The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
?php
>
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Barry Rubin: Obama Middle East Policy: Wrong Team, Wrong Ideas
by Barry Rubin
In the Middle East, to paraphrase President Barack Obama’s mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the dodo birds are coming home to roost.
At this moment, the administration’s policy team consists of CIA director John Brennan, father of the “”moderate” Islamism-and-the-Muslim Brotherhood-are-good school; the Secretary of State John Kerry who thinks he is going to make Israel-Palestinian peace in one month; the know-nothing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel; the chilling ideologue Samantha Powers as UN ambassador; and the dupe of the Benghazi scandal Susan Rice rewarded by being made national security adviser.
Can things get any more Alice in Wonderland? But what’s really happening in the region.
In Egypt, the country is falling into anti-Americanism and tyranny, the United States is embarking on a new policy in Syria that one can see won’t work. What is the solution? Simply to support moderate and anti-Islamist forces while opposing Islamists and terrorists. Except if you wait too long there will be no good forces left to help anymore.
Egypt first. The Supreme Constitutional Court, the country’s highest court, has now ruled that the January 2012 Shura Council election for the upper house of parliament was unconstitutional. The same decision was rendered for the Islamist-dominated body that wrote the new Constitution. But the chief judge said that the Constitution was not annulled.
In short, there is total confusion. Indeed, it isn’t even clear that the new election for the lower house of Parliament will be held. Egypt is in maximal mess phase.
Meanwhile, what allegedly friendly country just sentenced the son of a U.S. cabinet official to five years in prison? Answer: Egypt, to the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Crime: Supporting democracy. Four more Americans received the same sentence.
The Egyptian Islamist regime does not fear America nor does it show gratitude for President Obama’s help in its taking and consolidation of power. Offices were closed and prison sentences of up to five years—for 27 people–were meted out. Many of those charged fled the country. Among the groups closed were the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute.
Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States was “deeply concerned” but of course the Egyptian government knew America wouldn’t do anything except keep shipping in tear gas and provided financial and political support.
After getting into power in part due to U.S. help, the Egyptian court called the promotion of democracy a form of “soft imperialism.” Get it? They get into power by a vote and then that’s the end of free elections.
History shows, says the court’s verdict, that U.S. policies believes that its “interests as best served by totalitarian dictatorships and harmed by genuine democracies….The U.S.—fearing democracy ushered in by Egypt’s popular revolt—has used funding to take the revolution off its path.”
So even as the U.S. government supports the Egyptian revolt and regime, the ruling elite claims that it opposed them. Thus the pro-Muslim Brotherhood policy doesn’t win any influence or benefits since the Brotherhood accepts the help and then declares that America is its enemy.
Thus, for friendship toward America; how about peaceful intentions toward neighbors? Here we have possibly the most embarrassing open microphone scandal in history. The televising of a meeting held by President Muhammad Morsi allowed listeners to hear plans for military attacks on Ethiopia because of a dam that country is building on the Nile in order to generate electricity. Participants didn’t know the meeting was being aired on live state television.
Egyptian leaders discussed covert operations to destroy the dam or giving covert support to rebel groups. This gives some hints of what longer-term policy toward Israel might well be. Advocates of aggressive action included moderate politicians.
How about cultural news? Well the Culture Minister Alaa Abdel-Aziz has just installed an Islamist professor of Arabic literature by firing the head of Egypt’s National Library and Archives. Also fired were the heads of the opera house, book publishing, and fine arts sections of the ministry.
The ministry’s foreign relations’ director resigned in protest, saying that the minister was seeking to Islamize Egyptian culture and put religion in place of national identity.
What other trends are visible? How about the sentencing of a Christian lawyer to one year in prison and a fine for allegedly insulting God and the Quran? This is one of many such trials. The complaint was brought by Islamist lawyers. Previously, a Christian schoolteacher had been sentenced to six years for, among other things, allegedly insulting Morsi. Last December it was the turn of a Christian who posted a short film claimed to be derogatory to Islam and who was sentenced to three years. Two Christian children, aged nine and ten years old, were put in juvenile detention for allegedly tearing up a Koran.
But perhaps the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood supports “Arab Spring” type revolts elsewhere? No. Leaders asserted that the demonstrations against the Turkish Islamist government that have broken out on a grassroots’ level are in fact a war against Islam by showing that Islamist regimes have failed. It’s interesting that the Muslim Brotherhood considers the Turkish counterpart of being that kind of government while the U.S. government doesn’t.
So, opposing the spread of democracy, viewing the United States as an enemy, putting Islamist power as the highest value, oppressing Christians, and fundamentally transforming Egypt into an anti-American, anti-Christian, oppressive dictatorship. These are the hallmarks of contemporary Egypt. And there are scores of other examples that can be cited.
In Syria, reports Reuters on May 31 from Beirut, the Saudis have now clearly changed policy in line with the United States. The Saudi government is now frightened of its own support of radical Salafist Islamists in the rebel forces. They are pressuring Qatar to stop backing the hardliners though it is not clear how successful this effort is at present. Qatar has become the main backer of the Muslim Brotherhood financially.
The new policy is being influenced by military failures now that the Assad regime has more Russian, Iranian, and Hizballah backing. But it is also prompted by worries that Syria might be taken over by anti-American, anti-Saudi Islamist radicals. This concern was heightened by American observance of what was happening in rebel-held northern Syria. Another factor is the disorder in rebel ranks seen at the recent summit meeting in Turkey and the intransigence of the Muslim Brotherhood exile leadership to accept other forces into the direction of the battle.
At a critical moment when the United States and European Union were going to send arms directly, fear of the dominant Islamist forces—which also include a growing al-Qaida presence—is holding up this escalation. And without more arms the rebels cannot win.
This has led the United States from handing over $63 million dollars in promised aid to the rebels Syrian Opposition Coalition which is dominated by the Brotherhood.
U.S. policy is still in disorder but has now changed. Up to now, the Obama Administration has favored a rebel victory, disregarding the growth of Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and al-Qaida forces as well as worrisome signs of ethnic massacres. Amazingly enough, it backed a Muslim Brotherhood dominated group as the rebel leadership even when that organization kept out others!
Now, in theory, the Obama Administration is switching to support for moderates, the policy that this column has advocated for almost two years and had been disregarded. It is too late, however. The rebel groups have formed; they control much territory, ideological blocs have hardened; and there are relatively few moderates. Moreover, the Free Syrian Army controls few forces on the ground.
Note by the way that the domination of the rebels by the Islamists have kept Christians and Druze, as well as Alawites, on the regime’s side. That is more than 25 percent of the population. Another 15 percent, the Kurds, are in effect neutral seeking to maintain their autonomy won by their militia in the civil war. It is probably too later to change these positions
So the real alternatives of the Western states may be reduced to three:
–Withhold aid and live with a long-term civil war in which the Assad regime controls half the country while Russia, Iran, and Hizballah claim a partial victory.
–Give strong backing to rebel forces regardless of ideology and see Syria taken over by a radical Islamist government in which the Brotherhood rules, the Salafists operate freely, and al-Qaida establishes a strong base.
–Say that they are supporting moderate forces which have few soldiers and relatively little support within Syria. This policy won’t work but will look good. Meanwhile, Sunni Islamist radicals and a pro-Iran dictatorship batle for predominance.
The likely option is the last one.
Isn’t it time for the U.S. government, journalists, and academics to admit that they’ve been getting the Middle East all wrong? That they have often reversed the good and bad guys so that they have been backing the bad guys, anti-Americans, and even terrorists? Haven’t the contradictions gotten to be so obvious that they cannot be denied any more?
American interests are with the rebels of Turkey and Iran; the moderate Muslim-Christian opposition in Lebanon, with Israel and the Kurds; with the real moderates in Egypt; with Jordan’s kingdom which small amounts of money would help enormously; and, yes, often even with the Gulf Arab states (except Qatar) if only given the American leadership they are begging for.
Western and American interests are not with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria; not with the stealth Islamist regime in Turkey for which the Obama Administration just renewed a waiver on sanctions against Iran (!); not with the rejectionist Palestinian Authority, not with some “moderate Islamist” faction of the Iranian regime.
It is past time that this be recognized. But it is a task requiring a Churchill, not the churlish.
Barry Rubin
Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/06/obama-middle-east-policy-wrong-team-wrong-ideas/
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Why we Need to Protect Ourselves
by Zalman Shoval
The stated task
assigned to Gen. John Allen, U.S. President Barack Obama's special envoy
on security matters in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, who
visited Israel last month, was to formulate an American "security net"
for Israel in any future permanent-status agreement with the
Palestinians. In other words: to convince Israel to make concessions on
the issue of the 1967 borders.
These American
attempts, while not contrary to Israel's diplomatic and security
interests in and of themselves, are something of a prelude for a future
American peace plan that would include the presence of an international
military force in the West Bank and Jordan Valley. It should be
remembered that Gen. James Jones, who was tasked with a similar mission
by former President George W. Bush, suggested an outline based on
stationing American and NATO troops, as well as other international
soldiers (such as the U.N.) along the borders of the future Palestinian
state.
Then-Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert indeed conceded -- including during his talks with
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas -- Israel's military
presence in the Jordan Valley. Current Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, however, rejected such proposals outright, insisting that the
security threat such a plan would pose to Israel was too great.
In Israel's view, since
signing the Camp David Accords with Egypt in 1978, the most basic
condition for any peace agreement with the Palestinians has been the
operational freedom of its security forces in the West Bank. While the
American security ideas touch primarily on preventing violent acts
inside and from the Palestinian territories, for Israel the matter is
much more complex and far-reaching, namely that without an Israeli
military presence on the ground the Palestinian entity could ally
itself, actively or passively, with other countries or terrorist
organizations seeking to attack Israel.
The history of
international troops in our region has vacillated between the farcical
and tragic. It is a history highlighted by the panicked withdrawal of
U.N. troops from the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza in 1967, by Hezbollah
terrorists entrenching themselves in southern Lebanon in contradiction
to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, and by the incessant
kidnapping of U.N. troops currently stationed on the Golan Heights.
There are reservations
about NATO as well. It is not a cohesive fighting force and its soldiers
do not directly answer to their own countries' military headquarters or
governments. We must imagine a scenario in which Turkish soldiers are
tasked with protecting Israel. Secondly, there would always be a
question as to the extent these soldiers would be willing to risk their
lives in our defense.
Meanwhile, as has been
insinuated, if the main fighting force is American, would Israel really
want U.S. soldiers to spill blood in our defense? We haven't even
discussed the other potential conflicts with the U.S. that could stem
from differing opinions on security matters. International forces,
either NATO or U.N., could also limit the Israel Defense Forces'
operational freedom in other areas.
According to
unconfirmed American sources, the possibility of stationing Jordanian or
Palestinian troops along the Jordan River is being weighed, although
such a proposal is unworthy of even a second glance.
Zalman Shoval
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=4613
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
On Israel's President's Conference
by Raheel Raza
I would, in retaliation, host Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan "Apartheid Weeks." Stephen Hawking has, apparently, no issues speaking in China and Iran, two countries with appalling human rights records. No one speaks about BDS of Saudi Arabia, where the list of human rights violations is endless. Where were their voices? Or Pakistan, with religious minorities facing persecution and violence against women? No one asked me to cancel my trip to Pakistan.Recently I received an email from "a Palestinian in Vancouver," in Canada, asking me to boycott Israel's annual Presidential Conference, "Facing Tomorrow," soon in Jerusalem, where I have been invited to speak.
The request for my boycott citied as reasons Israel's human rights violations and mentioned that as Stephen Hawking boycotted the conference, perhaps I should, as well.
My response to my Palestinian friend is that the first time I was invited to speak at this conference three years ago, I went, hesitantly, not knowing what it was all about. I was so enthused by both my visit to Israel and the conference that I wrote extensively about the experience on my blog, and later named my own Not-for-Profit Organization "Muslims Facing Tomorrow" with an idea that one day, I would host a similar conference about ideas and a vision for a better tomorrow.
Upon my return, I praised the country and the people, but many of my Muslim friends were not interested in knowing these details. They only asked, "Were there any Palestinians at the conference and was the Israel-Palestinian issue discussed?" I was happy to respond that yes, there were Palestinians at the conference; I had even brought home a book on Islam from one of the Palestinian speakers there.
About human rights violations: granted that Israel, like every other country, has violations -- but far fewer than those of the countries surrounding it. Israel is still the only liberal democracy in the area where one can find gender equality and freedom for its citizens. During my visits to Israel, I have, in fact, questioned Israeli Arabs and found that they are loath to leave the country where they enjoy freedom and human rights.
As I am accredited to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, where I attend its sessions twice a year, I have a close connection with human rights. At the UNHRC, I hear a lot about humanitarian crises, and these do not include Israel. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Co-operation), for instance, – a group of 57 Arab and Muslim States which has a permanent delegation to the United Nations and is the largest international organization outside the United Nations -- continuously slams and blames Israel for everything happening in the Arab and Muslim world and beyond. This incrimination of Israel has become the norm, and can be seen as a ruse to deflect or move focus away from the real problems besetting the Arab world.
BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel is also not a new movement, but has taken on a life of its own at academic institutions all over North America. This movement has led to "Israel Apartheid Week" events, ugly and nonsensical, at many universities. If I were a student, I would, in retaliation, host Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan "Apartheid Weeks." But I know that is not the solution to the problems besetting these countries, and the crux of the issue is how freedom of speech can become the fine line between hate mongering and truth.
This incrimination also highlights the double standards held by academics such as Stephen Hawking: he had no issues, apparently, speaking in China and Iran, two countries that have appalling human rights records. But that is his problem.
My problem is that I am from Pakistan, a country where the word human rights has no meaning or recognition whatsoever. According to the Human Rights Watch World Report on Pakistan for 2012, Pakistan had a disastrous year -- including increasing attacks on civilians by militant groups, religious minorities facing unprecedented insecurity and persecution, and where freedom of belief and expression are coming under severe threat as the presence of Islamists has grown by leaps and bounds. This does not even begin to address violations against women. The Aurat Foundation, a local women's rights group in Pakistan, says the number of incidents of violence against women in Pakistan has increased at least seven percent over the past year.
But I have never seen or heard a Palestinian speak out about these human rights violations; take part in demonstrations or boycotts for these offences, or show support for the cause of Pakistani women. Where were their voices when Christians and Shias were being killed and brutalized in Pakistan just a few months ago? No one asked me to cancel my annual visits to Pakistan, but I did lodge a complaint against my own land of birth at the UNHRC, so I may not be travelling back there soon.
Let us also talk about Saudi Arabia, a country where the list of human rights violations is endless. There is evidence, according to some UN reports, of torture; and lashing criminals is a common practice. Amnesty International published an annual report on the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia last week. The report covered a large range of human rights violations within the country -- everything from women's repression, migrant worker mistreatment, execution of minors, sectarianism, arbitrary detainment and torture was discussed. The largest section of the report, however, concerned the suppression of dissidents and the detainment of human rights defenders within the kingdom.
But no one ever speaks of BDS against Saudi Arabia. I think that all Muslims should boycott Saudi Arabia for one year at least.
In ending let me say this to my Palestinian friend: The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is over land, and can be solved when both sides recognize one another and, as equals, then have a dialogue. This means that, like me, you have to accept that Israel has a right to exist. It is not the only conflict related to Muslims. If you want justice for those facing criminal human rights violations, then speak out against Sudan, Egypt, Burma, China, Iran and all other countries who regularly persecute their own citizens.
Meanwhile I'm packing for Israel and counting the days. My friends there have grown in number, and I plan to have a wonderful time in that beautiful nation.
Raheel Raza is President of The Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3754/israel-presidents-conference
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Netanyahu: Israel Trusts only Itself to Protect its Borders
by Daniel Siryoti, Eli Leon, Shlomo Cesana, Danny Brenner, Lilach Shoval, Yoni Hirsch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff
Hezbollah says rebels using Israeli weapons • IDF calls claims "a desperate attempt to divert attention" • U.N. rejects Russian offer to send troops to replace peacekeepers on Golan Heights • Anti-Hezbollah rhetoric reaches fever pitch across Middle East.
Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu: "Israel cannot place its security in the hands of
international forces"
|
Photo credit: AP |
A Syrian rebel surveys the
destruction following a battle with Syrian regime forces [Archive]
|
Photo credit: AP
Israelis and tourists watch
fires caused by fighting in Syria from Mount Bental on the Golan
Heights, near the Syrian border, Friday
|
Photo credit: AP
A U.N. soldier stands next
to a shelter inside a U.N. base on Friday, near the Quneitra crossing
between Israel and Syria
|
Photo credit: AP
Shiekh Youssef al-Qaradawi,
gives a sermon at Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt [Archive]
|
Photo credit: AP
As security concerns continue to rise in the
wake of the fierce battles in Syria, officials in Damascus are accusing
Israel of aiding the rebels.
"The Zionist regime is trying to crush the
resistance and is arming the terrorists in Syria," President Bashar
Assad's senior adviser, Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, told the Lebanon-based
Al-Mayadeen network over the weekend. Shaaban also claimed that rebels
wounded in clashes at the Quneitra border crossing late last week, who
received treatment in Israeli hospitals, were actually undercover
Israeli agents.
Officials in Israel continued to deny any involvement in Syria.
Journalist Nabil Abu Shaab, author of the blog
"U.N. Report," reported Saturday that the Israel Defense Forces had
come close to taking action in response to Syrian army tank movements
during the skirmishes in Quneitra.
According to Shaab, the Syrian army
"reinforced its presence in the area of separation with five main battle
tanks and five armored personnel carriers, moving in the direction of
Quneitra ... The Israel Defense Forces informed the UNDOF force
commander that should the movement of [the Syrian army's] tanks
continue, the IDF would take action ... The [Syrian military] informed
the UNDOF force commander that the presence of the tanks was solely for
the purpose of fighting the armed members of the opposition and asked
that the IDF not take action."
Hezbollah television station Al-Manar also
reported finding an array of Israeli weapons and equipment in the city
of Qusair, where Hezbollah fighters have helped the Syrian army retake
control of the city, strategically placed on the Lebanese border.
According to the report from Qusair, the weapons found in the ravaged
city included mortar rounds and flares with Hebrew writing on them, as
well as an Uzi sub-machine gun, allegedly given to the rebels by Israel.
IDF officials called the report a "desperate
attempt to divert attention from Hezbollah's involvement in Syria." The
officials said the military equipment with the Hebrew writing was likely
left from before Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
Russia bids to save U.N. peacekeeping force on Golan Heights
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile,
opened Sunday's cabinet meeting by announcing that he had spoken with
Russian President Vladimir Putin over the weekend about the situation in
Syria. Moscow intends to transfer advanced the S-300 anti-aircraft
missile defense system to Damascus, despite the U.S.'s and Israel's
objections.
"We discussed matters pertaining to Syria,
where the situation is getting more complex by the day," Netanyahu said.
"We saw just last week the fighting that took place near our border on
the Golan. Israel will not interfere in the civil war in Syria, as long
as the fire is not aimed at us."
The prime minister said Israel trusted only itself to protect its borders.
"The disintegration of the U.N. force
on the Golan highlights the fact that Israel cannot place its security
in the hands of international forces. They can be a part of [future]
arrangements, but they cannot be the basis of Israel's security," he
said.
Putin, for his part, suggested Friday that
Russian troops replace the U.N. peacekeeping force stationed in the
demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights.
Putin's proposal to replace the withdrawing
Austrian peacekeeping contingency was rejected by the U.N., which said
that an agreement between Israel and Syria barred permanent members of
the Security Council from the U.N. observer mission.
"We appreciate the consideration that the
Russian Federation has given to provide troops to the Golan," U.N.
spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters. "However, the Disengagement
Agreement and its protocol, which is between Syria and Israel, do not
allow for the participation of permanent members of the Security Council
in UNDOF [the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force]."
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, president
of the Security Council this month, said after a special council
session on the UNDOF crisis that the force should remain in place, even
if its numbers were temporarily reduced.
The U.N. peacekeeping department is asking the
other countries in the force, the Philippines and India, if they would
increase their troop contributions and was also looking at the
possibility of new countries sending troops, Lyall Grant said.
"At the same time [they are] trying to
encourage the Austrians to slow down their departure from the theater
and dissuade any other troop contributors from withdrawing troops," he
said. U.N. peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous had talked about increasing
the force back to its mandated figure of 1,250, Lyall Grant said.
Fiji has said that it will send troops to
replace a Croatian contingent that has already pulled out. Japanese
troops have also been withdrawn because of the violence.
Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said
his country was well aware of the limitation in the document signed four
decades ago, and this was why Putin had said it would depend on whether
the countries in the region -- namely Syria and Israel -- and the U.N.
wanted Russian troops there.
"We believe that times have changed," Churkin
told reporters, adding that it was theoretically possible to amend the
protocol that bars permanent council members from UNDOF.
"The document was signed 39 years ago at the
height of [the] Cold War and the whole context of the [Arab-Israeli] war
in 1973," he said. "Now the context is completely different and UNDOF
seems to be in dire straits. So we are offering essentially to rescue
UNDOF."
Anti-Hezbollah rhetoric reaches fever pitch
Across the Arab and Muslim world over the
weekend, Sunni Muslim preachers condemned Iran and its "Satanic" Shiite
allies in Friday sermons.
In Saudi Arabia, a bastion of hard-line Sunni
theology and opposition to Iran, a senior cleric aligned with the
U.S.-allied government spoke of a Shiite "plot against Islam" that was
made newly apparent in the assault by Hezbollah fighters on Qusair. The
battle there has inflamed sectarian rhetoric which risks spreading
violence around the Middle East.
In Qatar, the International Association of
Muslim Scholars, a Sunni body headed by influential cleric Sheikh
Youssef al-Qaradawi, condemned the "Qusair massacre" and called for "a
day of rage" in support of the Syrian people next Friday, according to a
statement posted online.
In Egypt, by far the most populous Arab state,
where the Arab Spring protests of 2011 brought the Sunni Islamist
Muslim Brotherhood to power, a leading cleric and Brotherhood member led
televised prayers on Friday in which he described Hezbollah ("the party
of God" in Arabic) as "the party of Satan."
"God, break the backs of Bashar and his
supporters," Salah Sultan, secretary-general of Egypt's Supreme Council
for Islamic Affairs, said at a Cairo mosque. "God, break the back of
Hezbollah, the party of Satan; God, break the back of Iran."
In the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli,
where Shiites and Sunnis have fought, hard-line cleric Sheikh Bilal
Baroudi told worshippers: "Hezbollah is responsible for the consequences
of this jihad invasion against Sunnis in Qusair. The response that is
coming will be harsh."
In Beirut, where the Shiite southern suburbs
erupted in joy after the fall of Qusair, prominent Sunni preacher Da'i
al-Islam al-Shahhal urged followers to resist Iranian attempts to
control Iraq, Lebanon and Syria as a step to conquering the Gulf states.
"I call on all those zealous and concerned to help us," he said. "Stand
with us financially and morally to foil the plan."
Senior Saudi cleric Sheikh Saleh al-Fawzan, in
comments in the Al-Madina newspaper, said Shiites "pretend to be
Muslims and try to get closer to the Sunnis ... in order for them to be
able to plot against Islam ... these days their hostility has become
more apparent in their war against the Sunnis in Syria."
Appeals for a united front, notably against
Israel, which once won Hezbollah widespread respect among Sunni Arabs,
now fall on deaf ears following the Shiite movement's overt drive to
save Assad and provide a bulwark for Iranian influence.
As one Lebanese woman in a Sunni neighborhood
of Beirut put it, as she listened with disdain to festivities echoing
from a Shiite stronghold after Hezbollah's victory at Qusair: "What are
they celebrating? You'd think they'd liberated Jerusalem."
In the Gaza Strip, whose Palestinian Hamas
rulers were once allies of Assad and Hezbollah, cleric Imad al-Daya told
worshippers that Qusair had exposed the "fraud" of Hezbollah's rhetoric
about leading "resistance" to Israel.
"Wake up," he told worshippers. "This is a war of religion." Shiites, he added, had always been "a knife in Muslims' backs."
Violence in Syria continues unabated
In the central Syrian city of Homs, a suicide
bomber detonated his explosives-laden car Saturday, tearing through an
area largely populated by the regime's Alawite sect and killing seven
people, a state-owned TV station reported.
Syrian state TV also said Saturday that
government troops took control of the village of Buwaydah between Qusair
and Homs after intensive clashes.
Abu Bilal al-Homsi, an activist in the old
quarter of the city of Homs who has links with several rebel groups,
said via Skype that rebels sustained heavy losses late Friday as they
attempted to flee the village with their wounded and civilians. Al-Homsi
asked to be identified by his alias because of security concerns.
The state-owned Al-Ikhbariya TV said the
attacker detonated the explosives-laden car in a busy area near a
roundabout in the Homs neighborhood of Adawiya, which largely houses
Alawites. The report said the seven killed included three women and a
teenager, and said 10 other people were wounded as the blast heavily
damaged nearby houses and vehicles.
Television footage showed frantic residents
running around, blood splattered on the ground and a badly mangled car.
Other cars on the street were also damaged. A reporter from the station
on the scene said the car was carrying about 100 kilograms (220 pounds)
of explosives.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights, which relies on a network of informants inside Syria, confirmed
that the car was booby-trapped. It also said seven were killed, citing
preliminary reports.
Nobody claimed responsibility for the attack,
but car bombs are the usual tactic employed by Sunni extremists among
the rebel ranks.
Government forces also battled rebel fighters
north of Aleppo and by a military air base that has been under rebel
siege for weeks. Clashes in the suburbs of Damascus, meanwhile, left
seven people dead, including a rebel and a medic who was treating a
wounded fighter, according to the Observatory.
In fighting elsewhere, rebels attacked a
checkpoint manned by troops and pro-government gunmen in the central
town of Salamiyeh, killing 11 of them and wounding more than 20, the
Observatory said. It added that several rebels also were killed,
although it did not have a specific figure.
The Lebanese Red Cross announced that it has evacuated
38 people who were wounded in Qusair from the Syrian border to hospitals
in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley over the past two days.
Daniel Siryoti, Eli Leon, Shlomo Cesana, Danny Brenner, Lilach Shoval, Yoni Hirsch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=9843
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
The Scandal Dump is a Smokescreen
by Phillip Cowan
For several months, the Benghazi scandal lay dormant, apparently forgiven and forgotten. Then, inexplicably, it reared its ugly head when Congressmen Ron Johnson and Jason Chaffetz smelled Obama's blood in the water.
After feigning affliction with the flu, and then ostensibly tumbling down a carpeted stairwell resulting in an unconfirmed concussion, then-Secretary of State Clinton was finally forced to testify before Congress. Clinton's desperate attempt to put the Benghazi scandal to rest with her now-infamous impassioned declaration -- "What difference, at this point, does it make?" -- only fanned the flames of American outrage at the needless deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, his aide Sean Smith, and two valiant Navy SEALS, Tyrone Woods and Glen Dougherty.
At this point, the focus of the investigation was confined to the failure of the Obama regime to adequately protect the American consulate in a hostile country and its subsequent attempt to cover up that ignominy. Nobody, except us conspiracy theorists, was asking about the real reason for the coordinated terrorist attack. Hint: it was not a video mocking Islam. Here are the questions that should have been asked, but were not:
Why was American security systematically withdrawn and transferred to incompetent Libyan operatives several month before the attack?
What were the missions of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Dougherty?
Why was the order to "stand down" given to ready and able military rescue forces?
The Obama regime frantically feared that these questions were forthcoming. Desperate to change the subject, the nefarious regime serially released a spate of "gates" intended to inundate the news media outlets in order to provide a smokescreen obscuring the lethal Benghazi questions.
The first feint was AP-gate: revealing the illegal DOJ inquisition of the world's largest newsgathering agency. This titillated the media and put Benghazi in the rearview mirror. When that furor waned, along came Reporter-gate, proclaiming that Fox News journalist James Rosen had been the subject of a similar inquest. Again the media feigned horror at the atrocity committed against one of their own. Benghazi what?
On the heels of AP-gate comes IRS-gate, alleging egregious acts of power abuse by the most powerful government agency in America. Never mind that the shocking, illegal targeting of politically incorrect enemies of incumbent administrations has been rampant within the IRS for decades. The media cooperated as if those corruptions were breaking news. Benghazi who?
Alas, as revulsion with IRS-gate began to decline, another "gate" was needed to anesthetize the populace against Benghazi-gate. Conveniently, the IRS debacle was extended by revealing their half-a-billion-dollar "seminar" parties, which have been going on for years but suddenly are splashed as breaking news.
Now the latest news flash is telephone-gate, swiftly followed by internet-gate. Never mind that these practices have been going on since at least 2006 during the Bush administration. Benghazi when?
Put on your tinfoil hats, folks. I submit that this chain of coordinated releases of scandal after scandal is a ploy by the most corrupt regime in American history to divert national attention from the most damning political catastrophe Obama has ever faced: Benghazi-gate. Was the stratagem a botched attempt to have Stevens kidnapped by al-Qaeda and then to offer the Blind Sheik in exchange for the ambassador? Was the subterfuge a failed attempt to divert the massive Gaddafi weapons cache into the hands of al-Qaeda? Don't get me started.
Whatever was going on in Benghazi, Libya before the nefarious 9-11-2012 attack is a dark secret, the revelation of which the Obama regime mortally fears. That is why this coordinated serial release of humiliating scandals, reproachful as they may be, is far, far better than the truth about Benghazi -- at least for the Obama regime.
Phillip Cowan
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/the_scandal_dump_is_a_smokescreen.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Obama Can’t Be Trusted with Power
by Peter Wehner
I agree with Jonathan’s post both in terms of substance and the media response to the NSA/surveillance stories.
On the former: the PRISM program, in the right hands and used with discretion, can be justified based on the threats to America. But in the wrong hands–in executive branch hands that have abused power and punished political enemies–it has the potential to be misused. Which brings me to the current chief executive.
My views on President Obama are such that very little would surprise me in terms of the ethical lines he would cross in order to gain and maintain political power.
That may seem like an overly harsh judgment, so let me take a moment to explain what I mean. I have become convinced, based on what I would argue is the increasing weight of the evidence, that Mr. Obama is a man whose sense of mission, his arrogance and self-righteousness, and his belief in the malevolence of his enemies might well lead him and his administration to act in ways that would seem to him to be justified at the time but, in fact, are wholly inappropriate.
I would include as evidence to support my assertion the president’s routine slander of his opponents, his serially misleading statements (including flat-out falsehoods about the lethal attacks on the Benghazi consulate), the IRS scandal and the public signals the president sent to that agency over the years, the unprecedented targeting of journalists by the Department of Justice and the attorney general’s nasty little habit of misleading Congress, Mr. Obama’s unusually dishonest campaign against Mitt Romney, and his overall contempt for the rule of law. He just doesn’t think that rules should apply to him, that he is above all that. Those who see themselves as world-historical figures tend to do that.
I also agree with Jonathan that “no one should be under any illusion about whether they [those at the New York Times] will press this or any other issue if they thought the president was in any real trouble. Their pious disclaimers notwithstanding, partisanship will always trump principle at the Times.” That is true of many other liberals in the press as well. The degree to which a substantial number of the elite media are in the tank for President Obama varies–but that they are in the tank is unquestionable.
With all that said, however, I do believe that the controversy over the National Security Agencies and its surveillance techniques could politically damage the president and his party, at least in this respect. This issue–unlike the IRS/DOJ/Benghazi scandals that are engulfing the administration–has ignited a revolt among some of Mr. Obama’s core supporters. They are downright angry at the president for what they (rightly) consider to be a betrayal of his previous promises. And anytime a president is dealing with an issue that is fracturing his base without winning over swing voters, it’s not good for him.
This doesn’t mean that in an election liberals would vote for Republicans. But it might well mean that their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party will be dampened, that fundraising falls off, and that the willingness to work for Democratic candidates is reduced. And in a mid-term election, those things matter.
We’re still a long way off from the 2014 mid-term election, of course. But the last four weeks or so have been damaging ones for the president, in ways that could be durable. Certain impressions–having to do with incompetence, hypocrisy, dissembling and contempt for the rule of law–are beginning to harden. That can’t be good for Mr. Obama or his party. And just think; we’re only a little over four months into the president’s second term.
It can get worse. And my guess is it will.
Peter Wehner
Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/07/obama-cant-be-trusted-with-power/#more-826824
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
The Return of the Cold War
by Ali Salim
When Iran finishes arming itself, we will witness a dramatic change in the map of the Middle East, with the addition of a dangerous, murderous power that will undermine, subvert or change the orientation of the familiar power group of the United States, Europe, Russia and China.The Arab television stations, as usual, angrily claim that the West is taking no action to end the slaughter in Syria, and at the same time they represent the Arab leaders as deep in diplomatic negotiations to end the war -- while neatly hiding the mistakes, wrong moves and general inability to have the slightest effect on the horrors playing out.
As Muslims massacre each other in the Arab Spring countries, Sunni Islam finds itself in the incongruous position of expecting to be rescued by the Crusader West -- the United States and the European countries these Islamists say they wish to Islamize by the sword, and to which they occasionally send terrorists to murder civilians.
According to Sunni Islamic extremist thinking, the West has the responsibility to do the dirty work of purging Syria, Iran and Lebanon of their Shi'ite terrorism. In the meantime, jihad fighters from all over the world land in crumbling Syria daily to kill the Alawites, Druze and Christians who are considered Assad collaborators. These jihadists shout "Allahhu Akbar" ["Allah is Greater" – than whom is implied] as they commit the same atrocities inflicted by the regime they are trying to overthrow. It is no wonder the world is squeamish about giving them material support. Faced with both the Western world's hesitation to arm them and its concern over what will happen if and when they take over Syria, the jihadists there have started comparing themselves with the infidel leaders of the militant South American Communist movements in Cuba, Bolivia and Chile – and, in the height of incongruity, even with atheists.
Meanwhile, in the best tradition of Arab and Islamic failure, the Arab media continue churning out diatribes against the Zionist plots in Palestine to deflect attention from what is happening in Syria. They sling mud at each other and sit on the fence while untold amounts of blood are spilled. On one side, those who identify with the Syrian regime boast that it supports Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations against Israel; and claim that the opposition to the regime, the Free Syrian Army, is joined at the hip to Israel and doing its best to destroy Syria. Not only to destroy Syria, but remove it from the resistance camp, which not only bravely supports the Palestinians, but fights against the dictates of American hegemony and that of its ally, and the occupier of the Golan Heights, Israel.
The supporters of the Assad regime also accuse the rebels of having neutralized Syria's air defense system and even of marking targets for the Israeli Air Force. The supporters of the regime claim that the rebels are just a riffraff gang of opportunistic Islamic terrorists with no common denominator who, attracted by the smell, came to feast on Syrian carrion. They also claim that the Free Syrian Army does not genuinely represent the will of the people, but merely that of the Islamist terrorist organizations, while it is actually Hezbollah that protects the holy sites of the Shi'ites in Syria, such as the grave of Muhammad's (s.a.a.s.) daughter, Zeinab.
On the other side, those who identify with the Syrian opposition claim that Assad's regime represents only the Alawites. Members of the opposition say the regime is bloodthirsty and illegitimate -- especially after slaughtering its own people, including the Palestinians in the Yarmouk refugee camp -- and that it has to be overthrown. They also claim that the regime is supported by Shi'ite terrorists from Iran and by Hezbollah in Lebanon, a great many of whom die helping the regime; that the regime is made up mass-murderers of Syrian civilians, who rape Syrian women and children and carry out a host of other horrors, including the use of poison gas.
Their strongest claim, however, is that the Syrian regime is a cat's paw for Israel – that the regime allowed the Zionists to drop bombs on Syrian territory; that it collaborated with the assassination of Imad Mughnieh (a high-ranking Hezbollah commander); that it abandoned the Golan Heights; that Syria has thus become a hothouse for anti-Israel hatred, and as always, that Israel is responsible for all errors and faults of the Middle East, including turning Syria into the graveyard of the Arab Spring.
Former Israeli Knesset member A'zmi Bishara, who fled from Israel when he was suspected of spying for Shi'ite Hezbollah, recently told Qatar TV that the war in Syria had claimed 100,000 lives, that 400,000 Syrians had been wounded, that 500,000 buildings had been destroyed, and that there are more than a million refugees. The dimensions of the humanitarian catastrophe are so great they have turned the story of the Palestinian refugees (a hereditary title passed down for three generations, and worth less than the paper it is written on) into a saga of little importance which should be consigned to the pages of history. As far as Bishara is concerned, the time has come to focus only on helping the real refugees, the Syrians.
Subversive activities and Iranian terrorism are prominent in an Iranian-based axis: they pass through Maliki's attack-loaded Shi'ite Iraq, carpet Syria with the dead, and continue on into Hezbollah's Lebanon. Every day, Iranian terrorist cells are uncovered in the Persian Gulf states, in Bahrain, in Sudan, in Saudi Arabia and even in Egypt, where Islamic terrorists abducted Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula, demonstrating the weakness of the regime there.
At this point the terrorist organization Hamas has pretty much cut its ties to Iran, but unfortunately, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which suggest possible peace agreements with Israel within the framework of the Arab League initiative, continue using front organizations to finance Hamas, while successfully hiding their activities from the Americans. Their money and support keep the Palestinian blood feud against Israel alive; and worse, it remains alive between Hamas and Fatah, so that the Gulf States make it possible for the Zionists in Israel to develop their state undisturbed while we kill each other.
Rising from the religious and ethnic bloodshed in Syria are the outlines of the little states into which the country will eventually be divided: Kurdish, Sunni and Alawite, with more or less protected enclaves of Christians and Druze. Regardless of how the dice fall, there is no way Assad can remain ruler of the Syrian people, even if he manages, by means of slaughter and oppression, to hold his throne for a time.
The Russians understand that Assad's fate has been sealed and that soon Russia may not have a foothold in Syria. It is not difficult to understand why. The the Syrian people -- most of whom are Sunni, and harbor a deep hatred for Russia., which has been working against them, and helping Assad slaughter their women and children -- will not allow it. However, the need to preserve the market for their arms, a warm water port and their Middle Eastern outpost, leaves the Russians no choice but to aid the regime. Born into Communism they do not believe in democracy, and they will do nothing to help Assad's downfall, regardless of how tempting it might be.
According to some commentators on the Middle East, the bombings in Syria attributed to Israel, which showed the West that Iran could also be struck, revealed that Russian weapons were an empty threat -- a blow to the Russian reputation. The attacks therefore forced the Russians to show their Syrian (and other) allies that they actually had better deterrent capabilities. So they gave the Syrians more modern weapons, quickening the pace of the Cold War. When Putin refused to accede to Netanyahu's request not to supply the collapsing Syrian regime with advanced weapons, he was trying to signal the West that foreign intervention in Syria, and needless to say in Iran, should be impossible. Thus, for its own self defense, Israel found itself in the middle of a battle between world powers with hesitant American backup. It is out of the question for Russia to allow a pro-American regime hostile to itself to rise in Syria; anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.
As for Iran, the situation in Syria shows that the Iranian-Shi'ite axis is crumbling, and how deeply the Syrian populace detest Iran. The violent, bloody, mass-casualty confrontations between Shi'ites and Sunnis in the Iranian axis countries, Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, are escalating. Iran's tenacious foothold in the Middle East is weakening, as is the fraud it attempts to perpetrate on the Gulf States: by strengthening its Syrian-Hizbolah-Iraq axis, it aimed to draw attention away from its true goal, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, by lulling them into a false sense of security. In the meantime, Iran profits from having the limelight concentrated on Syria while it cheerfully develops its nuclear bomb and sends its mercenaries and weapons to Hezbollah and Assad. However, when Iran finishes arming itself, we will witness a dramatic change in the map of the Middle East, with the addition of a dangerous, murderous power that will undermine, subvert and change the orientation of the familiar global power group of the United States, Europe, Russia and China.
So far, the situation in Syria has shown that as a result of American hesitation the old Cold War between Russia and the West is now asymmetric. This result can also be seen from the U.S. attitude toward Iran: the Russians openly support the tottering Syrian regime even though, along with Iraq and Hezbollah, it is part of the Iranian axis. Russia has defiantly sent S300 surface-to-air missiles and other deadly weapons to the Syrian regime to deter the West and prevent it from involvement in Syria and Lebanon, both aerial and naval, and thus to deter it from attacking Iran. Israel, for the Russians, is not part of the equation; Russian strength and deterrence have been acquired in the face of the perceived weakening of American resolve.
The American-NATO-Turkish-Arab axis, on the other had, has been providing the Syrian opposition with funds, training, material support and non-combatant military equipment, but has not intervened or armed it. The West faces a dilemma: the opposition is composed, in great part, of extremist Islamic elements affiliated with Al-Qaeda, such as Ahrar al-Sham and the Al-Nusra Front. They are not perceived as preferable to Assad, so on the surface, the Russian and American positions on the survival of the Assad regime are close. As in the saying, "Better the devil you know than devil you don't know," the Americans have learned from experience that Islamists who received American arms later turned on their benefactors and used them against American soldiers. Thus the upcoming conference in Geneva and the formulation of its preconditions will be complex for both Americans and Russians.
As Arabs we have to understand that just as Iranian nuclear power will not be turned only against Israel, so Russian arms will not be turned only against Israel or the Syrian people and rebels, but against the entire Arab world. As Arabs we have to decide if we want, of our own free will, to submit to the new Iranian master or to take the initiative and – with American support -- strike the head of the Iranian serpent. In the current situation, the Russians will not interfere and the entire Middle East will benefit. We struck the Persians under the heritage of the prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.s.), and we can do it again today.
Ali Salim is a scholar based in the Middle East.
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3742/new-cold-war
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Muslim Group Fabricated Evidence of "Wave of Attacks on Muslims"
by Robert Spencer
The concept of "Islamophobia"
is a tool designed to intimidate people into thinking there is
something wrong with resisting jihad and Islamic supremacism. In order
to deflect attention away from jihad activity and try to portray Muslims
as victims, so as to shame non-Muslims into not investigating or even
being suspicious of further jihad activity, Islamic supremacist groups
have resorted to making it up. Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have not hesitated to fabricate "hate crimes." CAIR and other groups like it want and need
hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political
points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about
the jihad threat.
Fiyaz Mughal probably thought it was a win-win situation. He was able to further the spurious idea that Muslims are victims who warrant special privileges, and he was able to pad his report enough to keep his highly lucrative government checks coming. But now Britain has shown that there is hope for it yet.
"Muslim hate monitor to lose backing," by Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph, June 9 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Fiyaz Mughal probably thought it was a win-win situation. He was able to further the spurious idea that Muslims are victims who warrant special privileges, and he was able to pad his report enough to keep his highly lucrative government checks coming. But now Britain has shown that there is hope for it yet.
"Muslim hate monitor to lose backing," by Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph, June 9 (thanks to all who sent this in):
A controversial project claiming to measure anti-Muslim attacks will not have its government grant renewed after police and civil servants raised concerns about its methods. The project, called Tell Mama, claimed that there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims after the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, with 193 “Islamophobic incidents” reported to it, rising to 212 by last weekend.
The group’s founder, Fiyaz Mughal, said he saw “no end to this cycle of violence”, describing it as “unprecedented”. The claims were unquestioningly repeated in the media.
Tell Mama and Mr Mughal did not mention, however, that 57 per cent of the 212 reports referred to activity that took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook, or that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. Not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.
Contrary to the group’s claim of a “cycle of violence” and a “sustained wave of attacks”, only 17 of the 212 incidents, 8 per cent, involved the physical targeting of people and there were no attacks on anyone serious enough to require medical treatment.
There have been a further 12 attacks on Islamic buildings, three of them serious, including a probable arson attack on a Muslim community centre in north London, which burned it to the ground.
Tell Mama supporters launched a furious campaign of protest against The Sunday Telegraph after it disclosed the breakdown last week, with round-robin emails to the newspaper accusing it of behaviour “better suited to the days of 1930s Germany”.
However, The Sunday Telegraph has now learned that even before Woolwich, the communities minister, the Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster, called Mr Mughal to a meeting and said that Tell Mama’s grant would not be renewed.
The organisation has received a total of £375,000 from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) since last year.
“Mr Mughal was giving data on attacks to DCLG which wasn’t stacking up when it was cross-referenced with other reports by Acpo [the Association of Chief Police Officers],” said one source closely involved in counter-extremism.
“He was questioned by DCLG civil servants and lost his temper. He was subsequently called in by Don Foster and told that he would receive no more money.”
A senior Liberal Democrat source confirmed the sequence of events, saying: “There was a bit of a spat. He was called in and told that Acpo had cast doubt on his figures. He was told that he would be closely monitored for the remaining period of the grant and that there would be no more money.”
A DCLG spokesman confirmed that Tell Mama’s funding would not be renewed and refused to deny that officials had raised concerns about its methods.
Tell Mama claimed in March that anti-Muslim crime was “rising”, even though the group had only been in operation at that stage for a year and had no previous figures to compare with.
Other figures, collected by the police, show that hate crime in mainly Muslim areas has fallen in the past 10 years. The only large force that collects figures on specifically anti-Muslim crime, the Metropolitan Police, reported an 8.5 per cent fall in such crimes between 2009 and 2012.
There was a spike in anti-Muslim incidents after the killing of Drummer Rigby. However, contrary to Tell Mama’s claims that it was “unprecedented”, the Met’s assistant commissioner, Cressida Dick, told MPs last week that it was “slightly less” than after previous terror attacks.
“There has not been such a very big increase in attacks as we might have feared,” she said. Mr Mughal himself has now admitted to the BBC that the number of physical attacks was “small”.
Tell Mama has also been using its budget to threaten members of the public with libel actions for criticising it on Twitter.
In mid-May, before Woolwich, one Jewish activist, Ambrosine Chetrit, received a threatening letter from solicitors after she tweeted that “Tell Mama are sitting on Twitter on the EDL hashtag, threatening anyone and everyone whose comments they do not like about Islam”.
Tell Mama also objected to a tweet in which Ms Chetrit said it was “trying to close down pro-Israel [Twitter] accounts daily”.
Other recipients of legal threats at the same time include Atma Singh, a former race adviser to the then Labour mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who received a legal letter from Tell Mama after tweeting that it “gives a platform to Islamists”.
Tell Mama did not claim that either of these individuals was racist or anti-Muslim. But it said their tweets were false and “defamatory” of Mr Mughal, had “damaged” his reputation, causing him “distress and embarrassment”, and demanded immediate apologies and damages. Up to four other people are believed to have received similar threats.
The letters were written by Farooq Bajwa, a solicitor who has acted for a number of Islamists and Islamist sympathisers, including the Palestinian radical leader Raed Salah and the Respect MP George Galloway.
The letters to Mr Singh and Ms Chetrit were sent to their private home addresses, neither of which are in the public domain. Ms Chetrit’s lawyer, Mark Lewis, who has acted for many phone-hacking victims, has reported Mr Bajwa and Tell Mama to the police after they refused to say how they obtained the information.
“I have been instructed to resist the claim,” said Mr Lewis. “It has no merit. I have not had any response as to how my client’s name and address were obtained.”
Mr Singh said: “I find it absurd that someone can threaten people on this kind of basis and use libel in this political way. This is nothing to do with Islamophobia – they are just trying to shut down debate.”
Ms Chetrit said: “It is very worrying and scary. All the people who have been threatened by Tell Mama are pro-Israeli.”
The DCLG claimed that Tell Mama’s funding was always due to cease in September 2013 and that Mr Foster was “very impressed” by the “progress” the group had made.
However, the funding of Tell Mama was described as “ongoing” in the Government’s “hate crime action plan” last year and only in November Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, announced that £214,000 of “new” and “further” funding had been granted to Tell Mama....
Robert Spencer
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/muslim-group-fabricated-evidence-of-wave-of-attacks-on-muslims-in-wake-of-london-jihad-murder-loses-.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Paris Museum Opens Exhibit of "Palestinian" Jihad Mass Murderers
by Robert Spencer
Suicide of Europe. "Paris museum opens exhibit of Palestinian 'martyrs,'" from the Jerusalem Post, June 8 (thanks to Golem):
A Paris museum subsidized by the French government opened an exhibition of photos of Palestinian suicide bombers, which the museum calls freedom fighters. The exhibition of 68 photos entitled “Death” by Ahlam Shibli opened on May 28 at the Jeu de Paume museum of contemporary art in Paris.Yep.
The museum’s website describes suicide bombers as “those who lost their lives fighting against the occupation,” and the exhibition as being about “the efforts of Palestinian society to preserve their presence.”
According to CRIF, the umbrella body of French Jewish communities, the people commemorated in the photos are “mostly from the [Fatah-affiliated] al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades [of Hamas] and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” All three are designated by the European Union as terrorist groups.
One of the photos is of Osama Buchkar, a PFLP operative who killed three people and wounded 59 in a terrorist attack he carried out at an open market in Netanya on May 19, 2002. The caption to his picture says he “committed a martyr mission in Netanya.”
In a letter Wednesday to France’s Culture and Communications Minister, Aurélie Filipetti, CRIF President Roger Cukierman said that it was “particularly lamentable and unacceptable that such a display should justify terrorism from the heart of Paris.
Robert Spencer
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/paris-museum-opens-exhibit-of-palestinian-jihad-mass-murderers.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)