, a lecturer in history at Pennsylvania State University and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Forum.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Egypt Opens Rafah Crossing into Gaza
by Rick Moran
We welcome the newly "democratic" and peace loving Egypt. Globe and Mail:
Egypt has opened wide its border crossing with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, easing the blockade that had been imposed on the territory by Israel and Egypt for the past four years.While people and trucks have been allow to pass through the Rafah crossing for several hours most weeks ever since the overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in February, Saturday's move will have the crossing open every day but Friday and with fewer restriction of who can pass through.
Israeli officials have expressed concern that unrestricted access could mean the entry into Gaza of weapons and military personnel intended to strengthen the Hamas authorities.
The Egyptians say they will still ban weapons from crossing the border but that's just window dressing. Besides, as Israeli security experts point out, sending military trainers into Gaza is as good as sending arms. Teaching terrorists how to blow people up is just as good as a sneaking in a couple of hundred assault rifles.
Aren't you glad our promotion of democracy in Egypt is working out so well?Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/egypt_opens_rafah_crossing_int.html
Rick Moran
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
First Amendment Trumps Sharia in Dearborn
by Andrew G. Bostom
A rare and striking vindication of American free speech principles came this week, setting back those American Muslims who believe that in their own enclaves, sharia-based restrictions on religious freedom should exist.
A seminal, if ominous report released May 17, 2011 by the Center for Security Policy described fifty appellate court cases from 23 states which involve conflicts between Islamic law-Sharia-and American state law. Notwithstanding the delusive mindslaughter on display across America's political spectrum which denies Sharia encroachment in the US, the CSP analysis revealed that,
Sharia has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
But the grim, seemingly inexorable, progressive acceptance of Sharia-based mores in the US-despite this totalitarian religio-political "law" being antithetical to American law-was at least temporarily reversed late last week, in of all places, Dearborn, Michigan. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2:1 on Thursday May 26, 2011 (in GEORGE SAIEG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DEARBORN; RONALD HADDAD, Dearborn Chief of Police ) that Dearborn, and its police department, violated the free-speech rights of a Christian evangelist by barring him from handing out leaflets at an Arab-American street festival last year. The court's two judge majority opinion concluded,
On the free speech claim, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants and its denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. We thereby invalidate the leafleting restriction within both the inner and outer perimeters of the Festival.1 The restriction on the sidewalks that are directly adjacent to the Festival attractions does not serve a substantial government interest. The City keeps those same sidewalks open for public traffic and permits sidewalk vendors, whose activity is more obstructive to sidewalk traffic flow than pedestrian leafleting is. Moreover, the prohibition of pedestrian leafleting in the outer perimeter is not narrowly tailored to the goal of isolating inner areas from vehicular traffic. The City can be held liable because the Chief of Police, who instituted the leafleting restriction, created official municipal policy.
Elaborating on the issue of Dearborn's liability for depriving George Saieg, an American Christian pastor of Sudanese descent, of his first amendment rights, the judges opined,
The City may be held liable for the restriction of Saieg's free speech rights that the leafleting restriction caused. A municipality is liable if a constitutional injury results from a policy or custom "made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978). In this case, the City approved the Festival "subject to . . . the rules and regulations of the Police Department." R. 47-13 (Ex. M: Council Resolution)...Chief Haddad described the leafleting policy as his department's policy, subject only to the approval of the city council and the mayor. R. 47-11 (Ex. K: Haddad Dep. at 95-96) (stating that "the police department will supply the standards that must be met," such as the "prohibition of individuals handing out . . . materials on the public sidewalk"). The police department's leafleting policy, made with the authority that the City Council delegated to it, fairly represents official City policy. Therefore, Saieg may hold the City liable for violating his First Amendment right to free speech.
Most remarkably, the majority opinion of Justices Moore and Clay included a salient observation revealing how these judges understood the Sharia-based objections to non-Muslim proselytization which motivated Dearborn's attempt to abrogate Pastor Saeig's freedom of speech-mainstream Islam's continued rejection of freedom of conscience:
Saieg also faces a more basic problem with booth-based evangelism: "[t]he penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death," which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publicly "labeled as . . . Christian." R. 48 (Ex. A: Saieg Dep. at 75). Saieg believes that evangelism is more effective when he can roam the Festival and speak to Muslims more discreetly.
Roberta Aluffi Beck-Peccoz, Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Turin, made this rather understated assessment of contemporary Islamdom's strict opposition to the proselytization of Muslims by non-Muslims-rooted in the Sharia, and ultimately, the grave offense of "ridda," or apostasy from Islam, deemed "treasonous" against the Muslim community, and punishable by death under Islamic Law-published in 2010:
Islamic States have always strongly opposed this specific freedom [i.e., freedom of conscience as per the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, or more specifically article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights], claiming that it contravenes Islamic Law. [Note: It does, and that is why the 57 Muslim nation Organization of the Islamic Conference drafted and ratified the antithetical Cairo Declaration which insists upon having Sharia exert supremacy over all "manmade" law!]...Moreover they express fear that proselytism represents a kind of foreign interference in their internal affairs. Consistently, Islamic States do not favor proselytism; they sometimes tend to restrict it even in its lightest forms, such as the simple expression of one's intimate beliefs...Proselytism is perceived as a major threat to the coherence and cohesion of the umma [i.e., the global Muslim community]: it can lead to ridda [apostasy from Islam] the paradigm of political treason, or fitna, the temptation, the civil war involving doctyrinal dissensions...
Even in moderate, pseudo-secular Arab Tunisia-prior to the "Jasmine revolution" which may have already empowered the formerly banned Tunisian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood under Rachid Ghannouchi-according to a 2010 US State Department report,
It was illegal to proselytize to Muslims as the government viewed such efforts as disturbing the public order.
Neighboring Morocco, also deemed "moderate," aggressively deports Christians who dare proselytize to Muslims. The globally representative Sharia-based penal law (circa1982) of Comoros (the Muslim archipelago island nation in the Indian Ocean, located off the eastern coast of Africa, on the northern end of the Mozambique), for example, defines the "criminal" proselytizer as one who, "...indulges, promotes, or teaches Muslims a religion other than Islam."
The attempt by Dearborn's large Muslim population to enforce Sharia-based injunctions against non-Muslim proselytism confirms local attitudes documented via polling data collected in 2003, and reported during 2004. "The Detroit Mosque Study: Muslim Views on Policy and Religion," was conducted by Ihsan Bagby an Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky and a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy Understanding-a Muslim organization. Data were gathered during the summer of 2003 and published online in 2004.
These alarming results were described on page 37 of the report:
Mosque participants were asked, whether they agree or disagree with the statement, "Shari'ah should be the law of the land in Muslim countries?"Apply Islamic Law in Muslim Lands
Strongly Agree - 59%
Somewhat Agree - 22%(i.e., collectively = 81%)Somewhat Disagree - 8%
Strongly Disagree - 3%
Don't Know - 8%
Such data supposedly reflected the Detroit area (read Dearborn) Muslims views of "Islamic countries," only. But given the intrinsic, universally supremacist nature of Islam and the global umma (i.e., as stated in Koran 3:110, and the Orwellian-named Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah"), once an area has a Muslim majority it is assumed by Muslims that Islamic Law should prevail-hence the "enclave" phenomenon, now evident in the United States.
Following the issuance of the verdict, Pastor Saeig's intrepid attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, made these apposite remarks, which all who cherish our unique Western freedoms must heed, and support:
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/first_amendment_trumps_sharia.htmlEverybody should be pleased. Dearborn is getting a pretty strong reputation as being the enemy of the First Amendment. As long as they keep passing these draconian restrictions that violate the rights of everyone, we're going to challenge them.
Andrew G. Bostom
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Is Obama a "Zionist Agent"?
by Khaled Abu Toameh
The Palestinians are furious with U.S. President Barack Obama.
Abbas, for his part, has rejected Obama's opposition to his plan to ask the U.N. to recognize a Palestinian state in September, and says that he will proceed with his efforts.
Both Fatah and Hamas have responded to the speeches of Obama and Netanyahu by declaring that they will go ahead with plans to establish a unity government.
Hamas and Fatah are now hoping to rally as many Arab countries as possible in favor of both their reconciliation agreement and their plan to seek U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state.
The two parties are hoping that the current crisis in relations between the US and the Palestinians will turn into a confrontation between the Arab world and the Obama Administration.
They believe he has "finally shown his true colors," and are convinced that he's "biased" in favor of Israel.
Both Fatah and Hamas have condemned Obama for "succumbing" to pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the pro-Israel "Jewish lobby" in the U.S.
But while Hamas officials have been honest about their views toward Obama, the Fatah leaders in the West Bank have been extremely cautious about expressing their opinion in public.
In private, Fatah leaders have strongly denounced not only Obama, but also Congress for its warm welcome of Netanyahu.
Obama, who until recently was seen as a "friend" of the Palestinians, is now being dubbed, in private, by Fatah representatives, a "Zionist agent" and "pawn" in the hands of Israel and the "Jewish lobby."
While Fatah leaders have remained mum, however, they have unleashed a scathing attack on the U.S. and Obama in their media outlets. There, the tone is much more clear and straightforward, and the bottom line is that Obama is not an honest broker in the Middle East conflict.
It is as if both Fatah and Hamas were expecting Obama to fully endorse their positions. They were expecting the U.S. president to support the Palestinian Authority's intention to ask the United Nations in September to recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines.
They were also expecting Obama to call for a full cessation of settlement construction, and an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, including east Jerusalem.
For Fatah and Hamas, Obama's speech before AIPAC and the standing ovations in Congress for Netanyahu are proof that the Americans are "not on our side." In their eyes, what happened at AIPAC and Congress shows that no U.S. president dares to alienate American Jews.
The reason Fatah has refrained from attacking Obama in public is because it needs Washington's financial and political backing.
What Hamas is saying in public about Obama is what Fatah thinks in private, but is afraid to say.
Khaled Abu Toameh
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
The Muslim Brotherhood Comes to America
by Joe Kaufman
Beginning tomorrow, May 28th, 2011, along with the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Society of North America [ICNA] will be holding its 36th annual convention, entitled "Quran: Guidance Towards a Just and Balanced Way." The event is scheduled to take place at the Connecticut Convention Center in Hartford, Connecticut.
Although lately, we have been hearing from a broad spectrum of the media about the wide influence of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East, serious discussions about the Brotherhood inside America are few and far between.
There is also a newfound awareness of the Muslim Brotherhood for people inside the U.S., who might not previously have heard of the group. What many Americans still unaware of, however, is the fact that the Brotherhood has a fairly large presence inside the U.S., where many if their entities operate under the guise of "civil rights" organizations.
The Muslim Brotherhood motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qu'uran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest cause."
According to ICNA's website, featured as speakers at this year's event will be a number of Islamic radicals. These include According Siraj Wahhaj, a government-named "unindicted co-conspirator" for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Jamal Badawi, whose work, Gender Equity in Islam, justifies wife beating.
Another of the scheduled speakers is Yusuf Islahi, whose involvement with ICNA is substantial. In addition to speaking at ICNA functions, Islahi has been the Chief Patron of ICNA's Islamic outreach (dawah) faction, named: Why Islam (WI). Until recently, Islahi's personal website, farrukh.net, was the Registrant for ICNA National's official site.
Islahi has also been directly involved with Jamaat-e-Islami as a member of its Central Advisory Council, the Markazi Majlis-e-Shoora, of the JI-Hind, the Indian branch of Jamaat-e-Islami. In this position, he is currently serving his fifth term -- someone involved in both the Muslim Brotherhood overseas and here at home.
While the ICNA event will most probably get news coverage, it is likely that no mention will be made in the media of the Brotherhood or ICNA or Ilashi's association with it. These will, in all likelihood, be ignored, as they have been so many times in the past; and America's citizens will remain uninformed to what is happening around them and its agenda of Islamist global political power.
Contemporary U.S.-based groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) had their beginnings in the Brotherhood.
The Muslim Students Association (MSA), with chapters in most of, if not all of, the universities throughout the United States, was the first major Brotherhood group in the U.S. Further, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) owns the properties of hundreds of Brotherhood-oriented mosques and Islamic centers.
Another Brotherhood organization – one of the largest within the United States – is the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). Started in the late 60s and early 70s, ICNA began as an American arm of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the Muslim Brotherhood of Pakistan.
The media's reporting of revolutions taking place in various Middle Eastern nations sh0ould be raising concern about the potential for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) – or Ikhwan al-Muslimun – to gain power within various nations, especially inside Egypt, where the global headquarters of the Brotherhood is located. As the Brotherhood is responsible for the emergence of a number of terrorist movements around the globe, including Hamas and al-Qaeda, unfortunately the concern is warranted:
Joe Kaufman
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
The Green Fascism
by Ahmed Charai
A historic tragedy is at play before our eyes: Another Munich, when some European democracies thought they could avoid the war by appeasing Nazism. Winston Churchill said: "You accepted shame to avoid war, now you will have both." History's verdict was merciless.
Today, Arab -- but also Western -- diplomats are making the same mistake toward the "green fascism." Their "smart" strategy would consist in involving these groups in a democratic process; Radical Islamists would then, they believe, change their behavior.
Radical Islamism, however, is a form of political activity that rejects the principles of parliamentary democracy. Extremist ideology and practices are based on intolerance, exclusion, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and ultranationalism.
Radical Islamism is a danger for any democratic state: its fanatic character may be used to justify violence. Even if it does not directly advocate violence, extremism creates a climate conducive to violence.
It is a direct threat in weakening the constitutional democratic order and civic liberties; and an indirect threat by causing political mistakes. Even some liberal parties in the Arab world are tempted to take their cues from the Islamist pitch book. Islamists have enjoyed the benefits of petro-funding for decades now, and have used these long years to set the terms of public discussion. Liberals in Egypt, for example, have sometimes been forced into the position of trying to "out-Islamize the Islamists."
Radical Islamism was born at the end of the 1970s after the failure of pan-Arabism. Islamists have presented themselves as reformists, proponents of modernity, who want to "modernize Islam." Unfortunately, in my experience, they are actually trying to "Islamize modernity" – in other words, to impose outdated interpretations of Islamic law on the present reality, to the detriment of women, minorities, and secular Muslims.
In the wake of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the "Green Peril" is seen as a major threat. No wonder then thatin Algeria, in 1991, while Islamists of the FIS triumphed over free elections, the West saw the democratic process interrupted -- with a resultant Algerian civil war that was to last ten years and produce 200,000 casualties.
We need to see what lies beyond the veneer. There is not one radical current that has the slightest program on housing, health, education, and other aspects of civil society. They all feed on slogans chanting the return to pure islam, that of caliphs, and play wonderfully on the rise of a disquieting nationalist upsurge in the face of a supposed aggression of modernity in Iraq and Palestine. This position is at odds with the democratic transition, but supporters are attracted to the Islamist militant ideology nonetheless. One reason is simply that Islamists tend to have more money to spend on winning supporters: they enjoy petro-endowments from Saudi Arabia and Iran, while liberals and secularists have little or no backing by comparison. Another reason for the allure of these groups is their exploitation of powerful religious tropes.
Islamists still use the conservative backdrop of Moroccan society to press for Shari'ah-oriented social change. For example, Islamists massively mobilized to block the king's "Women's Integration Plan," a series of measures put forth by the government to improve the lot of the country's female population.
Mindful of the stakes, the king created an extra-parliamentary commission tasked to advance the plan's agenda. Non-Islamist Moroccan elites feared the project would be buried. The surprise that followed was that the king pressed for the implementation of the plan and won, despite Islamist efforts to defeat it.
Meanwhile, working within the cultural fabric of the country, the king has undertaken to reform religious life more broadly, promoting an open and tolerant form of Islam and fighting intellectual and cultural extremism. This endeavor has included the deployment of female religious "advisers" to many mosques and the reengineering of Islamic education in the kingdom, with the goal of stemming the more virulent forms of Wahhabism—a militant trend that had begun to take root in Morocco in the early eighties when Saudi Arabia and Morocco joined forces against Soviet communism in Afghanistan.
Drawing on Morocco's rich heterodox tradition of Islam, the king has also enlisted the country's Sufi leadership – the mystical strand of Islam, so strong in Morocco – to help counter militants. In this largely stable and benign political environment, a small coalition of fringe players are nonetheless working to rock the system, predominantly from outside the country.
Islamism moves almost by inertia: the democrats lack the courage of their convictions and so accept the upsurge of political Islamism as unstoppable, as the Islamists themselves claim it to be.
Last week I watched President Barak Obama's Middle East speech from my home in Casablanca. I felt the speech was important in that it signaled the Democratic party's full embrace of the freedom agenda in the Middle East and North Africa. But important questions remain. How the United States will address Islamist political parties in the region's emerging democracies is a problem that should be closely monitored by Arab liberals like myself. In some countries such as Libya, Islamist militants are among the fighting forces, and they will undoubtedly expect a piece of the pie when the dust settles and power is shared. Meanwhile in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to dominate the forthcoming elections.
American policy toward these groups is unclear to many Arabs. We know that since September 11, influential policy voices in Washington have been searching for a way of drawing a line between "moderate" Muslims and radicals espousing violence. But separating these two trends is extremely difficult, even for people who live in the region; and whether the Obama Administration will succeed in doing so remains unclear.
It is about time for the democrats to awaken, and not for a Munich-like collusion that would be conducive to disaster.
The Obama Administration needs to reassure Arab democrats by signaling its awareness that radical Islamism is a danger to Arab democratic transitions.
Vigilance is required to prevent these forces from taking power, lest the tragic story of Munich on the eve of the Second World War, repeat itself.
Ahmed Charai
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Why Jews Support the Democratic Party
by Evan Sayet
The question I am asked more than any other – besides what happened to the once seemingly reasonable Bill Maher – is: Why do Jews support the Democrat Party? The answer is easy – but not short. Here goes:
To be called a Jew –even to call yourself a Jew – is different than any other religion. To be called a Christian, you have to believe something. You have to believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. If you believe that, you’re a Christian. If you don’t believe that, you’re not a Christian. If you do believe that, then there are certain rites and rituals, practices and behaviors that tend to follow. To be called a Muslim you have to believe something. You have to believe that the Koran is the final testament of God and Muhammad his perfect messenger. If you believe that, you’re a Muslim. If you don’t believe that then you’re not a Muslim. If you do believe this then there are certain rites and rituals, practices and behaviors that tend to follow.
But, to be called a Jew you don’t have to believe anything. To be called a Jew, all you have to do is plop out of a Jewish womb. Because these Jews – I’ll call them here “The Plopping Jews” – do not believe anything particularly Jewish. Indeed, there’s absolutely no reason to expect them to vote in a way that reflects Jewish values and beliefs. Since a Jewish person’s Judaism is not of his own choosing or a reflection of his beliefs, his Jewishness is nothing more than an accident of his birth. Therefore, to expect him to choose to support Jewish causes is actually a form of bigotry. People’s behaviors are predicated on their beliefs, not on the circumstances of their birth.
In fact, not only is there no reason to expect the Plopping Jew to support Jewish causes, one might even argue that the folks who Dennis Prager calls “Non-Jewish Jews” and are more generally known as “Secular Jews” (note that it is almost unheard of for someone to call themselves or be called “Secular Christians” or “Secular Muslims”) are less likely to support Jewish causes and to be antipathetic to Israel and other Jewish issues than are others since we can assume, having been born to a Jewish mother, they were at least exposed to Judaism and chose to reject it. Put simply, the Plopping Jew is more likely to be an anti-Semite than your average American.
Sadly, in an America that has been successfully secularized by the Left, the Plopping Jews make up the vast majority of the people who are identified as “Jewish” and thus a major part of the explanation as to why so many “Jews” vote for the party that is, as we shall see, patently Jew-hating.
Now we get to the rest of the people who are called Jews. These Jews differ from the Plopping Jew in that they have made at least some personal decision to be Jewish. These Jews are typically divided into three categories, in ascending order of their belief and practice of Judaism there are the Reform Jews, the Conservative Jews and the Orthodox Jews.
The Reform Jew – sadly the majority of the remaining minority of all “Jews” – are not really Jewish either. In fact, while the Plopping Jew has done nothing Jewish in his life, the Reform Jew has done only one thing Jewish in his life – he joined a synagogue. But the Reform Jew didn’t join a synagogue to better learn and practice the rites and rituals, convictions and values of Judaism; he joined a synagogue because it was his local recreation center. Basically, it was more affordable than the country club and, while more costly than the YMCA, he didn’t have to worry about getting naked in front of strangers. Put simply, the Reform Jew is a Plopping Jew with a somewhat better social calendar.
Since there is nothing Jewish about the reform Jew that is Jewish, again, it would be unreasonable to expect his policies to reflect Jewish values. In fact, the Reform Jew, like the Plopping Jew, has rejected Jewish values and, as the name of the movement suggests, he doesn’t even like Judaism, which is why he seeks to “re-form” it to his liking.
The remaining Jews are the Jewish Jews – those whose beliefs and practices reflect a mature choice to be Jewish and to learn and better practice Judaism. These Jews comprise only a small percentage of the people who are identified in polls and elsewhere as “Jewish” and, not surprisingly, they are far more likely to embrace the policies of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. As the name of their movement reflects, the Conservative Jews like Judaism and rather than seek to re-form it around their beliefs, they seek to conserve the values and the practices of Judaism. The difference between the Conservative Jew and the Orthodox Jew – the latter’s commitment to the Jewish faith leading them to support the Republican/conservative movement as surely as the Plopping Jews rejection of Judaism leads them to support the party of Jew-haters – is that the Conservative Jew seeks to bring his Judaism into his daily life while the Orthodox Jew seeks to make Judaism his daily life.Put simply, the more Jewish is the person, the more they reject the policies of the Democrat Party. This should not be the least bit surprising as Modern Liberalism – the dominant ideology of today’s Democrat Party – is the very antithesis of Judaism.
The great gift of the Jews was a concept virtually unknown to humanity prior to the advent of Judaism – justice. Prior to the advent of Judaism, reward and punishment were typically predicated on the whim and the will of the powerful. Step on the Pharaoh’s toe and it might cost you your life. The oft-misunderstood (one presumes often intentionally) “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” far from being a call for vengeance was, in reality, exactly its opposite, it was – for one of the first times in human history – an insistence that the punishment must not exceed the crime and that, not matter who the person “wronged” or the wrong-doer might be, the consequences must be meted out fairly.
But the Modern Liberal rejects the concept of justice (in fact he rejects the concept of right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies and all other such ideas central to the pursuit of the just.) So self-evident is the Modern Liberal’s antipathy for justice that he himself admits that his quest isn’t for justice but rather some modified version of it which is why he inserts the modifier “social” prior to the word “justice” in explaining his agenda.
The Modern Liberal’s definition of “Social Justice” is that the evil and failed should be rewarded and the good and successful must be punished. After all, if all men are created equal, then something must have happened to the rapist to turn him from good into evil and therefore he is the victim (in fact, the great Thomas Sowell argues that, to those with this “vision” the criminal is twice victimized, “first by the special circumstances that provoked his crime and then by those who lust to see him punished.”) Similarly, those who are good and decent and hard-working should enjoy no special rewards for their efforts because clearly they had the advantage of good parents and a good upbringing and thus they had an unfair advantage. Justice demands that the good and hard-working be rewarded and the evil and the lazy be punished (if only by the withholding of the rewards of doing the right things.) Modern Liberalism demands that the good and hardworking be punished as the recipients of an unfair advantage and that the evil and the lazy be rewarded, their acts of evil and their failure all the proof the Modern Liberal needs that somehow they have been victimized by forces out of their control.
Obviously, these two beliefs are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. Just as obviously, those who more fully embrace Judaism’s quest for justice are more assuredly supportive of the Republican Party and the conservative movement while those who are least Jewish (even if they call themselves Jews) are more likely to fall into the camp of the Democrats and support the non-Jewish concept of “Social Justice” where good and right is punished and evil, failure and wrong championed.
Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/27/why-jews-support-the-democratic-party/Evan Sayet
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
The Mideast History Lesson Obama So Desperately Needs
by Seth Mandel
After President Obama surprised Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last week with a now-infamous statement of principle about the 1967 lines, Netanyahu responded with what news outlets characterized as a “history lecture.”
Though the outlets—ranging from the French Press Agency to the Chicago Sun-Times—meant the phrase derisively, a history lesson on the 1967 lines was exactly what the moment called for. And a lesson on the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and the early negotiations that led to the Oslo process would, for instance, enlighten the president on just why his strategy for Mideast peace is backwards, and doomed to fail.
Anwar Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem to address the Israeli Knesset in 1977 immediately entered the history books as a moment of triumph for political courage and for the power of diplomacy. It held the promise of a Middle East where Israel’s existence is a recognized reality, and it offered a glimpse of what Arab statesmanship could accomplish. Grand gestures weren’t meaningless after all.
But there was one prominent American who disagreed. After the Egyptian president’s dramatic visit to Jerusalem U.S. President Jimmy Carter said, “a separate peace agreement between Egypt and Israel is not desirable.”
In retrospect, of course, it has been very “desirable” for Carter’s otherwise dismal foreign policy record. Historian Arthur Herman explained in the Wall Street Journal in 2009 how that came to be:
“But by the autumn of 1978, the rest of Mr. Carter’s foreign policy had crumbled,” Herman wrote. “He had pushed through an unpopular giveaway of the Panama Canal, allowed the Sandinistas to take power in Nicaragua as proxies of Cuba, and stood by while chaos grew in the Shah’s Iran. Desperate for some kind of foreign policy success in order to bolster his chances for re-election in 1980, Mr. Carter finally decided to elbow his way into the game by setting up a meeting between Sadat and Begin at Camp David.”
When it became inevitable, Carter took the credit. It should be noted that there is much value in a White House reception for such a deal. It communicates the notion that American moral and physical power stand behind the agreement, giving it extra weight in the international arena. But the fact remains that because Carter wanted a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, he actually opposed the Egypt-Israel deal. Against it before he was for it, so to speak.
The agreement was the result of diplomacy and negotiation undertaken by the Israelis and the Egyptian government. Only after it became a formality did the U.S. get involved.
A similar path took shape on its way to the Bill Clinton-endorsed Oslo process—the declaration of principles of which were signed at the White House in 1993. As Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin write in Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, what became the Oslo process began in earnest in 1991, when Israeli scholars Yair Hirschfeld and Ron Pundak met with Palestinian negotiator Hanan Ashrawi in Ramallah to discuss Israeli-Palestinian economic cooperation. Ashrawi suggested the Israelis meet with PLO economist Ahmad Qurei in London in December of that year. Arafat approved.
“This was not just to be a meeting between two Israeli academics and a PLO economist,” the authors write. “Abu Mazin (Mahmoud Abbas) later wrote that the key factor in making the PLO pursue this channel was the relationship of Pundak and Hirschfeld through Yossi Beilin, a prominent figure in the Labor party, to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. The get-together was arranged by Terje Larsen, a Norwegian sociologist who headed the Institute for Applied Social Sciences. That meeting’s success soon led to more rounds of secret talks between Israel and the PLO hosted by the Norwegians.”The talks circumvented the U.S., which was what Arafat wanted anyway. (As Martin Indyk describes in his memoir of Clinton Mideast diplomacy, Arafat’s presence posed a continued logistical problem—at times comical—for the American administration since Arafat was an international terrorist.)
The Israelis involved produced glowing reports of Qurei’s constructive participation in the talks. “Without him, Oslo would not have happened,” one of the Israeli negotiators later said.
The talks moved along, and eventually the Clinton administration got involved. Once that happened, however, things quickly spiraled out of control. Arafat muscled his way into a more public role (he was always involved behind the scenes), and eventually hijacked the process, derailing virtually the entire Mideast diplomacy of the Clinton administration. (As the Bush administration prepared to take over, Clinton called Colin Powell and told him: “Don’t let Arafat sucker punch you like he did me.”)
The lesson here is that the American administration can play a productive role in the peace process, but not an overwhelming one. History has shown time and again in the Mideast that negotiations must be done quietly and be free of outside interference. The more public the spectacle, the more it encourages the Palestinians to grandstand, stall, and manipulate.
Unfortunately, this is a lesson Obama has yet to learn. His version of American Mideast diplomacy is the reverse of what has worked, and the photocopy of what has failed. The predictable result is that the Palestinians refuse to come to the negotiating table, and are barreling toward a UN General Assembly publicity stunt that would effectively abrogate the Oslo process and introduce a level of anarchy into an already unstable region.
History suggests the president should reverse course immediately to salvage the process. But this may be a lesson too far.
Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/27/the-next-mideast-history-lesson-obama-so-desperately-needs/Seth Mandel is a writer specializing in Middle Eastern politics and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Horowitz Freedom Center.
* Frontpage thanks our new cartoonist Amir Avni for the graphic representing this article. Amir graduated from Sheridan College with a Bachelor of Animation Degree in 2010 and was awarded a Certificate of Merit by ASIFA-Hollywood in 2009. He is currently finishing his Master’s Degree.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.The Second Egyptian Revolution?
by Ryan Mauro
Egypt’s top prosecutor has announced that former President Hosni Mubarak will be prosecuted, possibly in a military court, for ordering the killing of protesters and corruption. The ousted leader may face the death penalty. This will be a test of Egypt’s experiment with democracy, as there is a high potential for a show trial. The decision came as major protests are planned for Friday against the military leadership. They are being called the “Second Egyptian Revolution.”
The military regime has caved to growing public demands to quickly prosecute Mubarak and other officials. On Friday, a huge rally is planned to take place to put pressure on the leadership. The event is being called alternatively “The Second Egyptian Revolution,” the “Second Day of Rage” and “The Revolution Part II.” The protesters hope to force more limits to be put on the military’s power, such as ending military trials of civilians. Hundreds of bloggers have jointly criticized the military, challenging the ban on doing so.
The demonstrators are also calling for parliamentary elections scheduled for September to be postponed so parties have more time to organize. This is probably why the Muslim Brotherhood has declined to join the protest, as it benefits from near-term elections that minimize the time for competitors to mobilize. The Coptic Christians and secular liberals opposed the referendum on March 19 for this reason, but were overwhelmingly defeated.
The Muslim Brotherhood took part in demonstrations against the military council in April. The military did not carry out threats to forcibly disperse a sit-in, and tens of thousands demonstrated in Tahrir Square. Some even called for the resignation of Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the leader of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces that now governs the country. These gatherings took place despite a ban on all strikes and protests that destabilize the country; a broad ruling used by the military regime to solidify its grip.
The military regime has been criticized by Egyptian activists and human rights groups for its actions since the fall of Mubarak. It has cracked down on demonstrations, and has put up to 10,000 civilians on trial in military courts without access to lawyers or family members. It arrested a 25-year old blogger for criticizing the military, and three activists were apprehended on Thursday for putting up posters promoting the next day’s rally. It also summoned an editor and two journalists that broke a story alleging that a deal was being reached with Mubarak. According to the report, he would release an audio tape offering to give up his assets in exchange for immunity. The three were released after they signed an agreement not to publish anymore stories about the military without prior approval so “confusion” wouldn’t arise.
The military rulers have been trying to win over the Islamists. It is opening up the Gaza border crossing, which will undermine the blockade on Hamas. It is trying to begin a new relationship with Iran, and has reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood. There is also no indication that the military desires to modify or eliminate Article 2 of the constitution that makes Sharia the law of the land. It will be important to see if the charges against Mubarak will be justified under this article.
The military has also not stepped in to protect the Coptic Christians that are facing increased persecution. It even revoked the citizenship of a Christian lawyer in the U.S. for allegedly defaming Islam. In some cases, the military has clashed with the Coptic Christian minority. In February, it shot a monk and six church workers at a monastery when it raided the facility for allegedly not having the required permits. The military also dismantled a church’s security wall, saying it was illegally constructed.The military regime has not confronted the Islamists, but the Supreme Council of Armed Forces says that it will not allow “another Khomeini” or “extremist factions” to come to power. This is an indication that it is willing to hold onto power if the Islamists come to power. The council was almost certainly referring to the Muslim Brotherhood when this statement was made. Since then, the Brotherhood has allied with the Salafists and al-Gama’a al-Islamiya, which has renounced violence and is forming a “civil political party based on Islamic principles.” The Brotherhood also recently hosted the leader of Hamas in its party headquarters.
The Supreme Council of Armed Forces has good reason to fear an Islamist takeover. The Muslim Brotherhood has raised its expectations for the parliamentary elections, and will now compete for half of the seats. The organization previously said it would only aim for one-third. If the Brotherhood can reach this goal, the next government will be formed on its terms. Should its Salafist allies add just a single more seat to its tally, then the Islamists will have a majority. This is extremely dangerous, as the next government will oversee the writing of a new constitution.
The news isn’t all good for the Muslim Brotherhood, though. A poll in April found that it is in second place, behind the secular nationalist Wafd Party. The Wafd had a 46 percent approval rating, eight points above the Brotherhood. Nearly one-fourth of those interviewed said they would vote for the Wafd, and the Brotherhood was only chosen by 12 percent. The now-banned party of Mubarak was chosen by 10 percent. This shows there is a strong non-Islamist voting bloc that can effectively compete with the Brotherhood.
A three-way struggle is underway in Egypt between the liberal political elements, the Islamists and the military regime. Friday will give a glimpse into the future of the country. The protests will demonstrate the level of opposition to the military rulers, as well as the leadership’s commitment to democracy, and willingness to tolerate challenges.
Ryan Mauro
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)