A Political Court: The ICC and Libyan War Crimes

by John Rosenthal

Last month, and to much fanfare, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Muammar al-Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, and Libyan military intelligence chief Abdullah Al-Senussi. ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo had filed an application for the warrants in May. Among those celebrating the court's decision was, of course, the Libyan opposition's National Transitional Council (NTC), which promised to assemble a special commando unit to arrest Gaddafi. The head of the NTC Executive Council, Mahmud Jibril, even flew to The Hague to mark the occasion. The ICC website features a photograph of Moreno-Ocampo shaking hands with Jibril on the steps of the court.

Although the Libyan government forces and alleged mercenaries in the pay of the Libyan government have been accused in media reports of deliberately killing civilians and committing other atrocities, these reports have served as the justification for Western military intervention in Libya under the mantle of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Less well-known is the extensive and virtually incontrovertible evidence of horrific atrocities committed by rebel forces in territories under their control.

The evidence for the rebels' contempt for the traditional laws and customs of war consists of videos that appear to have been filmed by rebels or rebel sympathizers themselves, either as "trophies" or for purposes of intimidation. One did not need to wait for Human Rights Watch tentatively to acknowledge abuses committed by rebel forces in four western Libyan towns, as it recently did. The video evidence of rebel atrocities has been readily available for months, almost from the very start of the rebellion, for example see here. Since that time, more such videos have emerged.

The evidence provided by these and other videos, such as those below, makes clear that the rebels' conception of warfare has more in common with that of Al-Qaeda than that of the Geneva Conventions. The abuses documented in the videos could serve as textbook examples of precisely the sort of savagery that the Geneva Conventions were supposed to prevent.

Perhaps the chief prosecutor of the ICC has at his disposal equally hard evidence of war crimes committed by Libyan government forces. For the moment, it is impossible to say. According to the table of contents, Moreno-Ocampo's application for the arrest warrants against Gaddafi and the other suspects includes a "summary of evidence" extending over an impressive 54 pages. The entirety of that evidence has, however, been "redacted:" the corresponding section of the published application contains nothing more than the word "redacted" repeated six times.

The atrocities depicted in the videos include at least two beheadings, two public hangings, one lynching, several beatings, a summary execution of a group of up to 22 captured soldiers in the so-called Al-Baida Massacre, grotesquely inhumane and demeaning treatment of prisoners, and countless more minor violations of humanitarian law.

Although his evidence has long been available, it remains unknown to a larger public: the media, in both the United States and Europe, has as a rule simply ignored it

Some of these videos should be regarded with caution -- for example, a particularly grisly video that shows the beheading of what is alleged to be a pro-Gaddafi partisan, or, according to other accounts, a captured Libyan soldier. In the style of Al-Qaeda beheading videos, the clip is filmed as a close-up, rendering it impossible to identify location. According to the pro-Gaddafi Libyan website S.O.S. Libya, the victim is Hamza al-Gheit Fughi, but there is no way at the moment of verifying the identity of the victim, or that his murderer was a member of the rebellion or any of the other circumstances of the execution.

What is so striking about many of the other videos, however, is that they contain countless details that do allow places and contexts to be identified -- for instance, in what might be considered the iconic clip from the first batch of rebel atrocity videos: a beheading video that is made especially chilling by the fact that the beheading occurs in a public square in front of a large crowd of cheering spectators. Dozens of spectators can be seen filming the proceedings on their cell-phones. The clip can be viewed here or here, although YouTube has regularly removed linked video evidence of rebel atrocities or outright cancelled the accounts of people posting incidents. The Dutch public broadcaster NOS has identified the location as the main square of the rebel capital Benghazi. At one point, a member of the crowd can be heard chanting "Libya Hurra!": "Free Libya!", the motto of the rebellion. As a man with a long knife begins to saw at the victim's neck, cries of "Allahu Akbar!" ring out.

Another video that has surfaced contains many strikingly similar elements. There have been several reports of Libyan policemen being hanged from lampposts or bridges in the early days of the rebellion. The video in question appears to show one such episode. As in the Benghazi beheading video, a large crowd is on hand to watch the proceedings. As in the Benghazi beheading video, many members of the crowd can be seen filming the event on their cell-phones. As in the Benghazi beheading video, at the crucial moment – here, the hoisting of the body – there are cries of "Allahu Akbar!"

In the first twenty or so seconds of the clip, a large building with distinctive white cupolas and pointed golden arches can be seen in the background. What appears to be the same building can be seen in McClatchy and AP photos from the early days of the rebellion here and here. The location is Darnah.

About 150 miles to the east of Benghazi, Darnah is one of the strongholds of the rebellion – and a hotbed of Islamic radicalism. As discussed in a previous PJM report here, captured Al-Qaeda personnel records show that Darnah sent more recruits to fight with Al-Qaeda in Iraq than any other city or town and far more in per capita terms. Darnah is also the hometown of rebel commander Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi. Al-Hasadi has admitted both to fighting against coalition forces in Afghanistan and serving as a recruiter for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He told a French reporter that his goal is to "cut Gaddafi's throat and establish an Islamic state."

Another of the rebel atrocity videos shows various groups of men parading around the charred torso of what appears to have been a Libyan government soldier. As usual, a large crowd has gathered and members of the crowd are filming or photographing the proceedings with their cell-phones. The men exhibiting the charred remains wave the red, black and green flag of the Libyan rebellion and the flag can also be seen amidst the crowd. At one point, a man in a long black coat holds up a smaller clump of charred matter in one hand and flashes the victory sign with the other, again to cries of cries of "Allahu Akbar!" The clump of matter is said to be the dead man's heart.

The original footage has since disappeared from YouTube. A version of it is still available here and a self-hosted version – without, however, the original sound – is available on the website S.O.S. Libya here. Different postings have identified the location as Benghazi or Misrata. But, as with the Benghazi beheading video and the Darnah hanging video, the documented proceedings take place in a public square and distinctive architectural features are clearly visible. The definitive identification of the location should pose no problem for a motivated war crimes prosecutor.

A video clip that emerged more recently appears to show a suspected "mercenary" being interrogated and harangued by a crowd that has gathered around him. A pistol is pressed to the man's forehead and he is immobilized by a rope tied around his neck. A bearded man in the crowd waves a machete menacingly over his head. Although obviously of little use for the purposes of modern warfare, machetes appear frequently in the rebel atrocity videos. As in many of the earlier videos, the victim of this ill treatment is a black African. Accused indiscriminately, as a group, of serving as "mercenaries," black Africans have been singled out for particular abuse in rebel-held territories.

But what Moreno-Ocampo's handshake with Jibril already makes clear is that the ICC is not an impartial judicial authority, but rather the partisan activist court that it was always designed to be by its most influential sponsors. On that last issue, see here.

John Rosenthal

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2323/icc-libyan-war-crimes

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

The War Against Israel Goes On

by Guy Millière

The « Gaza flotilla » failed. Only one boat reached the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Most of them could not even leave their ports of departure. An attempt to replace the fleet with a « flytilla » of demonstrators on a plane to Tel Aviv failed miserably.

It would, however, be dangerous to consider this failed attempt more than a limited and short-lived victory. « Pro-Palestinian » organizations in Europe and the United States continue to spread their venom and are already preparing for their next battles : the quest for a U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state within the « 1967 borders », and the organization of the Durban III summit on September 22nd in New York.

These organizations must be seen for what they are : instruments in a war against Israel that has never stopped since 1948, and that has simply undergone a change in tactics.

Israel's enemies initially resorted to conventional armies fighting on behalf of the « Arab nation ». Each time, they were defeated.

They then decided to resort to terrorism, propaganda and disinformation. They created movements to carry out attacks; bloody and deadly attacks took place. These attacks only stopped when Israel undertook security measures -- such as a long, electronic barrier – that reduced to almost zero the possibility of successfully carrying them out. Propaganda and disinformation, however, have not stopped.

We have now reached the next phase : the effects of propaganda and misinformation. These are firmly anchored in the minds of millions, and have begun to take root in reality,

The aim is still to wipe Israel off the map, but to do it by using other means: demonization, suggesting that Israel is a criminal state whose demise is perhaps even necessary; exploitation of prejudices; boycotts that, if pursued literally, would only deprive the boycotters of medicine and technology that they they have no intention of going without; willful blindness over both the history and the facts of the growth of the state of Israel, and falsifications leading to other falsifications.

No one had heard of a « Palestinian people » before the mid-1960s. They did not exist. Israel under the British Mandate until Israel' s Independence in 1948 was called Palestine. All Jews who were born there until i948 had the word « Palestine » stamped on their passports. The current Palestinians are those Arabs who, for a variety of reasons, decided to leave the land during the 1947 War of Independence, when five countries - Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq - attacked the 600,000 people in the fledgling state of Israel the day after its birth, hoping to kill it in the crib. After all five countries were stopped, repelled and defeated, and after the Arabs who had fled asked to return, they were told that as they had not stayed to help fight, they were regarded as a fifth column, and were therefore not welcome. The Arabs who did stay are the Israeli Arabs who live there now, and who comprise 20% of the population, or over a million and a half out of seven million people. They live freely among the Jews ; freely elect members of Israel's parliament [Knesset]; operate their own independent political parties ; hold judgeships on Israel's Supreme Court; practice as physicians alongside Jewish doctors in Israeli hospitals and as professors in Israeli universities ; and often volunteer to fight alongside Jews in the Israeli army, even though they are not required to join Israel's defense forces.

At this moment, however, multitudes are certain that a « Palestinian people » have existed for centuries; were dispossessed of their rights and are now engaged in a « national liberation struggle » to free themselves from their « oppressors. » The fact is : there has never been an independent Palestinian State or any Palestinian territory – the word comes from the Philistines of the Bible who sailed up from what is now North Africa. But those who are sure that a « Palestinian people » exists, however, are also sure there are « Palestinian territories » occupied by Israel but that used to belong to the « Palestinian people, » and must therefore be returned to their « legitimate » owners.

The idea that millions of human beings were driven by force from the territory of Israel and therefore have a full « right of return» may easily be deduced from that fictitious version of events. The idea that the day Israel was created was a « catastrophe » (naqba) for the « Palestinian people » may be deduced from it as well. It then become simple enough to add that the « Palestinian people » are victims of a « genocide » committed by the Israelis.

The fact that Jews have lived for over two millennia in Judea-Samaria and throughout the city of Jerusalem is erased from memories and history books. Also erased is the ethnic cleansing that banished Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1947-48. And in the name of the « rights » of the « Palestinian people, » a new ethnic cleansing -- banishing the Jews again from the West Bank and East Jerusalem -- may perversely be considered a « moral » imperative, and anyone who disagrees may perversely be called an « extremist. »

Leaders of terrorist movements who never renounced terrorism were given a quasi-State, the Palestinian Authority, which is now treated in may countries throughout the world as a legitimate entity.

Leaders of Hamas, who openly call for a holy war [jihad], from their Charter on down, and who created a totalitarian regime in Gaza, recently nearly made an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, but no one in the West seems to worry. No one dares say anything : « Palestinians » are almost universally regarded as the epitome of the wretched of the earth -- without anyone asking why the Arabs should not be blamed for insisting they be penned in camps, or the United Nations, which not only keeps them penned in these camps, but also reinforces and promotes the Palestinians' revisionist version of events -- so that with this tonnage of disinformation, the « Palestinian cause » is almost unanimously considered as holy.

Meanwhile, in several European countries, Israeli politicians are subject to prosecution for alleged « war crimes, » which seem mainly to consist of efforts to defend themselves from people pledged to their destruction.

Israel is compared to South Africa in the apartheid era or to the Third Reich.

The electronic security fence, erected to keep terrorists out and protect Israelis' freedom, is recklessly and maliciously compared to the Berlin Wall, erected to keep East Germans in and deprive them of freedom.

Despite massive evidence to the contrary, the blockade of the Gaza Strip is described as a means to prevent the entry of food and medicine into Gaza ; it is said to create unbearable suffering. The fact that the border between Gaza and Egypt was recently opened -- but then closed by Egypt again a few weeks later - - is totally ignored. Why are there no flotillas demanding that Egypt open its border to Gaza ?

« Boycott, divestment and sanctions » campaigns are being organized around the world against Israeli companies, against the sale of Israeli products, and against Israeli academics, artists and scientists.

The results are evident in Europe. In surveys conducted year after year, Israel is regarded as the « most dangerous country for world peace » and as the main cause of unrest in the Middle East. During televised debates in France and Germany, voicing the idea that Israel is a « parenthesis in history » or a « mistake » that must be corrected, is no longer taboo. Books that viciously denigrate Israel and cast doubt on the existence of the Jewish people become best sellers. One of them, The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand, received a prestigious literary prize, the Prix Aujourd'hui, in France in 2009.

Polls showing that a huge majority of the « Palestinian people » are murderously anti-Semitic and want Jews annihilated are never quoted in the press ; if there are any mentions of such views, they are carefully « sanitized» to seem more benign than they actually are.

The situation is not as catastrophic in the United States, but is deteriorating ; it could continue to deteriorate unless strong vigilance comes into play and the intelligence community face realities they would rather not know about.

The failure of the « Gaza flotilla » and the « flytilla » should not be allowed to conceal the « pro-Palestinian » agitation that goes on, and that the aim of the agitators and those they support remains unchanged: They are at war; they want the destruction of Israel; they will not stop. They create a hatred of Israel that never ceased to grow, and that looks as if the agitators are hoping for a return to all kinds of attacks.

Arsenals are growing fast in Lebanon and Gaza. Iran, extremely unstable, may soon have nuclear weapons. The Syrian regime is engaged in a crackdown suitable to that government's hazardous decisions. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is at the gates of power. In the Gaza Strip Hamas, the « Palestinian » branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which took over political control within a few weeks of being democratically elected by throwing PLO and Fatah sympathizers off the top floors of high buildings, is eager to take over the West Bank should the opportunity arise.

A war ends only when there is a winner and a loser. For now, Israel's enemies have not lost. But Israel has not yet won.

Guy Millière

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2304/war-against-israel

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

Turkish Military Chiefs Resign

by Ryan Mauro

Turkey’s military has been the guardian of the country’s secular identity, making it the strongest challenger to the Islamist agenda of Prime Minister Erdogan and his ruling party. The government has asserted its authority over the military by arresting some of its top officials for allegedly planning a 2003 coup, prompting the top chiefs to resign in protest. The West can only watch as it incrementally loses one of its most important allies to [the fight against] Islamism.

The arrests of 22 more people for allegedly conspiring to destabilize the government, including generals, were the breaking point for the military leadership. The Chief of the General Staff, who resigned along with the commanders of the army, navy and air force, accused the Erdogan government of trying to make the military look like a criminal organization. The military has lost the trust of 15 percent of the population since 2008, though three-fourths say they still trust it.

The Turkish government has imprisoned 17 generals and admirals and almost 200 officers for supposedly orchestrating a coup in 2003. Among those arrested are top officials, such as the former commander of the 1^st Army and former leaders of the air force, navy and special forces. The government claims that the conspirators were going to bomb mosques, provoke war by tricking the Greeks into downing a military plane, and then use the chaos to seize control of the country. The Erdogan government denies that the prosecutions are politically-motivated. This latest rift brings the tension between the military and the government to a whole new level. One Turkish columnist said, “This is the symbolic moment where the first Turkish republic ends and the second republic begins.”

Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) won a major victory in September 2010 when the population approved 26 constitutional amendments. The civilian courts were given authority over the High Military Courts and the ability to try military officers, while stripping military courts of the ability to try civilians. The parliament, dominated by the AKP, now selects who sits on the Supreme Board of Prosecutors and Judges, whereas before it operated independently.

In June, the AKP scored a decisive victory in the parliamentary elections. It did not achieve the two-thirds majority that would allow it to unilaterally draft and approve a constitution, but it only needs to win a miniscule number of votes in parliament to submit a draft constitution for a referendum. Dr. Daniel Pipes reacted by writing, “Elections taking place today are likely to be the last fair and free ones in Turkey. With Turkey’s leading Islamist party controlling all three branches of the government and the military sidelined, little will stop it from changing the rules to keep power into the indefinite future.”

Turkish officials say that the government is preparing to remove Article 35 from the next constitution that states the military’s duty is “to preserve and protect the Republic of Turkey.” This has been used to justify military coups in the past. The government is also going to significantly reform the military. The general staff will be overseen by the Defense Ministry, if the next constitution passes. Military promotions will not be based on length of surface, but on performance. This gives ruling officials more flexibility in advancing loyalists through the ranks. The Military High Administrative Court and Military Supreme Court of Appeals will be eliminated, and various other changes will be made.

Erdogan is also undermining opponents besides the military. Over 400 people have been arrested for allegedly trying to undermine the government, including professors, journalists and politicians. Eight newly-elected members of parliament are in jail. At least 57 journalists are in jail. Thousands of websites have been closed or blocked, many without explanation, and an Internet filter is being introduced this month (which the government says will only be used voluntarily). The AKP has bought up to 40 percent of the country’s media.

Erdogan has also taken advantage of a law against attacking an individual’s honor. He has sued a comedian, political cartoons, a liberal newspaper editor, journalists, and others who have dared criticize him. It is unknown how many lawsuits he has begun, but within two years of becoming Prime Minister, there were at least 57. In June, Erdogan announced that he was dropping all of his lawsuits against his critics, but the latest clash with the military indicates that he has not relented from trying to solidify AKP control over the country.

Turkey will forever change once the government submits a draft constitution for a referendum. If the AKP’s past electoral success is any indication, it will pass with flying colors. The Islamists ruling Turkey have the luxury of pursuing their agenda through the ballot box, and there is not much the West can do about it.

Ryan Mauro

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/08/turkish-military-chiefs-resign/

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

White House, New York Times: Don’t Fight Jihad, It Will Only Provoke More Jihad

by Robert Spencer

How many times do you think Scott Shane is going to smear me in The New York Times (my comment on the first time is here) without bothering to even try to create the appearance of journalism by contacting me for comment?

Answer: As many times as he wants, because he is accountable to no one except his hard-Left masters, and they don’t care how viciously biased he is, as long as he serves their agenda.

“To Fight Radical Islam, U.S. Wants Muslim Allies,” by Scott Shane in The New York Times, August 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON — Rolling out a new strategy for combating radicalization, White House officials on Wednesday warned that casting broad suspicion on Muslim Americans is counterproductive and could backfire by alienating a religious minority and fueling extremism.

This is ridiculous on its face. We are not to cast “broad suspicion on Muslim Americans,” or else they will become alienated and this will fuel “extremism” — in other words, this inappropriate casting of suspicion will provoke some Muslims to turn to jihad. Yet by what criteria are we to distinguish between Muslims in the U.S. of whom we should be suspicious, and those of whom suspicion is unjustified, because that suspicion will provoke “extremism”? Wouldn’t a Muslim who would turn to violent jihad because he is unjustly suspected of an affinity for violent jihad be a justified object of suspicion?

And since no criteria are offered for non-Muslims to use to determine which Muslims are justifiably suspect and which aren’t, the implication is clear: no Muslims are justifiably suspect. There is no “extremism” among Muslims in the U.S., except that which is provoked by non-Muslim “suspicion.” Naser Abdo? Abdulhakim Muhammad? Naveed Haq? Nidal Hasan? Daniel Boyd? Faisal Shahzad? James Cromitie, David Williams and Onta Williams? Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh? Pshaw. It is only non-Muslim suspicion that provokes “extremism” among Muslims, not anything that is happening in mosques or anywhere among Muslims in the U.S.

The administration also promised to identify accurate educational materials about Islam for law enforcement officers, providing an alternative to biased and ill-informed literature in use in recent years, including by the F.B.I. Denis R. McDonough, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told reporters that Al Qaeda and those it inspired remained the biggest terrorist threat inside the United States. But he said the bombing and shootings in Norway last month, carried out by a right-wing, anti-Muslim extremist, were a reminder that the government could not focus exclusively on any single brand of radicalism.

Yeah, one nutcase who supposedly found incitement to violence in my (and others’) defense of human rights and freedom versus 17,000+ jihad attacks since 9/11, carried out explicitly and proudly in the name of Islam and with reference to Islamic texts and teachings, and the government should change its focus. And don’t worry: it will.

Meanwhile, the “biased and ill-informed literature” in question includes my books, but neither Scott Shane or Denis R. McDonough nor anyone else can show any inaccuracy in any of them. It is noteworthy that in this torrent of abuse and scapegoating over the last couple of weeks, blaming me for the Norway shooting, no one has come up with any gotcha quote from me — no incitement to violence, no broad-brush demonization of all Muslims (although it is routinely alleged that I do this), and not even anything false. The windy “refutations” of my work that are available online are generally windy tu quoques that point the finger at the West and Christianity without ever genuinely showing that what I say is false. And the numerous jihad attacks that happen worldwide on a daily basis show that, lo and behold, for some reason many Muslims have misunderstood Islam in the same way I have. No one ever explains how they have so drastically misunderstood their peaceful religion in such large numbers, or why the misunderstanders themselves consistently claim for themselves the mantle of Islamic authenticity, and in that generally go unchallenged by their peaceful brethren in the West.

But the demonization continues apace, and the Big Lie that I am a racist and hatemonger is repeated endlessly, despite the fact that I have consistently, over ten books, hundreds of articles, and 25,000+ blog posts, rejected racism and firmly advocated for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people. It may be that this campaign will succeed, and all counterjihadists will be finally discredited. Then all will be well, eh? “Islamophobia” eradicated! And then the world will wake up the next day and find that the jihad continues and Islamic supremacism still advances, and there will be no one to speak up for and defend freedom.

Don’t believe me? No problem. You’ll find out soon enough. But remember one thing also: in Hamas-linked CAIR’s recent report on “Islamophobia,” it made the unexpected admission that not all criticism of Islam constituted “Islamophobia.” But did it offer any examples of critics of Islam, or of jihad, or of Islamic supremacism, who were not “Islamophobes”? Why, no. It didn’t. And that’s because it couldn’t. Its assurance that not all criticism of Islam was “Islamophobia” was just window dressing for the leftist suckers who make up its audience, when in fact Hamas-linked CAIR and its allies defame as racist and bigoted anyone and everyone who dares to stand up against the jihad in any way. And sure, they can demonize us, marginalize us, and cut us off. And then make no mistake: if you resist them, your turn will be next.

Mr. McDonough said that Al Qaeda had a “bankrupt ideology,” but that accusing the entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism could “feed the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization.”

No one I know has ever accused the “entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism.” I have never done that, and challenge Scott Shane or anyone else to show that I have. But here again, does McDonough’s mouth connect to his brain at all? He is saying that falsely accusing peaceful Muslims of “complicity in terrorism” could make them turn toward…terrorism? So then how peaceful were they in the first place?

See, I am being accused every day now of being complicit in mass murder and even of being a murderer myself. Yet there is no amount of this defamation that I could be subjected to that would ever make me become a murderer myself. There is no amount of lies and abuse they could throw at me that would ever make me turn to violent “extremism” myself. And I think this is true of most people — at least most who are sane. Yet McDonough and Shane seem to take it for granted that false accusations against Muslims will make them kill, and that instead of telling the Muslims in question to get hold of themselves and be reasonable, this means we have to tiptoe around them and avoid saying anything that even appears to be a false accusation — and we even have to stop telling truths, for fear they will fuel “extremism.” After all, the U.S. government and the media are engaged in a massive operation of denial of the obvious fact that Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. And why? Because they are afraid of fueling “extremism” by appearing to associate Islam with terrorism. And so Islamic jihadists can associate Islam with terrorism all day, but we are not allowed to notice.

This is madness.

Instead, he said, Muslim Americans should be treated as a crucial ally of the government in combating extremism….

Fine. Such as who? Hamas-linked CAIR, with its “Don’t Talk to the FBI” poster? MPAC, with its hollow and deceptive condemnations of terror? Exactly which Muslim group in America has actually shown itself to be a “crucial ally of the government in combating extremism”? Can McDonough answer that? Can Shane?

Since the Fort Hood attacks, there have been a number of foiled plots by radicalized Muslims in the United States, as well as by extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideologues.

Far more of the former than of the latter, but Scott Shane will not tell you that.

Conservative critics of the Obama administration, including Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, have accused it of political correctness in avoiding applying the “Islamic” label to plots and attacks by Muslims. Mr. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has held a series of hearings focusing exclusively on the threat from Muslim extremists, drawing fire from Muslim groups. In March, on the eve of Mr. King’s first hearing, Mr. McDonough spoke at a Virginia Islamic center to reassure Muslim Americans that the government would fight extremism without practicing “guilt by association.”…

No reassurance was offered to non-Muslim Americans that the government would fight extremism by doing anything effective to call Muslim groups in the U.S. to account for their deceptive and empty support for anti-terror efforts.

A National Security Council expert on extremism who helped devise the new strategy, Quintan Wiktorowicz, said the administration was aware of “inaccurate training” on Islam for law enforcement officers. He said the administration would compile “gold standard” materials to be posted on the Web for officials to draw upon.

A January study by a liberal research group found a pattern of misleading and inflammatory training about Islam across the country, and a 2009 F.B.I. training document obtained recently by the American Civil Liberties Union gave a provocative account of Islam. That F.B.I. PowerPoint presentation was used for classes for law enforcement personnel at the bureau’s academy in Virginia, but it is no longer in use, according to the bureau.

The F.B.I. document recommended two books by Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger and author whose work was repeatedly cited in the online manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian accused of killing at least 76 people last month. Mr. Spencer, who operates the Web site Jihad Watch, has said he opposes violence and condemns Mr. Breivik’s actions.

Yep. But Scott Shane thinks it pertinent to drag Breivik into this piece anyway, since he can’t find anything actually “misleading and inflammatory” in what I write. Breivik will have to serve. And he will. Now at last the media and its Islamic supremacist allies have someone other than Tim McVeigh​ to cite as evidence of “right-wing extremism.” And they will ride it for all it’s worth.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/08/white-house-new-york-times-don%E2%80%99t-fight-jihad-it-will-only-provoke-more-jihad/

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

Op-Ed: Will Obama Honor the Bush Pledges at Last?

by David Singer

If the U.S. tears to shreds its previous guarantees, there is no value to future guarantees it might provide. So the matter of American credibility depends on that.

A report this week claims that President Obama has now decided to honor the terms of a letter given by former President George Bush to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004.

That letter can best be described as a pledge - given its contents and the circumstances in which it was written by President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon - who had also handed President Bush a letter at the same time setting out Israel’s proposal to unilaterally disengage from Gaza and part of the West Bank.

That fateful decision carried with it enormous risks to Israel’s security and possible trauma for the 8000 Israeli men women and children who were to be evacuated from their homes and businesses in Gaza where many had lived for more than three decades.

Those risks were soon translated into harsh realities as Hamas assumed power in Gaza within a few short years and indiscriminately targeted Israeli population centers with thousands of missiles. Now Hamas is busily engaged in building an arsenal of far more deadly weapons in anticipation of a future showdown with Israel.

Many of those evacuated Israeli civilians indeed experienced matrimonial and psychological breakdowns and financial ruin as a result of the disengagement.

President Bush was well aware of those risks - and yet at the same time the opportunity such disengagement would offer to progress his Roadmap when he told Prime Minister Sharon:

“We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank.

These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution toward peace. ...The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points. “

The reassurances President Bush gave were:

1. The United States would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.
2. The United States reiterated its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself,
3. Israel would retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations.
4. The United States was strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.
5. It seemed clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
6. As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion. It was realistic to expect that any final status agreement would only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

The Bush letter was overwhelmingly endorsed by the United States House of Representatives and Senate on 23 June 2004 when the following Resolution was passed by a vote of 407-9:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) strongly endorses the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which will strengthen the security and well-being of the State of Israel; and
(2) supports continuing efforts with others in the international community to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel."

President Obama has been very coy in publicly acknowledging that he intended to honor the Bush Pledge.

In 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there was no acknowledgment of any such agreement in the official negotiating record between Israel and the Bush administration - asserting .

"There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. If they did occur, which of course people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the U.S. government,"

Why President Obama should have got his Secretary of State to try and weasel out of honoring the Bush letter was very puzzling. That letter was given to assure Israel of America’s support as it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and part of the West Bank. It set out clearly and unequivocally America’s position in relation to the outcome it would support in future negotiations under the Roadmap between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Having been overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress this letter could not be dismissed as some private or secret agreement made at the whim of a President that could be negated by a subsequent President. For better or worse it had become part of American policy that would need to be honored and respected by President Obama.

Ha’aretz journalist Ari Shavit issued a warning about the failure of Obama to honor this letter when he wrote in 2010:

“When it emerges that an incumbent American president is denying a commitment given by a previous American president and adopted by a large majority of the two houses of Congress, Israel will pass from a state of moral inferiority to one of moral superiority.

This is not merely a tactical matter. To make peace with the Palestinians Israel will have to take on itself almost survival-threatening risks. For Israel to take such risks it will need solid American guarantees. If the U.S. tears to shreds its previous guarantees, there is no value to future guarantees it might provide. So the matter of American credibility is fundamental.”

Hopefully the President has now come to the same conclusion.

David Singer is an Australian lawyer and convenor of Jordan is Palestine International, an organisation calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10477#.Tj9WkmHSmdc

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

'Dahlan Involved in Poisoning of Yasser Arafat'

by Khaled Abu Toameh

A Palestinian commission of inquiry has concluded that ousted Fatah Central Committee member Mohammed Dahlan was involved in the “poisoning” of former Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

The commission’s report was published on Sunday by a number of Arab news web sites, including Al-Jazeera.

According to the 118-page report, which was prepared by top Fatah officials Azzam al-Ahmed, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, Othman Abu Gharbiyyeh and Nabil Sha’ath, the deposed Fatah official was involved in sending poisoned medicine to Arafat before the latter’s death.

If true, this would be the first time that the Palestinian leadership accuses a Palestinian of being behind the “assassination” of Arafat.

Until now the PA and other Palestinians had held Israel fully responsible for the mysterious death of Arafat of an unknown disease in November 2004.

PA officials in Ramallah would neither confirm nor deny the report.

However, The Jerusalem Post was told that a senior aide to Abbas had leaked the report to Al-Jazeera.

The commission of inquiry was set up to look into allegations that Dahlan had plotted to stage a coup against PA President Mahmmoud Abbas.

At the request of Abbas, the Fatah Central Committee has expelled Dahlan.

Dahlan, who has denied the charges, returned to Ramallah late last month to appeal against the decision to expel him from Fatah.

A few days after he arrived in Ramallah, PA security forces raided his villa, detained his bodyguards and confiscated their weapons and vehicles.

Dahlan was nevertheless permitted to leave to Jordan without being harassed. But a number of his top aides have since been arrested by various branches of the PA security forces in the West Bank.

Dahlan’s associates maintain that the dispute with Abbas erupted only after the former demanded an inquiry into the fate of $1.3b. that were deposited in the account of the Palestinian Investment Fund.

They claim that most of the money has gone missing ever since Abbas succeeded Arafat in January 2005.

According to Dahlan’s supporters, Abbas also holds as a grudge against him because he had been bad-mouthing the PA president’s wealthy sons.

The report, which also appeared on other Arab media web sites, claims that while Arafat was hospitalized at a French military hospital, Dahlan approached one of a senior PA security officer and asked him to burn the bottles of medicine that Arafat had been using.

The report also claims that a number of Arafat’s associates had supported this allegation during questioning.

The Fatah report goes on to accuse Dahlan of standing behind a string of assassinations of senior Palestinian officials, including Hisham Mekki, chairman of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation and top Fatah operatives Kamal Midhat and Hussein Abu Ajweh.

The commission of said that Dahlan had also been questioned about his personal fortune and bank accounts under his name in Switzerland and the Gulf.

The commission’s report also accused Dahlan of conspiring to recruit civil servants and security officers to his camp and planting espionage devices in a number of government and security installations.

Dahlan was also accused of plotting to stage a “military coup” in the West bank against Abbas and purchasing weapons from Israeli Arab arms dealers.

In response to the publication of the report, Arafat’s relatives in the Gaza Strip issued a statement in which they strongly condemned the charges against Dahlan.

The statement said that the report was aimed at “forging the reality by accusing a patriotic personality like Dahlan while exonerating the occupation from its direct responsibility for the assassination of President Yasser Arafat.”

The statement also cautioned the media against publishing lies related to the death of Arafat and said that such reports were unprofessional and immoral and were designed to harm Arafat’s image and reputation.

Samir Mashharawi, a top Fatah operative from the Gaza Strip and longtime friend of Dahlan, said on Sunday that the dispute between Dahlan and Abbas was “personal.”

Mashharawi said that he personally asked Abbas about the dispute and that the PA president admitted to him that this was the case.

Mashharwai quoted Abbas as saying: “Your friend [Dahlan] has a long tongue and has been bad-mouthing me and my sons. He [Dahlan] has been saying that I handed the Gaza Strip over to Hamas and that I have neglected the Gaza Strip in the past four years.”

The Fatah leader said that Abbas had initiated the fight with Dahlan to distract attention from his failed policies. “Abbas wants to run away from five years of failure in running the Palestinian Authority and the political portfolio,” he charged.

Mashharawi claimed that the raid on Dahlan’s villa in Ramallah was aimed at liquidating the latter. “They wanted to initiate an armed clash with Dahlan’s men so that the police could open fire,” he said. “The goal was to kill Dahlan and then announce that he was part of a conspiracy to overthrow the Palestinian president. Fortunately, Dahlan remained very clam during the raid and did not intervene even when they searched his bedroom in a provocative manner.”

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=232834

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

Syrian Tank Assaults Kill More Than 60 In Two Cities

by Reuters

AMMAN - Syrian troops killed at least 50 people in a tank assault on the eastern city of Deir al-Zor on Sunday, activists said, despite a direct UN appeal to President Bashar Assad to stop using military force against civilians.

The assault on Deir al-Zor, capital of an oil-producing province, began one week after Assad sent the army to seize control of Hama, focal point of nearly five months of protest against his autocratic rule.

In a separate tank-led attack on villages in the Houla plain north of the central city of Homs, security forces killed at least 13 people, activists said.

"The numbers of casualties are escalating by the hour," activist Suhair al-Atassi, a member of the Syrian Revolution Coordinating Committee, said by telephone from Damascus.

The Arab League, in a rare response to the escalating bloodshed in Syria, joined the international wave of criticism on Sunday, calling on authorities to stop acts of violence against protesters, the Qatar News Agency reported.

Assad defended the army campaign against what Damascus says is an armed insurrection. "Dealing with outlaws and convicts who stage highway robbery and seal off cities and terrorise the population is a national duty," state news agency SANA quoted him as telling Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour.

An Assad adviser said neighbouring Turkey, which condemned the attack on Hama as an atrocity, should not meddle in Syrian affairs and warned Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu he would get a frosty reception when he visits Damascus on Tuesday.

Reuters

Source: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=232832

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

The Persecution of Christians in the Middle East

by Cheryl Halpern

The terrible violence in Oslo last month has brought the world's attention to the ravings of a madman and a murderer -- someone who was motivated to kill fellow Christians because he feels they had acquiesced to a takeover by Islam.

Our revulsion is appropriate -- this was the killing of innocent people in the name of religious and political hatred. However, when the roles are reversed, and Christians are in the minority and Muslims in the majority, are we equally upset by murder, intimidation and religious hatred?

Sadly, we don't appear to be. The world is standing silent as Christians living in Muslim-majority lands are killed, and their killers are venerated.

Today, Christians, regardless of affiliation, are being systematically harassed, persecuted, and murdered throughout the Middle East, the region of the globe from which Christianity first emerged. Churches have been bombed and those attending Christian services have been killed. Christian homes have been ransacked and cemeteries have been destroyed. Converts from Islam to Christianity are considered apostates and subject to severe punishment. In Iran, a man named Youcef Nadarkhani has been sentenced to hang for the state crime of converting from Islam to Christianity. His appeals for clemency to Iran's highest courts have been rejected.

The former President of Lebanon, Amin Gemayel has declared, "Massacres are taking place for no reason and without any justification against Christians. It is only because they are Christians." This can only be called religious cleansing on a vast scale.

Christians once represented significant populations in the Middle East; the Copts of Egypt, the Assyro-Chaldeans of Iraq, the Maronites of Lebanon, and the Southern Sudanese. Yet from the later part of the 20^th century until today, the indigenous Christians are becoming refugees in the face of Muslim violence and persecution.

Lebanon was once 60 percent Christian. Today there are only 1.5 million Lebanese Christians -- approximately a third of the country. In Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, Christians were once 90 percent of the population, but are now a very small fraction of that. The Palestinian Authority that controls Bethlehem even banned the cross for sale as a souvenir for tourists. Samir Qumsieh, director of Al-Mahed Nativity TV in Bethlehem noted, "it is like saying that Jesus was never crucified."

Roughly only a third of all of Iraqi's Christians prior to the war remain. In 2010, Iraq's Christian leaders called off Christmas celebrations in the aftermath of a bloody assault on a major church. Chaldean Archbishop Louis Sako explained, "Nobody can ignore the threats...The situation of the Christians is bleak."

One year ago, in Iskenderun, Turkey, the head of the Catholic Church in Turkey, Bishop Luigi Padovese, was repeatedly stabbed and then decapitated by his driver, Murat Altun, who shouted, "I killed the Great Satan. Allahu Akhbar." His murder garnered little outrage.

In Saudi Arabia, a Muslim nation that is making major investments in technology and higher education, a nation that purports to be America's ally, it is still a crime to hold private religious ceremonies for any faith other than Islam. It is even illegal to own Christian or other non-Muslim religious items. Violators have been sent to prison and deported.

We in the West tend to gloss over these incidents, but we should not be so dismissive. The treatment of religious minorities - or any minorities - often tells us a great deal about the majority. If Islamic majorities hear no moral outrage and receive no resistance when they harass Christians, why stop the incitement and intolerance?

The mainline Christian churches are surprisingly unalarmed by this persecution. Many U.S. and U.K. churches are more focused on boycotting and divesting from Israel, which is odd since Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the Christian population is growing in number.

There is only one historical metaphor for today's Middle East Christians: The Jews of Europe in the decades prior to the Holocaust. Like today's Christians, the Jews of Europe were a minority, once thriving and at peace with their neighbors. But they, too, were subject to discrimination by state authorities and orchestrated violence. Those who left Europe as refugees were the lucky ones; those left behind became victims of genocide.

The lesson we learn is a simple one: If we do not protect the freedom of conscience in all societies, the dark hatred of religious bigotry is sure to inflict damage on an unimaginable scale. We are seeing that today in the Middle East, in its earliest forms. And so it falls to our political and religious leaders to make clear their moral outrage, and to stand up not only to rogue terrorists but to despotic governments who have brought murder and pain into the homes of those who have chosen to pursue their alternative expressions of faith.

Cheryl Halpern is on the council of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and is former chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_persecution_of_christians_in_the_middle_east.html

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

The Bizarre Alliance Against Israel

by Michael Curtis

The Arab Spring has lengthened into Summer. Hoped for political changes and reforms have faltered with the result that the fundamental political, economic and social dysfunction of Arab countries in the Middle East remains. The most committed idealist can find no more comfort in the present behavior of the 21 countries of the Arab League than in the past, divided as they are by civil wars and religious tensions, as daily displayed in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon. They are beset with Islamist insurgencies, enmity between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and even discord between mainstream and extremist Sunnis. All their governments suffer from a deficit of freedom and political rights. All are non-democratic in character, often corrupt, and are still based on systems that are autocracies, military dictatorships, hereditary family rule, presidencies for life, tribal elders, or edicts of Islamic dignitaries in a theocratic regime. This results in policies that deny basic human rights to women, minorities, and even the general population.

Yet much of the focus of European and American commentators on the Middle East remains concentrated not on the glaring problems of the Arab societies but with Israel. George Orwell offered the pertinent remark that "even an idealistic politics, perhaps especially an idealistic politics, can pervert itself." Armchair revolutionaries, in San Francisco, New York, London, and Paris, in the recent past saw Yasser Arafat as the embodiment of anti-colonial heroism, and of the ideology of third-worldism. In their common hostility to Israel, the European and American self-proclaimed idealists are now allied with Arab groups and causes, the most important of which is the condition of Palestinians. Both sides tend to see Israel as a formidable, even sometimes as the greatest, threat to world peace.

One of the many ironies in this situation is that, with the end of the hateful regime of apartheid in South Africa, radical leftists, many in the academic world, the media, and Arab spokesmen, have shifted their image of the most demonic state to Israel, which they see as an apartheid nation. The result is a bizarre "red-brown-green" alliance of Western leftists and liberals, including Christian humanitarians, anti-globalists, and environmentalists, with Islamic fundamentalists and Arab nationalists. They share a common motif, dislike, even hatred of Israel. They depict Israel as a criminal state and the accomplice or lackey of American imperialism.

This attitude goes so far that academics in European and American universities even register more support for Hamas, the ruling party in Gaza, than does the Palestinian population in the West Bank. Some of the most extreme critics have suggested not only that the actions of the Islamic suicide bombers in New York on 9/11 and elsewhere resulted from alleged control over the United States government and media by Jewish interests, but also argue that Israel provoked the wars against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan in which the United States is involved.

The kindest thing one can say about the bizarre alliance is that it stems from an idealist ideology to rectify the wrongs of European and American colonialism, an ideology of third-worldism. Few today are likely to echo the extravagant rhetoric of the famous writer H.G. Wells that "[t]he Soviet Union upholds the tattered banner of world collectivity and remains something splendid and hopeful in the spectacle of mankind." Now that the bloodbaths of the Stalinist era and the brutal murders of 70 million Chinese people by the revolutionary hero Mao Zedong have become known, pessimistic critics of Western culture have redirected their enthusiasm for change to the cause of revolutionary insurgencies and violent energy in non-Western countries.

This ideology of third-worldism postulates a hypocritical, even violent, West eternally to be held guilty for its colonial activity that is alleged to have been destructive of non-Western indigenous cultures. It is noticeable that in this blanket condemnation the proponents of this ideology pay little attention to the important differences among the individual indigenous cultures, but rather lump them all together in one vast "third world."

The main guilty party is Israel, a country which critics see as the embodiment of present day imperialism. The essential irony is that for members of the bizarre alliance the non-West is lauded not for positive reasons, but because it is not Western and does not adhere to Western practices such as liberal democracy, an open economy, rule of law, free elections, personal autonomy, individual and sexual freedom, emancipation of women, and constitutional rights, all which Israel embodies if sometimes in imperfect form, as do all nations.

Critics of Israel and European and American values posture as idealists with high moral standards, but their actions or non-actions, reveal a lack of consistency about those standards. Western radicals have shown more compassion for Arab dictators, especially in Libya, than for democratic Israel. Western feminists and gay and lesbian groups have been silent about the place and treatment of women and homosexuals in Muslim Arab countries. No woman in an Arab country has yet been elected to a prominent position as was Golda Meir in Israel, the first female prime minister elected anywhere who was not the wife or daughter of a previous head of government.

Criticism of the actions of the state of Israel and its personnel is wholly appropriate, but it serves no purpose if it is based not on objective appraisal of those actions but on the endless search for new saviors of humanity who will overcome the imagined evils of Western civilization.

Michael Curtis is a distinguished professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers University.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_bizarre_alliance_against_israel.html

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

New Strategy For Ground Zero Mosque

by JanSuzanne Krasner

The Park51 project for a 15-story mosque/community center at Ground Zero, led by developer Sharif El-Gamal and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has dwindled down to a much smaller vision, a four or five-story 'PrayerSpace' and community center. This may be a far cry from their original plan, but many are bewildered as to why they are still moving ahead with any planned mosque at this site, given the tremendous negative opinion most Americans have of its location.

Sharif El-Gamal believes in his vision and he is committed to its location at Ground Zero. He admits that the introduction of his idea to the general public was "backwards" and now he is "going back to basics." He believes that he is acquiescing to the community's desire for the building not to tower over Ground Zero and states: "If the community only wants four or five floors, it's going to be four or five floors." This new shorter version will still require El-Gamal to raise about $10 million. He believes that depending on the community board's recommendations could take as much as five years before there are any changes to the Burlington Coat Factory building site.

Meanwhile, in spite of El-Gamal's insistence that he'd like to work with the community, the chairperson of the Community Board, Julie Menin, said that he has not responded to several of her requests to meet to discuss the plans that they would like to see implemented at 45-51 Park Place. Although the community board is not as interested in the blueprints of the building, they do want to have input into the public activities the center will offer. Menin commented: "A tremendous number of young families need services, like classes, recreation and athletic centers."

Since El-Gamal's purchase of this property last year (for $4.85 million in cash) this unpopular and contentious project has undergone several important developments as a result of pressure from the neighborhood community and the American public. El-Gamal has had trouble raising the necessary $150 million to build the original planned Park51, previously known as the 'Cordoba House' Mosque/Community Center at the site that is only two blocks from Ground Zero.

Back in early January, 2011 Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and El-Gamal cut off their business ties. Rauf had taken on a greater quest, that of launching a global movement to fight misunderstanding of Islam and improve relations between people of different faiths and cultures. By late January the Park51 Group selected NYC Imam Abdullah Adhami as its senior advisor and one of several Imams who would eventually be picked to coordinate religious services in the mosque.

Americans have been able to witness the slow unraveling of a cover up by the Park51 Group to hide the radical intent of their planned Mosque. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the son of a contemporary of* the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, claims to be a moderate. Through the hard work of Pamela Geller's organization 'Stop Islamitization of America' (SIOA), and other investigative journalists, Feisal was exposed for what he truly is, a Islamic extremist and NJ slum landlord. So off he went on greater conquests.

Then the non-profit Park51 Group selected Imam Adhami, a NYC Imam who was then heard in one of his sermons to call for 'Sharia Law;' who posted his opinion on a website that people with "homosexual feelings are the result of some form of violent emotional or sexual abuse at some point in their life;" and who was also proven to have links to Anti-American Imam Al-Hajj Talib Abdur-Rashid and terror supporter Imam Siraj Wahhaj. By early February Adhami quit.

According to Sharif El-Gamal the past year has taught him that he needs a new strategy, slower and more realistic, one he should have started before going public last year. He has spent the past year traveling around the country to garner supporters and has attempted to build relationships with the residents of the neighborhood and Muslim groups in NY, NJ and CT; and he has seduced the Aunt of a 9/11 victim to his advisory board. In addition to organized prayers, he has held events in Park51's makeshift space, including various art exhibits, yoga and Brazilian martial arts classes, to Muslim holiday ceremonies and discussions on bullying with Muslim and non-Muslim children. He says all of this will provide him with a better understanding of the community's needs to aid him in formulating a better community center.

El-Gamal's new tactic is in line with the moderate, non-violent global approach for Islamic conquest of Western societies. Terrorism is the tool of choice by radical Muslims. But, under the guise of love and peace, moderate Muslims populate neighborhoods and build Mosques as the tool to take over communities, one at a time. This is what has happened in Germany with multiculturalism, as well as France, Sweden, Spain, Australia, Denmark and the UK. Neighborhood after neighborhood, Muslims build up their population to an intimidating level where police do not even enter. They build their religious centers with leaders and literature that radicalizes their membership. They demand that 'Sharia Law' becomes the law of their enclave and the original residents are either driven out or run scared.

This pattern is starting in communities in America. Dear reader, please keep your eyes open and be aware. In each of these US cities there is a growing Muslim population: Dearborn, Detroit, Tampa, Philadelphia, Camden, Wilmington, Brooklyn, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, DC, Dallas, Houston, Ft. Worth, Atlanta, San Diego, Seattle, St. Louis, Columbus, Memphis and Miami and the residents are beginning to see a growing demand for 'Sharia Law' to take precedence over our civil courts. Look at the college campuses where the Muslim Student Association, founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, have intimidated many of our youth into silence. Understand that 'Sharia' compliant financial demands are being met on Wall Street and in public and privately owned companies. Educate yourself about the hate and justifiable murder of Infidels that is part of 'Sharia Law' and is found in the Koran. And clearly understand that Islamists want to symbolize the conquest of America with a Mosque at Ground Zero that Arabs are calling a 'Rabat' (the point of contact at the heart of the infidel's territory that had been raided).

It will shortly be ten years since 9/11 and the Park51 Rabat is still being planned in the hallowed grounds of 9/11 under the protection of the Dhimmis of NYC. Here's hoping that in the five years El-Gamal needs to actually begin building his vision the American public will wake up to the real dangers of Islamic political ideology and the Mosque at Ground Zero will just go away.

*corrected

JanSuzanne Krasner

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/new_strategy_for_ground_zero_mosque.html

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