Islamists Rising in Syria

by Rick Moran

The situation in cities besieged by the Syrian army is getting bloodier, while the political situation gets more confused and muddled by the day. A UN peace plan being pushed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, first accepted by President Bashar Assad and the rebels, is in the process of failing, as once again, the Syrian dictator has reneged on implementing the terms. As Syrian tanks and artillery continue to attack several cities, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups are beginning to flex their muscles in the councils of the political opposition, while radical Sunnis form independent battalions to fight the Syrian army — and the Alawite minority running Syria — declaring jihad on the Syrian dictator while fighting under the black flag of radical Islam.

The failure of the peace plan is leading to increased calls to arm the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the main military force fighting the Syrian regime. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at a “Friends of Syria” meeting in Istanbul on Sunday, said that if Assad doesn’t stop his attacks on civilians, the US will not stand in the way of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar from arming the rebels.

The peace plan offered by Annan was agreed to last week by both sides. It calls for “a ceasefire, military withdrawals from towns, prisoner releases, humanitarian and media access and above all a Syrian-led political process to negotiate transition to a new government.” After giving his agreement, Assad almost immediately altered the terms by demanding that the “terrorists” give up their arms first. The FSA rejected Assad’s proposal which has left the entire plan teetering on the edge of failure, if not already dead.

Assad agreed to a similar plan presented by the Arab League back in November, but refused to carry out important parts of the agreement. It was after that failure that the Syrian military launched its most brutal campaign of the war, pulverizing civilian neighborhoods in Homs and Hama, killing many hundreds of innocents. Indeed, following Assad’s ostensible agreement to the UN plan, the Syrian army escalated its violent crackdown to include towns and cities in the provinces of Idlib, Daara, Deir Ezzor, and in the city of Homs. Three soldiers tried to defect during fighting in Daara province, but were recaptured and shot by an officer, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. All told, more than 70 soldiers and civilians were killed on Sunday alone.

The imminent failure of the Annan plan has stirred the ad hoc organization “Friends of Syria” to action. More than 70 countries and representatives of the Syrian opposition met in Istanbul over the weekend, and while rejecting calls for unified action in arming the rebels, the group agreed to supply money to the FSA so they could pay the troops under their control, while calling on Kofi Annan to set a deadline for Syrian compliance with the terms of the UN peace plan. Annan will address the UN Security Council on Monday. But any deadline would have to be approved by the Security Council – an unlikely event given the strong opposition by Russia and China to any kind of action by the world body directed against their client Assad.

In addition to warning Assad that the US would allow the arming of rebels unless he agreed to the cease fire, Secretary Clinton also said the US would be supporting the SNC with “direct assistance” in the form of communications equipment and other non-lethal aid. The US pledged up to $12 million in aid while making it clear that “[o]thers are going to be supporting fighters associated with the SNC.” The conference pledged in excess of $100 million to pay salaries to FSA fighters.

The Friends of Syria also recognized the Syrian National Council (SNC) as the sole, legitimate opposition group speaking for the Syrian people. This is easier said than done, given the state of the Syrian opposition and the fact that there is little the group can agree upon.

The SNC met earlier in the week, trying with little success to paper over its differences. The Kurdish delegation walked out in the middle of the conference, claiming their concerns were not being met, while several secular members had quit in disgust last month, saying that the organization was “undemocratic” and was being dominated by Islamists. Working feverishly, Turkish diplomats managed to save the conference from catastrophe by luring back many of those who quit, getting the SNC to agree to expand its membership and try to work more democratically. The Kurds, however, refused to return citing the SNC’s unwillingness to include a reference to Kurdish autonomy in its statement on a post-Assad Syria.

So far, the SNC and the rest of the Syrian opposition has been hopelessly fractured in almost every way — from agreeing on an immediate agenda to help the FSA to violent disagreements over the future of a post-Assad Syria. But there is one group within the SNC that is organized, dedicated to throwing Assad out, and clear about both its immediate goals and long term plans.

The Muslim Brotherhood – once banned in Syria – is on the comeback trail and its resurgence should give Western powers pause before agreeing to arm any of the opposition groups.

The Brotherhood was last seen in Syria during the 1980s when Assad’s father Hafez cracked down on its headquarters in the city of Hama, murdering up to 10,000 during a bloody insurrection. But in reality, the Brothers had never left – they simply went underground. While most of the leaders were in exile, the structure of the group remained intact through a network of cells and activists. It was the same tactic used in Egypt after Hosni Mubarak’s crackdown and has led to victory at the polls there. While Assad continued to arrest and execute Brotherhood members, he could never stamp out the movement completely.

Now, with the secular opposition in disarray, the Muslim Brotherhood is re-emerging with surprising strength and cohesiveness. Some opposition members say that the Brotherhood is using money and weapons to gain influence in the council, tapping its donor base spread throughout the Middle East. One secular dissident who broke away from the SNC last month, Kamal Labwani, claims the SNC is “a liberal front for the Muslim Brotherhood. ” Islamist members of the council deny this, saying that they want a pluralistic Syria where all factions and sects are represented in government.

What’s clear is that at the SNC meeting last week, the Muslim Brotherhood was forced to compromise and expand the SNC to include more secular groups. Of the 350 members of the SNC, it is believed that 270 are Islamists, Salafis, and other Sunni radicals who want to depose Assad both because he is a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam and because of his oppression.

This is obvious from the growing radicalism of Sunnis in next door Lebanon. While many Syrian religious figures have stopped short of calling for jihad against Assad, fearing a bloody sectarian conflict, no such restraint has been shown by Lebanese clerics who are urging their flocks to go to war against Assad and “grind him into dog meat.” To that end, several independent battalions of fighters have formed, including the “God is Great” brigade whose fighters march under the black flag of Islamism:

To our fellow revolutionaries, don’t be afraid to declare jihad in the path of God. Seek victory from the One God. God is the greatest champion,” the brigade’s spokesman said in the January video. “Instead of fighting for a faction, fight for your nation, and instead of fighting for your nation, fight for God.

“We don’t want to accidentally wind up supporting extremist groups,” said Joseph Holliday, of the Institute for the Study of War, in Washington. Holliday added, “The fundamental question is: What happens in the future? And does our involvement make this turn better or worse?”

The FSA is not making a distinction between defectors from the army who are fighting for Syria, and groups of radical youths who fight for an Islamist state. They will no doubt distribute arms based on battlefield success. Who is to say whether the independent groups who claim allegiance to the FSA are fighting to depose Assad or “fight for God”?

Then there are the unknown connections that might exist between the opposition and the shadowy terrorist groups who have begun a campaign of bombings in Damascus and Aleppo. A terrorist organization calling itself the Al-Nusra Front claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing that killed 27 in Damascus over the weekend. This follows on the heels of several other high profile bombings targeting police stations, intelligence headquarters, and regime supporters. It is also believed that al-Qaeda’s Iraqi branch has moved into Syria to assist in overthrowing Assad. Any thought to arming the FSA should take into account the idea that the diffuse leadership of the FSA may contain officers who feel no compunction about working with terrorists to achieve their goals.

As the Syrian revolt gets bloodier, the temptation to give arms to the opposition will grow. But given the re-emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the growing influence of radical Sunnis in the SNC and FSA, and the possibility that heavy weapons would fall into the hands of terrorist groups, that temptation must be resisted and a true democratic opposition to the odious rule of Bashar Assad be encouraged. Whether that is even possible remains the biggest question to be answered if Western countries are going to aid the rebels.

Rick Moran

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/02/islamists-rising-in-syria/

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

Syria Conference: Gulf Countries to Fund Rebels

by Associated Press

Participants at 'Friends of the Syrian People' conference in Istanbul say Saudis, other Gulf states setting up multimillion-dollar fund to pay opposition fighters. Clinton: We cannot sit back and wait any longer.

In addition, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States is providing communications equipment to help opposition members in Syria organize, remain in contact with the outside world and evade regime attacks.

An international coalition said Sunday that it will provide funding and communications equipment to Syrian rebels and opposition activists, reflecting a shift toward military options that might oust Syrian President Bashar Assad after a year of failed diplomacy aimed at stopping his crackdown on dissent.

Participants at a meeting on Syria, held in Istanbul, said Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are creating a multimillion-dollar fund to pay members of the rebel Free Syrian Army and soldiers who defect from the regime and join opposition ranks. One delegate described the fund as a "pot of gold" to undermine Assad's army.

"We are discussing with our international partners how best to expand this support," Clinton said.

The large-scale plan by Gulf countries to help Syria's badly overmatched rebels offers a solution to the international divide over whether to arm the rebels or support them through only non-lethal or humanitarian means. It also reflects frustration with appeals to Assad to stop his crackdown on dissent, as well as hopes of forcing his ouster by shifting the military balance on the ground.

Conference participants confirmed the Gulf plan on condition of anonymity because details were still being worked out. It was unclear how the fund would be set up and monitored, or how the money, allegedly earmarked for salaries, would be guaranteed. A participant said the fund would involve millions of dollars every month.

Conference in Istanbul (Photo: Reuters)

The Saudis and other Arab Gulf states have proposed giving weapons to the rebels, while the US and other allies, including Turkey, have balked out of fear of fueling an all-out civil war. Washington hasn't taken any public position on the fund, but it appears that it has given tacit support to its Arab allies.

The salaries would aim to entice reluctant servicemen in Assad's military to break ranks and join the insurgency. With Syria's economy in a spiral, the Syrian opposition and US and Arab officials hope soldiers will desert in large numbers and accelerate the downfall of the Assad regime.

At the meeting in Istanbul, delegates from dozens of countries also sought to increase pressure on Assad by pushing for tighter sanctions and increased diplomatic pressure, while urging the opposition to offer a democratic alternative to his regime.

Yet the show of solidarity at the "Friends of the Syrian People" conference was marred by the absence of China, Russia and Iran - key supporters of Assad who disagree with Western and Arab allies over how to stop the bloodshed. A peace plan by UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan has so far failed to take hold amid fresh reports of deadly violence.

"The Syrian regime should not be allowed at any cost to manipulate this plan to gain time," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an opening address.

Erdogan also indicated military options might have to be considered, if Syria does not cooperate with Annan's plan and the UN Security Council fails to unite in opposition to Assad. He referred to the vetoes of UN censure of Assad by Russia and China, which fear the measures could lead to foreign military intervention.

'Broken promises.' Clinton with Turkish FM Davutoglu (Photo: AFP)

"If the UN Security Council fails once again to bring about its historic responsibility, there will be no other choice than to support the Syrian people's right to self-defense," Erdogan said.

Clinton also expressed skepticism that the Syrian government would observe Annan's plans, which call for an immediate cease-fire and a Syrian-led negotiation process.

"Nearly a week has gone by, and we have to conclude that the regime is adding to its long list of broken promises," Clinton said. "The world must judge Assad by what he does, not by what he says. And we cannot sit back and wait any longer."

Clinton urged unity behind a plan that includes more sanctions, humanitarian aid, support for the opposition and the promise of justice one day for regime figures involved in atrocities.

The United Nations estimates more than 9,000 people have been killed since the uprising to oust Assad began a year ago.

Burhan Ghalioun, leader of the opposition Syrian National Council, called for the strengthening of Syrian rebel forces as well as "security corridors" inside Syria, a reference to internationally protected zones on Syrian territory that would allow the delivery of aid to civilians. However, the nations meeting in Istanbul have so far failed to agree on such an intervention, which could involve the risky deployment of foreign security forces.

"No one should allow this regime to feel at ease or to feel stronger by giving them a longer maneuvering area," he said, reflecting fears that Assad would try to use the Annan plan to prolong his tenure. "It's enough that the international community has flirted with the regime in Syria. Something has to change."

In a statement, the Syrian National Council said weapons supplies to the opposition were not "our preferred option" because of the risk they could escalate the killing of civilians, but it appealed for technical equipment to help rebels coordinate.

"For these supplies to be sent, neighboring countries need to allow for the transfer via their sea ports and across borders," the council said.

The one-day meeting followed an inaugural forum in Tunisia in February. Since then, Syrian opposition figures have tried to convince international sponsors that they can overcome their differences and shape the future of a country whose autocratic regime has long denied the free exchange of ideas.

Syria blasted the conference, calling it part of an international conspiracy to kill Syrians and weaken the country.

A front-page editorial in the official Al-Baath newspaper called it a "regional and international scramble to search for ways to kill more Syrians, sabotage their society and state, and move toward the broad objective of weakening Syria."

In Istanbul, police used tear gas and batons to disperse a group of about 40 Assad supporters who tried to approach the conference building. Many held portraits of the Syrian leader. One man waved Chinese and Russian flags.

The delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria's beleaguered civilians is a key provision of Annan's plan. Clinton announced $12 million in additional aid for Syria's people - doubling the total American assistance so far. Germany, whose foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, attended the Istanbul meeting, said it was nearly doubling its humanitarian contributions to (EURO)5.7 million ($7.6 million).

But a comprehensive solution did not appear imminent without the cooperation of the Syrian government, whose military assaults on towns and cities have forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes. Syrian rebels, including army defectors, are fighting regime forces, but have been unable to consolidate their hold on territory because they are heavily outgunned.

Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have fled to neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and Turkey has floated the idea of establishing a buffer zone inside Syria, if the flow of displaced people onto its territory becomes overwhelming. There are concerns that foreign intervention, even if it has a humanitarian goal, could widen the conflict by dragging in other countries and triggering a surge in sectarian tensions.

Associated Press

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4210915,00.html

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

Decade After Siege: Church of Nativity Deportees Speak Out

by Elior Levy

It was one of al-Aqsa intifada's most memorable events, with terrorists taking 200 civilians hostage. Ten years later, Palestinian deportees speak of regret, hopes of going home while for others, armed struggle still only available option.

Yassin al-Harimi claims that he is a new man. A decade after he walked out of the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, when the world's eyes were all trained on it, the oldest of the Palestinians who were deported by Israel, a man who waited for the IDF's troops among dozens of Palestinians armed to the teeth with explosives, no longer believes that violence is the right path.

"The Al-Aqsa Intifada and the armed struggle were the Palestinian leadership's biggest mistake," he told Ynet on Sunday from his Amman residence. "I'm against an armed struggle – I support peace."

It has been 10 years since the siege on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, at the height of the second Intifada. With the launch of Operation Defensive Shield, the IDF took over Bethlehem and battled against armed terrorists, most of who belonged to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Fatah's military wing.

The Church of the Nativity (Photo: AFP)

Some 39 of the armed men barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 with weapons and explosives. They took over one of the buildings most sacred to the Christian faith and took 200 civilians and clergy as hostages while they battled with the IDF.

'We want to go home'

The IDF then imposed a siege on the building, which caused tensions in relations between Israel and the Vatican. Just over a month later, an agreement was reached: 13 of the most senior wanted men would be deported to European countries and the rest, 26 men, were deported to the Gaza Strip.

"In the last decade most of us haven't done anything special, we mainly hope that one day we can go back to our homes," Samed Halil, who was deported to Gaza and who moved to Jordan after the Hamas takeover told Ynet.

"I think things have completely changed, it's a different era. The whole idea of an armed struggle against Israel is completely over. I no longer think it's the solution – we had experience with it and we realized it wasn't the right thing."

Halil notes that the deportees still keep in touch, mainly by phone but surprisingly, the people they are no longer in contact with are people in the al-Aqsa Brigades who remained in the West Bank.

Deportees heading for Cyprus (Photo: Aryeh Egozi)

"I'm different from the man I was then and believe in a popular struggle through peaceful methods. Dialogue between the two sides must be supported as well as the possibility of negotiations in accordance with the conditions stated by the Palestinian Authority within the 1967 borders."

Al-Harimi expresses similar statements. "The armed struggle is not in the interests of the Palestinian people. We need to continue with the struggle through non-violent means in order to obtain peace with the Israeli people and I hope that when there are negotiations it will enable us to come back."

Pessimistic view

Yet in spite of the deportees' hopes of returning to the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority, which supports the deportees financially, is less optimistic.

"From that day and up until now there has been no movement or breakthrough in the peace process," says Fatah senior official Kadura Fares.

The PLO continues to demand that they be brought back but as there is a negotiation freeze there is nearly no chance that they will return to the (West) Bank's boundaries. Israel does everything it can to weaken Abbas, so there is no chance it will offer him a gesture and agree to their return."

IDF attack in Bethlehem in 2002 (Photo: AP)

Ahmad Hamamra was among the 13 senior men who were deported to European countries. He was a senior operative in the al-Aqsa Brigades and Israel ascribed him with a long list of terrorist activities, including recruiting a suicide terrorist and planning a terror attack at a Jerusalem mall.

Hamamra was deported to Spain and has been there ever since. Unlike al-Harimi and Halil, he continues to adhere to the militant approach with regards to the struggle against Israel. "I believed and I still believe that the only solution to the Palestinian matter is a revolutionary struggle," he claims.

"For 20 years we have tried to hold negotiations and during that entire period Israel has expanded the settlements and taken our lands. We gave Israel a historical opportunity with the Oslo Accords and Israel still controls the land, the water and the air in our territory."

Hamamra does not have any kind words for the current leadership in both the Gaza Strip and in Gaza: "Our leadership has a problem – we lack a clear strategy as far as the struggle against Israel is concerned.

"We need to put together a revolutionary new leadership for the Palestinian people, leadership that will carry out armed operations against Israel everywhere around the globe"

Hamamra is devoted to the belief that characterized the PLO in the 70s and 80s, when the organization declared its support for terrorist activities against Israel.

"Today neither Fatah nor Hamas are taking the right path in their struggle against Israel. I support the struggle carried out by Islamic Jihad recently (the firing of rockets on the south), but it needs to increase the (rocket) fire. They need to attack Israel in every way they can," Hamamra added.

Elior Levy

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4210959,00.html

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

Despite Promise Not to, Muslim Brotherhood to Field Presidential Candidate

by Rick Moran

They promised that they would only run candidates for parliament in a third of the districts. They ran in more than half. They promised a panel to write the constitution that would reflect all political views. They named more than 70% Islamists.

And they promised not to run a candidate in the presidential election. Is anyone surprised that the Muslim Brotherhood let this promise go by the wayside?

Reuters:

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, in a policy U-turn, on Saturday named its deputy leader and businessman Khairat al-Shater as its presidential candidate for a vote in May after initially pledging it would not run for the nation's top job.

"We have therefore chosen the path of the presidency not because we are greedy for power but because we have a majority in parliament which is unable to fulfill its duties in parliament," he said announcing the decision to put forward Shater.

The Brotherhood said it changed tack after reviewing other candidates in the race and after parliament, where its Freedom and Justice Party controls the biggest bloc, was unable to meet "the demands of the revolution", a reference to its mounting criticism of the ruling army's handling of the transition.

Given the Brotherhood's strong showing in the parliamentary election and its broad grass-roots network, the group's backing for a candidate could prove a decisive factor. Although analysts say name recognition may also play a role in this race that could help others such as former Arab League chief Amr Moussa.

Analysts said the move suggested the Brotherhood, on the brink of power for the first time in its 84-year history, was worried it could have that power snatched away after decades of repression at the hands Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted last year.

"We have witnessed obstacles standing in the way of parliament to take decisions to achieve the demands of the revolution," said Mohamed Morsy, head of the Freedom and Justice Party.

Now, the corrupt, repressive, authoritarian military is the only thing standing between the Egyptian people and the darkness.

Some choice, huh?

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/despite_promise_not_to_muslim_brotherhood_to_field_presidential_candidate.html

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

What's on That Ship, and Where Is It Going?

by Shoshana Bryen

Once more, it is a tough choice between standing with Amnesty International or with the Obama administration. Once more, Amnesty International wins. Ouch.

U.S. arms transfers to third parties are regulated by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), which provides export licenses only in cases that "will strengthen U.S. national security, promote foreign policy goals, or foster world peace. The Arms Export Control Act is administered by the Department of State."

Egypt is a major recipient of U.S. military aid and equipment, and to this point the Secretary of State has always certified that arms to Egypt meet the test. In addition, the administration is required to aver that Egypt is meeting its obligations under the peace treaty with Israel, and to this point, it has done so. However, since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian government has been extremely heavy-handed in its management of internal security -- with American weapons in its arsenal -- and overtly anti-Israel.

Enter Amnesty International.

Amnesty reported that from December 2011 to February 2012, the Egyptian military and security forces have killed more than 100 mainly peaceful protesters. During that time, the U.S. shipped "349 tons of military and dual use equipment valued at $35 million to the Egyptian Ministry of Defense." According to Amnesty, some U.S.-made tear gas canisters used against protesters in Suez had an August 2011 manufacture date, suggesting that they were part of a recent U.S. shipment of tear gas delivered to Egypt last fall.

That would make it hard to certify that military aid to Egypt "promote[s U.S.] foreign policy goals, or foster[s] world peace."

In addition, since the indictment in December of American civil society workers and the prevention of several from leaving the country, Congress, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy, has added new conditions. Secretary of State Clinton is now required to certify that the Egyptian government is supporting a transition to civilian government, including free and fair elections, and policies to protect freedom of expression, association, religion, and due process of law. "The Egyptian military should be defending fundamental freedoms and the rule of law ... and our policy should not equivocate on these key reforms," said Sen. Leahy, adding that Secretary Clinton's decision to waive Congress's conditions on national security grounds sent the wrong signal.

But she waived them, and now, says Amnesty, a Dutch-flagged ship, the MV Schippersgracht, has sailed from the U.S. Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (CA) "carrying a class of dangerous goods that covers cartridges for weapons, fuses and other ammunition" headed to Egypt's Port Said. It wants Mrs. Clinton to clarify the final recipient of the cargo and give assurances that "this and other U.S. military cargoes are not going to any country where the recipients are likely to use the weapons to commit or facilitate serious violations of human rights"^1­_.

That might be difficult.

The Egyptian Embassy denies that the ship is destined for Egypt, suggesting that it will be passing through the Suez Canal on its way to Asia² and that American shipments to Egypt don't travel on Dutch ships. That is a point, but one in fact that may increase rather than decrease Amnesty International's -- and Sen. Leahy's -- discomfort with the ship.

Over the years, Israel has -- often with U.S. assistance -- followed and boarded merchant ships illegally carrying weapons to its adversaries. Less than a year ago, the Iranian military ships Alvand and Kharg transferred an estimated 50 tons of weapons to The Victoria, which Israel intercepted and offloaded. The Karine A, the Santorini, the Francop, the Hansa India, the Monchegorsk, and scores of smaller ships have been intercepted.

In January, the Russian freighter Chariot delivered tons of military equipment to Syria amid the government's murderous rampage against its own citizens. Investigative journalist Claudia Rosett followed its trail from there to an explosives depot in Turkey, to a Ukrainian port, through the Suez Canal and the Arabian Peninsula, and to the Iranian port of Assaluyeh. The ship's brokerage company acknowledged the arms for Syria ("to fight the rebels") but said the cargo to Iran was "Ukrainian generators." Really?

Egypt is not Syria or Iran; the U.S. is not Iran or Russia. But the Obama administration is clearly acting to thwart Congress's intentions on Egypt and has declined to respond to a request about the end user of materiel on a ship leaving a U.S. military installation. It is hard not to be suspicious of its intentions. Other countries have gone to great lengths to disguise military shipments to countries at war with their own people or at war with Israel -- Egypt is very close to the former and, by its own assertion, thinks of itself as the latter.

What arms we deliver, how we deliver them, and the ways they will be used by the recipient are more than fair questions for the Obama administration to answer -- and Amnesty International should be commended for asking.

---

¹Amnesty wishes to be clear that it has no problem with weapons that might be used against Israel -- only with those that might be used against Egyptians, noting in its official statement that "we take no position on the use of U.S. military aid to fund Egyptian arms purchases that are primarily for national defense purposes and do not demonstrate a serious risk of being used to violate human rights. We oppose the funding, sale, or transfer of arms internationally where there is a substantial risk that the specific arms in question will be used to commit or facilitate serious human rights violations." Killing Israelis may be construed as "not a human rights violation."

²Why a ship that started in northern California would travel east to Asia is unclear: Pacific Ocean, Panama Canal, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Suez Canal and Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean vs. Pacific Ocean west.

Shoshana Bryen is senior director of The Jewish Policy Center. She was previously senior director for security policy at JINSA and author of JINSA Reports from 1995-2011.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/whats_on_that_ship_and_where_is_it_going.html

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

Obama’s legacy can be summed-up in one sentence “Protect America’s Enemies”

by Farid Ghadry

A conference for “Friends of Syria” or “Friends of the Syrian People”, which is yet another cruel spin on top of the earlier spin, is being held in Istanbul. In attendance are the various Syrian opposition groups. The Kurds were not invited and neither was the political organization I co-founded.

At least, the name is not “Democratic Friends of Syria” because that would have been offensive to me.

Why is the conference being held today? What are the compelling reasons to continue throwing the Syrian opposition a bone when the White House has already made-up its mind with regard to Kofi Annan’s plan aimed at keeping Assad ruling over Syrians the way the maniac in Sudan continue ruling over his people with violence and tyranny?

Here is a theory. The White House, having refused to arm the Free Syrian Army the way it helped the Libyan rebels, wants to blame the Syrian opposition for its plan. If we meet and disagree, Obama‘s fingers will be pointed at us. The split is mostly due to those who seek an accommodation with Assad (SNC) and those who seek his removal (FSA), which has been clearly highlighted in this meeting.

Nothing good, since this US administration ascended to power, has happened to our people and the people of the region. Correct me if I am wrong exploring these problems with an appropriate solution:

• Problem: The Syrian people are being fed to the wolves.
• Solution: Maybe a major oil installation breaks down in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia that will turn gas prices into a $6 a gallon in the US. If Obama loses this election, the Syrian and the Iranian regimes will also and the American people, including two of myself, will be the ultimate winners.
• Problem: The Lebanese people were hopeful to be free from Assad but now are enraged and fearful because they may possibly see in the horizon the Assad machine of terror and his dark shadow of violence.
• Solution: They have no choice but to send their arms to the Syrian Rebels to fight Assad. Apathy on their behalf will spell doom. Assad is still extremely weak and we can still finish him off with weapons. This US administration is exiting the region and it has no right to tell anyone anything.
• Problem: The Egyptians have been handed to the Islamists with a clear agenda of striking fear into the Copts and the Israelis. Under Obama‘s policies in Egypt, even the stray dogs of Cairo will not be spared.
• Solution: Can anyone tell Sasha how the Islamists oppress puppies and maybe she can change her daddy’s mind about those scoundrels?
• Problem: The Jordanians, seemingly protected by a visible US administration in the past, will also find themselves alone and at the receiving end of Assad‘s violence with his deformed DNA.
• Solution: Arm the Syrian opposition. It’s about Jordanian future and not this administration. Spoil Obama‘s policies of appeasing your enemies.
• Problem: The Israelis will not be spared either. More flotillas, more flying saucers, and more marches by all those brain-dead children of the Assad and the Iranian regimes. Not to mention the naïveté of an administration unable to control the Iranian nuclear program when on the grounds in the region but somehow believes it can 10,000 miles away.
• Solution: Time for US Congress and the American people who support Israel to the tune of 71% to act (Latest Gallup poll with regard to broad American support for Israel)..
• Problem: The Iranian people were hopeful the Syrian Revolution will eventually reach them but now have nothing to look forward to except the tyranny of Khameini.
• Solution: Stay hopeful. We both will prevail.
• Problem: Erdogan is going along with Obama‘s policies because he can spread Islamism in Syria easier than through the ballot and because he is an anti-Semite parading as a pro-Palestinian.
• Solution: Time for a Facebook anti-Erdogan Turkish revolution. Let him make the mistake of arresting students.

The Obama time is tyranny time for tens of millions of people in the region, including the minorities. Tyranny by Islamists in Egypt, tyranny by men of utter violence in Syria and Iran, and tyranny against the Lebanese and Israelis who are destined to live under constant fear because Obama cannot bother to protect America’s real allies and friends.

In fact, Obama‘s legacy can be summed-up in one sentence

“Protect America’s Enemies”

All of these miseries so that Obama wins another election. I wonder if Secretary Clinton would have acted differently had she been the President? Her policies today may very well be the President’s policies and one would never know what hers would have been.

After all, President Bill Clinton was courageous enough to help bring Milosevic to trial using a carpet bombing campaign for 78 straight days against his regime of terror. Obama does not seem too keen on protecting people from tyranny or bringing justice against men of extreme violence willing to kill children and women.

If Obama’s legacy is “Protect America’s Enemies”, his personal motto seems to say “Live and let the others suffer and die”.

Farid Ghadry

Source: http://ghadry.com/2012/04/01/obamas-legacy-can-be-summed-up-in-one-sentence-protect-americas-enemies/

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

Betrayal Glorified: The Bizarre Jewish Movement to Destroy Israel by Pretending to Save It

by Barry Rubin

I can only laugh at the idea of dilettante Peter Beinart and J Street as leader of the anti-Israel (oops, I meant save-Israel-from-itself) movement. After all, imagine people parading as self-defined heroes while peddling ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. But behind the stupid ideas is a very poisonous hidden agenda.

We live in an age of intellectual absurdity in which a book by someone who has no notion of Israeli reality and who is, at best, decades (I’d say three) out of date is treated as if he could possibly be of some relevance. Or an organization that has literally never made a single pro-Israel initiative claims to be the country’s best friends.

Contrary to the title of Beinart’s book, there is no crisis of Zionism, certainly not in the way he and similarly thinking American Jews believe. The crisis is simply that Israel has become an actually existing country that is defined by an Israel-Jewish patriotism based on a historical Zionism. In fact, regarding Israel itself, Zionism has been so successful that it simply isn’t needed in the same way as it was in 1947.

Regarding American Jews, the problem is that of the left-wing — almost always people who consciously know they are on the other side and their tool of choice on Israel is a sledgehammer — and those liberals they have fooled, not Zionism. This “new” approach is based on the debate of the 1970s and 1980s, more specifically the 1974-1992 era.

At that time, there were three points of contention that Beinart and others try to revive in a totally different world:

• Continuation of the occupation endangered Israel’s soul and society through hubris, brutalization, fanatical religiosity, and ambitious nationalism.

• If Israel didn’t make peace and get rid of the territories as fast as possible it would be destroyed by…well, it isn’t exactly clear by whom, since its enemies had failed so continually and were weaker than they’d been in the past. But this meant that Israel had to rush to make peace at any price.

• There was a wonderful opportunity to achieve a stable, just, and lasting peace. Merely offer the Palestinians and Arabs a reasonable settlement—particularly a Palestinian state—and a peace agreement would quickly follow.

This way of thinking has long since been discredited by the experiences of the failed peace process and radicalized regional politics. First, Israel withdrew from large portions of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, putting virtually all Palestinians under self-rule. Later, it pulled out of the Gaza Strip completely. There was no more “occupation” as there had been in the 1967-1993 period.

Second, we discovered that the Palestinians and Syria weren’t eager for peace. During the peace process era, the hardline propaganda, hate, and intransigence continued virtually uninterrupted on the other side. It became clear that Israel was not threatened by a refusal to take big risks and make concessions, rather the threat came from making deadly arrangements out of good intentions or even a dangerously bad “peace” deal that would leave the country worse off.

Third, most Israelis concluded that they didn’t want most of the territory captured in 1967. There was an Israeli consensus to keep much of east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and some small areas of the West Bank along the border. But in exchange for real peace, they were ready to give up a lot, something like 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and 95 plus percent of the West Bank.

The same new thinking applied to accepting a two-state solution. Let the Palestinians have their state, even let Fatah or the PLO rule it if they only left us alone and ended the conflict. But that wasn’t going to happen. There was no intransigence or “Greater Israel” ambition to poison Israel. The experience and these changes left Israel with a clear conscience, not the “clear conscience” of those so distant that these issues were a mere abstraction but that of people who knew they sometimes made mistakes and had to take tough decisions to survive.

Fourth, the West generally broke its promises to Israel, showing that it was not dependable. The understanding was for Israel to make big concessions and take big risks knowing that if that failed, the West would acknowledge Israel as the good guys and back it fully. Yet Israelis saw that the more risks Israel took, concessions it gave, and casualties it suffered, the more it was slandered and delegitimized in large parts of the West (including by the very people who pretend to save it from itself). The supposed winning formula — pull back, turn over, concede and you will be secure and happy–didn’t work. The Obama administration fully proved this reality.

Fifth, the 2000-2005 terrorist-based intifada and the radical response to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza reinforced these lessons, as did the growing Islamism that openly advocated war, terrorism, and genocide against Israel.

Sixth, the “Arab Spring” was a last straw, with revolutionary Islamists seizing power, Turkey changing sides, Iran building a sphere of influence and going full-speed-ahead on nuclear weapons, as well as a U.S. leadership on which Israel couldn’t depend. If ever there was a time for not making concessions and being starry-eyed over peace, our present day is that time.

The majority of Israelis say: I don’t want the settlements. I want a two-state solution. But unfortunately I know that the leadership and majority of Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims want to destroy us, not to get a Palestinian state. They are getting more radical, due to their own thinking and social issues. We cannot get any reasonable deal and any deal that might happen would be used by them as a more advantageous springboard for continuing the conflict against us.

That is why the Israeli peacenik left collapsed and Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister. It wasn’t that Israel had moved to the right but that reality had done so.

Thus, the problem of American liberal Jews is not to save Israel from reactionary religious extremists and hardline rightists but to come to terms with the views of the majority of Israelis, the centrists and those left of center.

Yet these points that shape Israeli thinking, problems, and reality have almost never been explained in the American mass media or universities. Many Jews have never heard the above argument but simply absorbed the anti-Israel message so prevalent in those two institutions.

The real story, then, is the crisis of a portion of American Jewry—often a more publicly visible and powerful portion–who have forgotten (or never knew) Jewish history. Some of them push the ignorance of the real Israel and Israeli reality in the universities and media; others merely believe what they are being told daily. They would go to a rally about fighting “Islamophobia” but would be horrified by the idea of going to a rally about fighting revolutionary Islamist antisemitism.

Along the lines of their thinking we would have to rewrite the Haggadah along these lines:

For we have not merely projected our paranoiac thinking that just one alone has risen against us to destroy us, but we’ve been so overwhelmed with irrational fear that we think in every generation they rise against us to destroy us; even though they are just standing around doing nothing except occasional texting and discussing the big game on television last night. But fortunately the left-wing critics, blessed be They, verbally attack us, help our enemies, and launch boycotts against us which save us from our own stupidity.

Another part of their problem with Israel is that it is, in a sense, too “Jewish” and at odds with their preferred ideology. They want Israel to be what they want America and Europe to be. Yet instead it is too religious; too traditional; too much of a nation-state; too willing to defend itself; and too willing to recognize its enemies even if they are non-white, non-Western, and non-Christian.

If your definition of proper Jewishness is to be like Berkeley and Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Israel is not going to make the grade. On the contrary, Israel seems too much like the South, Midwest, or non-urban areas where people cling to their guns and religion and don’t eagerly turn over large portions of their territory to armed hostile forces that openly proclaim their goal of exterminating them.

I wrote the above paragraph in a style that (hopefully) would be funny but I think it is absolutely true. By being so “primitive,” it embarrasses them, like a Harvard professor whose relatives from the Ozark show up in their pickup truck toting shotguns and going to church.

Yet beyond all of this there is one more point to be understood that is of the greatest importance: the program of this sacrifice (I mean, “save”) Israel for its own good. That is the very strange program of calling for a boycott of the settlements.

Boycotting the settlements will not affect the settlements, or Israel, or the policies of Israel’s Middle Eastern enemies, and it won’t promote the cause of peace. True, this is an attractive strategy because it sounds moderate and supportive of “mainstream” Israel. But that’s only part of it.

No, the main reason is that it will promote the cause of delegitimizing Israel.

The goal is to change the narrative. Instead of blaming the Palestinian leadership’s, Arab regimes’, and revolutionary Islamists’ rejection of Israel’s existence, refusal to make compromises, glorification of terrorism, demonization of Israel, and refusal even won’t negotiate, the fault lies with Israel. They don’t have to change at all. It’s Israel that has to make more concessions and take even more risks.

According to this conception it is Israeli settlements that block peace. They force the other side to reject a deal, neglecting the fact that if they had made a deal the territory would have been handed over to the Palestinians and the settlements dismantled. If only the settlements went away, we are told, peace would quickly arrive, rather than understanding that if only the Palestinians made peace the settlements would go away

The strategy signals that the way to get peace is to ignore the real behavior and doctrines of Israel’s enemies and instead to punish Israel.

And suppose Israel doesn’t unilaterally dismantle the settlements? What is this movement’s next step? To boycott the country that won’t listen to them; to blame it for antisemitism, and to turn one’s face away from it. This year we are in the land of boycott, sanction, and divest from the settlements; next year in boycott-Jerusalem land!

Thus, the diagnosis being offered is false and slanderous toward Israel and the solution being presented is false and dangerous to Israel. The goal is to get American Jews to adopt the basic anti-Israel narrative that paints Israel as the villain responsible for the lack of peace and ultimately delegitimizes Israel’s survival.

Have no illusions. This Trojan Horse movement and its nonsensical arguments should be exposed. Every North American and European Jew should at least have the opportunity to hear the truth.

PS:

Special Bonus Feature: A Short History of Jewish History and the Centrality of Settlements

• 737 BCE, Jews establish settlements, leading Assyrians to invade.

• 587 BCE, Jews build new apartments in settlements. In response, Babylonians conquer land and exile the Jews.

• 70 CE, Jewish settlements produce Dead Sea Scrolls. Left-wing pseudo-intellectuals do not boycott. Temple Falls.

• 1096 CE Jews think about establishing settlements. Crusades begin and Jews are massacred.

• 1648 CE Jews in Ukraine make kugel on settlements in Ukraine. Cossacks begin armed boycott movement.

• 1917 CE Shocked by Jews clinging to their religion, reactionary Zionism, and pseudo-revolutionary Bundism, heroic Bolshevik Jews save the day by helping bring about the Russian Revolution, close down synagogues, outlaw Yiddish, and put Zionists and Bundists into concentration camps.

And so on down to the present.

Barry Rubin

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/03/betrayal-glorified-the-bizarre-jewish-movement-to-destroy-israel-by-pretending-to-save-it/

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

Being an Israeli and a Jew in 2012: Let’s Face Reality Without Illusion, Shrug, and Move Forward

by Barry Rubin

While you probably already know what I’m about to say, it is useful to reinforce and pull together the pieces of reality we face.

It is the year 2012, which seems to be going by very fast and is already one-fourth finished. People are walking around with smart phones and all sorts of electronic devices undreamed of not long ago. There has been what is called an “Arab Spring” stoking fantasies about instant democracy. An African-American was elected president of the United States, and that was after his party’s nomination, and thus probably the White House, almost went to a
woman!

Times have changed.

Yet the hysterical hatred for Israel in the Arabic-speaking world and among Muslims in general has only increased; the philosophy of rejectionism is as strong as ever or, put another way, even stronger. Indeed, it is no longer safe, and certainly isn’t comfortable, for Jews in much of Europe and even, for those who support Israel, on American college campuses.

Two examples of how the lynch mobs are out in force in places where formerly they were least present.

In previously moderate Tunisia, now under Muslim Brotherhood rule, thousands of Salafists paraded, chanting to kill the Jews in order to enter paradise. The new Tunisian constitution contains a provision that the country could never recognize Israel. Almost a half-century ago, Tunisia’s then leader was the first Arab politician to call for recognizing Israel. We’re still waiting.

In Morocco, perhaps the overall most moderate country in the Arabic-speaking world, a meeting of the Mediterranean Parliamentary Union was held. Israel, which has a parliamentary system and is on the Mediterranean (I can see the sea from my roof), is a member of this group. Consequently one Israeli attended the meeting. The result was a riot in which thousands of Moroccans assaulted the building and the leader of the ruling Islamist party complained at how the country’s soil had been tainted.

I won’t bother citing a thousand other examples. But with the triumph of revolutionary Islamists and the throwing down the memory hole of decades of disastrous Arab anti-Israel policies, the Arabic-speaking world is becoming more radical on this issue. It is now joined by Turkey and Iran.

They hate us; they despise us; they want to kill us.

Yawn.

In this situation there is a strong temptation for Westerners to say that if only Israel didn’t exist (radical version) or if it made huge concessions (liberal version) then all of the problems in the Middle East would go away and all the region’s conflicts with the West would go away, too.

And in this situation there is a strong temptation for Western Jews to say that if only Israel made more concessions on territory or tore down the settlements there would be peace; hate would turn into love or at least benign indifference, and all the problems of the Jews would go away.

And in this situation there is a total temptation for Western leftists—including a disproportionate number of Jews among them—that if only Israel disappeared or made huge concessions than socialist utopia would come speedily in our time.

In fact, for the first time in history we are seeing a concerted, well-funded campaign to destroy the base of support for Israel among American Jews. It is rather ironic that this is happening in 2012.

After all, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and parts of the West Bank. Since 1993, Israel has not established a single new settlement nor expanded the geographic size of existing settlements. Israeli governments offered (twelve years ago!) to accept a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip, almost all of the West Bank, and in much of east Jerusalem.

And so on.

Now we are told by the highly publicized and very smug that if only there is an economic boycott of settlements, Israel will be saved.

We are not told that if only there is a willingness among Arabs and Muslims to make peace, plus the total defeat of the revolutionary Islamists, peace is far more likely to be achieved.

That real solution has two differences from the first one:

–There is literally nothing we can do, no concession or risk, which will bring about that outcome.

–Thus, we do not have the power in our hands to resolve this conflict. We can stand up, sit down, walk by the way, or return to the 1967 borders and it won’t matter.

About 25 years ago, I was convulsed with laughter when covering a Palestine National Council meeting in Algeria while watching a young American Jewish Peace Now kid try to explain to a group of Fatah guys that they really did just want a state of their own to live alongside Israel. They kept explaining to him that this wasn’t the way they thought at all. They wanted “all of Palestine from the river to the sea.”

This well-meaning boob thought he knew better than the Palestinians what was their actual political stance.

It is not comforting to acknowledge that there simply isn’t going to be any formal peace agreement or end of the conflict. I won’t say “never” but I’m pretty sure for the next 30 to 50 years, and somewhat less certain for the rest of this century.

But, of course, in time antisemitism in Europe went away—oops! It didn’t, but you know what I mean.

Does saying these things make me “right-wing”? Not at all. It is also the consensus position of the great majority of left-of-center Israelis and it should be the position of liberal Jews in other countries. The whole point is that this is not a matter of our will or preference or program but something that is being forced upon us.

Sure, I want a two-state solution, but not as a launching pad for the next round of would-be genocide. I want the ideal solution of peace and good neighborhood but I don’t expect that is going to happen. Not my fault; not our fault.

Let’s face reality, stop blaming ourselves, and get on with our lives. Let us improve Israel’s society, economy, and culture. Of course, let’s also defend ourselves. Let us try to preserve as much as possible of the rapidly disappearing Jewish people. And if you want to boycott someone, why not start with those who insist on remaining our enemies and who would like to murder us?

Makes sense to me.

This article was printed in the Jerusalem Post in a different version.

Barry Rubin

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/04/6275/

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

Leftist Bishop Rejects Anti-Israel Divestment

by Mark D. Tooley

While the United Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church (USA) denominations will ponder anti-Israel divestment at their conventions this year, the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop opposes divestment.

“The Episcopal Church does not endorse divestment or boycott,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori recently told a Los Angeles group. “It’s not going to be helpful to endorse divestment or boycotts of Israel. It will only end in punishing Palestinians economically.”

Although often left-wing and politicly correct, the Episcopal Church’s chief prelate and other officials, maybe mindful of interfaith relations with Jewish leaders, have typically steered away from the worst anti-Israel zeal. Unlike the Methodist and Presbyterians, the Episcopalians will not seriously consider divestment at their own convention this year.

Speaking to a Middle East Peacemakers luncheon, Schori was obliged to make the usual calls for “dialogue” and to imply moral equivalence between Israel’s struggle to exist versus Palestinian calls for its eradication. “We can urge Israel to freeze the settlement activity,” she suggested, according to Episcopal News Service. “We can urge the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel’s right to exist. We can condemn violence everywhere.”

But strikingly unlike others on the Religious Left, she did not demonize Israel, or glowingly embrace pro-Palestinian Liberation Theology. “We can urge our legislators and government to encourage dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian leaders,” she opined. “We can urge them to refrain from de-funding hopeful initiatives.” And she urged positive investment in “legitimate development in Palestine’s West Bank and in Gaza.” Schori called for a “two-state solution with a dignified home for Palestinians and for Israelis.” Meanwhile, some on the Religious Left are increasingly inclined towards admitting their support for a “one-state” solution that would demographically eradicate Israel’s Jewish democracy.

As Bishop Schori was urging relative moderation, the harder line Religious Left was backing the March 30 “March on Jerusalem.” It is hoping to mobilize many thousands to denounce Israel’s ostensible “Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and Judaisation policies.” Besides backing from former Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright and Christian Socialist Cornel West of Union Seminary, the march is backed by Friends of Sabeel – North America (FOSNA). Presbyterian minister Don Wagner is the FOSNA national program director and recently denounced Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren’s Wall Street Journal column that noted Christians are increasing inside Israel but declining in Muslim-majority Palestinian territory.

“Palestinian Christians and Muslims have been living together in harmony for centuries in what we call the Holy Land,” the Rev. Wagner boasted, in his own sugar-coated and truncated version of Islamic domination in Middle East history. “They also face the same brutal treatment at the hands of the Israeli occupiers, die from the same bullets, see their homes bulldozed and their lands confiscated and turned into illegal Jewish (only) settlements.” The Sabeel and typical Religious Left narrative is that only Israel can be faulted for any regional upheaval. “They live behind a 24-foot wall that chokes their towns and villages and cuts off farmers from tilling their lands, whether they are Christians or Muslims,” Wagner said of Palestinian Christians. “The Israeli occupation is an equal abuser of Palestinian Christians and Muslims.”

Wagner rehashed the narrative that Palestinian Christians are leaving the region exclusively because of Israel. This narrative almost never explains why the Palestinian Muslim population continues to grow, despite all the Israeli oppression. Wagner recalled that 13 percent of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip population was Christian prior to Israeli occupation in 1967 after its victorious war against attacking Arab armies. He notes today the Palestinian Christian population is perhaps not more than 1 percent. Of course, he omits the exodus of Christians from other Middle East countries, an exodus compounded by low birth rates.

“Some church leaders fear that at this rate there will be no Christians left in these parts of the Holy Land within a generation, unless something dramatic causes Israel to change its intransigence,” Wagner warns. But if Israel completely withdrew behind pre-1967 borders, would Palestinian Christians suddenly begin to thrive under full Palestinian nationalist or Islamist rule? Everywhere throughout the Middle East, Christian populations have been draining for the last century or more. That exodus is accelerating, as secular dictatorships that partly protected Christians are surrendering to Islamist movements.

Wagner excitedly pointed at the upcoming United Methodist and Presbyterian conventions, which he hopes will approve anti-Israel divestment, though both churches have rejected it in the past. He explains: “The churches are applying the same ethical principles for morally responsible investment as they have applied in previous cases such as Apartheid in South Africa, Sudan ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and divesting from corporations producing weapons or instruments that destroy lives or the livelihood of civilians.” How ironic that he morally compares Israel to Sudan’s notorious Islamist regime. “These sisters and brothers [among the Palestinians] are hoping and praying that the global church will not let them down in their hour of need and will begin to embody prophetic consciousness,” Wagner concluded.

Well, perhaps. Or just as likely, the remnant of Palestinian Christians is saying what they have to say in a struggle to survive as a tiny minority among Muslim nationalists and zealots. Compared to Wagner’s FOSNA and the angry March on Jerusalem, Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori almost sounds coolly reassuring when she told her Los Angeles audience: “I would urge you to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, to pray and work together for a society of peace with justice for that vision that is shared by all Abrahamic faiths. Salaam, shalom, peace.”

Mark D. Tooley

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/30/leftist-bishop-rejects-anti-israel-divestment/

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

Sharia is Islam

by Frontpagemag.com/

Belgium is on its way to becoming a totalitarian state:



Frontpagemag.com

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/30/sharia-is-islam/

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