It's Not Road Rage, It's Terrorism

by Daniel Pipes

On February 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli doctor of American origins, went to the mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and murdered 29 Muslims with an automatic weapon before being overwhelmed and himself killed. This massacre prompted conspiracy theories and riots in Muslim circles, including accusations that the government of Israel stood behind Goldstein, an allegation that strenuous denunciations of his attack by the Israeli government did not fully deflect.

Rashid Baz, who attacked a Jewish target in New York City in 1994.

On March 1, four days later, Rashid Baz, a New York livery driver of Lebanese origins, fired two guns at a van carrying Hasidic Jewish boys on a ramp leading to the Brooklyn Bridge, killing Ari Halberstam, 16, a yeshiva student. Baz was quickly apprehended, convicted, and sentenced to 141 years in prison. Circumstantial evidence pointed to a link between the two events, for Baz was immersed in the Arabic-language media coverage of Goldstein's attack, he attended the incendiary Islamic Center of Bay Ridge, and he was surrounded by Muslims who condoned terrorism against Jews. More than that, friends indicated that Baz was obsessively angered by the attack in Hebron and the psychiatrist for his legal defense, Douglas Anderson, testified that Baz "was enraged" by it. "He was absolutely furious. . . . Were it not for Hebron this whole tragedy [in New York] wouldn't have occurred."

Yet the seemingly obvious connection between Goldstein and Baz could not be established because Baz accounted for his violence by referring to post-traumatic stresses from his experiences in Lebanon. And so, despite the preponderance of evidence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation adopted Baz's own dissemblance and called the murder on the Brooklyn Bridge an act of "road rage." Only after Halberstam's mother devoted years of effort did the FBI in 2000 reclassify the Baz attack as terrorism.

Mohammed Merah, who attacked a Jewish target in Toulouse in 2012.

And thus matters rested until a few days ago, when Baz's confession in 2007 finally became public via a New York Post article. In it, Baz acknowledged the impact of the Goldstein atrocity on him, admitted having specifically targeted Jews, and confessed to following a van of Hasidic boys for two miles from the Manhattan Eye and Ear Infirmary to the bridge. Asked if he would have shot at a van full of black or Latino people, he replied, "No, I only shot them because they were Jewish."

This belated confession points to a recurring problem of politicians, law enforcement, and the press with Islamist terrorism: their unwillingness to stare it in the face and ascribe murder to it.

Most recently, this avoidance reared its ugly head in the case of Mohammed Merah in Toulouse, France, where the establishment's immediate impulse was to assume the murderer of three soldiers and four Jews was a non-Muslim. As my colleague Adam Turner notes in the Daily Caller, "the elite Western public officials' and media's speculation about the true killer, prior to the discovery of his identity, heavily focused (also here and here and here) on the belief that he was a white European neo-Nazi." Only when Merah himself boasted of his crime to the police and even sent videos of his actions to Al Jazeera did the other theories finally vaporize.

El Sayyid Nosair, who attacked a Jewish target in New York City in 1990.

The Baz and Merah examples fit a much larger pattern of denying Islamist terrorism that I trace as far back as the 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City by El Sayyid Nosair, an attack initially ascribed by the police department's chief of detectives to "a prescription drug for or consistent with depression." Since then, time and again, the establishment has conjured up similarly lame excuses for Islamist terrorism, including "a work dispute," a "stormy [family] relationship," the acne drug Accutane, an "attitude problem," and "loneliness and depression."

Most disturbing, however, is the tendency to ascribe Islamist terror to diminished mental capacity. As Teri Blumenfeld notes in the current issue of the Middle East Quarterly, "Muslims who kill in the name of their religion frequently evade punishment in Western courts by pleading insanity or mental incompetence." In Western courts, indeed, defense lawyers routinely attribute acts of jihadi murder to insanity.

Ignoring the religious and ideological roots of Islamist terrorism carries a heavy price; not thoroughly investigating the Kahane assassination meant overlooking materials that could have prevented the World Trade Center bombing in 1993; and Merah's apprehension sooner would have saved lives. Islamism must be squarely faced to protect ourselves from future violence.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/10941/rashid-baz-road-rage-terrorism

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

The Truth or Taqiyya?

by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

One of the most important challenges we face as a free people is understanding the true nature of - and threat posed by - a totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine its adherents call shariah. So, it would seem to be good news that a $3 million public education campaign is being launched nationwide to "clarify" what shariah is.

The question is: Will this campaign be truthful and helpful, or will it amount to an exercise in what is not only permissible under shariah, but obligatory: lying for the faith, or taqiyya in Arabic?

Unfortunately, since the sponsor of this initiative is one of the most virulent Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the United States, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the shariah tour will assuredly be all taqiyya, all the time. As we are seeing in Egypt at the moment, the Brotherhood is fully prepared to lie about its repressive agenda until it is too late for its opponents to resist.

As the old saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

For the purpose of calibrating whether the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to fool us yet again - this time, here in the United States - consider a sample of the research compiled by the Center for Security Policy about the Islamic Circle of North America, its heroes, leadership and agenda:

• ICNA was founded in 1971 by leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, an anti-American, fundamentalist, Taliban-supporting organization also known as the Pakistani branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Jamaat's primary goal is the establishment of Islamic states worldwide, governed by the tyrannical, oppressive system of Shariah law.

• ICNA reveres the rabid American-hating Iranian cleric-turned-despot, Ayatollah Khomeini. After 9/11, ICNA ran an earlier PR campaign extolling the "Great Leaders of the last 100 Years." It featured Khomeini, leader of the violent Shiite revolution and totalitarian regime in Iran. ICNA's paean to this enemy of the United States remained on its website for years until it was removed prior to the launch of the organization's current PR effort aimed at promoting shariah in this country.

• ICNA also considers Sayyid Qutb and Sayyid Mawdudi - the Islamist ideologues who inspired a host of salafist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda - to be among the "Great Leaders of the last 100 Years."

• ICNA has featured the Muslim Brotherhood's current chief ideologue, Sheik Yussuf Al-Qaradawi. Among Qaradawi's many unsavory stances is his view that democracy is permitted only when it complies with shariah. Writing in the ICNA magazine, The Message, Qaradawi states: "What we seek is that legislations and codes be within the limits of the flawless texts and the overall objectives of the shariah and the Islamic Message."

• ICNA also identified the "Great Movements of the Last 100 Years." Not surprisingly given its association with the Muslim Brotherhood, this roster prominently featured Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen (the Brotherhood's name in Arabic) and two other Brotherhood-inspired Pakistani jihadist groups, Jama'at-e-Islami and Tablighi Jama'at.

• A former ICNA president, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, was also president in 2005 of the South Asia Division of KindHearts, an Islamist so-called "charity" whose assets were frozen by the U.S. Treasury in the following year for its funneling of funds to Hamas. KindHearts is still contesting its listing by the U.S. Treasury as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization. Hamas, of course, is also officially identified as such a terrorist organization, one responsible for thousands of murders - including of American citizens.

• Also in 2006, ICNA and two spin-offs, ICNA Relief and ICNA Helping Hand, funded the Al-Khidmat Welfare Society and Al-Khidmat Foundation, which then gave Hamas nearly $100,000.

• ICNA's past Secretary General and Vice President Ashrafuz Zaman Khan, who was also a past president of the organization's New York chapter, is reportedly about to be indicted for war crimes by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal for the systematic execution of civilians during the civil war there. Bangladeshi groups claim Khan was a chief executioner for the al-Badr force, personally killing seven Dhaka University teachers in the city of Mirpur.

• A December 2001 ICNA South East Region convention had a special program honoring convicted murderer Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (a.k.a. H. Rap Brown), who is currently serving a life-sentence for killing a sheriff's deputy.

• The curriculum for ICNA's women's organization promotes jihad, shariah rule, hatred of Jews and Christians, and warns of the "dangers of secular Western thoughts and ideas."

In short, the Islamic Circle of North America is pretty much as unreliable a source as one can imagine for factual information about the unconstitutional - indeed, anti-constitutional - character of shariah, the real objectives of its adherents elsewhere and here, and the implications for a free society like ours of submitting to this brutally women-hating, intolerant and repressive doctrine. It would be nice to know who is putting up the $3 million for such an outfit to propagandize and mislead the American people.

We cannot afford to be fooled by Islamists any further, particularly about their ambitions for, to coin a phrase, fundamentally transforming the United States of America. We need the truth about shariah, not taqiyya.

Frank Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18957.xml

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

Adventures in Arabic: Introduction

by Sally Zahav

I have been studying Arabic for a couple of years, and I often learn things that I would like to share with my readers. So I will occasionally write a short piece when my studies lead me to an interesting place.

Why do I Study Arabic?

Frankly, I can only offer a partial explanation. Sure, there are rational and logical reasons for me to learn Arabic, since I live in the Galilee, an area that is populated fairly equally by Arabs (Christians and Druze as well as Muslims) and Jews. Practically, this means that I come into contact with Arabs very often. He might be the gas station attendant or the owner of the large, meticulously tended plant nursery. She might be the pharmacist at the local drug store or a doctor in the government-run clinic. At our nearby branch of Ace Hardware (yes, we have Ace in Israel) many of the staff are Arabs. Of course, they are all perfectly fluent in Hebrew, so I don't need to learn Arabic in order to communicate with them.

These are my neighbors; not next-door neighbors, but next town neighbors - and some are content to live peacefully with the Jews. Of course, it's also true that some would be much better pleased if I and other Jews had never immigrated to Israel from our countries of origin. Some would even enjoy eliminating Jews with their own hands. I'm well aware of that.

Nevertheless, the abiding hope for most Israeli Jews is to live in peace with the various minority cultures (Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bahai, etc); that we should all have a rewarding and prosperous life. Not as "dhimmis" - or second class citizens, the way I would have to live in an Arab state - but as equals, within the context of a Jewish state. So in part, my study of Arabic is an expression of cautious hope for a shared future and an effort to meet Arabs part of the way, culturally; to be able to speak with my Arab neighbors in Arabic as well as in Hebrew. And by learning the language, to gain insight into the culture or at least get a glimpse into it.

Another, very different factor that motivates me is the flood of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic material that dominates the media in the greater Arab world. We know that some Arab politicians and Muslim clerics engage in pure genocidal incitement because of the invaluable work of organizations like MEMRI and Palwatch, who monitor Arabic media and sermons preached at Friday prayers, and then post English translations on the Internet. Being able to understand Arabic would allow me to access Arabic media outlets directly. And I do want to know what they think, what they say and what actions they intend to take. It's a natural impulse of self-preservation and an unfortunate but necessary damper on the bright hopes for coexistence.

These are the rational reasons for me, an Israeli Jew, to learn Arabic. But I'm also aware that there is something else, undefined, maybe even mystical, that drives me. It's true that I enjoy delving into languages in general, but my quest to learn Arabic is almost an obsession. I listen to Arabic CDs in my car and when I work in the kitchen. I read Arabic text whenever I have a free moment. When I pass by road signs on the highway, or shop signs in Nazareth, even when signs are written in English or Hebrew as well, it's the Arabic that I struggle to decode as I whizz by.

Which Arabic?

Anyone who has the least familiarity with Arabic is aware that Arabic is not really one language. There are many spoken dialects, defined by geographical areas and sometimes even by tribe. I've been told by scholars of Arabic that the differences between the dialects are so great that they are virtually different languages. But there is one universal form of Arabic that most Arabs understand, even if they don't speak it, called "Modern Standard Arabic" or literary Arabic. It's the Arabic of the media and the Arabic that is taught in schools.

Arabic is a beautiful language, logical, well-structured and rich. In its written form it is graceful and artistic. And although there are significant differences, the similarities between Arabic and Hebrew are many, which is not at all surprising, since both languages are branches that stem from the same Semitic trunk. Next time, I'll go into some of the many similarities that I, as an intermediate student of Arabic, have already seen.

Sally Zahav

Source: Middle East and Terrorism

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

Sudan Bombing Churches in Air Strikes

by Robert Spencer

But remember, it is the non-Muslim free West that has the problem with tolerance. Keep repeating that to yourself enough times, and even if you don't come to believe it, at least it will lull you to sleep. "Sudan’s Aerial Bombing Aims at Churches in Nuba Mountains," from Compass Direct News, March 30 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

JUBA, South Sudan, March 30 (CDN) — After Khartoum denied that it had bombed civilians earlier this month, Sudanese aerial strikes last week were aimed at church buildings and schools in Kauda, South Kordofan state, a humanitarian aid worker said.

Antonov airplanes dropped bombs on Thursday and Friday (March 22 and 23), destroying some houses and cattle near the church buildings and schools but causing no casualties, he said.

Humanitarian agencies consider the Islamic government’s targeting of civilians in the Nuba Mountains, which has a large Christian population, an “ethnic cleansing” against non-Arab peoples in the multi-ethnic state, with the added incentive of ridding the area of Christians, he said.

Churches in the Nuba Mountains are holding worship services very early in the morning and late in the evening in order to avoid aerial bombardments that target their churches, he said. Most of the bombings take place during daytime, when visibility is better for pilots of the Russian-made Antonov planes.

Khartoum is actively recruiting more security personnel and sending them to South Kordofan to help kill or arrest Nuba civilians, including Christians, sources said. Islamic government officials consider the various Nuba ethnicities as enemies or “infidels” in their campaign to clear the region of non-Arab races and Christianity.

“These people are doing everything possible to make sure they get rid of Christianity from the Nuba Mountains – churches and church schools are the targets of both the Sudanese Armed Forces and its militias,” the aid worker aid, although mosques have also been targeted.

The Sudanese government has razed 10 church buildings and 17 mosques since fighting broke out last June, according to a report released on March 16 by the Arry Organization for Human Rights and Development. The South Kordofan-based organization reported that the Sudanese Armed Forces and allied militias have destroyed 73 villages and 48 schools....

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/sudan-bombing-churches-in-air-strikes.html

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

Media Malpractice

by Carol Brown

The headline reads: Israel kills Gaza gunman along tense border

The article is short and vile:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli soldiers shot dead a Palestinian gunman suspected of trying to plant explosives beneath a fence at the border with Gaza, the Israeli military said on Sunday.

Soldiers on Sunday recovered the remains of the gunman alongside an assault rifle, a statement from the Israeli military spokesman said.

None of the militant groups in the Hamas Islamist-ruled Gaza Strip claimed responsibility for the incident, which Israel said occurred after dark on Saturday.

The tense frontier has been largely quiet since an Egyptian-brokered truce silenced a violent outbreak last month when Israel killed 25 Palestinians in air strikes launched at Gaza, most of them militants, and gunmen fired 200 rockets at Israel.

(Writing by Allyn Fisher-Ilan; Editing by Alison Williams)

It doesn't take a genius to see that the story-telling is warped in order to promote several falsehoods.

The writers refer to the Palestinian as a "gunman," not a terrorist.

And not just the first, but the first and second paragraphs end with a comment that frames what occurred as based on what the Israeli military said, as if to suggest they might be making it up. And if you think that's a stretch, go read some of the comments on the piece. Here's one:

"Soldiers on Sunday recovered the remains of the gunman alongside an assault rifle, a statement from the Israeli military spokesman said." So where was the explosive, or was that just made up?

The third paragraph suggests the "gunman" wasn't a terrorist since, after all, none of the militant groups claimed responsibility. (According to the writers, those "militant groups" aren't terrorists either.)

The last paragraph is the most egregious. It is peddling the notion that Egypt initiated a truce after Israel killed 25 Palestinians. And then some more of those gunmen fired 200 rockets into Israel. As if the rockets came after the Israeli attack, when in fact in occurred before.

I would suggest that Reuters fire the writer and editor of this piece who have proved that they cannot get a single sentence of a 4-sentence article right. And whether the inaccuracies are intentional or unconscious, they are dangerous.

Carol Brown

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

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

Egyptian MB Presidential Candidate: 'Indeed Islam is Religion and State'

by Andrew G. Bostom

As noted yesterday, Dr. Khairat Al-Shater, Deputy Chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), will be the popular, mainstream Egyptian Islamic party's candidate for the Presidency, breaking the MB's pledge not to seek this executive office, and assure itself a potential monopoly on state power.

Despite being predictably measured and guarded, thus far, in his public statements, and reported attitudes, even the New York Times conceded that Al-Shater supports "an explicitly Islamic government." Moreover, the Times acknowledges Al-Shater's active promotion of "undemocratic" tendencies:

Mr. Shater led a push to bar Brotherhood members from dissenting from the political stands of its Freedom and Justice Party, and he led the expulsion of those who sought less conservative Islamist politics.

But perhaps most revealing of Al-Shater's totalitarian Islamic Weltanschauung were the frank comments he made about Al Azhar University, during an interview with Al-Ahram from January of this year, and more explicitly, on implementing an Islamic state in April of 2011.

Since its founding in 973 A.D., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream Islam. The irrefragable truth of Al Azhar's persistent Medieval obscurantism can be readily gleaned from a sampling of fatwas (Islamic religious rulings) and statements issued during 1739, till now. Moreover, the late Al-Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Tantawi's own writings, statements, and career trajectory represent the apotheosis of these ugly realities.

Notwithstanding these doctrinal and historical realities, while affirming appropriately, its stature as the global representative of mainstream Sunni Islam, Al-Shater opined, regarding Al-Azhar,

We believe Al-Azhar has a key role to play; and we are happy for it to take its natural place on the religious level primarily, as a beacon of moderate mainstream Islamic thought. So, a major global role awaits Al-Azhar, both in Egypt and abroad. Indeed, Al-Azhar's role is required strongly in Africa and Asia as well as former Soviet Union countries. We hope it will focus on its primary role, but by all means it should express its views on political issues, because indeed Islam is religion and state.

Earlier speaking at a conference in Alexandria in April of 2011, Al-Shater was more concrete about his and the MB's ultimate aspirations(full translation of Arabic statement, here),

We are continuing to build the individual and the House and the Muslim community, and prepare for the Islamic government as a stage subsequent to the application of a renaissance of community-based Islamic reference...to rule the world stage, and [with?] the return of the Islamic State.

Al-Shater's aspirations for the full-blown re-emergence of theocratic Islamic governance in Egypt seem quite clear, and are consistent with MB's long held goals.

Andrew G. Bostom

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

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

"Targeted Assassination" by the U.S. Security Establishment?

by Shoshana Bryen

Why are Israel's limited choices for alliances ridiculed, while the administration insists that Hamid Karzai – and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin, for that matter – are legitimate rulers because the President wants to work with them? "The [administration's] aims are… to make it more difficult for… the IDF to carry out a strike, and… to erode the IDF's capacity to launch such a strike with minimal casualties."

When President Obama wants to impress Jewish audiences, such as AIPAC, he frequently casts U.S.-Israel relations in a military context. How much military aid Israel receives (although he had nothing to do with the level; President Bush set the level in a 10-year deal), how many exercises the two militaries do together (the last one was canceled; previous ones were on a regular multi-year schedule); provision of the X-Band radar to Israel (done single-handedly by now-Sen. Mark Kirk during the Bush Administration) and missile defense cooperation (for which the Administration has reduced its financial request for 2013). Intelligence cooperation is assumed. "I've got Israel's back," he says.

But how good is the Obama administration on security for Israel? And how does that impact upon American security interests in the Middle East and Southwest Asia?

There have been a series of media reports recently suggesting that intelligence cooperation has been reduced, in part because of a "trust gap" that developed when Israel became concerned that the U.S. did not share Israel's sense of urgency on Iran. A visit to Israel by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Donilon's subsequent report to Capitol Hill did not help. Testimony by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called Israel's strategic security choices "imprudent" – a line repeated and expanded upon by other American military officers, both active and retired.

Last week, a Foreign Policy article by Mark Perry shows American military intelligence officials and diplomats being snide, cutting and condescending – both toward Israel and toward Azerbaijan, a country that sits on Iran's border and has its own serious problems with the Iranian style of radicalism exported to it.

Perry makes several points, each of which, if your assumption was that the President stands behind Israel, raises eyebrows:

1. Israeli military cooperation with Azerbaijan "complicates U.S. efforts to dampen Israeli-Iranian tensions." When did "dampening tensions" become the goal of U.S. policy toward Iran? The President did not say he wanted to "dampen tensions;" he said a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the United States. But if lowering the volume were the goal, there were two ways to go about it – one by reassuring Israel, the other by reassuring Iran. Exposing Israeli defense choices and publicly mocking its capabilities (see below) just reassures Iran. Why would this be the Administration's choice?

2. Israeli-Azeri cooperation requires that U.S. military planners "must now plan not only for a war scenario that includes the Persian Gulf – but one that could include the Caucasus." What is true for American military planners is equally true for the Iranians – and there is something to be said for making your adversary worry that there is more than one avenue of attack. Through America's obvious irritation with Israel and the exposure of Israeli assets in a third country, the administration is choosing to provide Iran with information it can use, to the detriment of Israel. Why would this be the Administration's choice?

3. The US finds surveillance of both our adversaries and our friends irritating. "We're watching what Iran does closely… but we are now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we are not happy about it." How Iran must appreciate the conflation of the two countries: an Israel that makes its patron America unhappy is a country that can be harassed, boycotted, and delegitimized with less fear of an American response than a country that believes its patron is also its friend – a friend that "has its back." Why would the Administration want to give Iran this impression?

4. The Iranians do not have to worry about Israel's refueling capability, which was described as "pretty minimal." Israel is also, according to "military planners," "just not very good at it." That is true mainly because Israel's enemies are so close, but if the U.S. can quash Israeli-Azeri military cooperation, the Iranians will not have much to fear from an Israeli air strike. Why would the administration want to reassure the Iranians on this point?

5. Turkey's irritation with the Israeli-Azeri relationship has the ear of American "senior officials." The Turkish government threw over a long and bilaterally beneficial relationship with Israel to polish its pro-Arab and pro-Islamist bona fides. Its Prime Minister is a booster of Hamas, does big business with Iran and has offered blood libel against the IDF. Turkey also has plans for regional hegemony in Central Asia, hence its irritation with Azerbaijan for daring to have a relationship with Israel. It is unclear from the article how the U.S. government responds to Turkey's concerns, but PM Erdogan appears to be President Obama's "go to guy" in the region and the President was fawning over him in Seoul last week. Does this suggest an answer at Israel's expense?

6. Azerbaijan is not a sovereign country; it is simply a puppet of whoever comes with the money. "The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is called Azerbaijan," according to a "senior administration official." Iran and Azerbaijan have serious border and ethnic issues, and it is much to Iran's benefit to find that the U.S. does not think much of its northern neighbor. While Azerbaijan is certainly not a paragon of democracy, neither should it be the object of derision because it turns to Israel for support. The U.S. is supporting a wide variety of less-than-adorable governments, including the one in Afghanistan – which we are supporting with American blood. Why are Israel's limited choices for alliances ridiculed, while the administration insists that Hamid Karzai – and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin for that matter – are legitimate rulers because the President wants to work with them?

And finally, one the administration gets almost right.

7. "Israel's main goal is to preserve Azerbaijan as an ally against Iran, a platform for reconnaissance of that country and as a market for military hardware." Israel's main goal is delaying or ending Iran's march toward nuclear weapons capability. But when a small country finds itself snubbed, denigrated and sniffed at by the one country that should share its goals for a variety of philosophical, historical, governmental and military reasons, it needs to find other allies. Azerbaijan – and Greece and Cyprus, among others – shares Israel's fundamental concerns about Iran. Why does the administration find this both problematic and worthy of contempt?

The next time the President or the Secretary of State laud Israel as a friend, an ally and a partner, it is worth considering the conclusion of longtime Israeli defense analyst Ron Ben-Yishai:

In recent weeks the administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel's public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran… The campaign's aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what's even graver, to erode the IDF's capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.

Yes, it is possible that the U.S. is playing "good cop/bad cop" with Israel, but what kind of ally does that?

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.gatestoneinstitute.org/2986/targeted-assassination

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

Jihad in France Just Beginning

by Guy Millière

The Obin Report showed a deep infiltration by radical Islam into the vast majority of French schools and a vitriolic hatred for Jews. What the Report showed was so alarming that the text was not initially disclosed. Nobody dares to say that more than thirty mosques all over the country broadcast incendiary remarks that have « nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, » and that the same remarks are received daily on television by tens of thousands of Muslims in France through the Arabic version of Al Jazeera.

The Congress of the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (UOIF) will take place in the city of Le Bourget, near Paris, from April 6-9. Over 100,000 participants are expected. Six anti-Semitic Islamic preachers who were invited to speak were denied entry into France. Other anti-Semitic Islamic preachers will speak anyway ; they are French, they cannot be expelled. They will not be condemned. The French government knows that if it condemned them, it might be confronted by riots in many suburbs. Every year, openly anti-Semitic books are on sale at the Congress of the UOIF, among them the fabricated « Protocols of the Elders of Zion. » This year will be no different.

Several radical Islamist organizations openly advocate -- without interference -- jihad on French territory. One of them, Forsane Alizza (Pride Riders), was banned by the French government at the end of February : it had started to form fighters on French soil. Although officially the organization disappeared, its members are still active. Eighteen of them were arrested on March 30 ; they will probably soon be released.

Also, as it is now widely known, on March 19, a man entered a Jewish school, Ozar Hatora, in Toulouse, France, where he killed a rabbi, his two children, then an eight years old little girl by shooting her three times in the head after dragging her by the hair to place her in front of the camera he was carrying. These were the worst anti-Semitic acts committed on French soil since the three-week kidnapping, torture and murder of Ilan Halimi in February 2006.

After the murders in Toulouse, like commentators and so many other people, the police initially followed the trail of the « extreme right. » A mobilization across the country was to be expected. The mobilization started quickly.

It was soon revealed that the killer who had just shot four Jews was the same man who had murdered three French soldiers, including two Muslims, the week before. All the commentators ferociously incriminated the « far right.» Anti-racist associations issued statements denouncing « fascist barbarity raising its ugly head again ».

It then emerged that the man was a French Muslim who had traveled to the mountains of Afghanistan in to train for jihad, Islamic holy war. The police found him, and shot him to death after a rough gunfight.

The mobilization ceased as rapidly as it had begun. Commentators no longer spoke of anti-Semitism. Anti-racist associations became silent. All attention focused on the killer, Mohamed Merah. He was presented as a « nice young man » by his neighbors, then as a « petty criminal » who inexplicably drifted, and finally as a « lone wolf » without any connection with terrorist movements.

It was gradually revealed that his older brother, Abdelkader, now in prison, had links with Islamists in Belgium and the United Kingdom, and organized networks helping young French Muslims join jihadi organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It appeared that the killer, Mohamed Merah had been imprisoned in Afghanistan for planting bombs in Kandahar, and had been placed on the list of dangerous people to be monitored closely by the security services of the United States.

It also appeared that he was under the supervision of the French Department of the Interior, a circumstance that did not prevent him from obtaining an impressive arsenal, and killing several times without arousing immediate suspicions.

More information will emerge. The French mainstream media will reveal it, with obvious reluctance. Every time journalists speak or write about the case, they constantly point out that Mohamed Merah is « not really a Muslim, » and that no one should forget that Islam is a « religion of peace ».

Anti-racist associations have broken their silence and call for vigilance against « racism » in general, and against the risk of « divisions ».

Nicolas Sarkozy has promised sanctions against French youths who go train in jihadi camps and those who visit websites praising jihad. Consequently, Sarkozy was immediately described by almost all other political leaders as a dangerous man.

Graffiti praising Merah on the wall of a French house: "You were a valiant Knight of Islam! You fought the shit zionist and the false muslims. You died guns in hand... I salute you Mohamed my brother, my friend... Rest in peace !"

The worst anti-Semitic crime committed on French soil for decades is no longer described as an anti-Semitic crime by anyone, except Jews, and even Jews choose their words carefully. Now the Jewish school that was attacked as well as other Jewish schools in France are receiving threatening emails, according to Agence France-Presse, Jewish cemeteries are being vandalized in Paris and Nice, and graffiti praising Merah has been appearing over the walls of homes.The assassin has justified his act by invoking the « suffering of Gaza's children, » a suffering described by a growing number of journalists as a « mitigating circumstance ». When Richard Prasquier, president of CRIF (Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France) wanted to say during a newscast that media should cease showing distorted images inciting hatred of Israel, the anchor immediately stopped him, saying, « This is a moment of meditation, not controversy. »

The point that the murderer is a young French Muslim who turned to radical Islam and killed Jewish children only because they were Jewish is no longer evoked. The only risk mentioned constantly on television, in newspapers, and in most political discourse is that fear could push people to « stigmatize Muslims, » who run « the risk of being discriminated against.» « The killer, » said Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, « has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. »

Nobody dares to say that dozens of young French Muslims go every year to jihadi training camps and follow exactly the same course as Mohamed Merah. How many of them are likely to act at one time or another?

Nobody dares to say that more than thirty mosques all over the country broadcast incendiary remarks which, according to Boubakeur, have « nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, » and that the same remarks are received daily on television by tens of thousands of Muslims in France through the Arabic version of Al Jazeera. How many Muslims are being indoctrinated with the same ideas as Mohamed Merah and will start to share his hatred of Jews and the West?

According to the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism (BNVCA), nearly four hundred physical attacks against Jews occurred in France in 2011 -- more than one a day. Moreover, Sammy Ghozlan, President of BNVCA, states that the number of attacks that have not been the subject of legal complaints is much higher.

All the attacks recorded by BNVCA were committed by Muslims. Not one was due to a member of a far-right movement. French laws forbid publicly declaring who exactly assaults Jews on French soil; those who do risk heavy fines and prosecution.

In 2004, the government commissioned a report, called the Obin Report, on « the Signs and Manifestations of Religious Affiliation in Educational Establishments. » The Obin Report showed a deep infiltration by radical Islam into the vast majority of French schools, and a vitriolic hatred for Jews. What it described was so alarming that the text was not initially disclosed. As nothing was done to protest what the report showed, one can deduce that eight years later, the situation has not improved. Jewish families withdraw their children from public schools to place them in Jewish private schools, where they become potential targets of Islamic extremists. Each year, however, two thousand Jews leave France to settle in Israel, sometimes in Canada or the United States.

Jews in France number five hundred thousand, and that number is decreasing. Muslims total more than six million, and for the most part, they are French citizens who exercise their voting rights.

The question is not whether there will be another anti-Semitic murder in France, but rather, When? Jihad in France is just beginning.

Guy Millière

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2985/jihad-in-france

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

Italy: "Mosques Springing Up like Mushrooms"

by Soeren Kern

Donors are using alternative channels to ensure that their donations escape the control of the regular financial system.

More than 250 mosques across Italy have reached an agreement to create a new umbrella organization, the Italian Islamic Confederation (CII).

The CII will be controlled by Morocco, and will compete with an existing Muslim umbrella organization, the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII).

The UCOII, which is estimated to control 60% of the mosques in Italy, is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since its founding in 1990, the UCOII has used its virtual monopoly over the mosques in Italy to spread its Islamist ideology over the 1.5 million Muslims in the country. The UCOII has also worked to become the main interlocutor between the Muslim community and the Italian state.

But the Italian government has ruled out reaching an agreement with the UCOII because of its links to the Muslim Brotherhood. "There can be no accords with those like the UCOII, who de facto deny the existence of the state of Israel and hold ambiguous positions on terrorism at the national and local level," according to Andrea Ronchi, Italy's former Minister for Community Policy.

After it came to light that the majority of the mosques in Italy are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni called for a moratorium on the building of new mosques until a new national law could be written to regulate the phenomenon.

According to Manes Bernardini, a politician with the Northern League in Bologna, "Mosques are springing up like mushrooms, and mayors can do nothing about it because there is no national law to regulate the proliferation of these structures."

In this context, the creation of the CII on March 22 is an attempt by the Moroccan government to establish a new Muslim umbrella organization that would represent a more "moderate" face of Islam vis-à-vis the Italian government.

CII's founding document states that it "respects the holiness of life" and "rejects every form of violence." The document also says the CII "respects the principles of moderation, tolerance and respect towards others," and will "promote and defend the rights of Muslim women in Italy."

The primary motive behind the creation of the CII, which is being run by a Moroccan named Fihri Wahid, appears to be an effort to persuade the Italian government to approve and subsidize the construction of more mosques in the country. CII's founding document states: "Creating the best conditions in order to guarantee dignity and freedom of worship, underlining the importance that places of worship reflect the creative genius and the splendor of Italian culture towards the prospect of integration and dialogue with the other religions present in the country."

According to Hassan Abouyoub, the Moroccan Ambassador to Italy, the establishment of the CII is "an historic achievement. It will finally allow the Muslim population in Italy to have a new voice." Abouyoub added: "The mosques which are taking part in this new confederation are only of the Maliki tradition, which respect a moderate Islam."

The Maliki tradition refers to a school of Islamic Sharia law that is practiced in Morocco and other parts of North Africa. In fact, the "moderate" Maliki school of Islam is the official state religion in Morocco, where Christians are frequently harassed and often expelled from the country without due process, allegedly for proselytizing.

With the creation of the CII, Morocco is attempting to export to Italy a religious control strategy that is working very well in neighboring Spain, where the Moroccan government has been using an umbrella organization called the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities (FEERI), to exert control over the religious and cultural beliefs and practices of the nearly one million Moroccan immigrants who reside in Spain.

According to a leaked secret report prepared by Spain's National Intelligence Center (CNI), excerpts of which have been published by the Madrid-based El País newspaper, the Moroccan government is aggressively implementing "a strategy of great magnitude" that involves establishing a parallel Muslim society in Spain by discouraging Moroccans from integrating into their host country, and by encouraging them instead to live an Islamic lifestyle isolated from Spanish society.

The document also states that Rabat is financing the construction of hundreds of mosques in Spain whose imams are directly appointed by the Moroccan government. Moreover, the North African country is attempting to impose Muslim religious instruction in Spanish public schools, and is pressuring Moroccan families to remove their children from those schools that fail to comply.

A separate CNI report about financing Jihad in Spain provides other examples of how the Moroccan government is using Islam for political ends. For example, in November 2008, "the Moroccan Minister of Islamic Affairs organized and paid for a meeting in Marrakesh which was attended by a considerable number of imams and leaders of the Islamic communities in Spain," according to the CNI.

At that meeting, the Moroccan government promised "financing for all religious associations and mosques that are prepared to submit to the control of the [Moroccan] regime and to adhere to its instructions." The keynote speaker at the meeting was Mohamed Yassine Mansouri, head of the Moroccan Secret Service (DGED).

The CNI report also states: "The financing is having negative consequences for [multicultural] coexistence in Spain, such as the emergence of parallel societies and ghettos, Islamic courts and police that operate outside of Spanish jurisprudence, removing girls from schools, forced marriages, etc."

It continues: "There is insufficient control of financial flows involving grants and aid from other countries that are being funneled to the Islamic community in Spain. For the most part donors are using alternative channels to ensure that their donations escape the control of the regular Spanish financial system. Donors should be made fully aware of the risks associated with such financing."

Morocco also co-sponsored a weeklong seminar in Barcelona entitled "Muslims and European Values," during which it was proposed that the construction of big mosques would be "a useful formula" to fight Islamic fundamentalism in Spain.

A keynote speaker at the event, a Barcelona-based Moroccan imam named Noureddine Ziani, said it is absolutely necessary to accept Islamic values as European values and that from now on, Europeans should replace the term "Judeo-Christian" with term "Islamo-Christian" when describing Western Civilization.

Back in Italy, there are now an estimated 500 mosques in the country, in addition to thousands of informal Islamic prayer centers and Koranic schools, most of which are housed in basements, garages and warehouses.

Many of the mosque projects in Italy are being promoted by leftwing politicians, who are waging an ideological war with the Roman Catholic Church. As in many other European countries, multiculturalists in Italy hope that by promoting Islam, they will eventually succeed in destroying the country's Judeo-Christian heritage.

Now, with the creation of the CII, Italy may be one step closer to hosting yet another mosque, this time in the northern Italian city of Bologna.

Not coincidentally, Fihri Wahid, the new president of the CII, comes from the Moroccan community in Bologna, where the mayor postponed the construction of a mega-mosque (described as a "massive 6,000 square meter mosque inside a 52,000 square meter Islamic citadel" after it emerged that it was being financed by the UCOII.

Evidently, the Moroccans are hoping they can get permission to build the mega-mosque if it is sponsored by the new, more "moderate" CII.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2984/italy-mosques

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

Jihadist Infiltration

by David Meir-Levi

Judging from the progress that anti-Israel “Lawfare” and pro-Shari’a movements have made in advancing the “Palestinian Cause” and Shari’a compliant programs in a distressingly vast array of our society’s institutions over the past decade, one must conclude that the Muslim jihadist forces working to infiltrate our society are winning.

The most obvious peril arises from terrorist infiltration. Terrorists identified as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iranian agents continue to enter our country via Mexico as illegal immigrants. Yet, almost a decade ago the present writer and others published analyses of the danger posed to our country’s security by such infiltration. If these agents were not bent on doing us harm, they could easily enter our country via normal ports of entry. The fact that they disguise themselves as Mexicans and try to sneak past our border guards is a very good indication that they are here on jihadist missions and know that if they were to try to enter the USA via normal channels, they would be identified as wanted terrorists. Once in the USA, they easily disappear into the American Muslim community, undocumented, untraceable, invisible and unstoppable.

The problem on our southern border has grown only worse since then, with continued jihadist entry via Mexico and the new alliance between Iran and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. The Iran-Venezuela connection and Iran’s quest for deployable WMDs create the threat of a nuclear armed Venezuela under Iranian influence holding the USA hostage with nuclear-armed missiles having in their cross-hairs all of the southern USA from San Diego to Sarasota.

Expert witnesses reporting to congress have indicated that Iran has active agents, both Hezbollah and Iranian government operatives, in the USA: sleeper cells awaiting orders while conducting surveillance in preparation for future attacks. While some pundits are convinced that Iran does not plan to attack the USA on its home front, the operative word that they ignore is “yet.” Iran has successfully laid the groundwork for future terrorism inside the USA with Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist agents primed, ready and invisible.

Less obvious, but no less perilous, is the quiet, gradual and peaceful infiltration of Muslim operatives and their supporters into our social, legal, educational and political systems under the guise of legitimate democratic activism in the form of the Divestment movement, the BDS movement, the “One-State Solution” proponents, lawyers implementing “Lawfare,” those who seek to legitimize Sharia law, and a host of socio-political organizations including “Jewish Voice for Peace” and other “Peace and Justice for Palestine” groups.

The Divestment movement, which sought to pressure institutions (mostly churches and universities) to divest their retirement funds from companies doing business with or in Israel, began more than twenty years ago and soon became a nation-wide phenomenon gaining support and followers in churches, on campuses, and in a variety of other institutions holding substantial retirement funds. While few assets were actually divested, the real purpose of the movement was achieved: create a new podium from which to demonize Israel and by means of which to grab public attention and mainstream media coverage. Over time interest in divestment waned, and presenters found themselves preaching to the choir. So the movement morphed into” BDS,” boycotts, divestment, sanctions. By including calls for boycott and sanctions, the proponents of this movement created a wider panoply of audiences, since boycotts and sanctions do not need investment funds that can be divested. And as was the case with the divestment movement, the BDS movement cut a swath through college campuses enjoying large audiences on accommodating campuses with little opposition. Later, as audience interest diminished and presenters found themselves again preaching to the choir, the forces waging the campus war against Israel re-organized to create the newest front, the “One-State Solution” movement. Starting at the top, “One-State Solution” conferences were recently held at the University of Pennsylvania and at Harvard University, schools of international repute whose status lent credence and legitimacy to this new venue for Israel-bashing. None of this could have happened were there not already on campuses a cadre of willing enablers, student and faculty activists and complicit or complacent administrative leadership, who energetically support these anti-Israel and anti-Jewish efforts.

The advance of Shari’a law displays a similar trajectory. From modest beginnings in the USA and Canada as local Muslims petitioned to have family disputes adjudicated by a Muslim religious court, Shari’a law and Shari’a finance have now become institutionalized. Thanks to Justice Elena Kagan and Professor Noah Feldman at Harvard, and other promoters of Shari’a as an alternative form of jurisprudence compatible with American secular law, we are witness to a gradually growing number of states accommodating the institutionalization of Shari’a courts into American legal venues; and we see the struggle of Shari’a supporters to prevent or overturn state-sponsored regulations that would exclude Shari’a from American law. Facilitating this struggle to give Shari’a credence, legitimacy, and legal valence are a host of lay folk, cheer leaders for Shari’a, including some rabbis, encouraging our legislators to grant Shari’a legal status in America. The dire and existential peril that Shari’a poses to women and Jews, to all Americans, to America, and to Western Civilizations has been adumbrated elsewhere. Suffice it to say here that much of Shari’a legislation is diametrically opposed to our society’s cornerstone freedoms and to our fundamental concept of all citizens’ equality before the law.

The “Lawfare” movement presents another new front in the infiltration of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and anti-American forces into our legal system. The present writer attended the conference in San Francisco in 2010 where academics and lawyers enumerated the ways and means whereby American courts could be turned into staging grounds for anti-Israel lawsuits which could later be used as precedents for future legal battles against Israel, Israelis, and any legal or natural persons supporting Israel. Then it is only one step from legal decisions to legislation.

The proliferation of the organizations such as the “Jewish Voice for Peace” and numerous other groups claiming to be “for peace and justice in Palestine” on campuses, churches, world-wide Christian organizations, and on the grass-roots level of local communities, is another form of infiltration. Almost without exception, these groups promote the Arab side of the Israel-Arab conflict, ignore the reality of Israel’s need for defense against vicious genocidal terrorism, and act as mouthpieces for Arab anti-Israel propaganda. Rank and file membership may be dominated by benighted do-gooders whom Lenin would have classified as “useful idiot,” but leaders and funders know that the real purpose of these groups is to create an almost limitless supply of new venues for Israel-bashing and for the dissemination of Arab lies about Israel and the “Palestinians.”

All of the above are aggressively agitating in the here-and-now to convince us that Israel is evil and the “poor Palestinians” are victims of that evil. But there is also the long-range battle for American hearts and minds. From Harvard to high schools our education system has become the target of Arab revisionism. Decades of Arab oil money pouring into our universities and colleges is now well documented. That oil money’s influence goes well beyond the university classroom. Saudi and other Arab largesse has targeted universities with Title VI federal funding, funding which supports university outreach programs that teach our children about the beauties and blessings of Islam.

A Saudi-owned publishing house in New Mexico churns out curriculum supplements which are aggressively marketed to public and private school teachers from kindergarten to college. Using a well-honed strategy of deceit and tactic of serial lying, this mendacious material not only demonizes Israel but also whitewashes Muslim history by purging it of its jihadist imperialism, and exonerates Islam by ignoring the religious and gender apartheid inherent in its doctrine of Muslim and male supremacy.

Once the invasions and conquests and murders and massacres and genocides of 1,400 years of Muslim jihad are magically retold as nothing more than a gentle religious revivalism; and 1,400 years of religious repression and discrimination are recast with literary sleight of hand as a Golden Age of religious tolerance; then our younger generations can be convinced that the current Muslim war against Israel and Western Civilization is really justified self-defense against evil Zionist land theft and brutal western imperialism.

This year’s sophomore is next year’s Senator.

If we do not stop this tsunami of infiltration, we will lose this war.

David Meir-Levi

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/02/jihadist-infiltration-they-are-winning/

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