Middle East Studies in Upheaval

by Daniel Pipes

The troubled academic study of the Middle East and Islam by Americans is changing in fundamental ways. I offer some thoughts based on 42 years of personal observation:

From Western offence to Islamic offence: Muslim relations with Christians divide into four long periods: from Muhammad's hijra to the First Crusade, 622-1099, during which time Muslims expanded at Christian expense; to the 2^nd siege of Vienna, 1099-1683, which saw a mix of Muslim advances (e.g., Anatolia) and retreats (Iberia); to the Arab oil boycott, 1683-1973, with Christians on the offense; and since 1973, with Muslims on the offense.

One of many books on the "Arab world."

When I entered the Middle East and Islam field in 1969, Americans looked almost exclusively at the Western impact on modern Muslims; today, the Muslim impact on the West features almost as prominently, from American slavery to the problems of Malmö, Sweden.

From Arab to Muslim: Books on "The Arabs," "the Arab world," "Arab politics," "Arab nationalism," and "Arab socialism" flew off the press during my student years. With time, however, the hollowness of this modern concept of Arabs became evident. I was one of those who argued for Islam as the real defining factor, devoting myself thirty years ago to proving that "Islam profoundly shapes the political attitudes of Muslims." Met with skepticism back then, this understanding has now become so blindingly self-evident that Amazon.com lists no fewer than 3,077 items in English on jihad.

From critical to apologetic writing: Little did I know, but by taking up Islamic history when I did meant slipping in before the deluge of revisionism. Back in 1969, scholars respected Islamic civilization while usually (but not always) maintaining a proudly Western outlook. Symbolic of old-fashioned learning, my first Middle East history professor assigned us Julius Wellhausen's study, Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz (in English translation to be sure), published in 1902.

Then came the revolution. Martin Kramer ascribes the changes in Middle East studies to the publication of Orientalism by Edward Said in 1978; I see it more resulting from the sharp leftward turn of universities. Whatever the cause, the field descended into revisionist, apologetic, jargon-laden, error-prone Third-Worldism.

The old guard: Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), author of my assigned reading on the Umayyad Dynasty.

The old masters dropped out of syllabi. The Hartford Seminary rapidly "turned from being the premier Protestant seminary for missions to the Muslim world into an institution promoting Islamization." The academic understanding of jihad epitomizes this transformation: in a single generation, jihad went from being interpreted as aggressive warfare to moral self-improvement. Academics took their biased and shoddy work into government.

Academic work has sometimes become a near-parody of itself, with specialists proving such absurdities as: ancient Israeli history is a creation of modern Zionist propaganda, the Islamist movement already failed by 1992, water imperatives drive the Arab-Israeli conflict, and homosexuals do not exist in the Middle East. As maudlin obituaries to Said suggest, many specialists remain in his malign thrall.

From public indifference to engagement: The Middle East was politically prominent well before 2001 thanks to cold war tensions, oil exports, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iranian revolution. But American popular interest in the region remained modest until 9/11 and the subsequent Afghan and Iraqi wars. That surge of interest led to a wide awareness about the inadequacy of academic work. With the help of sophisticated critiques like Kramer's, plus organizations like Campus Watch, the public has become actively involved in opposing radical Middle East specialists, for example through activism to deny them tenure. One finds no parallel in other fields.

Martin Kramer subjected Middle East studies to its first sustained critique in 2001.

From trendy to retro: Another response to this failure consists of authors – often from outside the academy – harking back to pre-1980 scholarship to understand the region. Ibn Warraq, a pseudonymous ex-Muslim, published a sequence of books on the life of Muhammad, the origins of the Koran, its variants, and meaning, all of them premised on generations-old writings. Andrew Bostom, a medical researcher, anthologized significant portions of pre-1980 scholarship on jihad and antisemitism. Historian Efraim Karsh wrote Islamic Imperialism, which argues that Islam's expansionist tendencies have driven the religion since Muhammad's wars.

These old-fashioned books are yet few in number compared to the cascade of revisionism, but they mark a revival of ideas and themes that once appeared moribund. Their appearance, along with public engagement and the emerging presence of promising new scholars, signals that – almost uniquely in the humanities – a sound understanding of the Middle East and Islam may rebound.

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

Source: https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/130f98cd60c63c38

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

Israel’s Palace Coup Plotters

by Caroline B. Glick


On Monday, saboteurs bombed the Egyptian gas pipeline to Israel for the third time since former president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February. The move was just another reminder that Israel today faces the most daunting and complex threat spectrum it has ever seen.

From Egypt to Turkey to Iran to the international Left to the Obama administration, Israel faces a mix of military and political challenges that threaten its very existence on multiple levels. To meet these challenges, it is vital for the government and people of Israel to stand strong, unified and determined. The approaching storm will test our resilience as we have never been tested before.

Unfortunately, even if the government is competent, and even if the nation stands strong, there is reason to fear that Israel will fail to successfully withstand the dangers gathering against it. Unelected, unrepresentative and irresponsible senior government officials are liable to take actions that undermine the government’s ability to protect the country and weaken the public’s morale and unity of purpose.

Over the past week, we received two reminders of how dire the situation is. The first reminder relates to institutional impediments to the government’s freedom of action in preventing Iran from fielding a nuclear arsenal.

Since the beginning of his first term as prime minister 15 years ago, Binyamin Netanyahu has consistently warned that the greatest dangers Israel faces stem from the forces of global jihad generally and the Iranian regime and its nuclear program specifically. After taking office for the second time in 2009, Netanyahu made blocking Iran’s rise to nuclear power his top priority. He ordered the heads of the Mossad and the IDF to prepare plans to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

Last Friday, Haaretz reported that former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former IDF chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi refused to obey his order. Rather than prepare strike plans, Dagan and Ashkenazi warned that such a strike would foment a regional war. That is, rather than do their jobs, they made excuses for failing to fulfill their duty to obey Israel’s elected leadership.

Not wanting to take them on directly, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak decided to wait them out. Dagan and Ashkenazi were both set to finish their terms at the beginning of the year, and Netanyahu and Barak figured they could replace them with commanders who would abide by the government’s wishes. Specifically, Barak and Netanyahu believed that by replacing Ashkenazi with his deputy Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant, they would have a military leader willing and able to take on the central challenge of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Barak announced last August that Galant would replace Ashkenazi as IDF chief in January. Galant’s appointment was approved by the government and by the Senior Appointments Commission. But in late January, the government was forced to cancel it. And this week we received new indications that Galant’s appointment fell victim to what has been likened to a palace coup. That is, the government was denied its right to choose its military leader by a group of senior officials who deliberately usurped that power from the government.

In January, we learned that Ashkenazi’s close associate Lt.-Col. (ret.) Boaz Harpaz had forged a document that was transferred by Ashkenazi’s office to Channel 2. The forgery purported to be a memo written for Galant by the public relations firm owned by Eyal Arad – Kadima’s public relations guru. The forged memo detailed a public relations campaign that would discredit Galant’s rivals and Ashkenazi, and so pave the way for Galant’s appointment as chief of General Staff. Channel 2’s broadcast of the memo seriously harmed Galant’s public image.

The police opened an investigation, and Harpaz admitted to forging the document. Despite revelations that Harpaz was in intensive, continuous contact with Ashkenazi’s wife Ronit and had a longstanding close friendship with Ashkenazi himself, the Military Advocate- General decided not to investigate Ashkenazi or any other officer about their ties to Harpaz and his forged document.

Over the weekend, Yediot Aharonot reported that last week Harpaz underwent two lengthy interrogations by State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss. Harpaz is reportedly divulging information about his connections to Ashkenazi.

Despite Harpaz’s own admission that he forged the document, Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein has abstained, to date, from indicting him. Although jarring, Weinstein’s actions are not surprising. It was Weinstein who personally overturned Galant’s appointment in January.

Harpaz’s defamatory memo wasn’t the only thing working against Galant’s appointment. A previously unknown environmental group called the Green Movement filed a petition with the Supreme Court calling for the cancellation of Galant’s appointment because in the past he had used the state lands around his family homestead in Moshav Amikam without permission. Since his actions were administrative infractions rather than criminal acts, the Senior Appointments Commission concluded that he was fit to serve as chief of staff.

Weinstein felt differently. Claiming that he had ethical problems with Galant’s behavior, Weinstein refused to defend the appointment to the Supreme Court. Weinstein’s announcement forced the government to cancel Galant’s appointment.

Ashkenazi’s chosen successor,Maj.-Gen. Benny Gantz, whom Barak had previously eliminated from the running, was appointed instead.

Perhaps due to fear that Gantz might not stand up to Netanyahu and Barak as he and Ashkenazi did, Dagan shocked the country last month by launching an unprecedented public attack against Netanyahu and Barak. His clear aim was to discredit the option of an Israeli military strike against Iran.

According to Haaretz, Dagan was motivated by his desire to cover up his failure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Also according to Haaretz, Ashkenazi, together with recently retired IDF intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, supported Dagan’s attacks through off-record briefings.

It is impossible for the public to know what is going on behind closed doors. We cannot know whether a worthy general’s rivals’ successful campaign to discredit him has doomed the country to another three years of defeatist, incompetent stewardship of the IDF – and what’s worse, to a nuclear-armed Iran. What we do know is that a handful of unelected civil servants took it upon themselves to undermine the government’s ability to lead the country.

The government is not the only target on the runaway clerks’ target list. Members of the nationalist camp are also subject to systematic campaigns of criminalization and demoralization.

This week we were witness to the troubling spectacle of senior rabbis being dragged into police stations for questioning. Their purported crime involves writing blurbs praising a religious book written by another rabbi.

The book in question is reportedly a highly controversial tome that sets out the religious precepts governing the killing of enemies of Israel in times of war and peace. It was authored by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira from Yitzhar.

Several leftist organizations filed a complaint against the book, claiming that it incites murder of non-Jews. Shapira was arrested and brought before the district court for arraignment in leg shackles and handcuffs last year.

And over the past several days, Rabbis Dov Lior and Ya’acov Yosef have been arrested and questioned by police for the blurbs they authored that were published in the book.

It is hard to know the basis for the complaint. Generally Israeli law stipulates that there has to be a tangible connection between incendiary words and the likely commission of the crime they incite. No such connection seems to exist in the case of Shapira’s book.

In the wake of Lior’s arrest, his students staged raucous, enraged protests against the State Attorney’s Office and the Supreme Court. For their part, senior prosecutors announced that no one in Israel is above the law. And this is true enough.

Unfortunately they do not practice what they preach. In arresting the rabbis, the police were acting in accordance with their instructions from Assistant Attorney-General for Special Projects Shai Nitzan.

The bulk of Nitzan’s duties revolve around applying the law in a discriminatory manner against the Israeli Right.

Following Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in 1995, then-attorney-general Michael Ben-Yair established Nitzan’s position. The position was specifically geared toward criminalizing Israelis who live beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

Among other things, the assistant attorneygeneral for special projects oversees the operation of an inter-agency group called the Task Force for Law Enforcement against Israelis in Judea and Samaria.

The task force was officially canceled in 1998 by the government, acting on the advice of then-attorney-general Elyakim Rubenstein. Rubenstein argued that the task force’s mission of enforcing specific laws against a specific population group was inherently discriminatory.

In breach of the government decision, the task force has continued to meet regularly. Nitzan has overseen its activities since he was promoted to his position in 2005.

In 2009, MK Ze’ev Elkin convened a special Knesset hearing on the activities of Nitzan’s task force. According to an Arutz 7 report of the proceedings, he subpoenaed protocols from the meetings and found that its activities were deeply prejudicial and politically motivated. Among other things, the protocols disclosed that the task force members were required to file a minimum monthly quota of five criminal complaints against Israelis in Judea and Samaria suspected of building violations.

The quota system is doubly prejudicial. First, by making investigations an institutional requirement rather than a function of the suspected commission of specific illegal acts, it is an invitation for frivolous prosecutions and official harassment.

Second, inside the 1949 armistice lines, the general practice is to treat building violations as administrative rather than criminal offenses. By using a different practice for Israelis living outside the armistice lines, Nitzan and his team members enacted a separate legal regime for a select group of citizens, thus undermining the foundations of the rule of law.

Elkin’s 2009 hearing made no difference. And after Lior’s arrest last week, Elkin again demanded its disbanding in accordance with the government decision and the rule of law. And no doubt, the legal fraternity will continue to ignore his calls.

Through their behavior, the legal fraternity is not merely making a mockery of the rule of law. They are undermining the social fabric of the country.

As for the government, the senior civil service’s erosion of the governing authority of the political leadership has risen to critical levels. As Galant’s scuttled appointment and Dagan’s and Ashkenazi’s behavior regarding Iran’s nuclear program make clear, we have reached the point where due to the subversion of senior officials, our elected leaders are denied the ability to perform their primary function of defending the country.

This state of affairs has simply got to end. The government and the Knesset need to put a stop to it. At the end of the day, the ayatollahs, the sheikhs, the UN and the anarchists are not our greatest challenge. Our leaders and our people can stand up to them. Our greatest challenge is to stand up to unelected officials who have taken it upon themselves to discredit the cause of victory, embrace weakness, and destroy our sense of national purpose.

Caroline B. Glick

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=227931

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

The Nuclear Axis of Evil Advances

by Ryan Mauro

The United Kingdom is accusing Iran of testing nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in violation of U.N. Resolution 1929. At the same time, North Korea is moving full speed ahead with its weapons programs. It is well-known that the two collaborate on their WMD efforts, and it must be assumed that any progress will be shared. Recent advances by the two members of the Axis of Evil show that the West’s strategy against them is failing to stop their pursuit of the world’s deadliest weapons.

Iran launched its second satellite into orbit this month, which “demonstrated Iranian engineers’ growing skill and contrasted with the repeated failures endured by North Korea in trying to place payloads into orbit.” The New York Times said the rocket did not resemble an intercontinental ballistic missile, but the technology is still related enough to raise concern that the space program has a hidden purpose. Iran has also announced that it is installing new, more advanced centrifuges to triple its production of enriched uranium.

The Iranians have made “dramatic progress” in their ballistic missile programs in the past year, carrying out three tests of nuclear-capable missiles in defiance of the United Nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that it possesses evidence that Iran has worked on developing a miniaturized nuclear warhead. It has also tested advanced short-range missiles that have been called a “game-changer” because of the threat they pose to aircraft carriers. Reza Kahlili, a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, reports that two nuclear-capable warheads with a range of 2,000 miles are now in the hands of the Revolutionary Guards. He said eight more are to be delivered within the next nine months.

Kahlili’s report does not necessarily mean that Iran has manufactured the actual nuclear warhead. However, the South Korean defense minister says North Korea may have successfully made a miniaturized nuclear warhead. The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency likewise says that North Korea may have several plutonium-based warheads. To make matters worse, Larry Niksch of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says that North Korea could have ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. in 2012. If North Korea has overcome the obstacles to warhead creation, then that means it is in a position to help Iran do the same for a price.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, president of EMPact America, says that Western analysts erred in describing North Korea’s last nuclear test in May 2009 as a failure. He says that the U.S. expected North Korea to detonate an implosion device with the power of 10 to 20 kilotons. The explosion was only three kilotons strong, giving the impression that the device was defective. In reality, Dr. Pry says, North Korea was likely testing a “super-EMP” weapon, referring to an Electro-Magnetic Pulse that destroys electronic components for potentially hundreds of miles.

Pry says that when he served on the congressional EMP Commission, which concluded that such an attack could collapse the infrastructure of the U.S., he was told that a group of Russian scientists had gone to North Korea to work on a “super-EMP” weapon. Notably, the Iranian regime has conducted exercises consistent with an EMP attack. If Pry’s analysis is right, then the Iranians and North Koreans could be sharing the technology necessary to carry out an attack more horrific than a traditional nuclear explosion.

The Iranians and North Koreans cannot be expected to keep their technologies to themselves. Ayatollah Khamenei spoke of sharing nuclear technology with Islamic countries during a stop in Khartoum, Sudan in 2006. More recently, the speaker of the Iranian parliament said that Iran would use its missiles to protect Muslim allies. “Israel and the U.S. should know that if they want to act violently towards Muslims, we will stand in their way,” Ali Larijani said.

The IAEA believes that a site in Syria bombed by Israel in 2007 was a secret nuclear reactor, believed to have been built by the North Koreans. A high-level defector says the construction was financed by Iran. In May 2004, a train in North Korea delivering missiles to Syria crashed, killing about a dozen Syrians. In July 2007, an accidental explosion happened in Syria that reportedly killed dozens of Syrians and Iranians. It is believed that technicians were trying to mount a warhead filled with mustard gas onto a missile. In August 2009, three short-range Scud missiles developed with help from Iran and North Korea were tested in Syria, with one falling into Turkey. It is certain that Syria will benefit from Iran and North Korea’s latest advances.

The U.S. recently intercepted a shipment of North Korean missile components to Burma, where North Korea is intimately involved in the junta’s secret nuclear weapons program. The Iranians are now very active in Venezuela, adding another partner to their nuclear schemes.

An advance by North Korea must also be considered an advance by Iran, and vice versa. In order to stop one, the West must stop the other. And the West is failing.

Ryan Mauro

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/05/the-nuclear-axis-of-evil-advances/

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

The Flotilla, Gilad Shalit and the Friends of Genocide

by David Meir-Levi

Many media, academic and political responses to Israel’s boarding of the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010 were characterized by inaccurate language and factual errors that misrepresented the “Freedom Flotilla” confrontation and supported an unwarranted delegitimization of Israel.

Despite overwhelming video and documentary evidence of the flotilla activists’ radical agenda and their affinity for violence, all too many commentators asserted that the flotilla of Gaza-bound vessels sailed on a purely “humanitarian” mission, and Israel’s interception on the high seas was in violation of international law and the maritime laws of war. Bona fide scholars of international law supported Israel’s actions and debunked the anti-Israel accusations.

The basis for the legality of Israel’s interception of the blockade runners was the fact that Hamas, the ruling force in the Gaza Strip and an organization condemned as an illegal enemy terrorist entity by the US Department of State and the European Union, was in an active state of war with Israel. In wartime, blockades are legal according to international law.

Hamas officials have repeatedly declared publicly that the goal of their terrorism is the obliteration of Israel. Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and since its very inception, Hamas has declared war on Israel and has mercilessly attacked Israeli soldiers and civilians. When Israel unilaterally and unconditionally evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas declared a victory for terrorism and a commitment to maintaining the terror war against Israel. Hamas matched its words with suicide bombers, sniper attacks, RPG attacks, kidnappings and thousands of Qassam rockets. Given Hamas’ commitment to Israel’s destruction, and its relentless terrorist attacks, one must conclude that Hamas is at war with Israel.

Some have argued that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority are yet “state actors” and the maritime laws of war apply only to “state actors.” Thus, Israel’s blockade, being against non-state actors, is in violation of maritime laws of war. But this is a deeply flawed argument, comparable to declaring that since terrorists do not wear uniforms, they must be treated as civilians rather than combatants.

In response to Hamas’ endless and relentless terrorist war, Israel’s blockade is a legitimate restrained and defensive military action; and thus Israel’s interdiction of the Mavi Marmara in May, 2010, was rational, legal, and moral. International law acknowledges that all sovereign nations have the right to defend against aggressors, and Israel has a moral duty to protect its citizens.

Now, just a bit more than a year later, we are witness to a rerun of this same anti-Israel endeavor. Originally planned for departure in August, 2010, this retread of the “Freedom Flotilla” promises to be bigger and better and more impactful. As though no one learned anything from the first flotilla fiasco, this next generation of “human rights activists,” including a host of American participants on a boat bearing a resonant American name, has launched a new and improved Gaza flotilla 2. As did their predecessors, today’s blockade runners position themselves as “peace activists” bent on rescuing the oppressed Arabs of the Gaza Strip by breaking Israel’s “illegal” blockade, averting a looming humanitarian crisis with desperately-needed medical and food supplies, and helping to end Israel’s “illegal occupation” – all pure fiction.

Thanks to the persistence, courage, and sagacity of one lone law firm, the legality of Israel’s blockade and of its defensive actions against blockade runners are now so well established that Greece, Turkey, and international insurance companies are having second thoughts about support for, and maritime insurance of, this new Gaza flotilla. Even the first flotilla’s most ardent supporter, the Turkish terrorist organization IHH, has withdrawn support, perhaps under Turkish government pressure due to the events in Syria. It seems that flotilla 2 may also be in violation of U.S. law, thus rendering participants and material supporters vulnerable to legal action. Ms. Darshan-Leitner’s legal arguments have found agreement and support in other quarters. Secretary Clinton and the U.S. Department of State have issued a stern warning to the flotilla participants, indicating that they may face arrest, prosecution and deportation by Israel. Two members of Congress asserted that American flotilla members could face prosecution in the USA.

As a result, at least one third of the original participating ships have withdrawn from the flotilla and will not try to breach Israel’s blockade.

But what about the flotilla’s putative mission to avert a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip? Poverty does exist in the Gaza Strip. There is no perceptible economic development, no industry other than smuggling and the manufacturing of rockets, and there is little opportunity. But the deprivation that Gazans suffer is by no means a humanitarian crisis. Socio-economic data show that Gazans enjoy a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the world average.

On April 20, 2011, well in advance of flotilla 2’s departure, the International Red Cross agreed. Ample photos show shops filled with food and bazaars over-flowing with fruits, vegetable and meats. Some of these photos are published in Arab news sources as well as in American ones.

Recent reports indicate that two new luxury hotels are set to open on the Gaza beach, thousands of new cars ply the roads, there are two new shopping malls, hundreds of new homes are under construction, and the hot-houses left intact by Israel when it evacuated all Israelis from the Gaza Strip in 2005 are now run by Hamas and produce enough fruits and vegetables that Israeli imports are tapering off. Even Palestinian Authority officials have exposed Hamas’ ruse, acknowledging that 56% of the PA budget goes to Gaza, and branding the “humanitarian crisis” as a fabrication of Hamas propaganda to provide an excuse for smuggling war materials into the strip.[i]

Moreover, established and efficient mechanisms exist for the transfer of humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip. The border between Egypt and Gaza is now open, so cargo could be off-loaded at the Egyptian port of el-Arish, just west of the Gaza Strip. Assistance can also be delivered at the Israeli port of Ashdod, where cargo can be off-loaded and inspected, and then delivered to Gaza. Far from prohibiting the entry of food, water, medicine and humanitarian supplies, Israel facilitates the daily transfer of thousands of tons of aid that residents of Gaza should receive for free, except that Hamas officials confiscate and sell them for money that they then use to buy weapons for their terrorist activities. Hamas’ aid theft became so blatant that even the UN had to step in on behalf of the deprived and impoverished Gazans.

In sum, Israel’s blockade is legal. Breaching that blockade is a violation of international maritime law and an act of war entailing considerable risk of physical harm and legal prosecution. There is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and the poverty and privation there is in large part due to the depredations of the Hamas terrorist government against its own people. So if the aim of the flotilla were to help the residents of the Gaza Strip, they could do so by docking at el-Arish or Ashdod, without perpetrating an act of war against Israel by breaching its legal blockade of the Gaza Strip. And if these “human rights activists” were really concerned about privation and suffering, why are they not aiming their flotilla at Syria where thousands have died in the past few months as president-for-life Bashar el-Assad drowns his “Arab Spring” in the blood of unarmed Syrian protesters, or at Sudan or Iran or Iraq or Arabia where human rights violations are galactic in scope and severity?

So what is the real goal of these “human rights activists”? Here an old adage can come to our aid: “Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.” Let’s see with whom these so-called activists are sailing.

The key organizer of flotilla 2, Mohammed Sawalha, has ties with Hamas. Two other members of the flotilla’s “peace activists,” Amin Abu Rashad and Mohammad Hannoun, are known Hamas members. The IHH, the primary organization supporting the flotilla before it disassociated itself from the endeavor, is a known Muslim terrorist organization, and its leader, Bulent Yildirim, has well-known terrorist affiliations. Another leading organizer of flotilla 2 is the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) which supports, aids and abets Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. The Free Palestine Movement, founded by ISM activists, supports the 2011 flotilla, promoting the claim that the flotilla is a non-violent effort with humanitarian goals. Greta Berlin, one of the flotilla participants, is a cheerful-looking 68-year-old American who is a member of the ISM and an energetic, vocal supporter of Hamas. Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, long-time pro-Palestinian activists who support Arab terrorism against Israel, are also among the organizers of the flotilla.

We need to recall that Hamas is a self-declared terrorist organization whose founding document unabashedly avows that its ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of all Jews worldwide. So it is clear that the leaders and members and armed terrorists who carry out Hamas’ attacks, those who offer financial support, those who offer political and moral justification, and those who misrepresent Hamas as a humanitarian organization struggling courageously against an oppressive occupation, are all active participants in Hamas’ heinous endeavor. They want to engage in war against Israel.

And the same is true of flotilla 2’s “human rights activists:” Based on the company they keep, it is clear that they are passive participants, but participants nonetheless. By joining the terrorists and terrorist supporters in the flotilla, they are engaging both in an act of war against Israel and in political street theatre at its worst. By striking a political and PR blow against Israel, they are aiding and abetting one of our century’s most vicious and ruthless terrorist organizations. By setting sail with those who support mass murder and genocide, they have wittingly or unwittingly joined the ranks of the 21^st century’s avatar of Hitler’s little helpers.

And speaking of active participation, it is important to note that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) stood staunchly on the side of Hamas for decades, until this year. The ICRC has a long history of whitewashing Hamas terrorism and condemning Israel for its restrained defensive actions against terror attacks. In 2010 the ICRC supported flotilla 1, condemning Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip because, they asserted, it choked off economic development, caused unemployment, poverty and warfare, and punished the entire civilian population for acts for which they bear no responsibility. In the ICRC’s judgment, Israel’s blockade constituted collective punishment in clear violation of international humanitarian law, and its illegal closure of the Gaza Strip should be ended.

For more than two decades the world’s paragon of human rights shamelessly underwrote a sizable portion of the Gaza Strip’s economy with humanitarian aid, passively complicit as Hamas operatives confiscated much of that aid and sold it to the impoverished population that should have received it at no cost. As noted above, only in 2009 did the ICRC finally go public with the scandal of its complicity in humanitarian aid used to fund genocidal terrorism. The ICRC’s support for Hamas constitutes perhaps one of the world’s most galactic cases of hypocrisy.

For five years, the ICRC stood silently by as the Hamas captors of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit held him in isolation, contrary to international law. For the last two years, there has not even been any sign that Shalit is still alive. When the ICRC finally issued a statement on June 23, 2011, requesting that Hamas enable Shalit to contact his family, scores of Gazan Arabs assaulted the Red Cross offices in Gaza City, pelting the building with eggs, destroying a security guard cabin, and smashing the windows with stones. Hamas made no reply to the Red Cross request. A similarly violent demonstration, replete with eggs, rocks and shoes, occurred six months earlier when the French foreign minister made the mistake of expressing sympathy for Shalit, an Israeli-French dual national, during her visit to the Gaza Strip; and this despite the fact that she had made an impassioned plea for Israel to end its blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory. The foreign minister, although under heavy guard, was almost hit by a shoe.

So one might ask the question, why does Israel enable the ICRC to do its “humanitarian work” in the Gaza Strip, knowing full well that not only does much of this work actually aid and abet and support Hamas in its genocidal goals, but also that the ICRC for years did nothing about its other humanitarian obligation in the Gaza Strip, namely, ensuring humane treatment for the one lone Israeli POW. And after the ICRC finally made one flaccid belated attempt on behalf of Shalit, it quietly accepted Hamas’ rebuff?

Perhaps it is not in Israel’s best interest to allow the Red Cross into the Gaza Strip; or perhaps the ICRC should consider some action to protest Hamas’ refusal to abide by international laws regarding POWs, not to mention attacking Red Cross offices with stones and eggs.

*

[i] No humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip:

The evidence for the absence of crisis in the Gaza Strip is overwhelming. UN observers have stated bluntly that there is no lack of food, medicine or other humanitarian needs in the Gaza Strip, although some building materials are in short supply. The Palestinian Authority agrees. This reality is gradually making its way into mainstream media (see here, here, here), as some journalists discover Olympic-sized swimming pools and gourmet restaurants, as well as grocery stores proffering Israeli yogurt and Cocoa Puffs and well-stocked pharmacies in the impoverished Gaza Strip.

The most comprehensive statistics come from a recent JCPA summary, with documented supplies entering the Gaza Strip from Israel:

Health: 4,883 tons of medical equipment and medicines entered Gaza in 2009 in coordination with the Palestinian Authority and international agencies:

Electricity: Israel continued to supply electricity to Gaza from its power plant in Ashkelon. In addition, 41 truckloads of equipment were transferred for the maintenance of the electrical system in Gaza. Between April and October 2009, Siemens carried out maintenance work on the power system in Gaza, to which more than 100 million liters of diesel fuel were delivered for its operation.

Communications: 45 truckloads of communication equipment were sent to Gaza at the request of the Palestinian Authority.

Water and sewage: 95 truckloads of equipment for water and sewage systems, as well as 3,720 tons of chloride for water purification, were transferred during 2009.

The private sector: 77 percent of the contents of trucks sent into Gaza in 2009 were for the private sector. 257 Palestinian businessmen exited Gaza to Israel, the West Bank, and abroad. 10,871 head of cattle were transferred to Gaza, mainly for the Ramadan and Eid al-Adha holidays. In preparation for winter, 3,607 tons of glass for windows was transferred to Gaza.

Money: Over NIS 1.1 billion (approximately $300 million) was transferred to Gaza in 2009 to fund salaries and the activities of international organizations. In addition, NIS 40 million (approximately $10 million) in worn banknotes were replaced.

Humanitarian aid: 141,390 tons of humanitarian aid were transferred by the international community through Israel, including 115,043 tons of food and 2,990 tons of medicines and medical equipment.

UNRWA: 3,282,000 liters of fuel and diesel were transferred for use by UNRWA. In addition, special equipment for summer camps, including swimming pools, ice cream machines, musical instruments, and sports equipment were transferred to UNRWA.

Agricultural export: The export of flowers and strawberries was approved as part of a joint project with the government of the Netherlands. Since the beginning of the project, more than 7 million flowers and 54 tons of strawberries were exported.

There are also ample videos, some from Arab news sources, showing shops well stocked and goods entering the Gaza Strip by the truck load (see here, here, here and here).

David Meir-Levi

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/05/the-flotilla-gilad-shalit-and-the-friends-of-genocide/

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

Hezbollah Indicted for Assassination of Lebanese PM

by Rick Moran

After months of delay and hesitation, the United Nation’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) has presented indictments to Lebanon’s state prosecutor in the case of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. To no one’s surprise, the indictments named four members of the terrorist group/political party Hezbollah, including one of its top military commanders. Yet fears of extreme internal discord, not the least of which would be sown by the looming influence of Syria and Iran, make the likelihood of punishment for the crime not favorable.

The indictments come at a time when the new Hezbollah-dominated government is preparing for a vote of confidence in parliament, and underscore the delicate political considerations that caused the UN to keep putting off formally announcing the charges, despite the fact that leaks dating back to 2010 had established the Hezbollah connection to the crime. The UN feared both a Sunni backlash against Hezbollah and the unpredictable response of the terrorists to being singled out for justice in the high profile assassination case, believing the indictments could ignite another civil war.

The prosecutor, Saeed Mirza, now has 30 days to arrest the suspects and turn them over to the STL for trial. If the prosecutor fails to arrest the suspects within that period, the STL will then make the indictment public and summon the suspects to appear before the court. If they fail to appear, the court has the option of trying them in absentia.

Hezbollah has rejected the indictments and the authority of the tribunal, claiming the court is a tool of the Israelis and Americans and vowing that it won’t cooperate with any efforts by the STL to try its own party members. Hassan Nasrallah, the group’s spiritual adviser and acknowledged leader, blasted the court as “corrupt” and stated, “They will not be able to arrest them in one year, two [years], nor in 30 or 300 years[.]” Nasrallah previously threatened to “cut off the hands” of anyone who tried to apprehend members of his group and claims that the goal of the tribunal is to sow sectarian strife in Lebanon between Sunnis and Shias.

Hariri was a beloved figure in the Sunni community, having served as prime minister four different terms between 1992 and 2004. His murder in a massive car bombing on February 14, 2005 set off a series of demonstrations that eventually led to the Syrian army quitting Lebanon the following spring.

The indictment names Mustafa Badreddine, the brother-in-law of assassinated Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh, as the prime suspect and the chief planner in the assassination. Badreddine replaced Mughniyeh as Hezbollah’s chief operations officer after he was killed in a mysterious explosion in Syria on Feb. 12, 2008 — presumably carried out by Israeli intelligence, although there were murmurs at the time of his death that Syria’s President Assad or a rival Hezbollah faction might have been responsible for the attack.

Also named were Salim Ayyash, 48, who headed up the terrorist cell that carried out the operation. Ayyash holds a US passport and was a volunteer with Lebanese civil defense. It is believed both men have fled Lebanon and are currently hiding in Iran.

Little is known about the two other conspirators — Asad Sabra and Hasan Ainessi — except that Hezbollah has confirmed they are members of the terrorist group.

In a vaguely worded policy statement, of which portions related to the STL were released on Friday, the new government stressed its “respect” for all UN resolutions and its intention to follow the tribunal’s instructions in order to get to the bottom of the Hariri assassination. The policy statement must be approved in parliament in order for the cabinet to be seated.

Prime Minister Najib Mikati, fearful of an international backlash if his new government totally rejected the work of the STL, was at odds for weeks with Nasrallah over the best approach to take toward the tribunal, with Nasrallah demanding a cut off in funding for the court, as well as total non-cooperation with its investigation. For the time being at least, Nasrallah appears to have acceded to the necessity of appearing to cooperate with the STL — at least until the government can gain a vote of confidence in the parliament and the policy statement approved.

STL chief prosecutor Daniel Bellemare made it clear that these four indictments were only the beginning. Sources told Lebanon’s Daily Star that the indictments contained arrest warrants for other, non-Lebanese suspects. It is widely believed that members of Syrian intelligence, as well as Palestinian terrorists, will also be named in the indictments, although it appears to be less likely that high-ranking members of the government of Bashar Assad will face trial. It is also thought that any indictment of Syrian nationals has been put on hold due to the unrest in that country.

The very first report on the assassination submitted by German judge Detlev Mehlis back in 2006 indicated that the list of suspects would be a long one. Mehlis’ report concluded, “Given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services working in tandem, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge.”

At the top of the list was President Assad’s brother-in-law Asef Shawkat, head of Syrian military intelligence at the time of the report, now chief of staff to the president. In 2005, Shawkat was chief of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon, and it is believed to be an impossibility that such a massive plot could be carried out without his direct knowledge. Other suspects include the notorious Ahmad Jabril, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), and the current Lebanese intelligence chief Colonel Wissam al-Hasan who was Hariri’s chief of security at the time of the assassination. It is unlikely that Hasan will be indicted due to political considerations and his close relationship with Rafiq Hariri’s son Saad.

There were at least eight major conspirators, according to evidence unearthed by a lone, dedicated Lebanese army captain, who, without the aid of sophisticated computers (he used Excel spreadsheets), ferreted out the phone networks used by Hezbollah to track Hariri and carry out the assassination. It was a spectacular feat of detective work considering that the United Nations tasked a British computer company to go through every telephone call made in Lebanon for a year previous to the assassination in order to detect patterns in the calls that would point to the perpetrators.

Captain Wissam Eid supplied the STL with his evidence a full year before the tribunal’s sophisticated analysis came up with the same answer: at least four networks operating in Lebanon, all connected to Hezbollah, were ultimately responsible for Hariri’s death.

The UN investigators were astonished at Eid’s work and actually considered him a suspect for a time. But he was able to satisfy the investigators that he had, indeed, cracked the case.

Captain Eid was murdered by a car bomb on January 25, 2008. For him, and the dozens of other anti-Syrian Lebanese who have been killed or wounded since Hariri’s death, there will be no justice, despite the STL being tasked with solving those murders as well. Journalists, members of parliament, cabinet ministers, army officers like Captain Eid, and civic leaders have all been victims of Syrian-Hezbollah atrocities. Given the politicized nature of the STL in Lebanon, it is unlikely that any of those murders will ever be solved.

The same can probably be said of the Hariri slaying. With the Syrian-Hezbollah noose tightening around Lebanon, and the slipshod methods of Bellemare (staffers say he appears more interested in the trappings of the office than in getting to the bottom of the Hariri assassination), the prospects for any trials resulting from the indictments handed down are bleak.

Even Saad Hariri, former prime minister until the Hezbollah bloodless coup earlier this year, seems resigned to never getting justice for his father’s killing. He has already absolved Syria of any role in the assassination, despite insisting for years that President Assad was behind his father’s death.

And despite his claim that he wants to see the work of the STL go forward, his heart does not appear to be in the effort. In the end, with the prospect of sectarian strife as a result of the indictments still looming large, even the younger Hariri realizes that the precarious nature of Lebanese society demands that certain truths not be uttered lest they set off a chain of events that would be catastrophic for the peace and stability of Lebanon. The memories of Lebanon’s vicious and bloody civil war in the 1980s is too fresh in the minds of today’s political leaders to allow such a tragedy to start up again.

Hezbollah and their masters in Damascus and Tehran fully realize this and are getting away with murder. They are able to do so because they have the guns and have demonstrated a willingness to use them in order to achieve their goals. And the STL, the international community, and the opposition in Lebanon all seem powerless to change that stark reality.

Rick Moran is Blog Editor of The American Thinker, and Chicago Editor of PJ Media. His personal blog is Right Wing Nuthouse.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/05/hezbollah-indicted-for-assassination-of-lebanese-pm/

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

Obama Undermining Moderate Muslims

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The United States administration's recent decision to establish contacts with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood organization is a severe blow to moderate, secular Muslims who are trying to achieve democracy and prosperity in their countries.

The U.S. announcement will only undermine the so-called "Facebook Uprising" that has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim world in the past few months.

This is an uprising spearheaded by secular Muslims who have, until now, succeeded in marginalizing Islamic fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood did not play any role in toppling the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. Nor does the organization seem to have any significant role in the anti-government uprisings in Yemen, Syria and Libya.

But the Obama administration's decision to engage the Muslim Brotherhood will pump life into the organization and bolster its supporters in the rest of the Arab and Muslim countries.

Moreover, the decision sends a message to radical Muslims that they are marching in the right direction and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the world, including the Leader of the Free World, recognizes them as legitimate players.

Those who want to conduct dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood are also endorsing the organization's political and religious allies, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah.

These organizations seek to impose strict Islamic teachings and laws on all Muslims and Arabs. Their common goal is to take the Arabs and Muslims several centuries back.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the Obama administration is open to dialogue with the once-banned Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood, for its part, has, of course, welcomed that decision, expressing hope that Washington has "revised its previous policies and decided to side with the rights of the people and their demands to stop supporting the corrupt and tyrannical regimes, backing the Zionist occupation and using double standards."

If the Obama administration is going to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no reason why it should not also launch dialogue with Hamas, the Taliban, Hizbullah and even al-Qaeda. Engaging Muslim extremists, without demanding that they abandon their dangerous policies and violence, is a huge mistake.

Or is this what it is planning to do -- but without these demands?

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2243/obama-undermining-moderate-muslims

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

On Geert Wilders's Acquittal

by Bat Ye'or

The acquittal of Geert Wilders has deeper meanings for Europe's future than it appears at first glance. As Geert Wilders said: it is a victory for truth. But what does truth mean in international policy? Do we not see that in Eurabia the words 'justice and peace' are travesties for submission to injustice and terrorism? Here one needs to know the extensive system of lies spread at every political and cultural level in Eurabia, to understand the Copernican revolution achieved by Geert Wilders. A victory performed by a single unarmed man, constantly threatened by death and whose only defence was his courageous and unbending commitment to say the truth. A truth buried by the whole Eurabian transnational and international system created since the 1970s.

Imposed on Europeans by controlling networks such a system emanates from the European Commission whose masters are no other than the political leaders of the European governments. The EU, a mastodon Kafkaesque structure, consuming astronomical sums, often enables European leaders to implement an authoritarian policy escaping people's awareness. Rivalries for power, ambitions, ideology, oppose Eurocrats to those they disdainfully call "racist, populist, xenophobic" opponents to their globalist Islamophile ideology. Yet there is more than usual policy into these clashes. There is what Wilders calls: the truth, a human moral element.

To understand the tremendous revolution achieved by Geert Wilders, one has to realise that the foundational stone of the Eurabian mind consist of two principles stated in article 22 of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:

a. Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'a.

b. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'a.

Europe, while claiming to defend human rights has, in effect, adopted these principles and obeys a fundamental law of dhimmitude: dhimmis are forbidden on pain of death to propagate ideas considered hostile to Islam. Qadi 'Iyad (d. 1149), the famous Andalusian Imam, prolific author and scholar, described explicitly blasphemy. It consists in cursing Muhammad, blaming him or attributing imperfection to him, to his religion, whether in the form of a curse, contempt or belittling him or maligning him. He stated that any Jew or Christian who reviled the Prophet should be beheaded or burned, unless he converts. Under the pressure of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Eurabia has adopted these Islamic blasphemy rules.

The dhimmi attitude that has developed among European intellectuals, politicians, and the clergy requires the Western public to conform to one of the basic rules of dhimmitude: the express prohibition on Christians and Jews to criticize Islamic history and doctrine. This means that shari'a law has been imposed on Europeans by their own dhimmi leaders in their outreach to Islam. No wonder that since the 1970s Eurocrats censor any criticism of jihad and incriminate Israel's right to exist as an aggression, triggering wars and terrorism. The denial of the jihadist current trend by Europe, its compliance to shari'a laws by prosecuting and punishing its own citizens for criticizing them, constitute the basic issues of Wilders trial. By exposing them, he has overturned EU's policy.

In this tremendous fight for truth, Wilders is not alone. Many sacrificed their position and reputation, many despaired such as the sociologist Jacques Ellul (d. 1994) who saw the return of Nazism in a machinery disguising its Fascist authoritarianism and antisemitism with the words 'peace, justice, love, human rights'.

Can Wilders and his courageous supporters – each fighting in his own country against their dhimmi leaders – succeed in bringing some morality into a sordid policy of lies, corruption, hate and cowardice? Or could this success for truth be just a moment of light and hope before being crushed? Will Muslims themselves take this opportunity offered by the sacrifices of Wilders and the young anti-racist militants for freedom of speech, to ponder upon their own history of a long genocidal jihad over four continents with its trail of enslavement and dispossession of people? We are waiting to hear them acknowledging that jihadist ideology is criminal and that dhimmitude is a dehumanising oppression.

Now, the world sees the fanatical and revolting persecution of Copts and other Christians in Islamic countries, and the jihadist genocidal hatred against Israel. And Now, Jews, Christians, Hindus and others victims of Islamic wars, who suffered dispossession, apartheid, deportations, humiliations, child abductions – crimes perpetrated altogether within the context of dhimmitude – are hoping for a reconciliation that can only come with Muslim acknowledgement of a criminal supremacist ideology and its rejection.

Bat Ye'or

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2239/on-geert-wilders-acquittal

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

Pentagon Concerned Over Iran, Hizbullah in Latin America

by Gavriel Queenann

Iran and its proxy Hizbullah continue to expand their influence and presence in South America, a top US general warns.

USAF General Douglas Fraser, commanding officer of the Pentagon's Southern Command, says Iran has aggressively expanded its network of embassies in the region, as well as building numerous cultural centers and mosques in more than 15 Latin American countries.

Fraser, the shot-caller for US military operations in 31 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, says intelligence provided to SoCom indicates the Iranian-built Mosques and cultural centers are teaching a radical brand of Islam to impoverished Latin American's and serve as recruiting centers for 'extremist organizations.'

Fraser warns these efforts have been accelerated by the close relationship between President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who have met at least nine times during Chavez’s 12-year tenure as President.

The Iranian-Venezuelan alliance remains largely diplomatic and commercial, according to Fraser. But he maintains there are still too many unknowns to simply discount its long-term strategic importance vis-a-vis the growth of Islamic terror groups in the region.

"There are flights between Iran and Venezuela on a weekly basis, and visas are not required for entrance into Venezuela or Bolivia or Nicaragua. So we don’t have a lot of visibility in who’s visiting and who isn’t, and that’s really where I see the concerns," Fraser says.

"It is a concern, and it is an issue we will continue to monitor for any increasing activity," Fraser said.

Fraser also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that military intelligence confirmed Iran has hosted heads of state from three countries: Bolivia, Guyana and Venezuela.

But Fraser isn't just concerned about Iran forming a beach-head in the region. The Iranian-supported Hizbullah terror-organization is also developing a dangerous presence in Latin America, Fraser says. In addition to fundraising and recruiting in the region, the terror group has reportedly started muscling in on the Mexican drug trade.

Fraser is not the first to warn lawmakers from both parties about Latin America's vulnerability to radical Islam. In 2007, Marine Corps General Peter Pace, the Bush Administration’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Armed Services Committee elements of radical Islamic groups were active in South America recruiting and training terrorists.

Pace specifically cited Hizbullah and al-Qaeda, but the Senate chose not to act on Pace's warnings at the time.

Due to Fraser's lobbying, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence will hold a hearing entitled “Hizbullah in Latin America – Implications for U.S. Homeland Security" on July 7th.

Gavriel Queenann

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145411

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

Nasrallah Vows to Harbor Hariri Assassins

by Gavriel Queenann

Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah vowed to never hand over the four men indicted by the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon for the 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, the Lebanon Daily Star reports.

Nasrallah's intransigence in the face of the indictment implicating four Hizbullah terrorists in the Hariri assassination is likely to embarrass Lebanon's new government, which has promised to respect its international obligations.

In a typically fiery speech delivered two days after the long-awaited indictment and arrest warrants were issued, Nasrallah dismissed the tribunal as an “American-Israeli court,” saying Lebanese authorities will not be able to arrest the four suspects “even in 300 years.”

“They cannot find or arrest the accused in 30 days or 60 days, 30 years or 300 years,” Nasrallah said, insisting the suspects had already been tried in abstentia. “The sentence is finished and has been issued in advance.”

Lebanon has thirty days to arrest the indictees under its STL-obligations.

“This tribunal, along with its decisions and findings, is in our view clearly an American-Israeli [tribunal]," Nasrallah opined on Hizbullah's Al-Manar television on Saturday. "Based on this, we reject it, and its invalid accusations and invalid rulings, which we consider aggression against us and against our resistance fighters – and an injustice against the honor of this [Islamic] nation."

Last year Nasrallah, who has repeatedly denied his party’s involvement in the massive suicide truck bombing that killed Hariri and 22 others on February 14, 2005, threatened to “cut off the hand” of anyone who tries to arrest any Hizbillah member.

Nasrallah confirmed the four suspects are Hizbullah members.

"They are brothers who have an honorable history in resisting the Israeli occupation,” he said while reiterating they would not be arrested.

“Don’t ask the Mikati government to do what the Hariri government could not do. Had the government been headed by Hariri or Siniora, would it be able to arrest these people or carry out the arrest warrants? It would not and we all know this … they cannot find or arrest the accused.”

Nasrallah justified his refusal to cooperate with the STL, saying it was an American-Israeli cats paw seeking to sow discord in Lebanon.

"Do you expect this tribunal to be fair with resistance fighters who fought against Israel?” Nasrallah asked. “This tribunal, since the beginning, was formed for a clear political target.

"This indictment is aimed at tarnishing the image of the resistance and its members and holy warriors and weakening the resistance fighters’ determination. The most dangerous objective is to incite strife between Sunnis and Shiites in Lebanon. These are the main objectives [of the indictment],” Nasrallah claimed. “There will not be sectarian strife in Lebanon, or between Sunnis and Shiites.”

Nasrallah assured his followers there were be no sectarian strife even as he resisted “this unjust accusation against our brothers.”

“Don’t worry," he told them. "This is part of the war we have been waging together since the establishment of the [Israeli] entity on the land of Palestine and attacks on Lebanon. This is part of a psychological and media war,” Nasrallah said.

“They want us to spiral into an internal confrontation. In order to protect our country, our people, security, stability and civil peace, we must be patient with provocations, even though the biggest provocation has happened through this unjust accusation against our brothers.”

Gavriel Queenann

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145422

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

After Flotilla, Israel Prepares for Pro-Arab Fly In

by Elad Benari

As the planned Freedom Flotilla 2 continues to fizzle, Israel is preparing for another provocation, this time in the form of a planned ‘fly in’ to Ben Gurion Airport by pro-Arab activists.

The planned aerial demonstration was first reported by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) last month. ITIC had reported that the PA is urging activists to converge en masse on Ben Gurion International Airport on July 8.

A report by AFP on Monday confirmed the planned fly in, saying pro-PA activists are planning to arrive by the hundreds at Ben Gurion Airport on Friday “to protest against Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.”

The report noted Israel was making intense preparations for the fly in, and that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had ordered Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch to coordinate all law enforcement and aviation authorities.

“This planned provocation will be dealt with in accordance with Israeli law and international law and conventions,” said a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office quoted by AFP.

The fly in comes after the planned flotilla to Gaza has been repeatedly met with obstacles.

On Monday, Greek authorities blocked a Canadian vessel from leaving its port and attempting to sail to Gaza.

The Tahrir, a Canadian vessel named after the square where the Egyptian revolution began earlier this year, sneaked out of the port of Crete Monday afternoon. It managed to sail about five kilometers, for about 15 minutes, before it was caught.

Last Friday, the Greeks stopped the U.S. flotilla ship 'Audacity of Hope' shortly after it left port. At least two other ships are unable to participate in the flotilla, having been disabled while in other ports.

One of the flotilla activists, Elsa Rassbach, was quoted by AFP as having said in a statement: “Hundreds of internationals on their way to visit Palestinians in Gaza have been prevented from departing from the ports in Greece. However, we hope that hundreds of others of us from many countries will succeed in reaching Palestine by flying to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv.”

She added, “Supporting our visit to Palestine will be one small step toward bringing about the freedom of movement for all the peoples of Israel/Palestine that is essential for peace and justice in the Middle East.”

Earlier on Monday, the activists rejected an offer by Greece to guarantee the shipping of the aid on the ships to Gaza.

Elad Benari

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145425

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