Iran’s Plans to Take Over Syria

by Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira

• In mid-April, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah paid a secret visit to Tehran where he met with the top Iranian officials headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Gen. Qasem Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Suleimani prepared an operational plan named after him based upon the establishment of a 150,000-man force for Syria, the majority of whom will come from Iran, Iraq, and a smaller number from Hizbullah and the Gulf states.

• Suleimani’s involvement was significant. He has been the spearhead of Iranian military activism in the Middle East. In January 2012, he declared that the Islamic Republic controlled “one way or another” Iraq and South Lebanon. Even before recent events in Syria, observers in the Arab world have been warning for years about growing evidence of “Iranian expansionism.”

• An important expression of Syria’s centrality in Iranian strategy was voiced by Mehdi Taaib, who heads Khamenei’s think tank. He recently stated that “Syria is the 35^th district of Iran and it has greater strategic importance for Iran than Khuzestan [an Arab-populated district inside Iran].” Significantly, Taaib was drawing a comparison between Syria and a district that is under full Iranian sovereignty.

• Tehran has had political ambitions with respect to Syria for years and has indeed invested huge resources in making Syria a Shiite state. The Syrian regime let Iranian missionaries work freely to strengthen the Shiite faith in Damascus and the cities of the Alawite coast, as well as the smaller towns and villages. In both urban and rural parts of Syria, Sunnis and others who adopted the Shiite faith received privileges and preferential treatment in the disbursement of Iranian aid money.

• Iran is also recruiting Shiite forces in Iraq for the warfare in Syria. These are organized in a sister framework of Lebanese Hizbullah. Known as the League of the Righteous People and Kateeb Hizbullah, its mission is to defend the Shiite centers in Damascus. It is likely that Tehran will make every effort to recruit additional Shiite elements from Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and even from Pakistan.

Iran Cannot Afford to Lose Syria

In mid-April, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah paid a secret visit to Tehran where he met with the top Iranian officials headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the commander of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, Gen. Qasem Suleimani, who is in charge of Iranian policy in Lebanon and Syria. The visit was clandestine and no details were divulged on an official level – except for the exclusive posting on Hizbullah’s official website of a photograph of Khamenei with Nasrallah beside him in the former’s private library, with a picture of Ayatollah Khomeini above them.¹

Suleimani’s involvement in the meeting with Nasrallah was significant. He has been the spearhead of Iranian military activism in the Middle East. In January 2012, he declared that the Islamic Republic controlled “one way or another” Iraq and South Lebanon.² He now appeared to be prepared to extend Iran’s control to all of Syria.

A media source normally hostile to Iran and Hizbullah but which nonetheless contains accurate information, reported that Iran has formulated an operational plan for assisting Syria. The plan has been named for Gen. Suleimani. It includes three elements: 1) the establishment of a popular sectarian army made up of Shiites and Alawites, to be backed by forces from Iran, Iraq, Hizbullah, and symbolic contingents from the Persian Gulf. 2) This force will reach 150,000 fighters. 3) The plan will give preference to importing forces from Iran, Iraq, and, only afterwards, other Shiite elements. This regional force will be integrated with the Syrian army. Suleimani, himself, visited Syria in late February-early March to prepare the implementation of this plan.³

In the past, senior Iranian officers, like Major General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards who is an adviser to Khamenei, have said that Lebanon and Syria gave Iran “strategic depth.”⁴ Now it appears that Tehran is taking this a step further, preparing for a “Plan B” in the event Assad falls.

Nasrallah rarely makes such trips. The last time he went on a visit outside Lebanon was in February 2010 when he met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nasrallah has taken great care not to appear in public since the Second Lebanon War in 2006, and even more so since the assassination of the head of Hizbullah’s military wing, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus in February 2008. Even in Iran itself Nasrallah maintained total secrecy for fear of becoming an assassination target there. After the visit, he gave a speech in Lebanon on April 30, but did not say anything about his visit to Iran. He did remark that Syria “has real friends” that wouldn’t let it fall, implying that, if necessary, he would redouble his efforts to defend Iranian interests, which has always been one of the missions of Hizbullah.

It appears that Hizbullah’s ongoing involvement in Syria, and the extent of this involvement, formed the main issue on the agenda during Nasrallah’s visit to Tehran. The more time passes, the more Iran appears to regard Syria as a lynchpin of its Middle Eastern policy, in general, and of leading the jihad and the Islamic resistance to Israel, in particular. Hizbullah’s inclusion in the armed struggle in Syria is intended first and foremost to serve the Iranian strategy, which has been setting new goals apart from military assistance to the Syrian regime. Iran already seems to be looking beyond the regime’s survivability and preparing for a reality where it will have to operate in Syria even if Assad falls. Even before recent events in Syria, observers in the Arab world have been warning for years about growing evidence of “Iranian expansionism.”⁵

An important expression of Syria’s centrality in Iranian strategy was voiced by Mehdi Taaib, who heads Khamenei’s think tank. He recently stated that “Syria is the 35^th district of Iran and it has greater strategic importance for Iran than Khuzestan [an Arab-populated district inside Iran]. By preserving Syria we will be able to get back Khuzestan, but if we lose Syria we will not even be able to keep Tehran.”⁶ Significantly, Taaib was drawing a comparison between Syria and a district that is under full Iranian sovereignty. What was also clear from his remarks was that Iran cannot afford to lose Syria.

Syria as a Shiite State

All in all, then, Iran will have to step up its military involvement in Syria. Khamenei’s representative in Lebanon will have to take part in building the new strategy in Syria, acting in tandem with Iran against the Sunni Islamic groups that threaten Iran’s interests in Syria.

Tehran has had political ambitions with respect to Syria for years and has indeed invested huge resources in making Syria a Shiite state. The process began during the rule of Hafez Assad when a far-reaching network was created of educational, cultural, and religious institutions throughout Syria; it was further expanded during Bashar’s reign. The aim was to promote the Shiization of all regions of the Syrian state. The Syrian regime let Iranian missionaries work freely to strengthen the Shiite faith in Damascus and the cities of the Alawite coast, as well as the smaller towns and villages.⁷ A field study by the European Union in the first half of 2006 found that the largest percentage of religious conversions to Shiism occurred in areas with an Alawite majority.⁸

In both urban and rural parts of Syria, Sunnis and others who adopted the Shiite faith received privileges and preferential treatment in the disbursement of Iranian aid money. The heads of the tribes in the Raqqa area were invited by the Iranian ambassador in Damascus to visit Iran cost-free, and the Iranians doled out funds to the poor and financial loans to merchants who were never required to pay them back..⁹ The dimensions of the Iranian investment in Raqqa, which included elegant public buildings, mosques, and Husayniyys (a Shiite religious institute), were recently revealed by Sunni rebels who took over the remote town and destroyed, plundered, and removed all signs of the Iranian and Shiite presence there.¹⁰

As of 2009 there were over 500 Husayniyys in Syria undergoing Iranian renovation work. In Damascus itself the Iranians invested huge sums to control the Shiite holy places including the tomb of Sayyida Zaynab, the shrine of Sayyida Ruqayya, and the shrine of Sayyida Sukayna. These sites attract Iranian tourism, which grew from 27,000 visitors in 1978 to 200,000 in 2003.

Iran also operates a cultural center in Damascus that it considers one of its most important and successful. This center publishes works in Arabic, holds biweekly cultural events, and conducts seminars and conferences aimed at enhancing the Iranian cultural influence in the country. The Iranian cultural center is also responsible for the propagation and study of the Persian language in Syrian universities, including providing teachers of Persian.¹¹

Iran’s Sponsorship of Shiite Forces in Syria

At present, bloody battles are being waged over the centers of Iranian influence in Syria, most of all the mausoleum of Sayyida Zaynab – sister of the Imam Husayn – who in 680 carried his severed head to Damascus after the massacre at Karbala. In Iranian historiography, the great victory over the Sunnis is marked in Damascus in the form of a Shiite renaissance in the capital of the hated Umayyad Empire. The Sunnis, however, are now threatening these Iranian achievements. Hizbullah has been recruited to the cause, with hundreds of its fighters coming to Syria from Lebanon. These fighters try to downplay their Hizbullah affiliation and instead identify themselves as the Abu El Fadl Alabbas Brigade, named after the half-brother of the Imam Husayn.

Iran is also recruiting Shiite forces in Iraq for the warfare in Syria. These are organized in a sister framework of Lebanese Hizbullah. Known as the League of the Righteous People and Kateeb Hizbullah, its mission is to defend the Shiite centers in Damascus.¹² Hizbullah fighters are also operating in other areas, some of them beyond the Lebanese border in the Shiite villages in Syrian territory on the way to Homs, thereby creating a sort of territorial continuity for ongoing Alawite control under Iranian influence. This continuity is strategically important to Iran since it links Lebanon and Damascus to the Alawite coast.¹³ Iran aims to have a network of militias in place inside Syria to protect its vital interests, regardless of what happens to Assad.¹⁴

The war in Syria persists with no decisive outcome on the horizon. Hizbullah’s battle losses are growing. Subhi Tufayli, the first head of Hizbullah who was dismissed from its leadership by Iran at the start of the 1990s, has been one of the prominent critics of Hizbullah’s involvement in Syria. Tufayli claimed that 138 Hizbullah fighters had been killed there along with scores of wounded who were brought to hospitals in Lebanon. ¹⁵ Ceremonies for burial of the dead are frequently held clandestinely, sometimes at night, so as to avoid anger and resentment. These casualties, however, did not disappear from sight, and the families have raised harsh questions about such unnecessary sacrifice that is not in the sacred framework of jihad against Israel, which is Hizbullah’s raison d’être.
Tufayli, for his part, asserted that Hizbullah fighters who are killed in battle in Syria “are not martyrs” and “will go to hell.” Syria, he remarked, “is not Karbala” and the Hizbullah men in Syria “are not fighters of the Imam [Husayn]. The oppressed and innocent Syrian people is Karbala and the members of the Syrian people are the children of Husayn and Zaynab.” Tufayli went on to say that he “lauds the fathers and mothers who prevent their children from going to Syria and says to them that God’s blessing is with them.” Tufayli further pointed out that, legally speaking, no fatwa has been issued that permits Hizbullah’s participation in the war in Syria. He said he had appealed to the supreme religious authority – the sources of emulation (Maraji Taqlid) in Najaf and in Lebanon – not to issue such a fatwa.¹⁶

In the Lebanese Shiite community, Tufayli is not alone in leveling severe criticism at Hizbullah’s role as an arm of Iran in Syria. Voices within Hizbullah itself are increasingly casting doubt on the wisdom of involving the movement on Bashar Assad’s side. Others refuse to go and fight in Syria, and there have already been desertions from Hizbullah’s ranks. So far, though, it does not appear that all this is deterring Hizbullah from persisting. At the end of the day, Hizbullah is not a Lebanese national movement but a creation of Iran and subject to its exclusive authority. Nasrallah was summoned to Tehran so as to encourage him and order him to continue as a faithful and obedient soldier of Velayt-e Faqih (literally: the Rule of the Jurisprudent, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).

It is likely that Tehran will make every effort to recruit additional Shiite elements from Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and even from Pakistan. For the Islamic Republic, this is a war of survival against a radical Sunni uprising that views Iran and the Shiites as infidels to be annihilated. This is the real war being waged today, and it is within Islam. From Iran’s standpoint, if the extreme Sunnis of the al-Qaeda persuasion are not defeated in Syria, they will assert themselves in Iraq and threaten to take over the Persian Gulf, posing a real danger to Iran’s regional hegemony. Khamenei does not intend to give in. Hizbullah’s readiness to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with Iran against the radical Sunnis could shatter the delicate internal order upon which the Lebanese state is based and bring about a Hizbullah take-over of Lebanon in its entirety.

*     *     *

Notes

1. On the picture and its significance, see Ali al-Amin, Al-Balad, April 23, 2013, http://www.alahednews.com.lb/essaydetails.php?eid=74383&cid=76.
2. “Chief of Iran’s Quds Force Claims Iraq, South Lebanon under His Control, Al Arabiya News, January 20, 2012, http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/20/189447.html.
3. A-Shiraa, March 15, 2013.
4. Nevvine Abdel Monem Mossad, “Implication of Iran Accepting Military Role in Syria, Lebanon,” The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, October 7, 2012.
5. Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, “Iran and Its Expansionist Tendencies,” Arab News, February 6, 2013, http://www.arabnews.com/iran-and-its-expansionist-tendencies; “US Embassy Cables: Omani Official Wary of Iranian Expansionism,” The Guardian, November 28, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/165127.
6. Ali-al-Amin, Al-Balad, February 17, 2013.
7. On the Shiization of Syria, see Khalid Sindawi, “The Shiite Turn in Syria,” Hudson Institute, Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, vol. 8, 82-127, http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-shiite-turn-in-syria.
8. Ibid., 84.
9. Ibid., 89-90.
10. Martin Kramer, “The Shiite Crescent Eclipsed,” April 16, 2013, http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2013/04/the-shiite-crescent-is-broken.
11. Nadia von Maltzahn, “The Case of Iranian Cultural Diplomacy in Syria,” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 2 (2009): 33-50.
12. Rabbiah Jamal, “Iraq’s Kateeb Hezbollah announces involvement in Syria,” Now Lebanon, April 7, 2013.
13. See the excellent article by Hanin Ghadder, “Hezbollah sacrifices popularity for survival: In Syria, The Party of God is struggling for an un-divine victory,” Now Lebanon, April 10, 2013.
14. Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick, “Iran and Hezbollah Build Militia Networks in Syria in Event that Assad Falls, Officials Say,” The Washington Post, February 10, 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-10/world/37026054_1_syrian-government-forces-iran-and-hezbollah-president-bashar.
15. www.metransparent.com, April 25, 2013.
16. Subhi Tufayli, interview, Al Arabiya, February 26, 2013.

Publication: Jerusalem Issue Briefs

Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira

Source: http://jcpa.org/article/irans-plans-to-take-over-syria/

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

A Death Cult’s Endgame Unveiled

by Ari Lieberman


 

In November 2009 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a 10-month halt to settlement construction in Judea & Samaria (West Bank) in a futile bid to jumpstart the so-called “peace process.” Instead of embracing Netanyahu’s bold peace initiative, the Palestinian Authority’s Holocaust-denying strongman, Mahmoud Abbas, waited nine months before responding to the Israeli gesture, ensuring that there would be virtually no time for substantive progress. Abbas, who had made the settlement issue the cornerstone of his rejectionist antics, had single-handedly torpedoed any viable prospect for meaningful negotiations.

But President Obama’s recent trip to Israel has underscored the fact that the President, once sympathetic with the Palestinian position, has grown impatient with Abbas’s intransigence, calling for the parties to enter into negotiations without pre-conditions. Rather than accepting the President’s challenge, Abbas added yet more sets of pre-conditions demanding that Israel release maps detailing future borders and the extent of territorial concessions. Essentially, Abbas was asking Israel to lay all its cards on the table before commencing talks, effectively foreclosing any possibility of good-faith negotiations.

It is no secret that the Palestinian Authority is not a viable entity. Most of its budget is derived from outside funding, primarily from Western sources. Its workforce is largely comprised of civil servants and “policemen” who are on the Palestinian Authority’s payroll. The situation in Gaza is even more dire, with more than half its population receiving some form of assistance from the United Nations Relief Works Agency. Fed on a steady diet of hate and banal Islamist propaganda, and with little entrepreneurial spirit, the Palestinian entity has been transformed into a welfare state, relying on handouts for its survival.

These sad statistics of course raise the question: why would Abbas go to extraordinary lengths to sabotage a negotiated settlement by imposing nonsensical preconditions when his Palestinian Authority is in such a decrepit state? A negotiated settlement and the economic dividends that invariably result from regional stability would only serve to enhance the Palestinian economy by spurring foreign investment and joint regional projects.

To answer this vexing question, one need look no further than statements made by various Palestinian law makers and Fatah central committee members – generally in Arabic to sympathetic audiences – that provide keen insight on the Palestinian endgame.

Palestinian duplicity was first revealed in May 1994 in a Johannesburg mosque just eight months after Yasser Arafat publicly committed himself to recognition of Israel and a two-state solution. Believing he was off the record, Arafat delivered a sermon whereby he compared his recently signed accords with Israel to those that Muhammad signed with the Quraish tribe in 628 in Hijaz. Muhammad’s treaty with the Quraish was tactical, aimed at delaying conflict until achieving military parity. Once attaining that goal, he broke the treaty and liquidated the Quraish. Recognizing that Israel was too powerful to overcome in one go, Arafat opted for the strategy of staged conquest. To Arafat, the concept of peace was and had always been a tactical maneuver designed to overcome his infidel enemy in phases.

Following Arafat’s death in 2004, hopes were pinned on his successor, Mahmoud Abbas. Dressed in Western-style clothing and somewhat more demurred than his predecessor, Abbas appeared, at least outwardly, to be a moderate. But the expectations were short-lived. While Abbas dampened the rhetoric, so as not to alienate the West, his tone remained frighteningly similar to Arafat’s.

On October 23, 2011 Abbas flatly stated that he would, “never recognize the Jewishness of the State [of Israel].” On January 4, 2013 Abbas expressed open admiration for the notorious Nazi collaborator Haj Amin Al-Husseini. Similar approbation was heaped upon PLO founder Ahmad Shukeiri, the man who, just days prior to the Six Day War, infamously stated, “We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them.”

Palestinian TV routinely venerates terrorists responsible for committing the most barbaric atrocities. And so-called “moderate” Palestinian lawmakers, like Hanan Ashrawi, allow their Western-backed online publications to perpetuate ancient blood libels (in Arabic of course) that accuse Jews of using “Christian blood” during Passover.

But the duplicitous nature of the Palestinian stratagem comes to sharper focus with comments made by Fatah Central Committee member, Abbas Zaki. In one of the most damning admissions ever by any ranking Fatah member concerning the Palestinian strategy of phased conquest, Zaki stated: “Everybody knows that the greater goal [of conquering Israel] cannot be accomplished in one go.” Noting that the “greater goal” would be impossible initially, and that revealing it would not be prudent, Zaki continued, “If we say that we want to wipe Israel out… C’mon, it’s too difficult. It’s not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don’t say these things to the world,” he warned. “Keep it to yourself.”

The Palestinian Authority by word and deed has created a toxic environment conducive to perpetuating conflict rather than solving it peaceably. While some Palestinians, notably Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, may have shifted tactics by incorporating obfuscation and double-speak to fool gullible Westerners, their ultimate, genocidal goal of eradicating Israel and throwing the Jews into the sea has changed little since 1947.


Ari Lieberman

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ari-lieberman/the-palestinian-endgame-exposed/

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

The Fear of an Israeli Referendum

by Rick Richman


In his post supporting a referendum on any Palestinian peace agreement (“Democracy is Not an Obstacle to Peace”), Jonathan Tobin asked why peace processors would possibly fear a referendum:

“It is true that if a peace agreement were to be submitted to a vote, that would raise the possibility that Israel’s voters would reject it. But if a deal was truly in Israel’s best interests, what exactly are advocates of a two-state solution worried about?”

It’s a good question. Let me try to address it – because the answer is probably something other than a fear that the referendum might fail.


To appreciate the real answer, it is useful to review the reason a referendum was rejected in 2005, when Ariel Sharon proposed his disengagement plan, left the Likud after the party referendum rejected it, and thereafter refused to allow a national referendum. At the time, Haaretz editorialized against a referendum, citing the defeat of the EU constitution in a French referendum:

“Legislatures, governments and heads of the executive branch (presidents or prime ministers) are elected in order to bear the burden of making difficult decisions. Abandoning this responsibility and transferring it to the general public, which does not weigh the constraints and the available resources the way elected officials are supposed to do, transfers the vote from the domain of the intellect to that of emotion … Sunday’s vote in France constitutes fresh, additional proof of why Israel must not adopt this system.” [Emphasis added].

The Haaretz editorial approached self-parody — an elite paper with a small circulation was telling the public it was not smart enough to appreciate the issues, because the public was allegedly not equipped to “bear the burden of making difficult decisions”; it was short on intellect and long on emotion; it didn’t “weigh the constraints” or consider “the available resources”; and if you doubt that, just look at France — fresh proof of what happens when you let the public vote!

But the real reason behind the opposition to a Gaza referendum was not that it might lose. Public opinion polls showed it would win a majority of Israeli votes. Nor was the real reason the technical objections advanced by those such as the prominent Israeli political scientist, Shlomo Avineri, who argued in a Jerusalem Post column that there was no Israeli precedent for a referendum; there was no established procedure for one; it would take too much time; it was too difficult to frame the precise question for the voters; etc.

All the problems cited by Avineri seemed superable to me, and I asked him about them: couldn’t the problems be handled, and wouldn’t a referendum provide a needed legitimacy for the withdrawal plan? In response, Avineri told me the real reason he thought a referendum was a bad idea — one he said he could not put in print: the referendum would pass, but it would not receive a majority of the Jewish vote. It would pass only because of Israeli Arab votes, and then it would be politically impossible to withdraw from Gaza.

A withdrawal from Judea and Samaria on a narrow majority vote, however, would be problematic irrespective of the issue that concerned Avineri. Withdrawing 8,000 people from Gaza was difficult and divisive, and produced nothing but a new war. Withdrawing from historic Jewish land on the West Bank, acquired in a defensive war, with critical strategic significance — uprooting tens of thousands (the demographic equivalent of millions of Americans), destroying longstanding Jewish communities, exposing the long Eastern border to the same military consequences resulting from the Northern and Southern withdrawals – is not possible without something approaching a public consensus.

The only peace agreement that might produce such a consensus is one that meets Benjamin Netanyahu’s criteria: an end-of-claims agreement that includes Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, with defensible borders, reflecting realities on the ground.

Peace processors might be satisfied with an agreement falling short of those criteria, believing — as Haaretz and Avineri did — that a peace agreement will itself create peace, and that the issue is too important to risk a referendum. But the Palestinian Authority has repeatedly promised its own public a referendum, and no peace processor has objected to it as an obstacle to peace. On the contrary, it is critical that any eventual peace agreement be endorsed by a Palestinian referendum, not simply signed by an aging holdover president. And if the peace agreement meets Netanyahu’s criteria, the Haaretz/Avineri fears about an Israeli referendum will not likely be a problem. 
 

Rick Richman

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/05/the-fear-of-an-israeli-referendum-peace-process/

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

Dancing with Obama

by Clarice Feldman

Political satirist Greg Gutfeld said:

The media would not know a good story if they woke up next to it after they were drunk last night. For them Benghazi is like an ugly wallflower at the prom. They just want to dance with Obama all night.

It's a way of life that's not without consequences to them or us.

The Washington Post Co. reported Friday an 84% drop in first-quarter profit. To be sure waltzing Obama's not the only reason. There's the mindless drivel of the style section gushing over Michelle and her latest upscale food and clothing fancies; the racism of columnists like Eugene Robinson; the mushy leftism of columnists like Meyerson and Dionne; the insult to believers of putting Sally Quinn in charge of the Faith section, but the Post's papering over the truth for Obama's a big part of it.
I expect that's true of the L.A. Times as well, where the writers and the L.A. City Council (!) had a conniption fit at the thought the Koch brothers would buy it up out of bankruptcy and turn it into a real newspaper.

So, it's a given, that on the slaughter of our ambassador and others in Benghazi the media 's been diverting attention to other pressing issues, like gay basketball players and Chelsea Clinton's $10.5 million apartment presumably paid for by her trenchant interview for NBC with the Geico Gecko.

Still, there's a lot of damage the Benghazi story -- if told publicly and accurately -- can do to both Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes lays it out -- just on the off chance your news sources had other things they thought more significant to report after megaphoning the nonsensical administration line that the murders were provoked by an anti-Mohammed video no one saw.

As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.
The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails -- one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.
The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president's choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Standard Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure. 

On May 8th the House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hold another hearing on the Benghazi slaughter, though if past Congressional hearings are any indication, this will not be adequate to bring the matter to the public's attention. Congressional hearings are formulaic kabuki dances, which present a great opportunity to disrupt and obscure the proceedings. The idea for the president's supporters will be to keep the story from coming out and for some others it will be a chance to get their faces on prime time TV. In any event I rarely see a congressman who knows how to conduct an appropriate interrogation, and I'll be happily astonished if I've set my expectations too low this time.

In any event, the details of the Administration's doings get lost in the flotsam and jetsam of the semiliterate media. This week we heard that employment was up. What we didn't hear much of was that something like 9 million have given up even looking for work; that many of the jobs were just involuntary part time jobs -- often by employers hoping to avoid being driven into bankruptcy by the high costs Obamacare will impose on them. Part-time Nation: Was the April jobs report really the Obamacare jobs report?
Here's Susan Duclos: 

As reported earlier unemployment dropped to 7.5 percent according to the latest BLS report, and the optimistic news was that the drop finally came from a gain in employment, rather than a drop in the labor force, although labor force participation is still down at 1979 levels.
AEIdeas notices a very concerning trend in that "gain" in employment, being the increase of "involuntary part-time workers."

While the American economy added 293,000 jobs last month, according to the separate household survey, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons -- "involuntary part-time workers" as the Labor Department calls them -- increased by almost as much, by 278,000 to 7.9 million. These folks were working part time because a) their hours had been cut back or b) they were unable to find a full-time job. At the same time, the U-6 unemployment rate -- a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers who want a full-time gig -- rose from 13.8% to 13.9%.
What's more, there was a 0.2 hour decline in the length of the average workweek. This led to 0.4 percentage point drop in the index of average weekly hours, "equaling the largest declines since the recovery began," notes economist Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research.

With fewer people able to support themselves on part-time jobs, even more will be beholden on the government for subsidies and food stamps. It's hard not to see this as a deliberate move. Especially as a former administration economic advisor seems to find such a development desirable:
Former Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein says that Obamacare may create more part-time jobs than full-time jobs.

CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC: What do we know about how health care is effecting hiring decisions, Jared?
JARED BERNSTEIN: Well, what he was saying, really, is not showing up, in terms of evidence in the data. Now, it is true that down the road, there will be incentives in the health care law where some firms may decide they'd rather create part- time jobs instead of full time jobs -- we'll have to see. But by the way, just in terms of raw job counts, that could actually boost the number of jobs higher because you'd have more part-time jobs. None of these factors are playing out in these data yet, and the health care sector is and will continue to be a strong area of growth.

On the other hand, Some Democratic leaders, like Senators Schumer and Baucus, publicly acknowledge that ObamaCare's implementation will be a disaster. Majority leader Reid's already saying more money will be needed to carry out the law, which already has passed a number of statutory deadlines unmet, and additional millions are being sought to propagandize how wonderful this new law is.

It was obviously unworkable from the outset, but the press did so little probing of it that to date, large numbers of Americans are not even aware it's already law. Are Republicans waiting for Democrats to beg them to repeal it before acting to get rid of it?

What are the chances of repealing legislation when almost half the country doesn't even know it's the law? A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation offers some sour news:
Four in ten Americans (42 percent) are unaware that the ACA is still the law of the land, including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who don't know whether or not the ACA remains law. And about half the public says they do not have enough information about the health reform law to understand how it will impact their own family, a share that rises among the uninsured and low‐income households...
Fortunately for ObamaCare opponents, most people still don't like it.
Overall, the public remains as divided as ever when it comes to their overall evaluations of the health law. This month, 35 percent report a favorable view, 40 percent an unfavorable view, and a full 24 percent report they have no opinion on the law, continuing a recent trend of particularly high shares not offering an opinion. Partisans remain quite divided, with a majority of Democrats in favor (57 percent) and most Republicans opposed (67 percent).

I wonder, too, how many voters even heard of Fast and Furious -- the misbegotten scheme by which the ATF illegally outfitted Mexican gangsters with 2,700 firearms resulting in hundreds of murders in Mexico and several, including US agents here. Has even the president heard of it? If so, how does he have the chutzpah to blame American gun laws for Mexican firearm violence?

"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," President Obama said during a speech at Mexico's Anthropology Museum. "I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will." "But at the same time, as I've said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It's the right thing to do," Obama added.

I have low blood pressure. If I didn't I probably couldn't dare to read what's happening. On the other hand, maybe something's getting through to the public behind the media's dancing with Obama: Rasmussen reported this week that Obama's approval rating is down to 45%, with 53% disapproving. Maybe voters started to notice they're going broke on Hope and Change. And the media's dancing partner has two left feet.

Clarice Feldman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/dancing_with_obama.html

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

Reports: Israel Strikes Iranian Missiles in Syria

by Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies

Israeli, Western sources tell foreign media that Israeli aircraft struck Iranian Fateh-110 missiles stored at a warehouse at Damascus International Airport that were bound for Hezbollah • Second strike in three days includes Syrian military installations around Damascus.

A view of the Jamraya suburb of Damascus on Google Maps Photo credit: Google Maps

Israel carried out its second air strike in three days on targets in Syria early on Sunday, Israeli and Western intelligence sources said. The attack shook Damascus with a series of powerful blasts and drove columns of fire into the night sky. 

Syria condemned the attacks, as did Iran, with the latter offering to train the Syrian army if needed. Israel declined to comment officially on the reported attacks in Syria, but anonymous Israeli officials told AFP, AP, Reuters and Israel Radio that Israel struck an Iranian arms shipment destined for Hezbollah. According to Reuters, a Western intelligence source said on Sunday that the overnight attack targeted a missile shipment that was "in transit" from Iran to Hezbollah.

The IDF has deployed two Iron Dome batteries to northern Israel, and on Sunday canceled a week-long, nationwide chemical weapons preparedness drill. Israel Radio reported that the IDF had denied reports by media affiliated with Hezbollah that an IAF warplane was hit by Syrian anti-aircraft weaponry overnight Saturday.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to depart Israel for a week-long state visit to China on Sunday afternoon, but postponed his departure by several hours, convening the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet to discuss the latest developments. Netanyahu's departure comes despite the increasing tension and fears that either Syria or Hezbollah will retaliate, and could indicate the Israel does not believe that a retaliation is imminent. Netanyahu did not mention Syria in his comments at the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday morning.

Official Syrian state media accused Israel of carrying out a raid on a military facility just north of the capital. At least 40 blasts were heard across the capital following the alleged Israeli attack, which according to activists, targeted the Syrian government's security forces sites in Damascus, including the Maher al-Assad Fourth Division Military Group and the weapon depot of the Syrian Republican Guard in Jamraya. Syrian state media denied these attacks.

The explosions in Damascus came soon after an unnamed Israeli official said Israel had carried out an airstrike on Thursday night targeting missiles in Syria that were to be delivered to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

In that earlier strike, the Israel Air Force targeted Iranian Fateh-110 missiles that were being stored at Damascus International Airport, The New York Times reported, citing an American official. The missiles were reportedly being held in a warehouse at the airport that was under the control of operatives from Hezbollah and Iran's paramilitary Quds Force.

The New York Times reported that IAF planes fired air-to-ground weapons in Thursday's strike, apparently staying clear of Syrian airspace and operating in the skies over neighboring Lebanon.

The target of Sunday's attack, according to Syrian media, was the same Jamraya military research center which was reportedly hit by Israel in an airstrike in January. Jamraya, on the northern outskirts of Damascus, is just 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the Lebanese border.

In the January strike, Israel reportedly struck a convoy of SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles that were being moved from Syria to Lebanon.

Video footage uploaded onto the Internet by activists on Sunday showed a series of explosions. One lit up the skyline over the city, while another sent up a tower of flames and secondary blasts.

The Western intelligence source told Reuters that Israel carried out the attack and the operation hit Iranian-supplied missiles that were en route to Hezbollah.

"In last night's attack, as in the previous one, what was attacked were stores of Fateh-110 missiles that were in transit from Iran to Hezbollah," the source said.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the scale of the attack meant it was beyond the military capability of Syrian rebels, and quoted eyewitnesses in the area as saying they saw jets in the sky at the time of the blasts.

The observatory said the blasts hit Jamraya as well as a nearby ammunition depot. Other activists said a missile brigade and two Republican Guard battalions may also have been targeted in the heavily militarized area just north of Damascus.

Syria's state television said the strikes were a response to recent military gains by President Bashar al-Assad's forces against rebels.

"The new Israeli attack is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army," it said.

Reports by activists and state media are difficult to verify in Syria because of restrictions on journalists operating there.

Sunday's attack was the third reported Israeli strike inside Syria since late January, but there was no immediate comment from Israeli officials.

"We don't respond to this kind of report," an Israeli military spokeswoman said.

Israel has repeatedly made clear it is prepared to use force to prevent advanced weaponry from Syria reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Assad regime and Hezbollah are both allied with Iran.

"Syria is a very important part of the network that Iran has built," former Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin told Army Radio on Sunday. "Iran is testing the firmness of Israel and the U.S. regarding red lines. What Iran is seeing in Syria is that at least some of the players mean what they say [about what will happen] when their red lines are crossed."

MK Tzachi Hanegbi (Likud) told Army Radio on Sunday that "what we want to mainly ensure is that within the chaos in Syria, Hezbollah doesn't get strong enough that it will be motivated to act against us, something that would drag us into a conflict with Hezbollah in which we would absorb more losses than in the past because we didn't hit their growing capabilities in time."

Uzi Rubin, an Israeli missile expert and former defense official said the Fateh-110 missile "is better than the Scud, it has a half-ton warhead." Iran has said it adapted the missile for anti-ship use by installing a guidance system, he said.

The U.S. State Department and Pentagon had no immediate comment and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

There was no immediate indication of how Syria would respond to Sunday's attack. After the reported Israeli airstrike in January, Syria protested to the United Nations and the Syrian ambassador to Lebanon promised a "surprise decision," but no direct military retaliation followed.

Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies  

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=9081  

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

Wilkerson’s Shame. And Colin Powell’s

by Michael Rubin


On May 2, Lawrence Wilkerson, a close confidant of Colin Powell who served as chief-of-state during Powell’s tenure as secretary of state, raised eyebrows when he told Current TV that reports of Syrian chemical weapons use might have been an Israeli “false flag operations.” His pronouncement—which was part speculation and part sourced to his friends in the intelligence community—was quickly picked up and rebroadcast and fact by such outlets as Iran’s “Press TV” and Hezbollah’s “Al-Manar.”

As the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) points out, this is hardly the first time Wilkerson has made bizarre accusations, but CAMERA does not go far enough. Wilkerson acted as a definitive source for any number of stories throughout the Bush administration until now. As Powell’s chief-of-staff, journalists accepted his pabulum uncritically, never asking whether Wilkerson was at meetings for which he purported to offer first-hand accounts. The fact is that chiefs-of-staff do not go to meetings; they manage offices. Many of those whom Wilkerson pretends to have had conversations with, say they never met him.


Nevertheless, Wilkerson remains central to some of the most pernicious—and false—rumors and conspiracies surrounding George W. Bush’s tenure:

• Craig Unger, a prolific journalist who frequently contributes to The New Yorker and Vanity Fair, used Wilkerson as a source in his conspiratorial polemic about so-called neoconservatives (Unger uses the term more synonymously with Jews than with the true meaning of the movement) and the Christian Right.
• Alan Kennedy-Shaffer, an Obama campaign operative and Huffington Post contributor, used Wilkerson as a source to slander Vice President Dick Cheney and to cast blame for intelligence failures overshadowing Operation Iraqi Freedom.
• Much of the demonstrated falsehood regarding an alleged 2003 Iranian grand bargain offer that Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi put forward in his two books rests in conversations with Wilkerson.
• Both The Washington Post and The New York Times regularly used Wilkerson to tar Republicans.
• Journalists like Laura Rozen and Jeff Stein, and The Atlantic Council’s Barbara Slavin (formerly of USA Today and The Washington Times), also relied disproportionately on Lawrence Wilkerson to confirm wild conspiracy theories. They appear to have been so consumed with partisan animus that they did not bother to fact-check his allegations with those who had first-hand knowledge of events he purported to describe.
• Steve Clemons—one of Chuck Hagel’s staunchest supporters—worked tirelessly to promote Wilkerson and his views.
• Scott Bonn, an academic at Drew University, also cited Wilkerson to support the notion that Bush lied in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Wilkerson was a source for journalists not only after Powell retired from government, but also during his tenure. The only difference was before 2005 he would speak on background, while after 2005 he would let his hatred for anyone with whom he disagreed shine through. That Wilkerson is a fabulist dthat prioritizes polemic over truth should be readily clear as his outbursts become increasingly bizarre. That no journalist has yet to go back and trace how many stories they accept as conventional wisdom were based on rotten foundations is a testimony to how unprofessional many of the writers, journalists, and bloggers cited above can be. Those who quoted Wilkerson became his willing accomplices. Together, they represent the rot that permeates the Fifth Estate.

The story does not stop there, however. It is unlikely that Powell was ignorant of Wilkerson’s actions; rather, Powell appeared all too willing to turn a blind eye in a dirty game to win a policy debate by tarring his opponents. Nor was Powell likely unaware of Wilkerson’s dangerous obsession with American policymakers who happened to be Jewish. It is quite easy to interpret Powell’s persistent silence and failure to repudiate a man whose credibility is solely based on his relationship to Powell as an endorsement for Wilkerson’s hateful views. Wilkerson’s shame is Colin Powell’s as well. Powell’s silence shows his own character is likely not much different from that of the colonel who was his closest aide.
 
Michael Rubin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/05/lawrencewilkersons-shame-and-colin-powells-chemical-weapons/

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

McCain: Israeli Strikes Could Force Obama to Act on Syria

by Reuters

Republican senator says alleged Israeli air strikes will put more pressure on Obama administration to intervene in Syria: "Every day that goes by, Hezbollah increases their influence and the radical jihadists flow into Syria."

US Senator John McCain Photo: Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

WASHINGTON - Israel's air strikes on Syria could add pressure on the Obama administration to intervene in Syria, a key Republican said on Sunday, but the US government faces tough questions on how it can help without adding to the conflict.

Hours after Israeli jets bombed Syria on Sunday for the second time in 48 hours, several top US lawmakers voiced concern over the cascading uncertainty in the Middle East where a civil war has been raging in Syria for more than two years.

Republican Senator John McCain said the latest Israeli air strikes, described by a Western source as attacks on Iranian missiles bound for Lebanon's Hezbollah, will just put more pressure on the administration to act although President Barack Obama has said he has no plans to send ground troops to Syria.

"We need to have a game-changing action, and that is no American boots on the ground, establish a safe zone and to protect it and to supply weapons to the right people in Syria who are fighting, obviously, for the things we believe," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Every day that goes by, Hezbollah increases their influence and the radical jihadists flow into Syria and the situation becomes more and more tenuous," he said.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said last week that Washington was rethinking its opposition to arming the Syrian rebels. He cautioned that giving weapons to the forces fighting President Bashar Assad was only one option, which carried the risk of arms finding their way into the hands of anti-American extremists among the insurgents.

Obama said on Saturday that Israel has the right to guard against the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah, but his administration has not commented further on the air strikes.

The United States has said it has "varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons have been used by Syria's government on its people, which violates a "red line" that Obama had established against such action.

The United States is seeking more evidence to determine whether and how chemical weapons have been used. Obama, who has said he does not envision sending US troops to Syria regardless of whether chemical weapons use is determined, has said he has a number of other options under review.

Obama has repeatedly shied away from deep US involvement in the Syrian conflict, which erupted in 2011 and has killed an estimated 70,000 people and created more than 1.2 million refugees.

Foreign Fighters

White House deputy spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday that the White House was "horrified" by reports that more than 100 people were executed on May 2 in Baida, Syria.

State forces and militias loyal to Assad stormed the coastal village on Thursday and a pro-opposition monitoring group said many of those killed appeared to have been executed by shooting or stabbing.

McCain criticized Obama for failing to intervene to stop that massacre and for not acting when the chemical weapons red line was crossed.

Republican Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, described the situation in the Middle East as "deteriorating by the day" because of the massive influx of foreign fighters pouring into Syria that could reach more than 10,000 this year.

"Hezbollah is now moving troops - Hezbollah troops, financed by Iran - across Syria. They're engaged in the fight to protect the Assad regime," Rogers said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "You have the al-Nusra Front, which is an al-Qaida front organization in the thousands showing up."

He said all fighters were trying to get their hands on chemical weapons and more sophisticated conventional arms. In addition, refugees were fleeing the country and threatened to add more instability to the region.

"This is as bad a situation I have seen in a long time that has an opportunity to cascade," Rogers said.

He said the United States needed to provide leadership through intelligence and training to the opposition, and work with the Arab League to help stabilize the situation in Syria.

Reuters

Source: http://www.jpost.com/International/McCain-Israeli-strikes-could-force-Obama-to-act-on-Syria-312153

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

Iranian cleric: Immodest Women to Blame for Earthquakes

by Robert Spencer

Yet another indication of the fear and suspicion directed toward women in the culture established by Sharia. A few salient ahadith establishing Muhammad's view of women as essentially evil and contemptible:

It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that women will form the majority of the people of Hell. It was narrated from ‘Imraan ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)
With regard to the reason for that, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was asked about it and he explained the reason.
It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allaah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1052)
It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said:
“The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to the Musalla on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 304)
It was narrated that Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah said: “I attended Eid prayers with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He started with the prayer before the khutbah, with no adhaan or iqaamah. Then he stood up, leaning on Bilaal, speaking of fear of Allaah (taqwa) and urging us to obey Him. He preached to the people and reminded them. Then he went over to the women and preached to them and reminded them. Then he said, ‘Give in charity, for you are the majority of the fuel of Hell. A woman with dark cheeks stood up in the midst of the women and said, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, ‘Because you complain too much and are ungrateful to your husbands.’ Then they started to give their jewellery in charity, throwing their earrings and rings into Bilaal’s cloak.”
(Narrated by Muslim, 885)

"Iran Cleric: Women to Blame for Earthquakes," by Elizabeth Sheld for Breitbart, May 4 (thanks to CGW):

A senior cleric in Iran says that the immodesty and whorish dress of women is responsible for Earthquakes. 

“Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi told Iranian media.

Sedighi claims Iranian women are "owning and using a giant earthquake machine."
Apparently Iran is an earthquake prone country. (California is an earthquake prone state so..maybe he is on to something?)
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agrees: 

“As I have said before, the woes of Iran, and the earthquakes that threaten us in particular, can all be blamed on immodest women,” said Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leader recently predicted that Tehran was in imminent danger of an earthquake from "a giant earthquake machine to hold our populace hostage"  

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/iranian-cleric-immodest-women-to-blame-for-earthquakes.html

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

Thrown in Prison for Shredding the Koran

by Andrew Harrod


A Bruges, Belgium criminal court convicted a man for shredding a Koran on March 6, 2013. The court imposed a four-month prison sentence and a 600 euro fine upon him. He now additionally faces a revocation of a previous suspension of an 18-month prison sentence for having set a fire in a wood. This case highlights yet again the greater restrictions on speech in free societies outside of the United States and how these restrictions can limit open debate about Islam.

The man, identified in print only as Arne S., attended a demonstration on June 8, 2012, in Ostend, Belgium, before retiring to a café. There Arne exchanged words with a dozen Muslims and tore apart a Koran before them. As described in a Belgian press account, Arne's counsel at trial claimed that the Muslims had thrown the "sacred book" at Arne, striking him in the head. Arne's lawyer, Olivier Ryde, thus claimed that no infraction of Belgium's law on hate speech had occurred. No reports of assault charges against the Muslims have appeared.

Arne's case demonstrates that Belgium, like many other European countries, has laws against what is commonly called "hate speech." In particular, Article 22 of the Belgian Law of May 10, 2007, Aiming to Struggle Against Certain Forms of Discrimination, prohibits incitement of hatred, discrimination, violence, and/or segregation against persons of various protected classes in public settings defined by Article 444 of the Belgian Penal Code. Article 3 of the May 10, 2007, laws defines these protected classes

based upon age, sexual orientation, civil state, birth, fortune, religious or philosophical conviction, political conviction, trade union views, language, actual or future state of health, handicap, physical or genetic characteristic, or social origin.

Cheradenine Zakalwe of the website Islam versus Europe has asked in relation to Arne, "Is Sharia already in force in Europe?" Yet Arne is not the first individual in Europe convicted of destroying a "sacred book," nor is the Koran the only book in Europe that qualifies for this designation. Poland's supreme court ruled on October 29, 2012 that a lower court was wrong to exonerate the Polish heavy metal musician Adam Darski on blasphemy charges for having ripped apart a Bible as a "book of lies" during a September 2007 concert.

In Darski's case, though, the European Union's (EU) executive body, the European Commission (EC), came to Darski's defense. An EC statement on October 31, 2012 expressed the traditional justification for free speech that "[t]his right protects not only information or ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock or disturb." It remains to be seen whether the EC will make the same defense à la Voltaire for Arne's anti-Islam sentiments.

Controversies about blasphemy aside, Belgium's equation of "religious" and other "convictions" with physical characteristics such as a person's place of "birth" is troubling. Such a conception of "hate speech" encompasses not just the debatable proposition of proscribing animus expressed against individuals, but also the prohibition of at least certain forms of opposition to ideas like Islam. In effect, an individual's identification with an idea like Islam helps shield this belief from attack in a kind of ideological umbrella.

The cases of Arne, Darski, and others continue to show that criticism and/or condemnation of Islam can be legally perilous in European societies traditionally restrictive of free speech out of deference to group sensibilities and social harmony. Now that Muslim communities have established themselves in an often politically correct modern Europe, rejection of Islam is no longer a merely academic matter involving distant peoples. Precisely the proximity of Islam to Europe, however, demands unfettered critical evaluation of this faith now more than ever. Modern expansive notions of "hate speech" and traditional concepts of blasphemy, now applied not just to Europe's historically dominant Christian faith but also to an increasingly prominent Islam, can only hinder this necessary inquiry into Islam.


Andrew Harrod

Source:

http://www.legal-project.org/4045/thrown-in-prison-for-shredding-the-koran

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

An Illusion Called Territory

by Dror Eydar

1. The conflict is not about territory. The Arab nations have territory in abundance. The Palestinians have quite a bit as well: there are no Jews in the Gaza Strip, and Jordan has a Palestinian majority. The Arabs of Palestine could have established a state of their own long ago, but they chose not to do so.

For a century, and even more since 1967, we have tried to ignore the true nature of the conflict between ourselves and the nations of the region. We have talked about partitioning the land, territory, interests, security arrangements and such. But every time we thought we were about to sign an agreement, something came up. According to the Arab-Palestinian narrative, which many people among us and in the West happily adopted, the blame for the absence of peace was laid at our doorstep. Even the fair-minded people on the Israeli left, who do not accept the guilt narrative, act as if it were true. They think: If we give up a bit more, if we take advantage of the “window of opportunity,” then maybe our neighbors will agree to sign a peace treaty. Now, once again, they’re trying to sell us the Arab League’s proposal — worn-out merchandise that feeds the orthodox left wing’s illusion industry until the talks blow up. And then the cycle starts again.

What makes the Arab League’s proposal any better than the others? Nothing. The devotees of peace at any price among us need to justify their existence, so they keep mumbling their credo, which lacks any realistic grasp of the situation.

2. It’s only logical to think that the conflict is just about land. Blood-drenched conflicts took place in Europe for centuries until the voice of reason and interests finally prevailed, the conflicts were resolved and peace reigned. “Two people take hold of a cloak. One says: It is all mine, and the other says: It is all mine. In such a case, they should split it.” So said our sages almost two thousand years ago. The average Israeli diplomat and his counterpart in the political echelon follow that logic. They are convinced that the key to solving the conflict is rational negotiations, at the end of which we will reach the longed-for partition of the land and with it, finally, peace. But unfortunately, the West does not see things in this region as they really are. Time after time, this Western logic comes up against an impassable wall. Read the Hamas Covenant (an excellent translation is available on the Internet). Read the Palestinian National Charter by the PLO and Fatah, both secular movements. Visit websites, such as MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch, that translate the Arab world around us. Read the language honestly and realistically, and you won’t hear the voice of logic. Hatred has logic too, and many conflicts can be analyzed. But not in this case. The countries of this region do not accept Israel as a Jewish state, an independent entity. Israel’s very existence poses a heretical, defiant challenge to the Muslim world, its beliefs and values. Israel is a wedge stuck between their eyes, an extension of the West in the heart of sacred Muslim soil. Keep reading the text and sources mentioned above and you’ll see that these voices go beyond mere religious conflict. The region we live in is the cradle of human civilization. The voices we will hear are those of its ancient myths.

3. Logos versus mythos — the word versus myth. Here, myth does not mean fiction or fabrication, but rather the founding narrative of peoples and nations. Islam is only about 1400 years old, but this region has been speaking in mythic language for millennia. Myth encompasses religion and goes beyond it.

The still-current custom of stoning, blood-feuds, beheadings, murders to protect or avenge family honor, the perception of space, inheritance and land, relations between tribes in the region, tribal loyalty versus loyalty to the kingdom and other such concepts that are so much a part of life in this region are in an existential conflict with the way the West sees those same concepts. Let us imagine a meeting between an Israeli diplomat and his Palestinian counterpart. Both speak in an international language (in this case, English), and both use the term “territory.” That’s not complicated. A territory is in dispute, and with good will on both sides, once we have had our fill of bloodshed, we can solve the “problem” by splitting the land so we can live normal lives as neighbors. But it doesn’t happen. Occasionally there’s a lull, after the Israeli makes “gestures.” Then they pick up where the last round left off, before the next outbreak of violence (for which Israel, of course, is blamed).

4. Here is a key to a behind-the-scenes understanding of the conversation. The Israeli diplomat was brought up in the 2,500-year-old Western tradition of thought, which puts logic above emotion or myth. Territory can be cut in half and shared. The border can be drawn wherever we wish. The Palestinian also talks about territory. But for him, the words are only signifiers, the tip of the iceberg, the tiniest glimpse into other worlds entirely different from ours. For him, it’s not about territory, but about the very soil — adama in Hebrew, from which the word for human being, adam, is taken. A human being without land is not a human being. His very existence is called into question. And this is where 'dam' — blood, which is also part of the word adama — comes in. Dam, adama, adam: if these concepts are what define your very existence, then you have no recourse other than to shed blood for the sake of the soil that defines you as a human being. I’m not referring merely to wordplay in Hebrew, but to the idea behind the words. The biblical perception that crystallized in this region thousands of years ago runs congruent to the region’s myths. No diplomat involved in the negotiations ever talks about these things — and this missing piece casts a giant shadow that goes unnoticed. This is the political unconscious that affects our lives much more strongly than our conscious will does.

5. Consider the refugee problem. Tens of millions of refugees were expelled and wandered throughout Europe in the 20th century alone, but were finally resettled. Why aren’t there any refugee camps in Europe? After all, millions of people were uprooted from their homes. Why didn’t they remain refugees until their demand to return to their homes was resolved? Because logic prevailed. It wasn’t necessarily the logic of the refugees, but at least it was the logic of the countries of Europe: to bind their wounds quickly and let the body politic heal. It wasn’t just in Europe. It happened here, too. For more than a decade, thousands of Jewish refugees lived in transit camps in the young State of Israel. They lived in tents, in tin shacks, in huts. I know. My parents were there. These were refugee camps in every sense of the term. The refugee camps became neighborhoods, towns and cities that our country could take pride in. We didn’t stop to wallow in self-pity. We came to terms with the loss of our property and our former lives and started building a new society.

So what’s unique about the Arab refugees of 1948? What stopped them from leaving the camps, turning them into neighborhoods they could be proud of? Why didn’t they establish a state before 1967 or even earlier, in 1947?

What we face is no conflict over territory. That sort of conflict does not enslave millions to an eternal war against us. There will be no peace here until the nations of the region recognize Israel as the Jewish people’s national home. All the other issues stem from that. Such recognition is not given in words only. We have had enough of words. It involves education, textbooks, the media, the streets and the political and religious discourse. Do you understand that a task like this takes a hundred years at least? What we need is patience. And faith.

Dror Eydar

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=4193

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