Monday, February 6, 2012

Islam’s Groundhog Day


by Daniel Greenfield


Groundhog Day is the long eternal tragedy of Islam, which always sees its shadow and always ends up with six weeks, six months or six hundred years of more winter. That hopeful time when the bitter cold of winter begins its slow transition into the warmth and renewal of spring never comes for Islam.

In a reversal of the cycle of season, the Arab Spring led to the Islamic Winter, but that is the endless pattern of Islamic attempts at reform and rejuvenation, which rather than finding renewal in their attempts at transformation only go on perpetuating the same cycle of violence, tyranny and oppression.

There is a peculiar tragedy to a religion which cannot escape its own destructive nature, each time it reaches for some form of redemption, its hands come up dripping with blood and it all ends in more bodies and petty tyrannies.

The film Groundhog Day showed us a man who was doomed to repeat the same day over and over again until he learned to use his time to become a better person. Islam has been stuck in its own form of that cycle, repeating the same century over and over again, moving from religious ecstasy to holy war, seeking redemption through religious tyranny, and finding that there was no escaping the internal decay and instability in the veins of its religion.

Islam’s only redemption lies in establishing a theocracy. Its commitment to power and the indulgence of the earthly and heavenly paradise of loot, slaves and violence led to its own degeneration over and over again. Having no other spiritual form than the exercise of power, it has corrupted itself each time, and then attempted to exorcise the corruption through more violence.

The Islamic leaders of one generation endorse the tyrants whom the Islamic leaders of another generation strive to overthrow. Hardly had Mohammed kicked the bucket than his nearest and dearest were fighting a civil war over supreme rulership. The origins of the Shiite-Sunni split lay not in theology, but in a vulgar power play between Mohammed’s relatives. That greedy infighting has hardened into theological variations, but underneath they remain fixed in the same patterns of warring over power and wealth.

Over a thousand years later the Muslim world is still dedicating all its energies to civil wars and external conflicts whose only true goal is to put money and power into the hands of its leaders. The confrontations between the prominent Shiite families running Iran and the Arab Sunni families running the Arabian gulf states are not theological, though they take place under the guise of theology. They are ethnic and economic conflicts dressed up as religious conflicts.

The ugliest elements of Islam, its bigotry toward Jews and Christians, its endless raids, its need to remove the faintest doubt about the parentage of the children of its women, are pure tribal pettiness distilled into religion by warlords and clan leaders whose understanding of theology did not extend beyond sanctifying the exercise of their personal power.

Islam was a predecessor of power movements like Communism and Nazism, its leader worship grimly real, as any cartoonist who has tried to draw a picture of Mohammed knows, or anyone who has seen Shiites cut their children bloody while crying out in mourning for Caliph Ali. Its theology is still incapable of embracing anything higher than its own will to power. Its objects of worship are its warleaders, its soldiers and its atrocities.

Erdogan, the future Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey, read a poem that went, “The minarets are our bayonets; the domes are our helmets. Mosques are our barracks, the believers are soldiers. This holy army guards my religion. Almighty, Our journey is our destiny, the end is martyrdom”. This rendition of Islam’s limited theological horizon was more than a warning for what would follow when his party took power; it was a depressing journey into the black hole of Islam where the only destination is war, death and self-destruction.

Not only is the Islamic imagination incapable of envisioning a better way, it is also obsessed with the destruction of anyone or anything that can. Like the dumb violent kid in the back of the class, it not only refuses to learn, it is driven to harm anyone who does learn and tries to become a better person. The reflexive Islamic hostility toward the modern and the humane is fear transformed into hate. Fear of inferiority and fear that modern sensibilities will end the tribal reign of power and usher in a new order that will no longer incline its head to bearded old men and their dreams of conquest.

Islamic fanaticism is most pronounced among those who have the most to lose. Not the poor and the downtrodden, but the sons of the upper class and the upper middle class make the most eager terrorists. The families who are now on top have the most to lose from the arrival of spring and are the most determined to retain their feudal powers, their oligarchies and tyrannies.

Apologists for Islamism like to portray those groups as liberation movements, but there is nothing liberating about terrorist groups run by millionaires and billionaires, doctors and degree holders, and funded by the ruling clans of Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. These ruling families have the most to lose from modernization, and though they build skyscrapers in their cities, they also helped orchestrate the Arab Spring to topple more modern governments and replace them with parties affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arab Spring is a misnomer because Islam exists in opposition to the spring, to the renewal of human energies and creative capacities. Its natural season is the wasteland where life has no capacity for growth.

Islamic law is aimed at freezing human moral capacity in the seventh century deserts of Arabia where women are property, outsiders are fair game, and power is the only morality that matters. Anything that subverts this order, whether it is domestic minorities or the existence of free people an ocean away must be attacked and destroyed.

Islam has no capacity for debate. Its blasphemy laws wall off dissent and prevent anyone from questioning the moral absolute of its power. It has, as the Ayatollah Khomeini said, no sense of humor. To be able to laugh is to doubt and there is no room for doubt in Islam or for any deviation from the narrow path of the Jihad. There is no thaw, only the eternal winter.

Carrying the seeds of its own destruction within its religion, it fights the same battles under new names and with new weapons. The wars that were once fought with spears are fought with warheads, but in the end they are still settled with knives, like the box cutters of the Islamic hijackers of September 11 or the murderers of Daniel Pearl. No matter how advanced the technology becomes, the sword is still the embodiment of Islam.

The Muslim Middle East is indeed changing, but it is changing back to what it once was, casting off the last remains of modernity imported from the West, and bringing back the reign of the Burqa, the sword and the prophet. In the West time moves forward, in the East it only moves backward. And so the spring will never come for Islam. Instead it will act out the same bloody rituals of Jihad, the killing of infidels and the civil wars, the slaves building civilizations, the masters molesting young girls and then beating them to death out of fear that the children might not be theirs.

This is the terrible cycle that repeats itself without hope of redemption. This is the rite of winter that is at the heart of Islam. It is a dark and bloody rite that has not changed in a thousand years. What we are witnessing in Islamic oppression and terror is the ancient ceremony of death, the ritual sacrifices of Ayatollahs and Mullahs over deserts and dusty fields, which hold back the coming of the spring.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/06/islam%E2%80%99s-groundhog-day/

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

Stalemate at the UN While Syria Slaughter Continues


by Joseph Klein

Nearly 6000 Syrians have died during the 10-month revolt against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, including hundreds of children. In one of the worst single day outbursts of violence, which occurred on February 3rd, the death toll from shelling by Syrian security forces in the city of Homs alone exceeded 200.

In the midst of the escalating violence, the United Nations Security Council met in a special Saturday session on February 4th to address the crisis in Syria. It failed to take any action after Russia and China vetoed a resolution expressing moral support for the beleaguered Syrian people and endorsing a plan put forward by the Arab League to help them move peacefully beyond Assad towards democracy. The Security Council let the Syrian people down as Assad’s killing machine continues to massacre innocent civilians.

Last week started out with much fanfare. The Arab League’s secretary general and the prime minister of Qatar addressed the Security Council in person on January 31st to present the Arab League’s plan and ask for the Security Council’s endorsement.

“The government killing machine continues effectively unabated,” said Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani. “The hope of the Syrian people is in your hands,” he added.

“Do not let the Syrian people down in its plight,” said the Arab League Secretary General Nabil el-Araby.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and several of her counterparts, including the foreign ministers of France and the United Kingdom, followed the presentation of the Arab League plan to the Security Council with their own supportive speeches.

In her stern address to the Council, Clinton harshly condemned the Syrian regime’s brutality against its citizens and urged full backing for the Arab League’s plan. “It is time for the international community to put aside our own differences and send a clear message of support to the people of Syria,” Clinton told the Council. “The alternative – spurning the Arab League, abandoning the Syrian people, emboldening the dictator – would compound this tragedy, and would mark a failure of our shared responsibility, and shake the credibility of the United Nations Security Council.”

Russia and China had vetoed a prior resolution last October concerning the violence in Syria. Russia in particular has been running interference for its ally Assad, whose regime is a major customer for Russian weapons and has provided Russia with access to one of its ports.

Mindful of the fate of the prior resolution, which had been spearheaded by the West, Clinton reminded the Council that this time it was the Arab League taking the lead and asking the Council for its support:

So why is the Arab League here before this Security Council? Because they are seeking the support of the international community for a negotiated, peaceful political solution to this crisis and a responsible, democratic transition in Syria. And we all have a choice: Stand with the people of Syria and the region or become complicit in the continuing violence there.

French Foreign Minister Alain JuppĂ© accused the Syrian regime of “crimes against humanity.” He added that the Arab League was offering the only viable plan to counter the violence and help facilitate a peaceful transition to democracy. “We have to take it,” Ambassador JuppĂ© said.

However, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly I. Churkin made it clear in his own remarks on January 31st that Russia would oppose any Security Council resolution that attempted “to prescribe outcomes” for the Syrian regime.

In the days that followed these speeches, Morocco’s original draft resolution went through successive mark-ups that were circulated in an effort to reach a consensus among all the members of the Security Council. While China is reported to have proposed little during the informal discussions, Russia insisted upon and obtained a number of key concessions. Bringing Russia on board was the key to passage of the resolution. China, in this case, was viewed as joined at the hip with Russia and likely to follow whatever Russia ultimately decided to do.

The Arab League plan proposed specific steps to successfully transition to democracy. Under the plan, Syrian President Assad would first cede power to his vice president, followed by the formation of a national unity government with the opposition and ultimately a new constitution and new elections. The original text of the Security Council resolution laid out these same steps. However, by the end of the week, these steps were removed from the final draft of the resolution as a concession to Russia.

The original proposed resolution expressed the Security Council’s “grave concern at the continued transfer of weapons into Syria which fuels the violence” and called on the member states “to take necessary steps to prevent such flow of arms.”

The final draft removed any reference to weapons as a further concession to Russia.

The final draft also made clear that nothing in the resolution authorizes the use of any military force to accomplish its purpose.

Russia even managed to promote itself in the resolution as a partner with the Arab League in the search for a peaceful solution. The final resolution draft noted specifically “the offer of the Russian Federation to host a meeting in Moscow, in consultation with the League of Arab States.”

Everything appeared to be on track by the end of last week to finally bring Russia on board, until Russia decided at the last moment to introduce some amendments with a few revisions to the resolution’s wording. That is where the United States, France, the United Kingdom and others on the Council drew a line in the sand. They decided that Russia had gone too far in trying to weaken the resolution’s text. Precious time was being wasted while civilians were dying in Syria.

As she entered the chamber for the special Saturday February 4th meeting of the Security Council, the U.S. United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice told reporters that Russia’s amendments were “unacceptable.” She and her colleagues from France and the United Kingdom insisted that, regardless of what Russia would do, the Security Council must vote without delay on the final draft version of the resolution proposed by Morocco and sponsored by sixteen other member states, including several other Arab countries and Turkey. That resolution would not include the Russian amendments.

Ironically, as noted above, the final version of the draft resolution already contained many of the concessions that Russia had demanded, which were far more significant than its last-minute amendments that Rice and her colleagues found so objectionable.

More specifically, the Russian amendments added language calling “for all sections of the Syrian opposition to dissociate themselves from armed groups engaged in acts of violence and urges member-states and all those in a position to do so to use their influence to prevent continued violence by such groups.” Assad would be expected to pull out his military forces from the cities and towns “in conjunction with the end of attacks by armed groups.” The resolution would still say that the Council “[F]ully supports…the League of Arab States’ 22 January 2012 decision to facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system.” However, the Russian amendments would replace “in accordance with the timetable set out by the League of Arab States” with the words “takes into account” the Arab League timeline.

The Russians were continuing to move the goalposts and evidently trying to delay action on a final resolution through seemingly trivial amendments. But, in the end, all that really mattered was passage of a resolution – any resolution – that expressed the international community’s strong moral support for the Syrian people and endorsement of the Arab League’s constructive role in trying to lead a regional diplomatic solution. Nothing in the Russian amendments would have materially undermined that objective. The UN has no further part to play other than to provide purely humanitarian assistance. International military intervention on the Libyan model is out of the question, as it should be. Economic sanctions, to the extent they have any real effect, are something that individual countries and regional groups can implement on their own, without any UN imprimatur.

The Obama administration could have accepted Russia’s amendments on the condition that Russia would agree (along with China) to an immediate vote on Saturday without a veto, as a demonstration that the world community was not turning a blind eye while Syrian civilians continued to be slaughtered on the very day that the Security Council was meeting. There was no guarantee that Russian and China would have gone along, but it was a gamble worth taking to keep the resolution alive.

Instead, after more than an hour of informal consultations among the Security Council members that included Russia and China, no agreement on the Russian amendments was reached. Led by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, a decision was made to push for a vote on the resolution immediately without Russia’s amendments. The Obama administration elected to act tough at the wrong time over trivial wording changes.

Predictably, Russia and China vetoed the resolution and it was thereby defeated, even though thirteen members of the Council voted in favor of the resolution.

Susan Rice exclaimed with righteous indignation how “disgusted” the United States was that two members of the Council were willing to “sell out the Syrian people.” She emphasized in her statement to the Council following the vote that the vetoed resolution had taken care of all of the principal concerns raised by its opponents. The resolution, she pointed out, expressly ruled out any contemplation of international military force. Moreover, there was no mention in the resolution of economic sanctions or any arms embargo.

Nevertheless, Rice said, Russia and China prevented the Council from providing international backing for the Arab League’s peace plan to bring about an end to the violence in Syria and facilitate concrete steps towards a democratic process designed by the Syrian people themselves.

Rice blasted what she called Russia’s “wrecking amendments.” Referring to Russia and China, she warned that “any further bloodshed will be on their hands.”

Rice vastly overstated her case by not seeing the forest for the trees. Russia’s amendments were annoying speed bumps, but hardly constituted “wrecking” roadblocks. Any further bloodshed will continue to be on Assad’s hands, with or without a Security Council resolution.

All the United Nations could have done was to shine with laser-like focus the world’s condemnation upon Assad’s shameful brutality. Passage of a Security Council resolution, even with Russia’s amendments, would have accomplished that singular purpose. Instead, the failure to pass any resolution at all, despite the urgent pleas of the Arab League, brought further shame on the United Nations itself and gave further lie to the Obama administration’s supposed “reset” of American relations with Russia.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and the new book, Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/06/stalemate-at-the-un-while-syria-slaughter-continues/

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

Israeli Demonization Week


by Mark Tapson

The title above may be a bit confusing, since the left and their media cohorts essentially treat every week as Israeli Demonization Week. So to be more precise: the official, organized, designated demonization of Israel known as Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) is gearing up to launch later this month.

IAW is an annual (2012 is the eighth) international series of events held in cities and on campuses across the globe. It aims “to educate people about the nature of Israel” – by which it means to spread disinformation and propaganda – “and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns” in order to delegitimize it. They demand full equality for Arab citizens of Israel (who already have it), an end to what they falsely call the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands, dismantling of the security wall that protects Israelis from Palestinian terrorist attacks, and the Palestinian right of return, which would essentially mean the end of Jews in Israel.

The IAW program begins in Europe in late February, shortly afterward in the United States, then Canada, the “Arab World” (as the website refers to it) and South Africa early in March, and finally in “Palestine.” Its speakers, conferences, rallies, workshops, panel discussions, film screenings, protests, even “flash mobs” will help hammer home their monstrous lies about Israel. The speakers featured this year at IAW include:

Max Blumenthal, a vicious character assassin masquerading as a journalist. In addition to playing an entire deck full of race cards against Republicans in his capacity as smear merchant for such entities as Media Matters, the Nation Institute (funded in part by George Soros), and the Huffington Post, Blumenthal kicked off the Internet frenzy over The Path to 9/11, a $30 million ABC miniseries in 2006 about the history behind the 9/11 attacks. He claimed ridiculously that the project was a secretive “propaganda operation” on the part of a stealth conservative cabal in Hollywood, and sparked death threats against the director and writer thanks to his lies about their political agenda.

Palestinian-Canadian attorney Diana Buttu is an international law expert and former advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization. CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, notes many instances of the media-savvy Buttu’s distortions and outright lies about Israel; for example, she buttresses her argument that Palestinian violence is the result of Israeli military occupation with her often-repeated claim that not a single Israeli died from suicide bombings during the period of the Oslo peace process. CAMERA points out that in fact, 24 Israelis died from suicide bombings during this period, and 14 more by other means at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Not to mention the Arab violence against Israelis that predates the latters’ control over the West Bank and Gaza. Jew-hatred, not “occupation,” is to blame for terrorism against the Israelis.

Nada Elia currently teaches Global and Gender Studies at Antioch University-Seattle. She chairs the Anti-Militarism and Occupation taskforce of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, and is a member of the Organizing Committee of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, which focuses on boycotting Israeli academic and cultural institutions and which includes such Israel-haters on its Advisory Board as Bishop Desmond Tutu, whom she calls a mentor, and academic Hamid Dabashi. At IAW in 2010 she stated proudly,

BDS is in everyone’s mainstream consciousness. BDS is on everyone’s mind. BDS is a global movement. BDS today is a strategic threat to Israel.

It is indeed in the mainstream consciousness. That’s because language is one of the keys to delegitimizing Israel, and the left is so successful at manipulating language, especially their demonstrably false allegation that Israel is analogous to South Africa’s racist former regime. This tool of language has become the favored bludgeon for the anti-Israel movement to gain international support and turn Israel into a pariah state. It is particularly effective among the sadly impressionable minds on college campuses, where leftist and multiculturalist indoctrination is routine.

But South Africa was a uniquely repressive system through which their white minority brutally enforced its domination over the black majority through separation laws. No such laws exist in Israel; Arab citizens of Israel have the full range of civil and political rights, including the right to organize politically, the right to vote and the right to speak and publish freely.

Nonetheless, the haters’ strategy is very effective. Jewish-Canadian, anti-Israel activist Judy Rebick admits in a video from last year’s IAW that the left’s relentless labeling of Israel as an apartheid state is “a brilliant propaganda tactic,” because countering the false charge that Israel is the new South Africa forces Israel’s defenders to repeat the word “apartheid” constantly; the repetition thus gives the association more power and familiarity in people’s minds, creating a tar baby that Israel can’t shake off. As always, the left knows very well how to use language as a weapon to stay on the offensive, forcing their opponents into reactive mode at all times.

For example, talk radio host Dennis Prager’s short article addressing this charge against Israel not only mentions the offensive word thirteen times, the very title of the piece is, astonishingly, “Israel: An Apartheid State.” Sure, the content of the article is a reasoned refutation of the label, but the constant association “Israel=apartheid” is even more psychologically effective. It may be among the world’s greatest lies, as Prager calls it, but until Israel and its supporters learn to make an end run around such linguistic assaults as those of the IAW hate-fests, or go on the offensive themselves, they will always be operating from a defensive stance, and the lie will keep gaining ground.

Mark Tapson

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/06/israeli-demonization-week/

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

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Today Syria…Tomorrow Iran


by Tariq Alhomayed

Hat Tip to IMRA for this article

The above title is not my own wish, or expression, but rather this is something that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said himself during the recent “World Conference on Youth and Islamic Awakening” held in Tehran under the auspices of the Iranian government and attended by thousands of youth. This conference attempted to claim that the Arab revolutions are following the path of Iran’s Khomeinist revolution; however this conference did not go according to plan for Ahmadinejad.

This is because after images were shown during the conference of what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya, in addition to other pictures aimed at provoking Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, and Morocco; an Iranian youth in the audience suddenly stood and held up a poster with one word written on it, namely “SYRIA?”. In other words: what about Syria? At this point, voices were raised repeating “God, freedom, and Syria!” Of course, this youth was silenced by the conference organizers, and other voices were raised repeating slogans defending the Bashar al-Assad regime. When it was time for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give his speech, and upon reaching the podium, he told the audience “we must be vigilant: the West is trying to foment sectarian conflict in our societies, as part of their goal of keeping Israel alive.” He added “today Syria, tomorrow your country” i.e. Iran.

Ahmadinejad is linking the safety and security of his own country with that of the Bashar al-Assad regime, not vice versa; for rather than the tyrant of Damascus saying that any threat to the Iranian regime weakens the al-Assad regime, it was Ahmadinejad who said that al-Assad being targeted today would mean Iran being targeted tomorrow. The meaning is clear; Ahmadinejad is well aware that Iran will have no value and role in the region without the subservience of the al-Assad regime; as the Syrian regime has facilitated Iran’s presence in the region, particularly in Lebanon, and this is thanks to Damascus’s support of the Iranian agent Hassan Nasrallah. This is something that has made it easy for Iran and Syria to trade with the Palestinian Cause, and continue their so-called fight against Israel by promoting the “resistance” lie, which is something that has been proven false. This is because this “resistance” is nothing more than an attempt to infiltrate the region on the part of Iran, and its agents like the al-Assad regime and Nasrallah.

Ahmadinejad’s statements that “Today Syria, tomorrow your country” means that he is now well aware that the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime will be akin to Iran losing its right hand with regards to foreign policy, which would mean the complete failure of Tehran’s foreign policy since the Khomeinist revolution. This is because Iran has thrown its entire weight behind the sectarian regime in Syria, since the Hafez al-Assad era down to the Bashar al-Assad era today, and Syria has helped Iran to become involved in all Arab files and issues, infiltrating the region, and even recruiting agents there.

Therefore, the collapse of the al-Assad regime means that Iran will have to fall back at home and finally reap what it has sown, which is something that Tehran’s mullahs, and Ahmadinejad, fear. This can be seen in the Iranian president’s warning to the youth to be vigilant and that “today Syria…tomorrow Iran”. This is indeed what is expected, therefore the collapse of the al-Assad regime is something that will benefit everybody.

Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat.

Source: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=28359

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

A Muslim Brotherhood Smear Job on The Third Jihad


by Phyllis Chesler

To date, the New York Times has published at least ten articles (op-eds disguised as news, real op-eds, letters) about the film The Third Jihad, which first appeared in 2009. The NYT-dominated campaign led to coverage in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and other mainstream media venues.

Ordinarily, this would be very good news for the filmmakers. More than three years later and so much publicity — and yet, the price for so many negative film reviews involves being demonized and erroneously portrayed. In the NYT, the backers of the film are referred to as “deep pocketed” pro-Israelis, wealthy and/or religious philanthropists, who “have opposed a full return of the West Bank to Palestinians.”

What makes the film newsworthy is that it was recently shown to a small number of NYC police officers who work in counter-terrorism.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has been condemned for appearing briefly in the film, and for allowing police officers to view it; Mayor Bloomberg has condemned its showing as well. Kelly has been made to apologize; he said it was a “mistake” to have shown the film. A demonstration, replete with placards and bullhorns, quickly took place on the steps of City Hall and was dutifully covered by the local TV media.

Condemned but by whom? Perchance by a genuine film reviewer? No. Condemned by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood outpost in America which has spawned the aggressive Muslim Students Association and which was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, one in which a Florida-based professor, Sami Al-Arian, was found guilty of funneling funds to a known terrorist organization, Hamas (“An Enthusiastic Islamic Resistance Movement”), aka the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza. CAIR denies any guilt in this matter. However, CAIR has written an op-ed piece demanding that Al-Arian be freed.

In 2008, the FBI cut ties with CAIR and listed Hamas as a terrorist group with whom it will not negotiate.

Of course, the Shariah-compliant CAIR would not want anyone to think that the film The Third Jihad is credible, nor would they want the film to be seen, especially by NYC police officers.

In a personal interview with the film’s producer, Raphael Shore, he said that he regretted that the film has been removed from the counter-terrorism unit in NYC. Shore also said:

Claims that The Third Jihad is an anti-Islam film are ignorant and misinformed. These claims are meant simply to defame the filmmakers and prevent the public from judging the film for themselves. There is a very good reason the NYPD selected to show The Third Jihad to nearly 1,500 police officers, and other law enforcement agencies have done the same. The film deals with the very real process of radicalization and indoctrination of anti-American ideology taking place in some sectors of the Muslim community today.

First, we are only talking about a mere 1,400-1500 NYC police officers who specialize in anti-terrorism who were exposed to the film. Why shouldn’t those entrusted with our safety see this film? Why is the NYT conducting a veritable witch-hunt against it and against the religious Muslim who narrates the film, none other than Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a former American Navy officer, a physician, and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Dr. Jasser is a past president of the Arizona Medical Association and has been active in interfaith work. Why silence or “slime” Dr. Jasser’s free speech, which is protected by the First Amendment?

Here’s why.

Dr. Jasser is a religious Muslim who is an anti-Islamist; a religious Muslim who wishes to protect his religion from the Wahabis, Salafis, and Islamist jihadists who are trying to hijack it right back to the 7thcentury. The Muslim Brotherhood is part of this effort and they, in their writings, speeches, and demonstrations, call for a global caliphate and for a “jihad for Allah.”

There are other Muslims like Dr. Jasser — alas, few Western organizations, including our politicians and our armed forces, rely upon them. You may read their words in a very important book edited by Dr. Zeyno Baran titled The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular. It is a book that I absolutely could not get the mainstream media to review. Dr. Jasser has an article in it, as do nine others whose names and work most people know nothing about and who live in the United States, France, Holland, Britain, Italy, Lebanon, and Turkey. These anti-Islamist Muslims are both religious and secular. They were born and grew up in Italy (converted to Islam), Jordan (Yunis Qandil), Morocco (Mostafa Hilali, Fouad Laroui), Tunisia (Samia Labidi), Turkey (Zeyno Baran, Cosh Omar), and the United States (M. Zuhdi Jasser, born here to Syrian immigrants).

Is the film The Third Jihad really biased against Muslims? Allow me to suggest that it is not. Here is how the film begins. We see the following words in large print and they remain onscreen for awhile:

This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.

The footage is of real Islamist Muslim terrorist attacks: the 2004 Islamist massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan; the 2004 Islamist terrorist attacks in Madrid; the 2005 Islamist terrorist attacks in Kenya and in London; the 2008 Islamist terrorist attack in Mumbai; and of course, the 1993 Islamist terrorist attempt to blow up the World Trade Center and the Islamist terrorist attack in NYC on 9/11.

These are real terrorist events conducted by real Muslim Islamists.

In addition, the presumably “offensive” signs which promise Muslim domination are real signs that have been held by real Muslim Islamists and others at real demonstrations. The most “offensive” moment — that in which an Islamic flag flies over the White House — is taken from an Islamist website.

So — what is “offensive”? The actual Muslim Islamist hate of infidels? The actual Muslim Islamist blowing up of both Muslim and infidel civilians? Or is the offense strictly in exposing this as a reality? And to police officers?

The chilling effect of CAIR’s activism against this film and the media support for it cannot be underestimated. In a recent op-ed piece, Dr. Jasser clarifies the matter. He writes:

The point is not that the small Islamist minority could ever take over the United States, but rather that they pose as moderates as they seek to weaken our advocacy of liberty while Islamists take over Muslim-majority nations abroad and drown out other, genuinely moderate Muslim voices here at home. The imbroglio over the film shows how effective they are at portraying criticism of Islamism as a criticism of all Islam and Muslims.

I understand: Many Muslims in the West may feel somehow implicated, unfairly judged, because of the many Islamist terrorist attacks by Muslims that have taken place. Many Muslims may feel angry, defensive, even insulted by the mere possibility that infidels may be viewing them as fanatic terrorists. But many Muslims are overly sensitive and thin-skinned, vigilant, quick to assert prejudice against them. Why? Perhaps because they have been taught to view themselves as superior and when they are not treated in an overly deferential way they may indeed — psychologically — feel they have been discriminated against.

But let’s be honest. How many Muslim organizations and Muslim religious leaders, both in the West and in the Islamic world, have clearly and strongly condemned Islamism, infidel-hatred, Jew-hatred, Islamic gender and religious apartheid, Islamic censorship, and Islamist terrorist jihad? Not many, are there? Perhaps many private Muslims have done so, privately. However, like Germans under Hitler who may not have shared his views but who did not oppose him — the fact that the majority of Muslims may be peaceful and are not connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or to any other terrorist organization does not exactly constitute a resistance movement. Their understandably human and yet still cowardly or opportunistic silence condemns both their co-religionists and all infidels to savage reigns of Islamist terrorism, censorship, torture, barbarism, and genocide in Islam’s name.

I have no doubt that Westerners, especially those who believe in multicultural relativism, do not understand that multiculturalism is a racist doctrine. But it is for it ultimately denies Muslim citizens in the West access to the same universal rights that others enjoy. It especially condemns Muslim women, dissidents, and apostates to tribal injustice at the hands of their families and communities — and in the West.

I know: There is a “politically correct” worldview that believes Muslims are discriminated against in the West by “Islamophobes.”

However, contrary to this myth, according to FBI statistics for 2010, the breakdown for hate crimes in America in terms of religion is as follows: 67% are anti-Jewish crimes, 12.7% are anti-Islamic, and 4.2% are anti-Catholic. The statistics regarding racial hate crimes in the same FBI 2010 study illustrate the strong and continued existence of racism in America: 70% of racial hate crimes are anti-black, 17.7% are anti-white, and 5.1% are anti-Asian Pacific Islander.

I suspect that liberals who truly care about civil rights and who feel “guilty” about the long history of anti-black bias in America may now view Muslims as if they are African-Americans; therefore, they may support extreme tolerance of Islamism as a way to compensate or apologize for America’s tragic history of racism.

In a way, European leftists and liberals are psychologically similar. Europe genocidally murdered six million Jews, who are, after all, Semites. At some level, European “guilt” (as well as European continuing racism) has therefore led to Europe’s “multicultural” tolerance towards another group of Semites — Arabs — who, unlike the murdered Jews, are less assimilated, more hostile, and more violent. In addition, Europeans continue hating Jews and appeasing angry Muslims by scapegoating Israel, the Jewish state, for their own European Nazi-era crimes. They accuse Israel, falsely, of being a “Nazi, apartheid” state. This pleases their highly “Palestinianized” Muslim population and their European leftist supporters.

And, by the way, the West abolished slavery. Islamic countries never did. Islam has its very own history of imperialism, colonialism, slavery, forced conversion, and genocide — a history that is unknown to most Westerners and denied by most Islamists.

In addition, many American civil libertarians are more concerned with the rights of the innocent individual Muslim who may be falsely accused than they are concerned with the rights of the innocent civilians, both Muslim and infidel, to remain safe from Islamist terrorism and from Islamic gender and religious apartheid.

Thus, such civil libertarians have been more concerned with the alleged “humiliation of Palestinians at the Israeli checkpoints” than they have been concerned with the increasingly long lines which civilians must stand in at every airport and the humiliating pat-downs and X-rays due to the epidemic of Islamist Muslim airplane hijackings, bombings, and other acts of terrorism.

I say: Let’s balance our principled American concern with the rights of individuals who are presumed innocent until proven guilty against the rights of civilians of all faiths and race to survive. And let’s reinvigorate our instinct for survival and our pride. I, among others who are mainly Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents as well as conservatives, call for a defense of Western civilization both culturally and in terms of the survival of our living, breathing, citizens.

According to film producer Raphael Shore,

Those that have blasted the film are attempting to stifle an important debate about the internal state of the Muslim community in America, and whether politicized Islam and indoctrination pose tangible security threats.

We invite the general public to watch and judge the documentary for themselves. The Third Jihad is now being made available for free viewing online at http://www.thethirdjihad.com.

Shore is not surprised that CAIR in particular is upset with the content of this film:

The Third Jihad documents their ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and to terror financing. Rather than addressing the content, CAIR simply brands anything or anyone who levels criticism as “Islamophobic.” Now CAIR is using our film to go after an even bigger fish, the NYPD. Fortunately, New Yorkers have the sensibility to realize just how ridiculous it is for a group with terror ties to be dictating how the NYPD conducts its counter-terrorism training and operations. And now, thanks to CAIR, even more Americans are getting the opportunity to view our critically acclaimed film.

Phyllis Chesler

Source: http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-muslim-brotherhood-smear-job-on-the-third-jihad/?singlepage=true

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

Israel: A Priceless Strategic Military Asset for the US


by Mark Langfan

After Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, in America, there were Hitler enablers like the American hero Charles Lindbergh who publicly championed-- the Big Lie-- that England was a strategic liability to the US, was the cause of world war, and, that England needed to be dumped.

Today, there is a new crop of neo-fascist enablers by the names of Walt and Mearsheimer. These Neo-Lindberghs espouse an analogous -Big Lie- that Israel is a strategic liability to the US, the cause of Middle East wars, and, that Israel needs to be dumped, and there are also neo-isolationists like Ron Paul who says “the US would be better off without Israel.”

I will now graphically show you in 3 simple steps that these “Professors” and these neo-Ostriches are, in fact, Neo-Lindberghs.

Step One, if you would look at the 8½ x11 colored “Katyusha Rocket” graphic of Israel, www.marklangfan.com/Postcard2.html, in any “West Bank” Palestinian “Demilitarized” state, Hamas will smuggle in thousands of chemical-warheaded Katyushas into the “Demilitarized” West Bank which they will launch, en masse, into Tel Aviv. Imagine, if to placate Muslim “anger,” some US president ceded Brooklyn to al Qaeda, and al Qaeda-Brooklyn had thousands of chemical Katyushas aimed at Manhattan. Manhattan would be toast. And if there is ever a Palestinian State, Hamas with thousands of chemical katyushas backed by Iranian long-range missiles will toast the Tel Aviv coastal corridor holding 5 million Jews.

Step Two, if you would turn to the large “Eastern Theater” colored graphic, www.marklangfan.com/easterntheater1.html, after Israel’s destruction, without Israel protecting him, the Hashemite-King Abdullah of Jordan is also toast. You’ve then got an Egypt with 80 million hungry people, the strongest army in the Middle East, and military control of the Suez Canal now having a direct contiguous land border with the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also happens to be a historical rival of Egypt. Is this “stability” for USCENTCOM? Is this lower gas prices in Salina, Kansas? But no, we’re not done yet.

Step Three, if you would turn over the “Western Theater” colored graphic, www.marklangfan.com/westerntheater3.html, I’ve done the same analysis for the Eastern Med. Christian Greek Cyprus has a total population of 800,000 people, and there is about a quarter trillion dollars worth, or more, of gas between Cyprus and Israel. If Israel were to be destroyed, surrounded by 150 Million Muslims, and a Turkish standing army of 400,000 soldiers coveting the whole of Cyprus, how long will Greek Cyprus last? In September 2011, Turkish PM Erdogan stated: Turkey and Egypt would “form a force of 150 million strong” and “We are substantially surrounding a Mediterranean.” And, “I recommend the international community take the necessary lessons from the Preveza victory.”

The “Preveza victory” to which Erdogan is referring is the Turkish decisive naval victory over a pan-Christian “Holy League” Papal alliance in September 1538.

Without Israel as the bulwark against the waxing Islamic tsunami to the East, there will be a direct Islamic military threat to the very doorstep of Europe. Without Israel, how many trillions--trillions--of dollars will the US have to spend to defend Greece, and NATO from such “clear and present” danger to Western civilization? Or, as the Visa commercial would say of Israel’s present-day strategic value to the US: Priceless.

Mark Langfan

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11222#.Ty4cL4FvIi4

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

Hezb'allah's Missiles


by Mohammed I. Aslam

The guerrilla movement's increasing missile capacity is raising the Israeli state's level of insecurity to dangerous new levels.

The Hezb'allah movement in Lebanon has been stepping up the intensity of its preparations for war with Israel in recent months, clearly unfazed by the strength of military projection its Israeli enemy could unleash on both Hezb'allah itself and the country Hezb'allah occupies.

The most recent reports exuding from the region suggest that the movement, fearing the eventual demise of its allied regime in neighboring Syria, has been busy helping itself to vast quantities of the most sophisticated military arsenals belonging to the Syrian Armed Forces.

Perhaps this explains why Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel's dreaded secret service, Mossad, recently claimed that the politico-religious movement's guerrilla arm had amassed missile power equal to that of almost 90 percent of countries in the world.

Although the accuracy of Dagan's statement can never be substantiated, Hezb'allah has certainly made little secret over the last few months with regard to its determination to roundly confront Israel.

But for all the intermittent warnings of severe retaliation coming out of Tel-Aviv, Hezb'allah leaders seem content almost to scoff at the idea of any Israeli onslaught ever bearing fruit.

The Iran- and Syria-backed movement is already believed to be in possession of a substantial number of Iranian-made Fajr, Fateh, and Zelzal rockets, with estimated ranges of between 75 and 200 kilometers. This is in addition to several dozen purported M600 surface-to-surface missiles from Syria -- each of whose warheads carries half a ton of high explosives.

Although no accurate estimates of the number of missiles Hezb'allah possesses can be substantiated, it is believed to be in excess of 50,000 according to U.S. and Israeli estimates. If that is true, it means that Israel could be showered with around 500 missiles, some with guided systems, for every day it fights the Lebanese movement.

This means that almost every city and major town in Israel could be hit with around three times as many projectiles as they were in the 2006 war, where missiles at a rate of around 200 per day were exploding indiscriminately in the mainly northern part of the Jewish state.

The scenario of this armed non-state actor having the capability to fire at will upon the 7 million people of Israel, with the precision to hit any town or city it chooses, is no doubt inherent in every single Israeli calculation when it comes to readying war plans designed to deal with Israel's most imminent neighboring menace.

And the wily old veteran experts of Israel's formidable military and defense apparatus are well-aware of why Hezb'allah has been incessantly acquiring an advanced missile capability.

In a live address via video link last year, Hezb'allah's secretary general all but spoon-fed audiences with the details. He stated that "most of the Israeli population is on a coastal line...after Haifa through to Southern Tel-Aviv, 10 kilometres or 15 kilometres[.] ... [I]n that specific part we have the oil wells, we have the factories, we have the population centres, we have the institutions ... everything is in that specific area[.]"

In other words, should Israel (in the event of an escalation) think it can hit Lebanon unimpeded, Hezb'allah can now return the gesture. Not only is civilian and state infrastructure now at risk, but just weeks later, in another address, Hezb'allah's secretary general threatened to strike ships (civilian or otherwise) which headed towards Israel's coast.

The Israeli establishment must have understood the message loud and clear: belligerent reprisals, be they under the logic of self-defence, will now have a new dimension.

Perhaps this explains the constant war drills, saber-rattling, increased drone and reconnaissance flights, and ever-constant attempts to covertly infiltrate the secretive military apparatus of the politico-religious movement.

As Syria teeters on the brink, Israel seems quietly confident that a desperate Damascus regime will not undertake the suicidal task of initiating a war with Israel in order to distract attention from Syria's internal opposition -- despite rumors of replenishing the missile stocks of Hezb'allah. The Syrians are just too weak and disunited; an attack on Israel is just too remote to be taken seriously.

But it's the tensions over Iran's nuclear program, and their ability to unleash Hezb'allah as a first-strike window of opportunity, which are weighing heavily on the minds of Israeli policymakers.

An attack on Iran, even if limited to crippling that country's nuclear infrastructure, will no doubt embolden Hezb'allah for ideological, political, and strategic reasons to launch a first-strike missile barrage of its own.

In that situation, Israel's likely response must be seriously game-theorized by Hezb'allah planners.

To strike out unilaterally at one of the most powerful military forces in the world -- and a nuclear-armed state on top of that -- may on face value be foolish, if not suicidal.

Israel is an extraordinarily strong country, united by violence against it. The thinking that multiple missile attacks would be enough to make Israelis cower in fear and retreat into surrender seems implausible.

But even as both sides takes steps to reduce the risk of sliding into conflict, the potential of Hezb'allah's long-range rockets and missiles hitting Israel at its most precious, and militarily most sensitive, locales will remain in place so long as each side remains committed to the violent opposition of the other's right to exist.

Mohammad I. Aslam is a Ph.D. candidate in political science in the Department of Middle-East & Mediterranean Studies and a teaching assistant in the Department of Theology & Religion, King's College London.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/hezballahs_missiles.html

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

Obama or the Israelis: Whom Do You Believe?


by J. Robert Smith

Bloomberg, among other news outlets, reports that the U.S. and Israel are split over when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Perhaps for the U.S., in the person of Barack Obama, it's still more if the U.S. should attack Iran.

Middle East expert and former Clinton administration official Aaron David Miller is quoted by Bloomberg as saying that there's a "significant analytic difference" between the U.S. and Israel as to how close the Iranians are to an effective shield for their nuclear weapons program. Miller continues:

There's a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge.

Imagine that. The Israelis have a sense of urgency, based on their intelligence estimates, their geographic proximity to Iran, and the not trifling fact that the Iranians are world-class Jew-haters sworn to erase Israel from the face of the earth. And golly-gee, with national survival at stake, the Israelis may not come to President Obama for approval to act against Iran. Unthinkable.

How close should the Iranians come to possessing nuclear weapons capability before Mr. Obama decides to loose the dogs of war? Is Mr. Obama playing a game of chicken? And why? Not with our families' lives, say Israelis (and so should Americans).

Here's what Americans are getting from the Obama State Department, per Bloomberg:

The U.S. holds the view that "there is still time and space to pursue diplomacy" with Iran over its nuclear program, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said today in Washington. He added that the U.S. "is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons."

Right. Hasn't the United States and its allies been pursuing diplomacy with the Iranians -- for years now? What has that approach availed, other than buying time for the Iranians to proceed toward nuclear weapons capability? More diplomacy and sanctions are going to finally deter true-believers Khamenei and Ahmadinejad from possessing nuclear weapons?

One wonders if the Neville Chamberlain look is in vogue at the State Department -- you know, bowlers and umbrellas? You remember Neville "Let's Keep Talking to Adolph" Chamberlain? Chamberlain's insistence on diplomacy bought Germany time to further prepare for war and emboldened Hitler to act when he thought the time was right. One imagines that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have photos of Hitler taped to their bathroom vanity mirrors for a little morning inspiration.

The Americans and Israelis may have very active clandestine operations underway to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. The assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist may have been the result of Israeli actions -- actions sanctioned by the United States. But if the Israelis are judging that clandestine operations alone are insufficient to stop the Iranians, it's a good bet that they're right.

The Israelis acutely appreciate the costs of conventional military operations against Iran, in terms of earning yet more international opprobrium (if that's possible), stepped up terrorist attacks against themselves (and the U.S., by virtue of association), and outright military reprisals by the Iranians. But doing nothing -- or delaying too long -- may result in annihilation.

An exaggeration, you say? Annihilation? It's an exaggeration only to willfully naĂŻve or blinkered Americans who refuse to take the Iranians at their word: kill Jews, and then kill Americans.

J. Robert Smith

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/obama_or_the_israelis_whom_do_you_believe.html

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

Abbas Blocks Young Leadership, Ensuring Hamas Victory


by Khaled Abu Toameh

Fatah leaders in the West Bank announced this week that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is their only candidate for the presidential election expected to take place in May 2012.

The announcement enraged several disillusioned Fatah officials, some of whom called on the 76-year-old Abbas not to seek re-election so as to pave the way for the emergence of young and fresh faces.

Although Abbas made it clear over the past few years that he had no plans to run in another election, his aides in Ramallah are now saying that he does not plan to retire in the near future.

Abbas and his veteran colleagues in the Palestinian Authority and PLO believe they have a monopoly over the Palestinian issue and the decision-making process. They are convinced that they know better than anyone else what is good and bad for the Palestinians. Any young leader who dares to challenge them or question their wisdom is quickly denounced as a 'traitor" and "fifth columnist."

Fatah will never regain the confidence of a majority of Palestinians unless it paves the way for young activists to rise to power. The Palestinians are not stupid and they are not going to vote again for the same Fatah candidates they voted out in the 2006 parliamentary election. Fatah's failure to reform and inject fresh blood into its veins is a guaranteed recipe for a Hamas victory in any election.

One of the officials, Abu Ali Sheheen, said he was even prepared to help Abbas retire so more capable and young leaders could rise to power.

At this stage, it is not even clear if the presidential election will take place in May. What is clear is that if and when the vote takes place, Abbas's colleagues and friends will insist that he run for another term to prevent the emergence of new faces. Then Abbas will say that he had no choice but to succumb to "popular pressure" to seek re-election.

Palestinian mothers have apparently stopped giving birth -- at least as far as Abbas and his loyalists are concerned.

Abbas was elected to succeed Yasser Arafat in January 2005. Although his term in office expired in 2009, he chose to hold on to power, using the dispute with Hamas as the main excuse.

Abbas argued that it would be impossible to hold new elections in light of the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which has been under the control of Hamas since the summer of 2007.

Abbas also used the power struggle between his Fatah faction and Hamas as an excuse to block the emergence of a new leadership in the West Bank.

Abbas is continuing, in fact, the same policy as his predecessor, Chairman Arafat, who systematically suppressed the emergence of the "young guard" in Fatah.

The Palestinian leadership is dominated by "old guard" leaders who have been in power for decades. These aging leaders have succeeded over the past few decades in preventing younger faces from rising to power.

Frustration over this "old guard" is why Hamas won in 2006, and why it will win again.

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2814/fatah-young-leadership

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

Analysis: Why Did Russia and China Veto UN Resolution on Syria?


by Dr. Amiel Ungar

After laborious negotiations behind the scenes to achieve consensus on a UN Security Council resolution on Syria failed, the West threw up its hands and essentially put the Arab peace plan to the vote.

If the Western countries believed that an Arab initiative would escape a Chinese and Russian veto they were mistaken. Arab opinion had helped change a Chinese and Russian red light to a flashing yellow in Libya, allowing for the successful intervention that deposed the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. Part of the Russian and Chinese attitude today is based on their feeling that they were out maneuvered in Libya and do not want to allow this to happen again in Syria, but there is far more behind their veto.

The following reasons can explain the positions taken by Moscow and Beijing in what is rapidly becoming a civil war in Syria:

Stability-- Both the Russian and Chinese governments have stressed the stability factor to legitimize their authoritarian rule. While the demonstrations today in Moscow show that the stability argument is wearing thin, Putin sincerely believes that revolutions and instability have set Russia back. China crushed the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and has cracked down on pro-democracy dissidents ever since, because they represent a threat to stability in a China that has achieved its economic objectives.

If the regime of Bashar Assad is deposed in Syria this conveys the opposite message, that demonstrations work. When the Arab Spring erupted, the Chinese press at first tried to ignore it and then moved on to explain why the Chinese situation was vastly different and it could not be replicated in China.

Muslim extremism-Both regimes fear Muslim extremism and its ability to infect the Muslim population within their countries. China and Russia both see the current regime in Syria as one that has successfully kept the Muslim genie in the bottle. They fear that the successor regime will be an Islamist one and Vladimir Putin has already upbraided the Western countries for letting loose dangerous forces, compared to which the former regimes were benign. Israel empathizes with that fear.

Multilateralism-Russia and China see the West as the force behind the democracy movements. Russia was on the losing end, at least temporarily, of democratic revolutions in the Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia that toppled pro-Russian rulers. They therefore see the revolutions as attempts by the West to act unilaterally in the global arena, bypassing and ignoring the interests of Russia and China. Moving conflict resolution to the UN Security Council, where they possess the power of the veto, means that their wishes cannot be ignored.

"Noninterference"-In their bid to win friends and secure economic advantages, both Russia and China have broadcast a policy of noninterference. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the mullah regime in Sudan and other dictators, know that Russia and China will not press them on human rights and democracy issues. Moreover, China and Russia will have their backing in diplomatic confrontations and will be willing to employ their veto power on their behalf if necessary. This gives Russia and China the edge when it comes to arms sales and economic investments. Thanks to this logic, Russia and China are heavily invested in these dictatorial regimes and fear that they will forfeit these advantages if the rulers they have staked are overthrown.

Dr. Amiel Ungar is a political scientist and is Arutz Sheva's Global Agenda analyst. He is featured regularly in the Hebrew press and in the Jerusalem Report, lives in Tekoa in Gush Etzion.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152414#.Ty7dQIFvIi5

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