Sunday, June 30, 2013

What the U.S. Does Not Want to Know About Abbas



by Khaled Abu Toameh


Abbas's autocratic rule and the frustration of many Palestinians do not seem to bother Kerry. The U.S. seems to want to bring Abbas to the negotiating table with Israel at any price. Kerry seems to be seeking to cut a deal with just one person -- who does not even have the backing of his people.

As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pursues his efforts to revive the peace process in the Middle East, Palestinian officials in the West Bank are complaining that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is keeping them in the dark and refusing to brief them about his plans.

For these officials, Abbas's autocracy has turned the Palestinian Authority into a one-man show called Mahmoud Abbas.

President Abbas has become the president of everything related to the Palestinians and the Palestinian cause, complained Sufyan Abu Zayda, a senior representative of Abbas's Fatah faction. He is the head of the PLO, President of Palestine, President of the Palestinian Authority, head of Fatah, and commander of the Palestinian Authority security forces.

Moreover, in the absence of a functioning Palestinian parliament, Abbas has taken it upon himself to issue his own laws.

The Palestinian parliament, known as the Palestinian Legislative Council, has been paralyzed ever since Hamas drove Abbas's Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strip in 2007.

Abbas sometimes meets with members of the PLO Executive Committee and the Fatah Central Committee to discuss latest developments surrounding the Palestinian issue.

But these two bodies are dominated by unelected Abbas loyalists, including many old-guard leaders whose only concern is to continue receiving monthly funds from the Palestinian Authority leadership so they can rent offices and hire several aides and secretaries, as well as drivers and bodyguards.

Then there is the Palestinian government in the West Bank, whose prime minister and ministers have no say in political matters.

Some Palestinians are also complaining that Abbas does not consult with the PLO's Negotiations Department, which is in charge of the peace talks with Israel.

Abu Zayda and other Palestinian officials say that Abbas's autocratic regime reminds them of the days when Yasser Arafat ran the Palestinian Authority as his private fiefdom.

No one dreamed that we would reach a situation where all the powers and top positions would be concentrated in the hands of one man, said Abu Zayda. Today, Abbas even has more powers than Arafat.

Abbas, according to Abu Zayda, has also appointed himself as the chief judge and prosecutor, making a mockery of the Palestinian judicial system.

Take, for example, the case of Ghazi Jabali, the former commissioner-general of the Palestinian Authority police force.

For many years, Jabali was wanted by the Palestinian Authority for corruption and theft. After fleeing to Jordan, the Palestinian Authority requested Interpol's help in the arrest of Jabali.

A few weeks ago, Palestinians were surprised to see Jabali staying at a luxurious hotel in Ramallah. It transpired that Jabali was able to return to the West Bank after receiving a written document from Abbas clearing him of any wrongdoing.

Abbas is surrounded by three or four people who are making important decisions on behalf of all Palestinians, noted another Palestinian official in the West Bank. These are the only people he consults with. Most PLO and Fatah leaders have no idea about Abbas's strategy.

The growing resentment about Abbas's autocratic regime and refusal to share powers and plans with other Palestinians cast doubt on his ability to win the support of a majority of Palestinians for resuming peace talks, let alone signing a peace treaty with Israel.

Abbas's autocratic rule and the frustration of many Palestinians do not seem to bother Kerry.

The U.S. seems to want to bring Abbas to the negotiating table with Israel at any price.

Kerry seems to be seeking to cut a deal with just one person -- who does not even have the backing of his people.

Unlike Kerry, Abbas is fully aware of the increased criticism at home -- and why Abbas is now telling his people that if and when he resumes peace talks with Israel, it will be only because the U.S. has exerted immense pressure on him.


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3794/john-kerry-mahmoud-abbas

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

It's Time to Junk Oslo



by Ron Lipsman


Abba Eban, hardly a right-wing hardliner, once famously referred to the 1967 borders between Israel and its Arab neighbors as "Auschwitz borders."   With Israel confined to those borders (at one point less than 10 miles wide), the Arabs controlled the mountain ranges that dominate all of Israel's population centers as well as the region's water supplies.  Thankfully, Israel has not agreed to return to the Auschwitz borders.


But twenty years ago, Israel did agree to what I shall call the "Oslo Final Solution."  In an act of monumental stupidity, Israel invited the PLO and its genocidal wannabe leader, Yasser Arafat, to set up shop in the so-called West Bank as a prelude to ceding the area to him.  In effect, Israel was agreeing to eventually return to the Auschwitz borders.


Events since the infamous handshake on the White House Lawn (between Arafat and Rabin) have demonstrated conclusively that an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (the biblical names for the West Bank area) would indeed represent an enormous, and likely irreversible, step toward the Arab-envisioned final solution to the Arab-Israel conflict -- namely, the destruction of the Jewish State.  The Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza have resulted in enhanced Arab aggression and intransigence and provide an unmistakable model for the horror that would rain down on Israel should Fatah/Hamas take control of Judea and Samaria.


Despite the self-evidence of this assessment, Israeli leaders continue to pursue the chimera of a "two-state solution."  Several (but especially Barak and Olmert) have offered the Palestinian Arabs virtually all that they might have expected under the Oslo accords.  But in their blind hatred for the Jewish State, in their revealing lack of interest in setting up a new state of their own, and in their undying expectation that the Jewish state cannot hold out indefinitely, they have spurned the offers and continued to pine for the great Götterdämmerung that they expect must inevitably occur.


It is time for Israeli leaders -- indeed, for the whole nation -- to recognize the futility of Oslo, declare it a dead letter, and pursue a completely different path.  It is time for Israelis to recognize reality, stop acting like they lost all the wars that they have won, and initiate a new strategy.


Toward what goal? Well, the goal depends on the aspirant:

  • The Arab/Muslim world seeks the destruction of Israel and the diminution (by death, expulsion, and dhimmitude) of the Jewish population in "Palestine."
  • People in non-Middle Eastern nations friendly to Israel -- e.g., the United States -- would like to see a bona fide peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs, followed by mutual trust, normal relations, and prosperity for both.
  • Most of the rest of the non-Muslim world feels a distinct distaste for Israel -- ranging from blatant anti-Semitism to misguided appropriation of blame -- and would be content to see Israel vanish from the scene if it would bring calm to the region.
  • Israel and most of world Jewry want the nation to experience freedom, prosperity, a robust civil society, and a vibrant Jewish life. It would be preferable if all of that were to occur in the context of peace with Israel's neighbors. But if not, these goals far outweigh the desire for tranquil relations with neighbors. Israel has proven that it can create and sustain a successful society, even while it remains at war. If the Arabs refuse to make peace, so be it. Israel's primary goals remain.

Nothing I can say will dissuade the Arab/Muslim world from its genocidal intentions toward Israel.  And sad to say, history has shown that no non-suicidal Jewish/Israeli policy will appease its non-Muslim opponents.  History also reveals that while much of Israeli policy is motivated by its desire to please its friends around the world, the results have often endangered the State.


So what are Israel's options?  It can continue to perform the same ridiculous Oslo dance that it has choreographed for the last twenty years.  It should be evident that such a course of action is pointless, fruitless, and dangerous.  Israel could also "surrender" -- i.e., unilaterally withdraw from Judea and Samaria.  Anyone who believes that this would not be a suicidal act is hopelessly naïve.  What Israel should do is abrogate Oslo, cite its right to do so because the Palestinians have repeatedly and flagrantly violated their obligations under the accords, and declare itself sovereign in Judea and Samaria.


Now, Israel can do this in two ways: (i) offer all the Arab residents Israeli citizenship or (ii) not.  Either way, Israel will be condemned and vilified, and its incorporation of the disputed territories will not be recognized internationally.  But consider the Golan Heights.  Israel annexed it thirty years ago and met with the exact same kind of reaction.  But today -- especially in light of events in Syria in the last two years -- who doesn't doubt the wisdom of the move?  The Golan is part of Israel, and soon the world will recognize it as a fait accompli -- if it doesn't already.  It may take fifty years, but the world will eventually accept the new borders of Israel when Israel finally recognizes its only sensible course of action.


The choice on Arab citizenship is tricky.  The temptation is to allow the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria to keep their Jordanian passports and not offer them Israeli citizenship.  To do that will lend credence to the current but bogus charge that Israel is an "apartheid state."  To have more than 20% of a population as permanent resident aliens is not a tidy state of affairs.  But, critics argue, the alternative course is far worse.  Granting citizenship would render Israel two thirds Jewish and one third Arab.  Moreover, the balance would shift to 50-50 or worse within a generation.  It would then be impossible to retain the Jewish character of the state, or else Israel would truly become a state in which a near or actual majority is deemed second-class citizens.


But here's the place where conventional wisdom is wrong.  The demographics have shifted dramatically in the last generation.  The Arab fertility rate has plummeted (from approximately 9 children to roughly 3.5), and the Jewish rate has grown steadily (to slightly over 3) -- to the point that the rates are virtually equal.  Moreover, the trend continues, and so even with annexation and citizenship, the breakdown might be more like 75/25 in a generation.


Well one could argue that even a 25% Arab minority -- with or without full rights -- poses a threat to the Jewish character of the nation.  Perhaps.  But that is the issue that should be debated -- not which minuscule pieces of land should be swapped in a fictitious peace agreement between Israel and Fatah that is never going to happen.


Israel needs to break out of the grip of the Oslo Final Solution.  If the Jewish nation would openly and seriously contemplate and debate the application of Israeli law to Judea and Samaria, then the grip would be broken.  Only then might the Arab world consider accepting the existence of a Jewish state in its midst and abandon its homicidal dream of absorbing or obliterating it.


Ron Lipsman

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/its_time_to_junk_oslo.html

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

Opinion: A Region without Logic



by Yousef Al-Dayni


There is no doubt that the Middle East as a region has lost its sense of logic and become a theater of the absurd, full of irrational ideas and political stances. This is something that will have an impact for many years to come. It could be more influential than the Nakba [the 1948 Palestinian War], the Naksah [the 1967 Arab–Israeli war], both Gulf Wars, and even the consequences of the September 11 attacks, in terms of magnitude and impact. This is not pessimism; rather, it is an attempt to forecast a painful reality that has been emerging day by day in our region.

There has been talk of Gulf Shi’ites fighting alongside Hezbollah fighters, in opposition to groups of Sunni fighters that want to be free from the implications and historical burden of Al-Qaeda. They are seeking a new image for an armed solution after having been let down by the international community. Syrians are now experiencing a pincer movement of extremism; stuck between the Assad regime and Hezbollah on the one hand, and groups that have adopted Al-Qaeda’s mentality and ideology on the other. For the latter, any talk of terrorism is a political and moral crime, since they consider this negated by the fact that they are fighting Assad.

On a sectarian level, one can easily be besieged by footage, video clips, news, jokes and comments—sent by anonymous sources—all seeking to provoke an abhorrent sectarian agenda. In Egypt, video footage showing a group of Shi’ite men being dragged through the streets appeared amateur compared with the images of extremist Sunni groups—driven by a politically sectarian conflict—besieging Sidon and attacking the military. In the meantime, the Lebanese army does not dare to approach Hezbollah in the same way. Of course, this does not justify the discourse and attitudes of these groups, whose leaders have become stars and symbols in their own right among the Sunni community.

On a political level, those who see crises as opportunities are awake to any possibility, and the state of instability is allowed to further prevail. There are vociferous groups that pressure the Gulf States, yet remain silent over what is happening in Turkey, which serves as a model of political Islam. The most absurd people are determined to grant full legitimacy and support to the failed Muslim Brotherhood governments following the Arab Spring. A prominent example of this is the Freedom and Justice party’s experience in Egypt—led by Mohammed Mursi, who in just one year managed to do untold damage to the economy and the prospects of civil peace. 

This theater of the absurd is not confined to the Arab state of affairs alone. It also relates to the way in which the larger countries and international organizations in the West are approaching matters. In Europe, there is a wall of silence about portraying political struggles and disputes as religious ones, ignoring catastrophic factors that could have repercussions in their own region. Sunni groups that have a strong presence in a number of European countries could once again become active and attempt to revive the main objective of Al-Qaeda organizations—targeting Western interests. This fundamental aim has been put on hold due to the change of circumstances. Furthermore, ignorance about Hezbollah’s violations of state sovereignty—and about Iranian support in this endeavor—will open the region up to a limitless proxy war.

There is a state of massive destruction caused by the deafening silence from the international community. There is mere speculation as to what Syria might look like after Assad—who has no reason to stay in power in light of the death toll, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands. This is not to mention the millions who have been displaced. 

The wave of sectarianism and attempts to portray the struggle as a religious one through the lens of a Sunni–Shi’ite war is the major catalyst behind this regional theater of the absurd. By remaining silent and bending over backwards to avoid the general public’s sweeping rage, intellectuals and analysts are committing an unforgivable moral crime. This is something that only serves the Assad regime’s objectives. Bashar Al-Assad is well aware that the majority of his army are fighting for him on ideological, rather than sectarian, grounds. Assad regime forces are dominated by the Ba’athist ideology, and their commitment to Assad has little to do with religious identity. Furthermore, the Iranian voice of political Shi’ism—as seen through Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Huthi rebels—does not incorporate all the Shi’ites in the region. Therefore the rest of the Shi’ites silence over the crimes being committed by their brethren can only be explained as fear of being cast out by the rest of their sect. This, however, resembles someone justifying Al-Qaeda’s crimes on the grounds that it is the only organization now standing up for the Syrian people.

In the midst of this grave crisis, it is natural that we should become illogical and establish an unreasonable theater of the absurd in the same manner that the First and Second World Wars were reflected in the literature of the time. However, justifying such absurd policies and remaining silent about this will only serve to further aggravate the situation due to the absence of voices of moderation and logic. 

There is a significant section of society that is turning a blind eye to everything that is happening out of fear of the wave of “extremism” now sweeping away the entire region. Now, in our region, sectarian and secessionist voices are only getting louder and louder, including those who want to adopt armed solutions and who view political crises as a business.

There is an ocean of sectarian blood now being shed, and it is our duty not to be dragged towards the calls supporting and inciting this. As Thomas Mann said, “War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.”


Yousef Al-Dayni

Source: http://www.aawsat.net/2013/06/article55307713

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

Egypt Newspapers' 30 June Headlines: From 'Judgment Day' to 'Leave'



by Zeinab El Gundy

Al Masry Al Youm front page reads 'public squares to Morsi: leave'; Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice newspaper calls to 'expose molotov opposition'

Egyptian newspapers

(Photo: Zeinab el gundy)
Coverage of the upcoming 30 June protests is varied among the front pages of Egypt's major newspapers.

On the front page of Al Ahram, Egypt's biggest state owned newspaper, the headline read "Egypt in the fist of fear" and coverage highlighted the army and police's heightened security measures.

Al Akhbar, Egypt's second biggest state owned newspaper, proclaimed "Egypt on volcanic crater" as its front page headline, along with "Tahrir announces the end of Muslim Brotherhood rule while Rabaa Al-Adawiya Square prepares with martial arts training," a reference to the anti-Morsi sit-in in Tahrir Square and the pro-Morsi sit-in at Rabaa Al-Adawiya mosque.

Al Masry Al Youm's headline read "Public squares to Morsi: Leave" while Al Watan newspaper described 30 June as the "Judgment day" on its front page.  

The front page of Tahrir was all red and featured one word: "Leave." A similar approach was used by Youm 7, whose front page had a red background with a picture of a crying lady and headlines reading "Red card for the president" and "22,000,000 Tamarod petitions."

In the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice newspaper, headlines diverged from the nation's major newspapers, with the front page reading "The people want: to topple the Mubarak's regime remnants, to expose Molotov opposition and to support legitimacy."

Other headlines in Freedom and Justice highlighted the increasing size of the Rabaa Al-Adawiya sit-in, the sexual harassment cases in Tahrir Square, and the prosecutor general's investigation of leading opposition members accused of calling a coup following attacks on Brotherhood HQ's across the country.


Zeinab El Gundy

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/75308/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-newspapers--June-headlines-From-judgment-day.aspx

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

Jews From Muslim Lands



by Noah Beck


June 20 was World Refugee Day, dedicated to nearly 60 million people worldwide who have been forcibly displaced by conflict or persecution. One group of refugees rarely acknowledged is the Jews who were indigenous to Muslim lands but who were compelled to flee around the time when the State of Israel was established.

A Google search for "1948 refugees" produces about 6 million results. All but a few (at least through page six) are about the Palestinian Arab refugees, as if they were the only refugees of 1948. But it is estimated that from the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War through the early 1970s, up to 1,000,000 Jews fled or were expelled from their ancestral homes in Muslim countries. 260,000 of those refugees reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and comprised 56% of all immigration to the fledgling state. By 1972, their numbers had reached 600,000.

In 1948, Middle East and North African countries had considerable Jewish populations: Morocco (250,000), Algeria (140,000), Iraq (140,000), Iran (120,000), Egypt (75,000), Tunisia (50,000), Yemen (50,000), Libya (35,000), and Syria (20,000). Today, the indigenous Jews of those countries are virtually extinct (although Morocco and Iran each still has under 10,000 Jews). In most cases, the Jewish population had lived there for millennia.

Few know this history because the Jewish refugees of 1948 were granted citizenship by the countries to which they fled, including Israel. By contrast, many Muslim countries refused to integrate the Palestinian refugees, preferring to leave them as second-class citizens in order to maintain a domestic demographic balance and/or a political problem for Israel.

Media bias also explains why so few people know about the 1948 Jewish refugees from Muslim lands. A search for "1948 refugees" on the BBC news site generates 41 articles (going back to 1999); 40 discuss the Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948. Only three of those 40 (dated 9/22/11, 9/2/10, and 4/15/04) even mention the Jewish refugees from Muslim lands, and two do so only in a single, superficial sentence that presents the issue as a claim rather than a historical fact.

A search for "1948 refugees Jews from Arab lands" on the New York Times site produces 497 results (replacing "Arab" with "Muslim" halves the results), while "1948 Palestinian refugees" yields 1,050 results. Consider a comparison using Sri Lanka, another war-torn, multi-ethnic country that gained its independence from Britain in 1948. The nearly 26-year ethnic conflict there began in 1983 and claimed 80,000-100,000 lives, many multiples of the total casualties from the nearly 100-year Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sri Lanka's conflict also produced hundreds of thousands of refugees, including at least 200,000 Tamil refugees in Western Europe alone. Yet a search for "Tamil refugees" generates only 531 articles -- less than 5% of the 11,300 results for "Palestinian Arab refugees."

Institutionalized favoritism at the UN has also enabled the Palestinians to monopolize the refugee issue, which undoubtedly reinforces the media's bias. All non-Palestinian refugees around the world (nearly 55 million) are cared for by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, which works under the guidelines of the Convention on Refugees of 1951. But Palestinian refugees (whose original population was under one million) have a UN agency dedicated exclusively to them (UNRWA).

UNRWA's unique definition of "refugee" includes anyone "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." So, in addition to families who lived in the area for generations, UNRWA's definition includes any migrants who arrived as recently as 1946 but were then displaced. And because the definition includes "descendants of fathers fulfilling the definition," UNRWA's refugee population has grown from 750,000 in 1950 to 5,300,000 today (making resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue even harder). Despite these problems, the United States continues to support UNRWA (with over 4.1 billion dollars since 1950).

The rest of the world's refugees are assisted by the High Commission, which is mandated to help refugees rapidly rebuild their lives, usually outside the countries that they fled. Jewish refugees from Muslim lands did just that: they rebuilt their lives in Israel and elsewhere. But the fact that they quietly adapted and Israel granted them full citizenship doesn't lessen the wrongs committed by their countries of origin. These Jewish refugees from Muslim lands suffered legal and often violent persecution that resulted in immeasurable emotional and physical loss. They lost billions in property and endured huge socioeconomic disadvantages when forced to rebuild their lives from scratch. Israel was unfairly burdened with the colossal social and economic cost of suddenly absorbing so many refugees. So any suggestion that Jewish refugees from Muslim lands don't deserve compensation is resoundingly wrong.

On the recent World Refugee Day, the Israeli Knesset member Shimon Ohayon, whose family fled Morocco in 1956, called on the Arab League to "accept their great responsibility for driving out almost a million Jews from lands [in] which they had lived for millennia." He explained that "In 1947, the Political Committee of the Arab League drafted a law that... called for the freezing of bank accounts of Jews, their internment and [the confiscation of their assets]. Various other discriminatory measures were taken by Arab nations and subsequent meetings reportedly called for the expulsion of Jews from member states of the Arab League." Ohayon challenged the League to accept responsibility for "the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population from most of the Middle East and North Africa... [and] to provide redress to the Jewish refugees."

A just and comprehensive Mideast peace is possible only when Muslim states recognize their role in two historic wrongs: 1) displacing one million indigenous people only because they were Jews, and 2) perpetuating the plight of Palestinian refugees by denying them citizenship. The first wrong requires financial compensation to the families of Jewish refugees from Muslim lands, which reparation can be administered by the states that absorbed them. The second wrong should be remedied by granting full citizenship to Palestinian refugees (and their descendants) who have resettled in Muslim lands. Both wrongs have festered for too many decades.


Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes that also discusses the expulsion of Jews from Muslim lands.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/jews_from_muslim_lands.html

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

A Hysterical and Ignorant Response



by Melanie Phillips


I am rubbing my eyes at the hysterical responses to my blog post on the British government’s banning order against anti-jihadi activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. People will have to read what I wrote, alongside  the attacks on me by Ms Geller and Mr Spencer, to decide for themselves whether their responses were proportionate -- or could even be considered an accurate or fair representation of what I wrote.

Unlike the two of them, I have no wish to indulge in such ad hominem  -- and counter productive – vitriol. I would just make the following points.

First, you would hardly think from their reaction that I actually opposed – and in the strongest terms – the order banning them from Britain. Furthermore, I spoke of them merely as ‘anti-jihadis’ and gave unambiguous credit to Robert Spencer’s scrupulous scholarship. The only aspect on which I said in this piece that I parted company with them was over their endorsement of

‘groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.’

I did not call the EDL racist or neo-Nazi. I do, however, believe it contains thuggish elements.

Its leader, ‘Tommy Robinson’, has criminal convictions for assault and football hooliganism.
He is a former member of the unquestionably racist British National Party. Some members of the EDL have been pictured making Nazi salutes at rallies. The EDL exploits the very real threat of jihad, as well as the often violent attacks against its own members, to mask its own demonstrably yobbish behaviour. You can see examples of such behavior, throwing bottles at the police, here or here, where Tommy Robinson decided to go on a bender in Luton and started gratuitously throwing missiles at the police from a distance, boasting he would ‘hit a police officer on the … head’.

It targets mosques indiscriminately for its demonstrations, threatening Muslims regardless of whether they are extremists or not. Robinson has personally threatened:  
‘The Islamic community will feel the full force of the EDL if we see any of our citizens killed maimed or hurt’. 

It stages provocative stunts like this one to defy the police in order to pose as martyrs to ‘sharia law’, while actually provoking violence of which it then claims to be the victim (look closely to see how the punch that is thrown comes in response to being pushed).   

To represent a refusal to be associated with all this as some kind of snobbish sneering at the lower classes is therefore demonstrably ridiculous. That claim, moreover, reflects a belief in a comic book caricature of Britain which is startlingly ignorant and prejudiced, as well as the arrogant assumption that people in the US know better than the British what is actually taking place on British streets.

By ‘other racist or xenophobic groups’, by the way, I was referring to the Vlaams Belang, a Belgian party which was formed when its predecessor the Vlaams Blok -- whose former vice-president cast doubt on the Holocaust -- disbanded after being convicted of racism, and alongside whose frontman, Filip Dewinter, Ms Geller and Mr Spencer participated in a ‘counter-jihad’ conference in Brussels  in 2007.

Ms Geller refers to a claim by Jamie Glazov at Front Page Magazine, where Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch is housed, that I have
‘hit two freedom fighters when the chips are down’.

Hmmn – ‘hit’ Ms Geller and Mr Spencer by strongly opposing their banning order, right?

He then states:
‘The strategy and tactics of battle that she [Melanie] is distancing herself from and that she sees as lowbrow is precisely the mentality that has helped spawn the UK’s surrender to Sharia and Jihad -- and is, in turn, precisely why Lee Rigby was recently murdered -- and why Muhammad al-Arifi, Abu Qatada and Anjem Choudary are welcome in the UK and why Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are not.’

You’d never think from this, would you, that I wrote the book Londonistan, and have been viciously and repeatedly attacked for ‘Islamophobia’ on account of my warnings against Britain’s systemic failure to acknowledge the religious nature of the Islamic jihad against the west. You’d never realise from this, would you, that in my piece about the banning order I specifically condemned the UK government for allowing into the country inflammatory Islamic extremists while banning Ms Geller and Mr Spencer. No, all this is simply brushed aside  -- because I do not think common cause should be made with thugs and neo-Nazis.

One of the surreal aspects of this brouhaha is that I currently find myself accused of anti-Islamic bigotry and supporting ‘extremists’ by opposing the banning order against Ms Geller and Mr Spencer -- while simultaneously being accused of selling the pass to Islamisation and mounting an ‘appalling’ attack upon Ms Geller and Mr Spencer.

It would be comic, were it not a tragic illustration of the west’s inability correctly to identify just who are its enemies and who are its true defenders.


Melanie Phillips

Source: http://www.melaniephillips.com/a-hysterical-and-ignorant-response

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

Last Gasps of Secularism in Turkey



by MEMRI





Below are excerpts from two articles in Roznama Islam, an Urdu-language Islamist daily in Pakistan, which examined the recent protests by secular forces in Turkey and their likely impact on the rest of the Islamic world. 

In an article, "Last Hiccups Of Secularism In Turkey," columnist Dr. Sajid Khakwani argued that the era of secularism is now over in Turkey, and its impact will be felt in other Islamic countries, stating that like communism, secularism too will be buried forever.

In the second article, "Anti-Government Protest Continues In Turkey," Islamic cleric Maulana Mohammad Azhar argued that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist policies are popular in the country and that his party will win again. He also notes that viewng the Turkish protests as similar to the Arab Spring protests is incorrect, as they will not end the Erdogan government's reign.

"Like The Lamp That Glitters In Full Bloom Before Being Extinguished, The Remaining And Defeated Secularists Are Peeping Out Through Their Coffin … And Are Sabotaging Their Own Established Democratic Norms"

The following are excerpts from Dr. Sajid Khakwani's article:[1]

"Ever since the artificial and conspiratorial ending of the Ottoman Caliphate, [Turkey's] secular leadership kept its tyrannical claws pierced the necks of Turkish Muslims, and for about three-quarters of a century military generals used gunpower to protect the secular rulers in the garb of democracy. After a long time, as the stinking ideology of secularism became unbearable to the Turkish people and their patience boiled over, and [in view of] the huge countrywide support that the Justice [and Development] party of the orthodox Tayyip Erdogan received in the last three elections, it would not be wrong to call it the last nail in the coffin of secularism.

"Like the lamp that glitters in full bloom before being extinguished, the remaining and defeated secularists are peeping out through their coffin with the blessings from internal and external elements, and are sabotaging their own established democratic norms against the Islamist leaders. These secular people have many complaints, and the biggest among them is that the present orthodox rulers have tarnished Turkey's secular image. They should first answer: why has secularism sullied the Islamic identity of Turkey, and who has given this right to the traitors of the Ummah to deprive the entire Muslim Ummah of the soothing shadow of the Islamic caliphate, and chain them with the tyrannical and brutal shackles and handcuffs of European secularism and hereditary monarchy?

"Allah gave power to the Justice party in Turkey for their services to the people. Najmuddin [Necmettin] Erbakan, and after him Tayyip Erdogan, won the hearts of the people during their rule. Urban areas of Turkey which were filled with filth during the rule of secular leaders are now clean like mirrors, because cleanliness and neatness is among the first teachings of Islam. Turkey, which was economically the sick man of Europe during the times of secular rulers and whose currency was touching the lowest ebb, is now being considered among the top countries of Europe under the Islamists' rule, due to their best economic policies….

"The secular rulers had maintained Turkey's foreign policy under [the influence of] the most notorious fascist state of the world, Israel, while the Islamist rulers gave Turkey a respectable status among the world community by maintaining a balanced foreign policy despite being a NATO member. The Turkish leadership not only raised its voice globally in favor of Burmese Muslims [following the recent killings by majority Buddhists], but also visited that country and put ointment on the running sore of the helpless Burmese Muslims. The secular rulers lived their tenure with military support, while Islamists drove away the military generals from the highest educational and administrative institutions of the country. Besides that, strengthening national and democratic institutions, including peace and security, educational development, safeguarding of human rights and religious freedom, instead of individual rules, have been the hallmark of the Islamist rulers. "

"Now The Writing Is On The Wall That Secularism Will Be Buried Beside The Grave Of Communism And The Future of The Human World Will Remain Attached To The Crown Of Prophethood [Muhammad]"

"The defeated secular elements are not able to digest these successes of Turkey's orthodox Muslim rulers because the path of secularism would be broken forever not only in Turkey but also in other Islamic countries due to these epoch-making successes, and the difference between secularism and the virtues of the Islamic way of life will become evident before the world…

"Turkey's secular elements have taken to the roads from the end of the past month against the reconstruction of a park in Istanbul. They object that this would destroy the city's greenery and pollution will increase in the atmosphere, etc. However, these objections are nothing more than the traditional hypocrisy and duality of secularism.

"The fact is that the Turkish government wants to bring a change in the map around this park to deal with the traffic rush and problems faced by pedestrians, which involves the construction of a mosque along with other works. How could the secular elements, which have been taught the freedom of Christianity by their lords in the name of the freedom of religion, tolerate the construction of a mosque? There stood military barracks near this park in 1909, constructed by the Ottoman caliphate. The secular governments demolished those barracks in 1940 and constructed the Ataturk Cultural Centre in its place, and all those things which are done in the secular world take place there. The Tayyip Erdogan government decided to rebuild those barracks of the Ottoman period by demolishing the so-called cultural center because the ills that are there have no place in Islamic culture. This is the real reason of the secularists' problem.

"The secular element's protest has proved to be the last straw [that broke] the camel's back, because making such a nationwide hue and cry on the reconstruction of a park does not hold any meaning. The fact is that the secular forces are terribly frightened over the paths that the enlightened orthodox Muslim leadership of Turkey has opened for implementing Islamic sharia in a short span of past ten years, despite the secular constitution. Only some time ago the government passed a law in the parliament according to which the sale of alcohol was prohibited at night. This is a clear indication that alcohol would be banned completely. The Islamist government lifted the ban on women wearing the scarf just after coming to power, while during the reign of the secular government police had order to snatch away scarves from the heads of veiled women….

"Now the wife of the prime minister, who is the country's first lady, is seen wearing a scarf. The present government has put a ban from the very beginning on kissing and other immoral activities at public places. Beside that, the Erdogan government not only sidelined the great hereditary generals with much precision and made them ineffective, but also put them behind bars by bringing cases of corruption against them. How could such actions be acceptable to the secular forces and their foreign lords? That is why all the rage is being vented against the development of Islamic values in the name of Gezi Park and Taksim Square.

"At present the world media in general, especially European media … while the Jewish media has raised the sky on their heads about these protests. The world media is so concerned about the alleged destruction of the greenery of a garden that it has created a global storm. Thousands of Muslims were killed in Burma and their innumerable properties and prayer houses were turned into ashes, and Buddhists slew Muslims by knives, but the Jewish and Christian media played the role of mute spectators by becoming blind, dumb, and deaf. Is this the standard of freedom of expression under secularism? This very attitude of the secularists will become the cause of the drowning of secularism, and now the writing is on the wall that secularism will be buried beside the grave of communism, and the future of the human world will remain attached to the crown of Prophet-hood [Muhammad] … from the beginning until the end, Allah willing."

"Turkey Is Still A Secular Country Constitutionally, But Now This Notion Has Become Popular That Forceful Implementation Of Secularism Is Against Human Rights"; "Hundreds Of Thousands Of Trained Activists [From Religious Seminaries] Proved To Be Very Effective In Creating Political And Religious Consciousness In Villages, Towns, And Cities"



Following are excerpts from Maulana Mohammad Azhar's article:[2]

"For the past few days in Turkey, protest demonstrations have continued in Istanbul along with in some other provinces on a limited level. Apparently these protests started against the cutting down of some trees at Gezi Park in Istanbul, where the government wants to construct a shopping plaza; but in fact the catalyst of this protest and violence is the law under which open immoral activities and the sale and purchase of alcohol has been prohibited.

"Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party, which has been victorious three times consecutively in general elections, enjoys the people's support as usual. AKP (the short for Justice and Development Party in Turkish) got 37% vote when it first came into power [in 2002], but due to its performance it got more that 54% of the vote in the last elections. AKP has prepared an army of volunteers by including hundred thousands of youth and women in its election strategy who are busy in the efforts of [establishing] the system of justice in the country with purity of intention. The Justice party is carrying forward its agenda with prudence and wisdom. Along with education, unemployment, health, distribution of wealth, social security, industrialization, freedom from debt-based economic burden, and civil facilities, the anti-Islam reminiscence of Kemalism [the ideology of Turkish ruler Mustafa Kamal Pasha, who brought an end of Ottoman caliphate in Turkey] is also being controlled without any oppression.

"There was a time when Kemalism had brought the country completely on the lines of Western atheism. The onslaught of Western culture and civilization, the change in Turkish script, ban on the original Arabic words of Azan [calling for prayer from mosques], adoption of Western dress code, ban on hijab [veil], etc., were steps which had changed the national culture. This was the time when [20th century Turkish Islamist scholar] Badiuzzaman Said Nursi started his [Islamist] movement and tried to spread the teachings and explanations of the holy Koran to the greatest possible extent. Ustaaz Said Nursi's movement kept spreading despite the government's power and the influence of Kemalism, and the effect of his message became evidently visible in the '70s, ten years after his death.

"Turkey is still a secular country constitutionally, but now this notion has become popular that forceful implementation of secularism is against human rights. Education, and especially religious education, is the basic right of every human being. Therefore, the trend of religious education in Turkey is astonishing. There has been increase in the Koranic [study] circles at the rate of more than 135 every year from 1983 to 1990. In 1990, there were about 5,000 Koranic circles active in providing courses on Koran. About one million youth completed courses on the Koran from these circles.

"Similarly, the numbers of the graduates from the [religious seminaries] Imam Khatib schools were 29,000 in 1975, reached 201,000 in 1981, and by 1991 it reached 3,009,000. These hundreds of thousands of trained activists proved to be very effective in creating political and religious consciousness in villages, towns, and cities. Parents got their wards admitted to the Imam Khatib schools to save their children from narcotics, smoking, and other moral ills. When these children reached the universities, there started a clear change."

"The Secular Groups Accuse The Present [Erdogan] Government Of Curbing People's Civil Liberties"; "Some People Are Comparing The Protests Emanating From Taksim Square With Those Of Egypt And Other Arab States, As If These Protests Are The Logical End Of The Government"

"However, secular forces did not remain silent during this period. These forces are against the process of seeping in of Islam into the society. Therefore, these people keep organizing protest demonstrations on one or another pretext against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has unflinching faith in Islam, and his government. This time there seems to be comparative severity in these protest. But this does not mean that … Erdogan's popularity has gone down or people are against the act of purification [policies by the government]. The fact is that he is not seen as a politician only, but as a statesman. Most of the present progress of Turkey is the result of his intelligence and hard labor.

"The secular groups accuse the present government of curbing people's civil liberties in the name of implementing ethics. The evidence they give are about government orders, including fixing the time of alcohol sale, banning young couple from meeting in parks, and a ban on use of sharp-color lipsticks and nail-polishes by stewardesses in government-run airlines. However, the Turkish people appreciate these things and call it in accordance with their cultural and religious traditions.

"Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan went on a four-day visit to North America. He is so popular that when he came back, there were tens of thousands activists at the airport to welcome him, without any announcement. This was a message to the anti-government protestors that the people of Turkey support the policies of Tayyip Erdogan.

"Addressing his supporters [at the airport], the prime minister called the protests unjustified. At that moment his enthusiastic supporters demanded that he suppress the protestors, but the thinker and moderate prime minister asked them to remain peaceful and return peacefully to their homes. Replying to the demands of his resignation, he said that he is not only the PM of t50% of the people, but he is working for 76 million Turkish citizens.

"The foreign media has acknowledged that the passionate welcome of the PM suggests that he remains popular among the masses. Some people are comparing the protests emanating from Taksim Square with those of Egypt and other Arab states, as if these protests are the logical end of the government. The clear difference between Turkey and the Arab states is that while the protests were due to the dictatorship and lack of democratic set-up [in Arab countries], in Turkey not only is democracy strong and established, but the ruling party enjoys the absolute support of the people. Therefore, there is no such threat of temporary turmoil or limited protest demonstrations. It is hoped that the Justice party would make a new record by being victorious for the fourth time."


Endnotes:
[1] Roznama Islam (Pakistan), June 15, 2013.
[2] Roznama Islam (Pakistan), June 11, 2013.

MEMRI

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7259.htm

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

Tahrir Revisited



by Daniel Siryoti and David Baron


Thousands stream to Tahrir Square, and they are just the tip of the iceberg • A million-person march today will call for Morsi's ouster • Report: The president and his family have been moved to a safe house • Eight citizens have already been killed.

Protesters set fire to items taken from President Mohammed Morsi's party headquarters
|
Photo credit: AFP



Daniel Siryoti and David Baron  

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=10361  

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

Beheading for a ‘Free’ Syria



by Majid Rafizadeh


Picture 4 

“Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar.” This chant, meaning “God is great” in Arabic, is repeatedly heard in this barbaric and savage video clip (below). Amidst a crowd of men standing on a small hill, while women and children watch behind, are three kneeling men – supposedly supporters of Assad’s regime – who are beheaded by a large knife. In the background, someone exclaims, “This is the punishment of the Shabiha.” Sabiha, a militia group, has been unleashed by Assad’s regime as a tool for cracking down and suppressing his opposition.  After the gruesome beheading, in which one of the detached heads falls to the side, another rebel yells, “Place the head of that dog straight.” In Middle Eastern Muslim culture, calling someone a dog is considered a grave insult. The beheading by the Islamists, who appear to be imported from another country and are supposedly connected to the Jabhat Al-Nusra front, is a reference to Islamic Sharia law.

Warning: Graphic Content



This recently released video is just one among a plentitude of other videos that draws attention to two significant phenomena. First, the jihadist, Islamist, and Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have gained substantial control and dominance in various cities in Syria, including Idlib, Aleppo, Homs, and suburbs within Damascus. Secondly, through the operations conducted by the jihadists, Islamists as well as Assad’s regime, the conflict in Syria has increasingly taken sectarian elements; people – particularly minorities – are being slaughtered based solely on their religion. In one video released earlier, a rebel fighter is shown cutting out and biting into the heart of a dead soldier. The leader of these rebels is Khaled Al Hamad, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Sakkar. Sakar, who is from the Baba Amro district in Homs, is a former senior figure in the Al Farouq Brigade. In this graphic video, Sakar exclaims, with bloody organ in hand, “I swear to God, soldiers of Bashar [referring to the Alawite minority], you dogs – we will eat your heart and livers! God is great! Oh my heroes of Baba Amr, you slaughter the Alawites and take their hearts out to eat them.”

Recently, the Obama administration – after the Syrian conflict entered its third year and long after critical world powers have taken decisive action – has decided to make a policy decision to arm the Syrian rebels. For the last three years, the Obama administration has preferred to use the “wait and see” policy in Syria: avoiding taking robust geopolitical and strategic action against Assad’s regime, avoiding taking a leadership role, and leaving the destiny of Syria to be determined by Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah leaders. Currently, the liberals have been projecting the Obama administration’s current strategy to arm the rebels as a tactically successful policy achievement.

First of all, it is crucial to point out that although the Obama administration has made one of the most significant strategic, geopolitical, and security policy gaffes in the last decade by not taking leadership when the popular uprisings first erupted in Syria, the current and delayed policy decision to arm the rebels will in fact fuel more severe repercussions to U.S. national interest in the Middle East and beyond. Undoubtedly, Syria is the closest military and strategic ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as a sworn enemy of Israel. If the Obama administration had taken a more robust course of action earlier, when the peaceful uprisings first started, the United States would have been capable of achieving a vital strategic and geopolitical breakthrough by revising Assad’s brutal regime and completely isolating Iran in the region. This would have accumulated further pressure on Iran by shifting the balance of power in the region, eventually leading to the regime’s collapse.

The delayed decision to arm the rebels will result in a more severe backlash against U.S. national and security interests. The reason is that currently the jihadists, Islamists and Al-Qaeda-linked groups are the most dominant, aggressive, and successful forces among the rebel forces throughout Syria. These groups are sworn to turn Syria, Lebanon and Iraq into an uncompromisingly Islamic state, ruled by Islamic and Sharia law. In addition, there is no command-and-control system between other rebel groups. As a result, arming the rebels equates to directly or indirectly financing and arming these terrorist groups who are implementing atrocious practices like beheading and mass execution and other inhumane behaviors.

Although liberals argue that the U.S. will send arms to the “good” rebels, it is nearly impossible to distinguish the “good” rebels from the barbaric ones anymore. It is unrealistic to insure that arms and weapons will fall into the hand of the peaceful revolutionaries; in fact, they are more likely to fall into the hands of the same Islamist and Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups who are slaughtering, beheading, and mass-executing people and pushing for a Sharia-law based Islamist state. These are the severe repercussions of not taking leadership in Syria, adopting a “wait and see” policy, and being among one of the last countries to make a decision on such a strategically and geopolitically critical issue.


Majid Rafizadeh

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/beheading-for-a-free-syria/

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

Syrian Troops Launch Massive Offensive on Homs



by The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff




President Bashar Assad's army hits rebel bastion city with artillery, tanks and warplanes in a drive to capture rebel-held neighborhoods • Reports from Lebanon: Senior Hezbollah and Syrian officials killed by rebels in ambush on convoy.

A Homs resident stands in the rubble of buildings destroyed by army shelling
Photo credit: AP
The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff  

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=10347  

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