Hamas Engineer Tells All to Israel

by P. David Hornik

Last February in Kiev, Israel nabbed Dirar Abu Sisi, an engineer from Gaza. He was suspected of helping Hamas develop weapons and of having knowledge about captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit​.

On Thursday, the District Court in Beersheva, a town in southern Israel, released excerpts from Abu Sisi’s interrogation. Ynet described them as “priceless information on Hamas’s modus operandi”; Israel Hayom called them “a Military Intelligence goldmine.”

Abu Sisi, ynet reported, was approached after Operation Cast Lead​—Israel’s offensive against Hamas in the winter of 2008-2009—by two Hamas terror chiefs. As he told interrogators, during the war “a large number of Hamas activists ran away from their positions.” There was “a failure…in decision-making coupled with an inability to use arms during the battle—because of fear.”

So the two high-ranking terrorists asked Abu Sisi to set up a military academy. Believed to be Hamas’s rocket expert, he also divulged that

I assisted Hamas in developing their missile capabilities, by identifying and handing over mathematical equations that improve the metal pipe’s ability to withstand pressure and heat. I was present when a missile was test-fired at the sea in Khan Younis [in Gaza].

Online sources came in handy to him: “I know nothing about explosives. I only calculated the pressure and heat…I downloaded the formula from the Internet.” He also said he “downloaded software pertaining to the rocket’s structure.”

As for the military academy he founded, its top graduates “reached military academies in foreign countries…including Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Iran.”

The charge sheet on Abu Sisi now stands at “nine counts, including membership in a terror organization, murder, attempted murder and arms production.”

That Israel has indeed gained valuable dope on Hamas is much to be wished. With Sinai, which borders Gaza, having descended into anarchy since the fall of Egypt’s Mubarak regime, Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups have been able to “double their rocket arsenals” and now “possess some 10,000 rockets of all types,” including some that “can reach the outskirts of…Tel Aviv.”

Meanwhile, also on Thursday, in what forms a sort of ironic counterpoint to the reports on Abu Sisi, The New York Times reported that

the State Department sent a message to Gaza’s Hamas leaders…that it would withdraw some $100 million it is spending in Gaza on health care, agriculture and water infrastructure if they did not back off a demand to audit the books of American-financed charities operating there.

It seems a spat has developed because Hamas wants to increase surveillance of various international NGOs operating in Gaza. Hamas has asked these outfits to “register with the central government, pay a fee and submit financial reports.”

That puts the State Department in a pickle, since U.S. policy prohibits direct contact with Hamas based on State’s own designation of it as a terrorist group. As the Times explains, “the United States accounts for a large share of the money that foreign governments spend on humanitarian assistance in Gaza.”

Given what Abu Sisi’s statements reveal about Hamas’s ongoing aggression against Israel, even after being drubbed in Operation Cast Lead, and tight ties with some of the world’s most heinous and anti-American regimes, the U.S. leading role in providing aid to Gaza appears strange to say the least.

Perhaps it might be more justifiable if Gaza was undergoing a humanitarian crisis. But as the Israeli authorities have been at pains to clarify, and as other Western governments acknowledged in opposing the failed second Gaza flotilla, that is not the case. Indeed, Gaza is now exporting aid to a country undergoing a true crisis, Somalia, “underscore[ing] the fact,” as Arutz Sheva points out, “that Gaza is swimming in surplus aid from [the] international community….”

And since resources are fungible, that aid, including when it goes to purposes like “health care, agriculture and water infrastructure,” means that many more resources are getting freed up for Hamas, rocket program and all.

U.S. policy in Gaza can perhaps be explained in terms of the strange power that “the Palestinians,” the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank, continue to exert over the Western mind. Is a beachhead of anti-Israeli, anti-Western aggression something the U.S. should be propping up?

P. David Hornik

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/15/hamas-engineer-tells-all-to-israel/

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

Saudi Arabia: Redrawing the Map of Regional Alliances

by Yoel Guzansky

In contrast to the international and Arab response toward Qaddafi, the Arab states have hesitated to adopt an assertive stance against Asad. Yet five months and two thousand dead later, different voices are starting to emerge: first, the joint statement by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which called for Syria to stop “the lethal oppression of its citizens,” and later the Saudi King’s statement, unusual for its severity, which declared that what is happening in Syria “is unacceptable to Saudi Arabia, which demands an end to the killing machine.” This statement testifies to Saudi Arabia's positioning itself against the radical front led by Iran – after it previously did so in Bahrain – as it understands that the events in Syria have reached a critical level that may tip the balance against the Asad dynasty. This joins Saudi Arabia's adoption of a more assertive stance since the start of the uprisings in the Arab world and its attempt to redraw the map of regional alliances in accordance with its interests.

King Abdullah, who until now watched the regional upheaval from a distance, is at present eager to see Asad fall, if only because this would make Iran lose its primary ally, undermine the radical axis, and give Saudi Arabia the chance to lead a Sunni camp that is larger and more consolidated than in the past, should the Sunnis, who are the majority, rise to power in Syria. Until now, Saudi Arabia has failed to extricate Syria from Iran’s embrace and create a cohesive anti-Iranian front comprising pro-Western Sunni states. The current protests in Syria give Saudi Arabia an extraordinary opportunity to realize this drive.

Although Saudi Arabia borders on some of the most extreme areas of conflict in the Middle East, it has to date preferred to neutralize these risks to its national security by avoiding overt use of military means and leadership-based activity. Diplomacy and cold cash were its preferred methods. Since the beginning of the Arab spring, the aging Saudi elite has started to understand that within a feg:\israel\politics\blog\hard_nl OUT.txtw years, it may find itself in very different political surroundings in which on the one hand vassals slowly become citizens with equal rights, and on the other, sectarian confrontations and instability grow. In its view, the Kingdom's traditional means to shape its strategic environment no longer suffice, and thus it must shed its relative passivity in order to overcome national security threats and even, if necessary, attempt to lead the Arab region.

In this context, Saudi Arabia is doing its utmost to prevent Egypt from forging closer ties with Iran. The concern in Riyadh is that the “new” Egyptian leadership will lean more towards Iran, in part to placate the masses inclined this way. In the months following Mubarak’s fall, voices in Cairo were calling for renewed diplomatic ties with Tehran. Senior Iranian officials warmly greeted the calls in Cairo for a clean slate in relations and went so far as to say that Egyptian resistance to Israel and “the adoption of the model of the Islamic Revolution” would create a common denominator between Egypt and Iran. In addition to assistance to the tune of $4 billion designed to help the Egyptian economy “float above water,” Riyadh also dusted off ideas on a series of joint ventures to strengthen bilateral ties, including an old proposal to construct a bridge over the Straits of Tiran to connect the two nations. While it attempts to close ranks in the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia is also trying to bring Jordan (and maybe Morocco) into a bloc of monarchies in order to prevent reforms and perhaps, as Morocco's Kings has started to do, establish the separation of powers and edge towards constitutional monarchies. Riyadh, seeking to inoculate the monarchies against possible dangers to their stability, is expected shortly to lead negotiations with Jordan in order to include the latter in some manner or another in the exclusive Gulf Cooperation Council club, despite the reservations of some member nations. Saudi Arabia has also given Jordan $1.5 billion.

It is unclear to what eg:\israel\politics\blog\hard_nl OUT.txtxtent Saudi Arabia’s declarative assertiveness vis-?-vis Syria is backed by substantial support of the Syrian protest movement (Riyadh has for some time supported the Syrian opposition), but it certainly serves as an Arab and Islamic seal of approval for steps that have not yet been taken. Yet despite the positive contribution to consolidating an anti-Iranian camp, Abdullah’s efforts are liable to decrease his freedom to maneuver, both at home and abroad. He will find it hard to rebuild his relations with Syria should Asad and his cronies stay in power. Is the king hoping to deflect criticism aimed at him? Perhaps. However, should the protest come knocking at his door, he will be hard pressed to explain why he hasn’t implemented his own recommendations. Asad’s possible fall is liable to be another domino in a process that ultimately leads to the Kingdom itself.

In order to back up his declarations (called “historic” by the Saudi press), the King recalled his ambassador for consultations, a move that may give legitimacy to other states to intensify the pressure on Syria. Indeed, a day after King Abdullah’s speech, Bahrain and Kuwait – the two Gulf states closest to Saudi Arabia – announced they too were recalling their ambassadors from Damascus to protest the violent suppression of the demonstrations (thus joining Qatar, which had done so previously). The King’s speech has already generated a number of government-sponsored demonstrations in the Gulf against the Syrian regime and harsher critiques of Syria in the Sunni Arab world. Abdullah may also be paving the path for a change in America’s hesitant policy and give President Obama an opportunity to toughen the tone about the continuing massacres.

What prompted King Abdullah's response at this time? The assertive position vis-?-vis Syria has to do with the King’s anger at the continuing killing of Sunnis during the sensitive period of Ramadan, especially among tribes close to the Kingdom, and possibly also his frustration at having failed to promote a behind-theg:\israel\politics\blog\hard_nl OUT.txt-scenes deal with Asad to restore calm.

Saudi Arabia’s firm stance on Asad may be understood as an admission of its inability to affect the direction of events, in Lebanon as well as Syria, or as recognition that the balance is now, more than in the past, tilting in favor of the Syrian protesters. According to this rationale, Saudi Arabia sat on the sidelines until now in order to see which way the internal Syrian pendulum would swing. Abdullah was also slow to act because his concern of an Iranian reaction and uncertainty about America’s policy on Asad, but he changed his position because of the emerging ethnic nature of the protest. King Abdullah is hoping that this step will distance him from Asad, understanding that the Alawi minority regime (a heretical minority, because of its leanings to the Shi’a) has been significantly weakened and may even collapse, and that Saudi Arabia must prepare itself for such an eventuality.

This is a dramatic step, certainly for King Abdullah who is usually quite restrained, and has the potential to generate a new direction for Saudi Arabia in the Arab and Islamic world. It is not distress about human rights violations that is at the center of the King’s concerns; therefore, there is no contradiction between his support for the Syrian protests and the help he extended to suppress the protests in Bahrain. Rather, considerations of balance of power and ethnic rivalries are intertwined in Saudi “activism”: an attempt to stop Iran and consolidate a Sunni front as a counter-force to Iranian influence. The fall of Asad would be the best outcome for Abdullah, second only to the fall of the Islamic republic itself, even if he understands, as Tarqi al-Faisal said, that “Asad will fight till the last Syrian standing.” Either way, the Kingdom seems more ready than ever to harness its not inconsiderable economic and political assets to tackle Iran’s regional ambitions.

Yoel Guzansky

Source: http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=5392

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

PA Residents: Where are 'Human Rights' when PA Oppresses Us?

by Maayana Miskin

Palestinian Authority Arabs in Hevron held a rally Thursday protesting a wave of arrests by PA forces in recent weeks. The protesters, many of them relatives of Hamas terrorists detained by the PA, accused PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas' troops of conducting the arrests for political reasons.

Children of prisoners chained themselves together, according to Maan news. Others held signs saying, “Human rights organizations – what are you doing to achieve rights?”

Protesters accused human rights groups of failing to stand up to the PA.

Some of the adults present accused PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas of deliberately undermining the recent reconciliation of the warring Fatah and Hamas factions. Abbas' police “always escalate arrests during dialogue,” one said.

Abbas spoke to former rival Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas in Gaza, on Thursday. The two discussed ongoing efforts to reunite the PA in Judea and Samaria with its breakaway counterpart in Gaza.

Maayana Miskin

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146688#.TknYtmHSmdd

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

Robert Spencer debates Imam Moustafa Zayed on Rights for Women in Islam

by Robert Spencer

Here is the video of last night's debate (thanks to jzaik).

I am always surprised by how deceitful these Muslim spokesmen can be, and in this case, I think Moustafa Zayed knows that he is lying, and knows that he is lying poorly. Note his high state of agitation, increasing as the debate goes on. "War is deceit," as Muhammad said, but even on that score Zayed is not a very good warrior. Marisol has some apposite comments on the debate here.

And here again are the background ahadith I promised. In the debate, I referred to several ahadith that he challenged. About the first one he said that I was conflating two ahadith, one in which Muhammad said that the majority of people in hell were women, and another in which he spoke of women being deficient in intelligence and in religion. Zayed claimed that Muhammad did not speak of these two things together -- a minor and diversionary point, to be sure, since he didn't challenge the authenticity of either hadith, but in any case, even in that he was lying, as here is the hadith in which Muhammad speaks both of hell being filled with mostly women and women being deficient in intellect and religion:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301)

Zayed also claimed that Aisha never said that Muhammad had struck her and caused her pain, and that I was misrepresenting the translation. Here it is from Sahih Muslim, translated by the Muslim scholar Abdul Hamid Siddiqui and posted at a Muslim Students Association website:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you. (Muslim Book 004, Number 2127)

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/robert-spencer-defeats-imam-moustafa-zayed-in-debate-on-whether-islam-guarantees-equality-of-rights.html

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

Imposing Shariah Law in London

by JanSuzanne Krasner

Imagine one morning waking up, walking out your door, and seeing bright yellow posters plastered on the walls and telephone poles throughout your neighborhood that announce that you are now living in a 'Shariah Controlled Zone.' That is what is actually happening in several boroughs of London and other communities in the UK... and this could realistically happen in US cities within the next few years if we do not take legal precautions against 'Shariah Law' in our states.

Some may think that I am an alarmist. After all, how can one believe that we Americans are as vulnerable as those Brits? That can't happen in the US. Well, the residents living in neighborhoods like Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham, all boroughs of London with large Muslim populations, didn't think so either.

This is more than a call or a march for 'Sharia Law' that has happened in recent months. This is a clear attempt to impose 'Shariah Law' on the residents of these communities by members of a Muslim organization called 'Muslims Against the Crusades.' These British citizens woke up one morning in late July to find those bright yellow posters plastered on their streets alerting everyone that they are entering, or already living in, a 'Shariah Controlled Zone'; a 'sinless city' where drinking, gambling, prostitution, drugs, playing loud music or having concerts is no longer permitted. To make matters more intimidating the non-Muslim residents had better watch out for this group's band of vigilantes that will soon be on the streets to enforce the 'Shariah Laws.'

The riots in London and surrounding areas are overshadowing this story. However, it is these very riots that are symptomatic of the level of civil discontent, lack of individual responsibility, thuggery and disrespect for others that does exist today in some of Britain's social and economic class-warfare society. The extremes of wealth and poverty, the high levels of unemployment and continued uncertainty, along with the undisciplined nature of many of the rioters is making the UK, along with other European countries, very vulnerable to Islamic intervention.

According to Anjem Choudary, the fast-talking spokesman for 'Muslims Against the Crusades,' "Shariah Law is unstoppable in Europe." He claims that the British society is "broken, riddled with drugs, crime and prostitution" and believes that the British people are ready to "welcome Sharia Law." His plan is to flood cities in the UK with these 'Shariah is a Better Society' flyers and "put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term."

Can this really be happening? Watch this video and come to your own conclusions. Listen to Choudary. Then listen to some of the British reactions to this intimidation, including the News reporter herself. This Muslim group is planning to take their tactics to other European cities in France, Italy and Brussels where the Muslim population has increased to large proportions. This is where fear comes alive and people have to decide to fight or leave.

Islamic beliefs like Choudary's are now hidden behind peace and love in America's Islamic communities. As we continue to face economic challenges and similar class warfare, debates on Islamic influence and Shariah Law will also continue to divide and weaken our neighborhoods and push our democracy to its limits. So much truth has been replaced by lies and self-serving politicians. Americans are filled with distrust of their government and the public officials who seem to focus only on their re-election. We as a nation are feeling fearful, a vulnerable atmosphere for any enemy to rise to power. And these enemies are already speaking out as they sense our weakness growing.

After 9/11 Americans became much more aware of the danger of radical Islam and the Jihad against western societies. It has been courageous Americans, in the face of enormous public and political condemnation, who have been fighting for almost a decade against the political correctness of our social and political dialogue as they try to expose the dangers of the anti-democratic ideology of the Koran. They have recently been taking the brunt of politically correct finger-pointing as liberal leaning main stream media attempts to crucify them as the inspiration for Norway's mass murderer Anders Breivik.

The malicious slander of our outspoken freedom fighters must not be believed. Videos like the one linked here are necessary for the American public to see. Shariah Law has already entered various places of American life: finance, business and the courts. Greater demands are sure to follow.

We are not much different than our British friends. I am hoping that this video will be shocking enough that people will continue to circulate it for more Americans to see what is truly threatening our western society. Stop Shariah from coming to your neighborhood and support others in their fight against Islamic Supremacy.

JanSuzanne Krasner

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

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

Israeli Land Concessions: Wrong Answer to the Wrong Problem

by William A. Levinson

Dr. Stephen Covey compares leadership to management as follows: if workers are chopping their way through a jungle, managers figure out how to help them to chop faster. A leader climbs a tree, looks around, and realizes, "We're in the wrong jungle!" Every discussion of how much land Israel must give up to have peace exemplifies this principle because the Islamic Middle East cannot tolerate the nearby presence of even one acre under Judeo-Christian control.

The issue is therefore not, nor has it ever been, "Israeli occupation of Arab land." It has always been what China calls the Mandate of Heaven, or what Gordon R. Dickson in None but Man calls the Aspect of Respectability. The aliens in the story are effectively ancient Chinese or feudal Japanese with space ships, and the text provides outstanding elaboration of the concept.

To be Respectable among the Moldaug is to be in proper accord with the leaders of the race, that ensure and maintain the survival of the race. To be connected in any way with an action that leads to a plague or an unsuccessful war-any symptom of countersurvival developments-is to lose some part of your Respectability.

China would call this "loss of the Mandate of Heaven." A leader who delivers prosperity and service to his stakeholders holds the Mandate, while one whose incompetent or self-serving activities impoverish his people loses it.

"Countersurvival developments" are a matter of comparative perception. A devout Muslim whose parents and grandparents eked out a subsistence living would never imagine doing otherwise -- until he sees a neighboring land with gleaming towers, prosperous citizens, and luxuries unimaginable in his own society. He begins to ask questions like "Why are we faithful servants of Allah poor while the infidels over there are rich?" No mullah, imam, or ayatollah can answer these questions. They can't even tolerate them because questions of this nature lead to loss of the Mandate of Heaven, along with the power and privileges that such religious leaders have enjoyed for most of their lives.

Israel's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP, International Monetary Fund values) is $28.7 thousand. Only the Islamic nations of Qatar, Brunei, and the United Arab Emirates have a higher per-capita GDP than Israel, and for the same reason the Beverly Hillbillies can afford a mansion: they have the good luck to be sitting on top of a lot of oil. Even oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia ($17.0K) and Iran ($4.7K) are less affluent, while those with fewer natural resources range from Turkey's $10.4K down to $1.5K for the Palestinians, and even less for Pakistan.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can't offer the Iranian people Israel's standard of living, so he must offer them nuclear bombs instead -- weapons that, if he ever uses them as he has threatened, will almost certainly result in his nation's extinction. Afghanistan, with a per-capita GDP of $517, cannot aspire to build jumbo jets or towers that reach the sky. This is why al-Qaeda has to hijack the airplanes and crash them into the towers. It's "my bully with failing grades can beat up your straight-A honor student" on an international scale, at least until the bullies meet military science such as Predator drones and thermobaric bombs that only the world's honor students can produce.

God, or more precisely the Mandate of Heaven, has not been on the side of Islam since around 1453 (the fall of Constantinople). Examples include:

(1) Lepanto (1572), in which Venetian galleasses, of which only four could come into action, blew Turkish galleys into matchwood. The Venetian Arsenal was in fact the world's first approximation of a modern factory.

(2) Vienna (1683), where King Jan Sobieski crushed a Turkish army. September 12, the day after 9/11, is worth remembering as the anniversary.

(3) Russo-Turkish wars (late 18^th century), in which infidels under the command of Aleksandr V. Suvorov made mincemeat of the sultan's troops. "Suwarrow now was conqueror," wrote Lord Byron of the storm of Ismail, where God (or at least the Mandate of Heaven) was unequivocally on the side of "the Christian Empress, Catherine."

(4) Omdurman (1898), where Anglo-Egyptian machine guns and the 21^st Lancers (earned three Victoria Crosses) made short work of a much larger Islamic army.

(5) The Arab invasion of Israel (1948), in which numerically inferior Jews with a motley array of weapons defeated British-trained and British-armed Muslims.

Ernest Volkman's Science Goes to War (p. 60) explains why the Mandate is on our side and not theirs (emphasis added):

At the very moment [Thomas] Aquinas was telling his fellow Europeans how faith and reason could coexist, his Iranian counterpart, the leading Arab philosopher Ghazzali, concluded that the treasure of ancient texts represented social dynamite. The study of science and philosophy, he wrote, was harmful because it would shake man's faith in God and undermine the Muslim religion. Accordingly, the ruling caliph of Baghdad, to demonstrate his piety, ordered the burning of all manuscripts in the city's great library. ...The ancient Greek scientific idea of logical argument and syllogistic reasoning was foreclosed to Muslim science because it challenged the immutable word of the Koran.

People who read books tend to be far more advanced than those who burn books, and that is why our country is the Great Satan. Israel is the Little Satan because it is a neighboring instead of distant model of the superiority of Judeo-Christian culture over what the Middle East calls Islam. Israel did not occupy a single square foot of Arab land when the Arabs invaded it in 1948. The Arabs directed multiple acts of terroristic violence against Israel even before Israel occupied Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian land after the 1967 war, thus proving yet again that the so-called occupation is not and never was the problem's root cause.

This t-shirt from the New Jersey chapter of the International Solidarity Movement, meanwhile, includes an Israel-free map of the region that proclaims, "From the [Jordan] River to the sea, Palestine will be free." This calls not for Israel to surrender land in exchange for peace, but instead for Israel to cease to exist. This is far from the only Israel-free map we have seen from organizations that claim to seek only "justice" for the Palestinians.

Discussions of the Middle East therefore need to break away from the false and fraudulent premise that Israel can obtain peace through the surrender of any occupied territories. We must instead speak openly and unapologetically the politically incorrect truth nobody on the left wants to hear: Israel's mere existence exposes as frauds and charlatans militant "Islamic" leaders who can offer their followers nothing but poverty, squalor, state-mandated ignorance, violence, and hatred under color of religion. Only when rank-and-file Muslims wake up to this fact and transfer the Mandate of Heaven accordingly will the region enjoy peace and prosperity.

William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management, including content on organizational psychology as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

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

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

Lawsuit Details Depth of Berkeley Jewish Student Harassment

by IPT News

A pattern of harassment and physical assaults by members of two Muslim student groups at the University of California, Berkeley crosses the line from allowing free speech into creating a hostile campus environment, an attorney representing two students argued in court papers filed this week.

Jessica Felber and Brian Maissy are suing the University of California and Berkeley President Mark Yudoff, along with Berkeley's chancellor, the Regents of the University of California, the Associated Students University of California and Berkeley's dean of students for failing to protect them from verbal and physical assaults.

"Defendants assert that this Court is powerless to stop this conduct, claiming that these student groups have 'First Amendment Rights,'" wrote attorney Joel Siegal in response to a defense motion to dismiss. "But these Defendants have an equal obligation to protect the health and safety of Jewish students under Title VI," which requires federally funded educational institutions protect students against discrimination.

The lawsuit claims Berkeley has tolerated years of programming by anti-Israel student groups Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) despite reports of Jewish students being cursed at, threatened and assaulted.

SJP's stated goal is to promote a "just resolution of the plight of the Palestinians" and employs boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns as well as mock checkpoints and mock "apartheid walls" on campuses throughout the U.S. to promote that cause.

MSA also has a history of supporting radicalism on Berkeley's campus. In 1995, the MSA at UC Berkeley conducted a rally in support of Hamas. In April 2002 the MSA publication at UC Berkeley, Al-Kalima, voiced its support of Hamas and Hizballah. MSA was established by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1963 to serve as a platform to spread Islam and Islamic ideas to college campuses in the U.S.

By continuing to authorize and fund SJP and MSA as official student organizations, the lawsuit alleges, the university allowed itself to become a dangerous and threatening environment for Jewish students. SJP and MSA sponsored "Apartheid Week" events, specifically the mock checkpoints that they stage on campus, create an actionable hostile environment harassment.

Students at the checkpoints carry "realistic looking assault weapons—'imitation firearms'—as part of the event," Siegal wrote, citing a California statute prohibiting such reenactments unless they are authorized by the school.

Declarations by Felber, Maissy, and Berkeley Professor Mel Gordon detail examples of incidents that they felt crossed the line into intimidation and harassment. Each complains that school officials failed to discipline the people involved.

Felber, who graduated in December, said she was physically assaulted on campus by an SJP member in March 2010. Hussam Zakharia, then leader of SJP, rammed a shopping cart into her back during simultaneous "Israel Apartheid Week" and "Israel Peace and Diversity Week" events.

She was treated for her injuries and later received therapy as a result of the incident. After that, Felber said, she was so intimidated that she was afraid to leave home without an escort.

Felber said she already felt intimidated on campus by SJP before that incident. She described an SPJ speaker at an event singling her out and calling her a "terrorist supporter" in front of 100 people.

Brian Maissy, a current student, similarly described the fear created by the annual "Apartheid Week" events. Maissy, who wears a yarmulke, said the students with the fake assault rifles yelled, "Are you Jewish?" at him and other passersby. The event occurs at the entrance to campus and is difficult to avoid, Maissy said.

University officials did not act to protect the students, he said, and he fears for his safety on campus.

The situation dates back at least a decade, according to Mel Gordon, a tenured theater professor at Berkeley. He described being physically attacked by SJP members in 2001 as they protested outside a campus building. When Gordon tried to go inside the building to teach a class, a student beat, spit upon, and kicked Gordon in the stomach.

Gordon sued his attacker and said he was awarded restitution in the case and a member of SJP was convicted. But, to his knowledge, SJP was not suspended or disciplined by school officials. The university continued to sponsor SJP and MSA as student organizations.

He described a letter he sent to school officials in 2008 after an altercation between members of SJP and the Zionist Freedom Alliance. In it, he said he told the chancellor about his experiences with SJP and urged something be done. He did not receive a response.

Jewish students also complained to school officials in 2008, saying they did not feel that the UC police and faculty were doing anything to curb SJP's intimidation and harassment. The officials denied that there was an anti-Semitic crisis on campus and "actively and intentionally" allowed it to continue, lawyers for the students say.

The lawsuit seeks damages, a five-year ban on MSA and SJP on campus, and a loss of university funding for the groups. The plaintiffs also argue that UC Berkeley must create an independent fact-finding body to handle student complaints of hostile environment situations on campus.

The case is scheduled for trial September 22.

IPT News (The Investigative Project on Terrorism)

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3100/lawsuit-details-depth-of-berkeley-jewish-student

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

Shari'a Movement Struggles to Globalize Campaign for Islamizing Western World

by R. Green,* N. Maruani, N. Blum & I. Cohen**

Introduction

Over recent years, a new phenomenon has emerged among radical Islamist circles: the rise of a global network of groups calling for the total Islamization of Western states and societies via the implementation of shari'a law and the abolition of democratic states and their replacement by Islamic regimes.

These groups, which have referred to themselves as the global shari'a movement, strive to globalize ideas and tactics hatched within radical Salafi circles in the U.K. These circles are led by Sheikh 'Omar Bakri, who was denied reentry into the country after he left for Lebanon following the 2005 London bombings, and his disciple Anjem Choudary, who founded several groups in the country that have since been banned by the British authorities.

Choudary has significant influence and involvement in most, if not all, of the groups which are part of the so-called global shari'a movement, whether directly or through inspiration, moral support, or guidance. His name regularly appears on their websites, YouTube clips, and Facebook pages. For instance, the contact page on the Shariah4usa website provides contact information for Choudary, as well as for Bakri and for Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon, the head of Sharia4australia who recently posted a letter of support for Choudary on his Facebook page.[1]

Such groups have adopted Bakri and Choudary's worldview and modus operandi in openly calling for and demonstrating in favor of the establishment of Islamic rule, while opposing democracy as a political ideal and system, condemning freedom, and protesting the West's alleged crimes against Muslims. However, despite the image they have attempted to create, and despite meriting some media attention in the countries where they operate, the groups lack a substantial presence on the ground, with the exception of the U.K.-based groups, whose relatively high numbers and effective organization enable them to be more active – and, as a result, to enjoy considerably larger publicity in the media. The most tangible presence of these groups, especially those outside the U.K., is on online social networks, namely YouTube and Facebook.

The groups and figures that propagate Bakri and Choudary's ideology include:

• Sharia4uk or Islam4uk and its reincarnations in the U.K., such as Muslims Against Crusades
• Various websites associated with radical British preachers active in groups such as the Tawheed Movement and on the website Salafimedia.com
• Shariah4Belgium
• Sharia4Holland – seems to be operated by Shariah4belgium; maintains a YouTube channel and a website, currently inactive
• Sharia4Australia – seemingly run by one activist, who maintains a Facebook page and YouTube channel, and occasionally appears in the Australian media
• Shariah4USA, also known as Sharia4America (U.S.)
• Women4shariah – an international movement with a strong U.K. base
• Jama'at Al-Tawhid (France) – maintains a website which has been inactive since the failed niqab ban demonstrations in Paris, in April 2011
• Shariah4Pakistan – active only on Facebook
• Shariah4Bangladesh – a YouTube channel
• Shariah4southafrica – a YouTube channel
• Shariah4alandalus, also known as Sharia4spain – active on both Facebook and YouTube, and operated by a person calling himself Abu Maria Al-Muhayer
• Shariah4world – a Facebook group
• Global Shariah Groups – a Facebook page
• Sharia4maldives – a Facebook group
• Dawah4sharia
• International Shariah Movement – website
• Dawah4sharia4women

Shariah4belgium's logo

Shariah4belgium

It would seem that the only group outside Britain with a sizeable presence on the ground is Shariah4belgium. This group, led by Fouad Belkacem – also known as Abu Imran – has documented several types of activities, including the following.

1) "Street da'wa" – public proselytizing, mainly in Muslim neighborhoods in Belgian cities, by handing out leaflets or speaking in public places, such as shopping centers or main streets.

2) Video lectures – the group has posted to the Internet many videos of lectures, lessons and interviews on various Islamic issues in several languages (including Flemish, French, English, Arabic, and Dutch) mostly by Abu Imran.

3) Demonstrations – Shariah4belgium has held demonstrations in major cities for various causes, such as a demonstration against the Moroccan government. In one of its YouTube clips, the group's members filmed themselves burning an American flag.[2]

Global Shariah Groups Facebook page – "Destroying the Ideology of Democracy"

Ideology

The worldview espoused by these groups can be summarized as follows:[3]

The world today is governed by non-Islamic governments and legal systems, which means that the world is in a situation similar to that of the pre-Islamic era [the jahiliya]. This situation calls for immediate and organized action on the part of the Muslims to abolish the current systems, whether the democratic system in the West or the various other ruling systems in the Islamic countries, and to establish Islamic states in their stead. In other words, all political, social, and economic systems must be Islamized. Muslims everywhere must act immediately to achieve this goal through organized activity, the preliminary stage of which is preaching and propagating Islam (da'wa) and condemning deviant practices (hisba).

The stated purpose of all of the groups that share this goal is to establish states ruled by Islamic law, or shari'a, which they consider to embody the basis for all aspects of statecraft. This is the guiding principle behind Bakri and Choudary's work, and one which has gained wide publicity in the past decade.

The stated platform of the French group Jama'at Al-Tawhid is representative of this general outlook: "Our message to the French government and to any other [institution that is governed by] man-made law is that Muslims around the world will only submit to Allah (swt) and believe it is a crime and an act of apostasy to obey a law created by man, [such] as the French law.

"The two systems of secularism and Islam are opposed: you cannot say that sovereignty and supremacy belong to man on the one hand, and that sovereignty belongs to Allah on the other. We must have priority, and [the priority] goes to Islam.

"Muslims must believe that Islam will dominate France and will replace the French government constitution by the Shariah."

Shariah4USA logo

Global Ties between Shari'a Groups Worldwide

There are several ways in which the shari'a groups have striven to establish a global movement with unified themes and messages:

1. Shari'a groups use similar logos, which are usually the map of a country with a black Islamist flag superimposed on it, to symbolize Islam taking over that country. Likewise, their websites, Facebook pages, and YouTube clips are replete with images of famous monuments and national icons from the respective Western countries where they are based, with a black Islamist flag flying above them – such as the White House (turned into a mosque), the Australian parliament building, or London's Big Ben tower.

Image from a Shariah4USA clip: the White House turned to a mosque

Image from a Sharia4Australia clip: Islamist flag flying over the Australian parliament

Jama'at Al-Tawhid logo

2. The people behind these groups interact via Facebook and YouTube, responding to and emulating each other's postings and clips, etc.

3. The shari'a groups often post videos in which representatives of a given group address their colleagues in other countries and offer them their blessing, encouragement, and support.[4]

4. There has been at least one attempt to organize a joint event with the participation of several shari'a groups, namely the planned demonstration against France's ban on full covering of the face (the niqab ban). Anjem Choudary and Shariah4belgium's Abu Imran announced their intentions to join the French shari'a group Jama'at Al-Tawhid in its demonstration in Paris against the niqab ban, and posted inflammatory videos on YouTube denouncing France for the law.[5]

Image from Women4shariah's website: Islamist flag flying over famous Western monuments

5. The shari'a groups intentionally use blatant, aggressive, and provocative slogans and messages, not only in demonstrations against non-Muslim institutions, but also when addressing Muslimsof whom they disapprove. Thus, they speak of "destroying democracy," curse their adversaries, and use the strongest possible terms when protesting or opposing a phenomenon they dislike. These groups consider this the proper form of da'wa and the duty of "commanding good and forbidding evil," or hisba. According to their worldview, when making an effort to correct the ways of society as a whole, Muslims must band together into groups and convey their message using strong, uncompromising, and even offensive language, and must be prepared to use force to correct social deviations.[6] An example for this tendency is the first objective Sharia4australia lists among its goals: "To rise and proclaim publicly – hatred, emnity [sic] and dissavowal [sic] to kufr [unbelief], shirk [polytheistic] democracy and taghut [idols, meaning the infidel rulers] by showing the real evils of democracy."[7]

Notwithstanding their common calls for the implementation of shari'a, condemnation of democracy, and so forth, each shari'a group has its own unique concerns. Thus, Shariah4belgium, which comprises numerous Moroccan immigrants, has staged several protests against the Moroccan government, and many of its videos deal with Moroccan politics. As mentioned, the now-defunct French shari'a group Jama'at Al-Tawhid organized a protest against the French law banning garb that fully covers the face. Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon, of Sharia4australia, made a video condemning the participation of Australia's military in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.[8]

Sharia4Spain logo

Links to the Global Jihad Movement

When asked about terrorism, spokesmen of these movements state that they condemn terrorism and reject the killing of innocent people. Yet they always clarify that in their eyes, the only true terrorism is the actions of the U.S. and its allies. Although these groups are not directly linked to Al-Qaeda or other elements within the global jihad movement, they regularly express support for global jihad.

For instance, Sharia4australia's videos feature the Al-Qaeda flag. Similarly, Abu Imran of Shariah4belgium frequently appears on the backdrop of the Al-Qaeda flag. His group also conducted a memorial prayer service for Osama bin Laden after the latter's assassination, and Abu Imran eulogized him in a video. In an interview posted on YouTube, Abu Imran states: "May Allah give victory to the mujahideen wherever they are, and may Allah humiliate and destroy the kuffar [infidels] wherever they are."[9] In this vein, it should also be mentioned that in the past, Abu Imran maintained contact with prominent Salafi-jihadi cleric Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, from whom he sought spiritual and practical guidance regarding the best way to advance the Islamic cause in Belgium (see below). Shariah4usa regularly posts materials supporting Al-Qaeda on its Facebook page and YouTube channel, while several members of Shariah4belgium have been arrested on terrorism-related charges.

Image from an Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula clip posted by Shariah4USA on its YouTube channel

Neo-Nazism

Aside from global jihad connections, shari'a groups espouse other extremist ideologies. For example, Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon of Sharia4australia boasted on his Facebook page that he was reading Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, and expressed admiration for Hitler, his ideology, and his deeds.[10]

Image from the Facebook page of Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon of Sharia4Australia

Salafi-Jihadis Oppose Shari'a Groups

The notion of Muslims propagating and working for the establishment of Islamic states in non-Muslim Western countries is by no means accepted or supported within the Salafi camp, and is openly opposed by some Salafi-jihadi scholars.

On April 23, 2010, the Salafi-jihadi website Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad published correspondence between Abu Imran of Shariah4belgium and Sheikh Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi. In a letter to Al-Maqdisi, Abu Imran wrote asking for advice and support for a new organization, whose purpose would be to implement shari'a law, oppose democracy, and call the people to Allah. Abu Imran said Al-Maqdisi's blessing would legitimize the group's cause among Muslims. In his reply, Al-Maqdisi wrote that the best course of action for Abu Imran and his peers would be to support the mujahideen on the front lines in any way they could. He went on to say that since today there was no true Islamic state to which Muslims living in Western countries could emigrate, they must instead improve the religious environment where they lived, investing in shari'a studies and cultivating a shari'a-based lifestyle, in order to guide other Muslims and provide Islamic alternatives to Western societies. He went on to say that Muslims in the West should focus on bringing people closer to Allah while addressing them in terms they could relate to, adding: "Various means are allowed in proselytizing, as long as they are in accordance with shari'a."

In addition, Al-Maqdisi wrote to Abu Imran that he and his fellow Muslims should hate, shun, and even boycott those who opposed them. Al-Maqdisi offered Abu Imran the same advice he had given others before: that it was not yet time for the Muslims in the West to confront the regimes they were living under since, for various reasons, the Muslims were still in a state of weakness. In the meantime, he said, these Muslims "must avoid the ills of Western societies... [and] fortify their communities against the penetration of outsiders... until Allah grants the establishment of an Islamic state that rules by the shari'a and flies the banner of Allah's unity."[11]

Another cleric who expressed reservations about the type of activity promoted by these shari'a groups, though for quite different reasons, was Abu Uzair Al-Jazairi, who resides in Denmark. In an inquiry submitted to Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad's shari'a committee, Abu Uzair was asked for his opinion regarding the shari'a groups. He replied that the Muslims in these groups failed to distinguish between dar al-islam (the Abode of Islam) and dar al-kufr (the Abode of Unbelief), which he said ran counter to one of the main principles of the Salafi-jihadi notion of al-wala' wa'l-bara' (sole loyalty to Islam and the disavowal of other faiths). He said that such groups should disassociate themselves from the polytheists by leaving Western countries to go to Muslim countries, and insinuated that one must not assist these groups.[12]

Logo of Shariah4Poland

Conclusion

The global shari'a groups have succeeded in attracting the support of some Muslims for their cause and in grabbing some media attention, with members appearing on TV shows and in other media reports. However, it seems that so far, the attempt by radical Salafi circles in the U.K., led by Anjem Choudary, to globalize the campaign for the Islamization of Western countries has failed to gain momentum. This can be attributed to several reasons:

1) Lack of support for this type of activity among respected scholars, even in radical and/or Salafi circles.

2) Firm action on behalf of governments to monitor and stop inflammatory activities, i.e. France's prevention of the demonstration against the niqab ban in April 2011.

3) Questionable leadership, such as in the case of Shariah4usa, whose main activist is an ex-convict. Abu Imran of Shariah4belgium is wanted by the Moroccan government for drug-trafficking, while Sharia4australia is run by the Hitler-admiring Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon.

In spite of their relatively small presence on the ground, these groups should not be totally ignored. Their inflammatory rhetoric and support for global jihad represent vis-à-vis Muslim youth a potential stepping stone to active engagement in global jihad.

[1] Choudary spoke of his intention to open the Belgian branch of his organization in a newspaper interview. See http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/01/choudary-belgian-soldiers-also-have.html. For Choudary's connection to Shariah4usa, also known as Shariah4America, see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 3782 Shariah4America.com - Advocating an American 'Islamic State' and Shariah Law in the United States.

[2] http://www.youtube.com/user/shariahtube#p/u/56/-R472O-2LqQ.

[3] The summary is based on lectures by Anjem Choudary.

[4] See, for instance, a message of support from Shariah4belgium to Sharia4australia, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgiPQWlV3-8; a message of support from the U.S.-based Islamic Thinkers Society to Shariah4belgium, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0E-X5R3eyA; a message of support from Sharia4bangladesh to Sharia4australia, Sharia4pakistan, and Shariah4belgium, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEFt1fxEag; and a message of support from Anjem Choudary to Shariah4belgium http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AimT4g1_yk.

[5] At the last minute, the French authorities revoked their original decision to permit the protest, arrested many of the protesters, including Abu Imran, and banned Choudary from entering France. See http://plus.lefigaro.fr/article/loi-sur-le-voile-58-interpellations-a-paris-20110409-437084/commentaires.

[6] This notion is explained by Abu Waleed, a British preacher affiliated with Salafimedia.com. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTF9jRRVKvE.

[7] http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sharia4Australia/200025936711133?ref=ts#!/pages/Sharia4Australia/200025936711133?sk=info

[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5zJqnq93pE.

[9] http://www.youtube.com/user/shariahtube#p/u/26/QvJv2t19pS8.

[10] It should be noted that the Global Shariah Movement Youtube channel includes a clip featuring a member of the movement who is a former neo-Nazi who condemns neo-Nazism. Other clips on the channel feature former members of other fringe groups. http://www.youtube.com/user/GlobalSharia#p/u

[11] http://www.tawhed.ws/FAQ/display_question?qid=2099&pageqa=4&i=7&PHPSESSID=64997e036d3d6cd243367. See MEMRI JTTM Report No. 5036, "Radical Belgian Muslims Turn to Jihadist Cleric Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi for Guidance, April 27, 2010.

[12] See MEMRI Jihadi Text, "Salafi-jihadi Sheikh Rules Against Muslim Groups Working To Establish Islamic State In Western Countries," April 29, 2011, http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=4874&param=JT.

R. Green,* N. Maruani, N. Blum & I. Cohen**

* R. Green is a research fellow at MEMRI.

** N. Maruani, N. Blum and I. Cohen contributed to the research for this report.

Source: http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=5327&param=IDTA

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

Texts, Lies and Videotape

by Efraim Karsh

Benny Morris appears genuinely oblivious to the stark discrepancy between depicting Israel as an ethnic cleanser in his early work and blaming the Palestinians for genocidal ambitions in his later years. In his recent National Interest article, he denounces criticism of this glaring contradiction as "defamation and incitement by both extremists Jews [sic] and extremist Muslims."

While I resent being lumped into either group, I can readily understand the difficulty of figuring out which line of thinking Morris really believes.

The post-conversion Morris objects to a "Muslim video" claiming that Jews massacred 250-300 men, women, and children at Deir Yassin in April 1948, noting that "Arab researchers already in the 1980s concluded that only about 100 Arabs combatants and noncombatants died in the village that day."

But Morris himself wrote in his influential 1988 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, that "some 250 Arabs, mostly non-combatants, were murdered" at Deir Yassin (p. 113). If it was common knowledge in the 1980s that only around 100 Arabs were killed, then his figures in The Birth make him either incompetent or untruthful. In any case, it's absurd for him to find fault with those who rely on this and other dubious claims from The Birth to demonize Israel—after all, he hasn't disavowed the book.

Indeed, in his TNI piece, Morris repeats his claims about an age-old Zionist design to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs from their homes. I have been debunking this canard for years (see here, here, here, here, and here), yet many of the book's most controversial passages—notably the alleged Ben-Gurion quote "We must expel Arabs and take their places"—continue to provide fodder for the very "Muslim extremists" he condemns (see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for an English translation).

If Morris finds this objectionable, he can easily rectify the matter by disowning his past defamation of Zionism. His reluctance to do so has led him into some strange terrain. The only way his pre-conversion and post-conversion views can both be valid is if the Israelis were ethnic cleansers and were justifiably so. This led to his infamous assertions that "when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing" and "even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians" in an infamous 2004 Haaretz interview with Ari Shavit (see here for an English translation).

Morris now claims to have been misrepresented. "I never, ever said what I am alleged to have said. . . . Shavit had simply misquoted me." Few at the time accepted the accusation—made in the face of unprecedented public condemnation—that Shavit, one of Israel's most distinguished journalists, whose trademark in-depth interviews are widely considered beyond reproach, misrepresented Morris's assertions. "It cannot be claimed that Ari Shavit sweet-talked Morris [into making racist statements]," wrote Professor Aviad Kleinberg of Tel Aviv University in Haaretz on January 24, 2004.

Morris will no doubt continue to cry foul, but the discrepancies between his pre-conversion work and post-conversion statements will continue to haunt him.

Efraim Karsh is research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King's College London, director of the Middle East Forum (Philadelphia), and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3010/texts-lies-and-videotape

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

Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America by Kenneth L. Marcus

Reviewed by Asaf Romirowsky

Why has the position of Jews at American universities deteriorated in the past decade and what can be done about it? Understanding the history of this dilemma requires going back a number of years. In 2003 the social commentator Stanley Kurtz testified before the House Subcommittee on Select Education. The hearing was convened to examine charges of bias in international studies programs funded under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, including the academic study of the Middle East and other areas of the world. Kurtz, in conjunction with other critics such as the Middle East scholars Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer, highlighted the bias existing in Title VI-funded Middle East centers.

This bias correlated with the influence of the late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said. Said was a leading figure in the creation of the ruling intellectual paradigm in academic area studies (especially Middle East studies), which is called postcolonial theory. In that context, Said equated academics who support American foreign policy with the nineteenth-century European intellectuals who allegedly propped up racist colonial empires. A core premise of postcolonial theory is that it is immoral for a scholar to put his knowledge of foreign languages and cultures at the service of American power. Said's major work, Orientalism, blamed all of the troubles of the Middle East on the West, stemming from a "trifecta of evils" - imperialism, racism, and Zionism. While Orientalism often ignored evidence that ran counter to its thesis, it is still the canonical text in the field of Middle Eastern studies.

Martin Kramer in his book, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, details the pervasive influence of Said's postcolonial theory on the discipline of Middle East studies throughout North America. These ideas, which became institutionalized over the past decades, form the backdrop to the treatment of Jews and Israel on American campuses.

Harassment: A Problem of Definition

During the first term of President George W. Bush, Kenneth Marcus served as delegated assistant secretary of education for civil rights in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). In Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America, he details his efforts in that capacity to have Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to the ill-treatment of Jewish students. Marcus was responding to the fostering by pro-Palestinian groups of a new wave of anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish and pro-Israeli students on American campuses. Title VI prohibits discrimination on grounds of race and national origin, and proven examples of discrimination can lead to the withholding of federal funds from educational institutions.

There was, however, a loophole. Religion was not included as a permissible basis for alleging discrimination in the other parts of the Civil Rights Act and was omitted from the provisions of Title VI as a prohibited basis of discrimination. Moreover, the drafters of this legislation still are reluctant to protect Jewish students because Judaism is deemed only a religion rather than an ethnic group, and Congress has not authorized probes of religious bias. Furthermore, the OCR does not want to be seen as singling out American Jews as a separate "race" or "nation." Marcus, however, argues that the increase in anti-Israelism among North American campuses has reached the level of anti-Semitism and that discrimination against Jews is indeed covered by the Civil Rights Act.

This new situation has demonstrated the need for a clear and inclusive definition of anti-Semitism and an answer to the question of whether anti-Israelism constitutes anti-Semitism. The apparent dilemma has been that anti-Israelism itself is not blatantly or even necessarily anti-Semitic but rather may appear merely critical of "Zionist policies," thus distinguishing between Jews and Zionists. This well-worn distinction has enabled the anti-Israeli camp to pose as critics who are in good faith. What has actually emerged, in effect, is a new form of anti-Semitism, because the state of Israel acts as a proxy for Jews at large. To the extent that it becomes harder to make a case for Israel on campus and in the Jewish community in general, the environment has become increasingly hostile to the pro-Israeli community.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy presents an additional challenge as it focuses on the U.S.-Israeli partnership. The authors contend that there is no sound justification for America's support for Israel, to which they refer as a "strategic burden." They argue further that the pro-Israeli camp has "hijacked" U.S. foreign policy to the detriment of America's interests. Mearsheimer and Walt actually claim that AIPAC's pressure bought about the war in Iraq.

Marcus also underscores the fact that an integral part of anti-Israelism is the adaptation of Holocaust rhetoric to the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic, by equating the Palestinian Nakba ("catastrophe") with the Holocaust. This has engendered statements that, for example, Israelis are doing to Palestinians what was done to Jews during World War II and that the security fence is Israel's method of "ghettoizing" the Palestinians. Such abusive rhetoric poses yet another hurdle for the pro-Israeli community, which has to counter demands to recognize a nonexistent Palestinian "Holocaust." This task becomes increasingly difficult as the media consistently promotes the Palestinian grievance.

The fact is that, despite the recent resurgence of anti-Semitic incidents on American college campuses, the OCR has been incapable of protecting Jewish students. This fiasco has resulted from a problem of definition. Because it lacks a working understanding of either Jewish identity or anti-Jewish hatred, the OCR has been unable to address the problem of anti-Jewish harassment.

The late Gary A. Tobin, who coauthored The UnCivil University, wrote that

while anti-Israelism, in itself, encourages anti-Semitic sentiment, it also invites participation by traditional anti-Semites who tailor their bigotry to focus on Israel in order to be acceptable on campus. The use of offensive imagery, such as the swastika to portray Jews, the rejection of opinion based on ethnicity, and demonization to the point where physical threats seem justified, is not part of civil discourse and legitimate critique. They are attempts to intimidate, alienate and silence Jews and others who support Israel.[1]

It is also worth noting that the U.S. State Department considered the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia's (EUMC) definition of anti-Semitism to be a good working definition for the current environment. The EUMC stated "anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

Proactive Steps Needed

For the purpose of Marcus's case, the use of the word manifestations was key to illustrating that anti-Israeli incidents do fall under the rubric defined by Title VI. Although much work still needs to be done, there is no doubt that Marcus's campaign struck a significant chord that consequently allowed groups such as the Zionist Organization of America to file a complaint against the University of California, Irvine (UCI), on grounds of anti-Semitic harassment. These allegations are now being probed by the U.S. Department of Education.

Furthermore, Marcus's work enabled the California district attorney's office to press criminal charges against a group of Muslim students for infringing the freedom of speech of Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren at UCI. During an address there in February last year, Oren was repeatedly interrupted by this group of Muslim students. Instead of waiting to express their dissent during the scheduled question-and-answer session, they took turns standing up and shouting epithets at Oren such as "mass murderer" and "war criminal." As a result, Oren's ability to make his points was significantly impaired.

Consequently, Orange County's district attorney Tony Rackauckas has filed misdemeanor charges against the students - known as the Irvine 11 - accusing them of an "organized attempt to squelch the speaker." He also said the students "meant to stop this speech and stop anyone else from hearing [Oren's] ideas, and they did so by disrupting a lawful meeting."[2]

It is, however, quite indicative of the academy's attitude of impunity that whatever is said in a classroom, academic or not, is deemed protected by "academic freedom." Only sexual harassment appears exempt from this blanket protection. Gradually the entire American campus has become an "academic freedom" zone where protests and other activities now qualify as academic "speech." The freedom to critique is, predictably, directed mostly at the two Satans: Israel and America, while efforts to curtail speech that academics find uncongenial have long taken the form of "speech codes" and restrictions on "hate speech." Clearly, the exercise of academic freedom is a one-way street; only those having the correct opinions may claim it.

Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America presents clear evidence of the lack of balance in academia, where so-called scholarship consistently fails to examine, much less condemn, terrorism or jihadism. Such an atmosphere enables intolerable ideas to become accepted as the norm. This situation must be challenged by all those concerned about the health of academia, as well as the continued well-being of Israel. It is to be hoped that Marcus's efforts will prove effective and that this book will serve as a wakeup call for the Jewish community at large and encourage proactive steps on these critical issues.

* * *

Notes

[1] Gary A. Tobin, Aryeh K.Weinberg, and Jenna Ferer, The Uncivil University (San Francisco: Institute for Jewish and Community Research, 2005), 4.

[2] "Free speech, too, for Israel's advocates," editorial, Jerusalem Post, 10 March 2011.

Asaf Romirowsky is a Philadelphia-based Middle East analyst, a lecturer in history at Pennsylvania State University, and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3011/jewish-identity-and-civil-rights-in-america

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