"Palestine" is "The Jewish People’s State” under International Law - Wallace Edward Brand, JD

by Wallace Edward Brand, JD

The collective rights were not to vest in the Jewish People until the Jews had attained a population majority where they would rule, and the capability to exercise sovereignty.

A few months after the Ottoman Empire joined Germany in World War 1 in 1914 by attacking Russian ships, Herbert Samuel, a British Zionist, later appointed as the first Commissioner of the British Mandate in Palestine, recognized this was likely an opportunity to obtain a Jewish Palestine. But he decided that there were too few Jews in the population in Palestine at that time for immediate statehood to be practical.  Although in the Jerusalem area the Jews were two thirds the total population, in the Palestine territory as a whole they only numbered about 100,000 or about one sixth the total of perhaps 600,000 Arab Muslims and Christians.

Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who had risen high in the British Labor Government wrote in a memo to the British War Cabinet entitled "The Future of Palestine": If Palestine were to be open to unrestricted Jewish immigration, it might become a Jewish majority state. How could they become a Jewish majority state? It would need a majority to be able to command obedience from the Arab ethnic population; also a larger population to protect the state against Arabs or other enemies external to the state. A failed Jewish state might set back Zionism for 100 years.  After looking at what he conceived were the only alternatives, Samuel decided the way to go was to have Britain annex Palestine. The only alternatives to British annexation he thought of were: 1. Annexation by France, 2. Internationalization, 3.  Annexation to Egypt, and 4. continued Turkish rule with guarantees permitting Jewish settlement.

Nothing came of Samuel's efforts. However several years later the British War Cabinet decided a Declaration favoring Zionism would be useful to the war effort to obtain the goodwill of Russian and American Jews. The Bolshevik government in Russia was thinking about ending its war efforts. That would release two or more divisions of German troops from their Eastern Front to travel to the Western Front where Britain and France were in a stalemate with German forces, bogged down in trench warfare. The US had been invited to join the Allies in the war against Germany but so far had not declared war. 

David Lloyd-George had been introduced to Chaim Weizmann by C.P. Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian and Weizmann had met Lord Balfour in a garden party in Manchester. Through discussions with him about Zionism, all three had become very interested in it. Weizmann had helped England in the war by giving them free use of his intellectual property in the low cost manufacture of acetone that was used as a component of guncotton, an important explosive used in WWI.

Lloyd-George thought that only when Jews once again ruled in Palestine would it be recovered from a malarial wasteland to a land of milk and honey. (Lloyd-George, “The Jews and Palestine”, 1923).  An important consideration was that Palestine was on the British trade route to India and Asia.  Becoming trustee would give Britain control over the territory. 

But it was the influence of the War Cabinet that finally gave Britain the impetus to declare itself in favor of a Jewish Palestine. The Declaration did not prevent the Russian Bolsheviks from deciding to terminate their war with Germany nor did it help persuade the Americans to enter the war on the British side as the War Cabinet had thought.  The US did enter the war because of the  German submarine attack on US shipping and the Zimmerman telegram. Lloyd-George had become British Prime Minister and Balfour had become British Foreign Secretary. 

In 1917 Balfour had asked Weizmann to provide a first draft of a declaration of British policy favoring Zionism that Weizmann thought would satisfy the Zionists and Weizmann turned to Harry Sacher who was a lawyer but then working for the Manchester Guardian as a political analyst. He was a member of a small British Palestine club in Manchester. Sacher wrote the first draft. The final version was published on November 2, 1917.

The following month on December 19th the British Foreign Office published a memorandum explaining the Declaration responding to charges of anti-Zionists that the declaration provided for an undemocratic government. In a memo by Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier, the Foreign Office replied that a government ruled by a small section of the population would indeed be undesirable, but that was not contemplated. What was contemplated was that the [collective] rights to political self-determination in Palestine would be placed in trust, with Britain or the US as trustee having the rights to set up a government and administer it.  Individual political rights were to be saved for the Arabs as “civil rights”.

The collective rights were not to vest in the Jewish People until the Jews had attained a population majority where they would rule, and the capability to exercise sovereignty. The Balfour Declaration expressly provided for immediate right of settlement in Palestine by the Jews and for the trustee to facilitate Jewish immigration, but deferred rule by the Jews until they had met majority of population and capability of exercising sovereignty standards.

Sacher agreed with Samuel that it would be unwise to seek immediate statehood for the Jewish People but disagreed with him on the best way to bring about an enduring Jewish Palestine --  not by British annexation but by placing the collective political rights to self-determination of Palestine in trust until the Jews were ready for statehood. He wrote a short 23 page book listing five methods of attaining a Jewish Palestine, including British annexation of the territory, international control, Turkish suzerainty, immediate statehood, or trusteeship (by the US or Britain). He favored the latter. His book was entitled "A Jewish Palestine: the Jewish case for a British trusteeship.” (World Zionist Organization, London Bureau,1919). 

The United States also favored this approach as shown by the American Proposal for Palestine, January 21, 1919 delivered to President Wilson and his plenipotentiaries in Paris for the Peace Conference by a committee of academics he had set up to help in peace negotiations. The group initially called “The Inquiry”,  became the American Commission to Negotiate the Peace when he brought many of them to Paris with him. It exists today as the Council on Foreign Relations, but divorced from the government.

It recommended in pertinent part:

“1) That there be established a separate state of Palestine.

2) That this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.

3) That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there being assured by the Conference of an proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognise [sic] Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” 

This recommendation was not express in the Declaration nor the Mandate that copied the Declaration word for word.  However it is well established that the intention of the settlors of a trust is the lodestar to its interpretation.  It is likely the British carefully tailored the language of the Declaration and the Mandate to avoid unnecessary stirring up of the Arabs.

The San Remo Resolution, in the second paragraph of subpart (b) shows that the Allied Principal War Powers adopted the method Sacher had recommended. The collective rights to political self-determination consist mainly of the right to set up a government and to administer it.  The British had already formed a military government so the Palestine Mandate (the agreement for a trust to carry out the Balfour Declaration), entrusted the administration of government to the British. For how long?  Until such time as the trust res was intended to be vested in the cestui que trust (beneficiary), the Jewish People, transferring legal dominion to them.  How does one exercise legal dominion over an intangible such as collective political rights?  For a tangible trust res, legal dominion is the right of possession.  For collective political rights, legal dominion entitles the possessor to set up a government and administer it.  The Palestine Mandate gave legal dominion over those rights to the British until the trust standards had been met.

The Partition Resolution of the UN General Assembly is commonly thought to be the roots of sovereignty of the Jewish State.  Is it?  No.  It died at birth when the Arabs rejected it.  The UN’s General Assembly has only the authority to recommend, not to legislate.  The foundation of the Jewish State’s sovereignty has always been the San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate (Stone, “Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations).

Sacher had recommended that the authority of the trustee (Britain) be subject to the supervision of the League of Nations that was to have supervisory oversight.  Why?  Just in case Britain changed its mind.  Structuring the Mandate in that way, as a trust supervised by the League, saved Palestine for the Jews.  Had Britain annexed Palestine, its drastic change in policy in 1939 would have blocked Jewish immigration – keeping Jews as a minority and the change to self-government in 10 years proposed in the 1939 White Paper would have resulted in one more Arab state. The League’s Permanent Mandates Commission found the shift was ultra vires – completely outside the scope of the authority granted to the trustee by the Mandate.

The Mandate was a legal instrument that was self-executing.  When the legal standards had been met, the beneficial interest was to change into a legal interest.  That occurred in 1948 in the area within the Green Line Armistice Boundary and in 1967 for the remainder of the territory defined in the Mandate as Palestine west of the Jordan River.  The abandonment of its trusteeship by Britain in 1948 did not end the trust.  Resignation of a trustee never does. (Rostow, Historical Approach to the Issue Of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity, New Republic, April 23, 1990)

If a new trustee is needed, the supervising authority will appoint one as did the UN in the case of Namibia. International Court of Justice (Legal Consequencees for States of the continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) Advisory Opinion of 21 June, 1971).

Arab irredentists have never accepted recognition of the Jewish state. The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act that implies the intention of recognizing the new state.  Approval of the League of Nations Mandate is such an act based on the the summaries shown in the Memo of the British Foreign Office of December 19, 1917 and  that of the American summary circulated at the Paris Peace Talks and approved at San Remo.

The Arabs have expressed their dissatisfaction by threats of violence, actual violence and by fraud.  The usual fraud is carried out by publication of bogus legal opinions claiming to show the illegality under international law of Jewish settlements and occupation outside the Green Line and claiming the unilateral right to secede from the Jewish state. 

Why arguments based on international law?  How many people who pass you on the street know anything at all about international law.  Repeated often enough to them it becomes a “poetic truth” that can’t be dented by facts, reason or logic.  Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem may be occupied, but it is not a “belligerent occupation” as defined in the Regulations under the Hague Convention, nor does voluntary settlement of Jews in these areas, impose the obligations on Israel that it would if they had been deported or transferred. 

These are areas that were liberated in 1967 to fulfill the status intended for them at San Remo in 1920 as a part of a Jewish People’s State.


Wallace Edward Brand, JD

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17509#.VeyVA5dup-8

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

What will become of Europe? - Prof. Michael Lasker

by Prof. Michael Lasker

The real danger is that the EU countries will suffer economically and that their welfare systems will collapse under the weight of the recent demographic shifts.

Much has been written about the causes for the mass migration to EU countries, mainly from the Middle East, the Maghreb region, West Africa and South Asia. These days, the three key questions are: What will become of Europe, which is ill prepared to confront the emergency situation it now faces? What will become of the refugees? And what is the international community's role?

It should be noted that if the sanctions on Iran are lifted under the recently signed nuclear agreement, and if Europe continues to appease Iran and invest in the Iranian economy, Iran will become even more motivated to fund terrorism and as a result the influx of refugees into Europe will skyrocket.

Furthermore, in the absence of a determined global military action, not only are terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, the Nusra Front, Islamic State group, Ansar al-Sharia and Boko Haram not disappearing, they have become powerful bodies ruling over territory and resources. The refugees that have already made their way to Europe and those who will leave in the future, will have no home to return to.

The real danger is that the EU countries will suffer economically and that their welfare systems will collapse under the weight of the recent demographic shifts. Even Germany, with its mighty economy, and prospering Sweden cannot feasibly handle the absorption of the constant flow of migrants and asylum seekers by themselves. 

One of the hidden issues in the current crisis concerns the social status of the refugees, most of whom are Sunni Muslims. How many of these people, despite losing all their possessions, belong to the middle class? To what degree are they skilled in high-demand professions such as engineering, high-tech and medicine? Is their social status parallel to that of immigrants from third world countries who have been coming to Europe since the 1970s only to become a burden on their host countries by settling in poor neighborhoods and cultivating hate toward Western culture and secular society? The EU cannot afford to carry another heavy burden of this sort. 

There is no way of knowing whether this migration wave will also bring criminal elements and Islamic extremists with it. This will contribute to the escalation of violence, crime and anti-Semitism, as well as increase the number of Muslim prisoners, who will then settle in ghettos and increase growing unemployment rates. 

An article recently published by The New Yorker revealed that 60% of the inmates in French prisons are Muslims, Africans and Maghrebis, while they constitute only 8% of the population.

What can be done to avoid this grim prospect? Since the already crowded Europe continues to buckle under the pressure of the ongoing influx of migrants, perhaps it is advisable to re-evaluate the adherence to the Schengen agreement, which allows passport-free movement across Central and Western Europe. It may have worked 30 years ago, but today it only adds to the demographic and security threats.

Western countries need to join forces and work to scatter the migrants and refugees outside Europe, in places such as North America and sparsely populated areas like Iceland, which has voiced willingness to absorb immigrants, and even in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, despite concern that the immigrants would cultivate the aspirations of Islamic State and Shiite Iran there. 

In order to implement such an ambitious, yet essential policy, which would include building new infrastructure and professional retraining, funding must come from various sources -- private capital from the world's wealthiest people and companies as well as donations from OECD countries and resource-abundant Middle Eastern countries.

Instead of bankrolling terrorism, as they did in the past, the United Arab Emirates should invest in the refugees. I am referring to the model of the extensive Marshall Plan, initiated by the U.S. to rehabilitate Europe following the devastation of World War II. This time the burden will not fall solely on the U.S.'s shoulders, but will be shared by a number of international agents.

Israel will also have a role to play -- it must prepare for an uptick in anti-Semitism in the EU and therefore launch efforts to bring Jews to Israel, the way we absorbed Jews from Muslim countries, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. 

Professor Michael Lasker is a lecturer in the Middle East Studies Department at Bar-Ilan University.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=13683

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

The Hijrah Into Europe - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

The Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” Gateway into Europe, that is: the document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe.

Approximately 104,460 asylum seekers arrived in Germany during the month of August, setting a new record. That makes 413,535 registered refugees and migrants coming to Germany in 2015 so far. The country expects a total of around 800,000 people to seek asylum in Germany this year. And that’s just Germany. The entire continent of Europe is being inundated with refugees at a rate unprecedented in world history. This is no longer just a “refugee crisis.” This is a hijrah.

Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.

To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100) The exalted status of such emigrants led a British jihad group that won notoriety (and a shutdown by the government) a few years ago for celebrating 9/11 to call itself Al-Muhajiroun: The Emigrants.

And now a hijrah of a much greater magnitude is upon us. Evidence that this is a hijrah, not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February, but was little noted at the time and almost immediately forgotten. The Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” Gateway into Europe, that is: the document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. This document tells would-be jihadis that weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal are plentiful and easy to obtain in Libya – and that the country “has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.”

The Islamic State did not have in mind just a few jihadis crossing from Libya: it also emerged last February that the jihadis planned to flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. Now the number is shooting well beyond that in Germany alone. Of course, not all of these refugees are Islamic jihadis. Not all are even Muslims, although most are. However, no effort whatsoever is being made to determine the refugees’ adherence to Sharia and desire to bring it to their new land. Any such effort would be “Islamophobic.” Yet there are already hints that the Islamic State is putting its plan into effect: jihadis have already been found among the refugees trying to enter Europe. There will be many more such discoveries.

Eight hundred thousand Muslim refugees in one year alone. This will transform Germany, and Europe, forever, overtaxing the welfare economies of its wealthiest nations and altering the cultural landscape beyond recognition. Yet the serious public discussion that needs to be had about this crisis is shouted down by the usual nonsense: the Washington Post Wednesday published an inflammatory and irresponsible piece likening those concerned about this massive Muslim influx into Europe to 1930s Nazis ready to incinerate Jews by the millions. Hollywood star Emma Thompson accused British authorities of racism for not taking in more refugees – as if British authorities haven’t already done enough to destroy their nation.

And so it goes. If you don’t accept the brave new world that is sure to bring more jihad and more Sharia to Europe, you’re a Nazi and a racist. Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah. 
This is also Europe’s death knell.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260019/hijrah-europe-robert-spencer

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

"The Middle East Faces a New Arms Race" - Amir Rapaport

by Amir Rapaport

An exclusive, fascinating interview with Ram Ben-Barak, Director General of the Ministry for Intelligence Affairs, about the implications of the agreement with Iran, the Sunni-Shi'ite war and the difficulties encountered by Hezbollah and his own aspirations to become the next Director of the Mossad

Photo: Meir Azulay

"I think it is quite possible that the next objective of the Islamic State organization will be the Shi'ite community in southern Lebanon, namely Hezbollah. They are already fighting against one another in Syria, and if ISIS wins over there, they will advance into Lebanon," says Ram Ben-Barak, Director General of the Israel Ministry for Intelligence Affairs.

 

This statement reflects one of the Intelligence Ministry's objectives – to think of intelligence affairs in an "outside-the-box" way. It is made by the Ministry's Director General, Ram Ben-Barak, in his first-ever media interview. This could well be his last public interview for a while, as the race for the position of the next Director of the Mossad, in place of Tamir Pardo who's about to step down, has entered the last stretch. If Ben-Barak wins this race he will be unable to grant interviews until the end of his term in office.

Ram Ben-Barak is one of three primary candidates for the position of the next Director of the Mossad, along with Yossi Cohen, who currently serves as the Head of the National Security Council, and N., who currently serves as Deputy Director of the Mossad. The next director will enter office in January 2016. Ram Ben-Barak was one of the major speakers at the Intelligence and Special Units Conference initiated by the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) and Israel Defense, held under the auspices of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Ministry for Intelligence Affairs. Ram Ben-Barak became the Director General of the Ministry for Intelligence Affairs in 2014, when it was still attached to the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, just before the recent elections to the Knesset. Following the establishment of the new government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to appoint Yisrael Katz, who also serves as Transportation Minister, as the Minister for Intelligence Affairs, while Gilad Erdan was appointed as Minister for Strategic Affairs. Both ministries are regarded as an inseparable part of the Prime Minister's Office, and reside in the Office's building in Jerusalem. It was further decided that Minister Yuval Steinitz, who served as Minister for Intelligence and Strategic Affairs in the previous government, will remain in charge of the dialogue with the USA and with other western countries on the issue of the agreement being consolidated with Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program, while serving in his new role as Minister for National Infrastructures, Energy and Water Resources. 

In this interview, Ram Ben-Barak presented his views which have been shaped by decades of defense/security service. He is 57, born at Moshav Nahalal in the Jezreel Valley and is a veteran of Sayeret Matkal, the IDF elite unit. He served in numerous operational positions within the Mossad, and in the 1990' his photograph was published when he was arrested with other Mossad operatives while breaking into a public facility in a European country. The Mossad managed to get him released quickly back to Israel, after he had been tried and sentenced to a fine only. Among his more recent positions within the Mossad, he served as head of the operations division and as Deputy Director.

"I deeply regret the separation between intelligence and strategy. In my opinion, intelligence and strategy are closely interlinked," says Ben-Barak sincerely.

What is, in fact, the function of the Ministry for Intelligence Affairs in its new-old format?

"The Ministry for Intelligence Affairs has several functions," says Ram Ben-Barak. "In principle, the Minister for Intelligence Affairs is a member of the Israeli cabinet, and raises his hand in voting over essential issues, like war and peace. That is why the best thing for him is to be well-versed in the current status picture, to know as many things as possible, and the Ministry sees to it. It is good to have in the cabinet people who are thoroughly prepped and briefed prior to important discussions. This is a service we provide to all of the ministers.

"Intelligence is a part of the day-to-day activity. Practically, the Minister for Intelligence Affairs is the Prime Minister's ears and eyes. Agencies like ISA and Mossad are subordinated directly to the Prime Minister, who is the busiest person in the State of Israel. He cannot see everything up close. Once you have a Minister operating on the Prime Minister's behalf, everything is presented to him on an ongoing basis. We perform budget audits on findings and on the force build-up process, which enables the Prime Minister to get a better picture of whatever is going on. The Minister does not tell the agencies what to do, but they know that any remark he makes will be heard by the Prime Minister, so his remarks are heeded. His importance is in the ministerial ability to supervise and ensure that the needs and directives issued by the Prime Minister are executed on the ground."

Is there any difference between the intelligence information delivered to the Ministry for Intelligence Affairs and the information available to the Ministry of Defense, which is in charge of the IDF but not of ISA and Mossad?

"The Ministry concentrates all of the intelligence available to the State of Israel. We are an organized state. There is no difference between the Ministry for Intelligence Affairs and the Ministry of Defense as far as information is concerned. Everything works very efficiently. Numerous lessons were learned from past events, where the intelligence had been stopped at various places and was never delivered to those who needed it. The Ministry sees to it that the Minister reviews and analyzes the intelligence. We deliberate and ponder the intelligence received and attempt to consolidate an independent position of our own. There is nothing smart or intelligent about receiving it all from other sources."

Is Iran really the top intelligence priority of the State of Israel?

"The Iranian issue is one of the most important issues we deal with," said Ben-Barak during the interview that was held close to the date when the interim agreement on the nuclear issue between Iran and the P5+1 was about to expire.

"The Iranian issue has substantial influence, far beyond the fact that a nuclear Iran is intolerable in Israeli eyes. The agreement which is about to be signed will enable the Iranians to decide for themselves when they would like to become nuclear, and that is the most problematic aspect. It leaves Iran in possession of almost all of her capabilities. If it is concluded in a manner where it would not be possible to supervise Iran's military facilities, and at the same time they receive massive amounts of money within a very short period of time, their economy will experience a massive growth and this would enable them to gain more influence in the Middle East, much more than they have at present.

"The greatest danger is that Iran is advancing toward a situation where no one will be able to threaten it anymore, a situation that would enable it to gain dominance in any region it chooses.

"Look at the situation even today – there is hardly any area in the Middle East where Iran is not involved: Iraq (at present, Iran's interests in Iraq are consistent with the interests of the USA), Lebanon (Hezbollah is, in fact, an Iranian armed force) and Yemen (which is currently dominated by the Houthis, who receive their arms and advisors from Iran). Now, imagine what would happen if billions of dollars were to drop on Iran in the coming years. Iran would be under no restrictions whatsoever.

"I think that if the Americans had insisted and pressed a little harder, it would have been possible to reach a much better agreement. No one contests the fact that an agreement is a better option than war. This is fully understood by everyone – from the Prime Minister to the last civilian in the street, but a bad agreement can have very grave implications."

Are the Americans sharing information on the process with us, or are we not really fully informed as the permanent agreement is being finalized?

"We are involved in the process with some degree of openness – sometimes more, sometimes less. Minister Dr. Yuval Steinitz is intensively involved in the process. He will remain in charge of this activity until August 2015 at the very least. At the moment, Iran is the most pressing issue, but there are other issues."

There has been some talk about the process with Iran leading to an arms race by Middle Eastern countries regarded as more moderate, like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, as a counterweight to the nuclear arming of Iran. Do you share those concerns?

"Absolutely. This process will almost certainly take place. The Saudis and the countries of the Persian Gulf are just as apprehensive as we are of an Iranian domination of the region. Eventually, there are massive natural resources in that area and in the past we witnessed an attempt by the Iraqis to capture Kuwait for its massive oil reserves.

"Consider the Shi'ite-Sunni confrontation that is currently dividing the Muslim world, and you will reach the inevitable conclusion that those countries are under pressure. There is no shortage of money in the Gulf States, they can buy anything they want. Once they realize that the Iranians are walking through a corridor that would lead them to a nuclear capability, they will enter that corridor too, and the entire region would be thrown into a new arms race."

What can be said about the relations we have or do not have with countries regarded as more moderate, including countries in the Persian Gulf?

"There is an opportunity here. I would not like to go into details. I assume these things are being considered and that interests are shared. You can see the interests we currently share with Egypt. I assume other things are happening as well."

A Sunni-Shi'ite War

"In the struggle between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, the Sunni Muslims face a dual problem," adds Ram Ben-Barak. "On the one hand, they are threatened by the Shi'ite axis that aspires to gain influence and dominate. On the other hand, they face radical Sunni Islamists, who regard their states as heretical.

"For example, the Sunni Muslims are fighting against the Assad regime in Syria, but they should already think about the day following his collapse. The Islamic State organization, ISIS, is already confronting the moderate Sunni Muslims in Syria. This reality is highly problematic. As the situation in Syria currently appears, it would not be far-fetched to predict that very soon, these organizations will be deployed along the border with Israel on the Golan Heights."

Is Assad's situation really that bad? Is he approaching the end of his reign?

"That's what it looks like on the ground at the moment, but we must not exaggerate it. The successes of ISIS and the other rebel groups were achieved in Sunni-dominated areas. Generally, they have not been very successful in non-Sunni areas. They succeeded against the Kurds in Iraq, but the Kurds managed to reinstate their domination. Assad's military is practically shattered at this time, and it seems that Syria is advancing toward a situation of an Alawite-dominated area (the president's religious affiliation), an ISIS-dominated area and an area dominated by other rebel groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra. It will be very interesting to see what eventually happens. We need to look forward and consider the possibility of ISIS moving on to their next objective, in southern Lebanon."

Hezbollah is intensively involved in the fighting in Syria. Do you think they will lose their war over there?

"I believe so. They are not doing very well. There are Shi'ite militia groups that the Iranians dispatched and quite a few Hezbollah warfighters, but they are unable to stop the rebels. In his recent TV appearance, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah called for an all-out mobilization. At the same time, you can see the pressure he is under with regard to the possibility that Israel could launch an initiated move against him now, of all times. He understands that this is a viable option.

"The Shi'ite Muslims are currently preoccupied more by radical Islam than they are by the Jews. In 4-5 years from now, there might be something different in southern Lebanon. In the Golan Heights it's already happening. The Syrian Army is no longer there. Reality has changed. Frequent terrorist attacks along the border fence can actually begin tomorrow."

Is there any sort of international move that could bring the war in Syria to an end?

"In my opinion, no. The conflict is stronger than the influence the superpowers can wield. It is a Shi'ite-Sunni conflict. The Russians and the Americans are not a factor. They have some leverage over Assad, but he is only one player among many. Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS do not care about the superpowers."

When different enemies of Israel are fighting one another, it is not necessarily a bad thing from an Israeli point of view. Do you agree?

"This is a somewhat childish approach, as wars eventually come to an end and then a new reality emerges. Look, Hezbollah will be crippled without Syria, as it will be difficult for them to take delivery of the arms shipments from Iran, and that is important for us. But it is by no means certain that the alternative will be any better. During the Iran-Iraq war in the last century some people said it was the best thing for the Jews – and look where we are today. Even the war in Syria will stabilize eventually, and then we will once again become the common enemy. We must prepare for that."

Generally, the state Hezbollah is in does not seem to be too good in the summer of 2015…

"Correct. On the one hand, it is not too good. On the other hand, they have thousands of warfighters who are fighting and gaining combat experience, which is less favorable for us."

So some of the processes you refer to are positive while others are very negative. Bottom line, does time play in our favor or against us?

"I think that no existential threat is currently imposed on the State of Israel as was the case in the Yom-Kippur War of 1973. We share the same interests with many other countries, which is another advantage. From an economic point of view, we are a wonder. We live like they do in America. Consequently, I think that in general our situation is much better than it used to be, but we still face some serious challenges with which we have to cope.

"In my opinion, our greatest challenge is not necessarily an external one, but the fact that we have here a fairly large 'middle-class-plus' class, people who live in Israel and really think that we can afford to evade serving in the IDF. These people think that if they travel twice a year to Thailand or to ski somewhere, everything is fine. This is highly problematic, and might change the IDF into something quite different. The economic elite will not be a part of the military game. I think that it is becoming visible. You see it in the amount of youngsters who evade the draft. In my time, the Kibbutz movement provided the manpower for Sayeret Matkal. Today the religious Zionist movement does it. I think it is a problem, not because of the religious Zionist movement, but rather because a major segment of the public does not think that it has to be there."

Is there a Boycott?

Do you anticipate the possibility of a third Palestinian Intifada?

"With regard to the Palestinian issue, we have to aspire to a solution of one kind or another. It is no coincidence that the Palestinians have not launched a third Intifada to this day. They are looking around them, they see what is taking place in Egypt, what is taking place in Syria, and they look at themselves. Overall, despite all of the problems. and there are many problems,  their situation is relatively good and they should not worsen it by staging another uprising. On the other hand, a solution must be reached, but that is a political-diplomatic issue so I will not address it."

What are the effects of the international boycott movement on Israel?

"It is undoubtedly an element in our strategic situation. The boycott phenomenon is a cause for concern and should be addressed. It is worrying mainly because it permeates. It has the potential of influencing people who are 20 today. By the time they are 35, the filth they hear today could influence them. It is important to realize that it is not a spontaneous effort by 'bleeding-heart liberals' concerned about human rights. Many people over there are misled by a well-oiled, amply-rewarded machine and a lot of money is being poured into it. Every time you see four Palestinians walk into a supermarket in London and remove Israeli-made products from the shelves – be aware that they are being paid to do it. It is a campaign that we should fight. The State of Israel has a problem fighting it, so pro-Israeli organizations should be encouraged and convinced that it is important to fight against this phenomenon, as Israel should be presented for the positive things it represents. The Palestinians maintain paid activists who conduct a propaganda campaign against Israel in every university campus around the world."

Does the boycott have any implications with regard to the relations between the Israeli intelligence agencies and similar agencies around the world?

"No. It has no effect whatsoever in that regard. It does have an effect on the decisions made by employee committees, student organizations, lecturer organizations and cultural institutions."

Is our relationship with the USA in perfect order?

"The strategic relationship is in perfect order."

And within Israel, are the relations between the various intelligence agencies – the IDF Intelligence Directorate, Mossad and ISA – in perfect order?

"Those relations can always be improved. It is not that we do not have our controversies, but I have never seen, in my entire career, a problem that necessitated cooperation where that cooperation failed to materialize. It is my estimate that there are quite a few arguments even today, but with all due honesty and sincerity, I have never seen a situation where they failed to set aside all of their differences and resolve the problem. The personal relations between the directors of the services themselves are very good. No quarrels, no envy.

"There is no other place anywhere in the world where the inter-organizational relations are as good as they are over here. We have the entire information disseminated by every agency to the others. No one conceals information – this notion never even enters anyone's mind."

What about the controversy between the agencies as to who should be responsible for the developments in the Gaza Strip, which in the past was the exclusive intelligence responsibility of the ISA, when the IDF controlled the Gaza Strip?

"This is, indeed, a complex issue. Should the Gaza Strip be regarded as a separate country, another state, and therefore be the responsibility of the Mossad? For years, the people of ISA have said that they are still operating over there. I should imagine they think about how to handle it pursuant to the changing circumstances. They will probably reach some sort of arrangement regarding this issue, too. While the arguments are ongoing, I am still confident that the agencies will not sabotage the operations of one another."

The Battle over the Mossad

According to Ram Ben-Barak, "Our next war will be fought against organizations, not against armed forces – and that is a completely different story with regard to the resources to be acquired and our ability to dominate a space and engage individual warfighters. It is a different kind of warfare, not necessarily fought using tanks. These organizations are defeating armed forces all around us. We possess the technology and have to invest money and resources in it and get this technology into the actual fighting, on the land battlefield. It is not a simple undertaking fighting in the alleys of Gaza with a terrorist popping up from every sewage manhole. You should reach a situation where you dominate Gaza without actually conquering it. It is possible if you can create a situation where you can imagine hitting every armed person popping up from the subterranean medium."

Do you think that the massive investment in intelligence in the context of the strategic force build-up process of the State of Israel is justified?

"Yes, especially with regard to the new battlefield. You must know what to hit and where the enemy is located. For this you must have good intelligence. The investment in intelligence is super important. I think that we should invest more in other things. Large-scale conventional wars are not very common anymore, anywhere around the world. They do not take place, first and foremost, because the outcome normally turns out to be the opposite of what you wanted originally. There is a high price to pay, in money and in human lives, and it is never beneficial politically. We must develop an alternative to war. We should enhance our covert capabilities – and I am not saying that because I come from the Mossad. That is where the future war will take place."

There is nothing simple about covert warfare. Our enemies are not exactly losers in that field either…

"There is nothing simple about it, to put it mildly. Covert warfare is very challenging. We should invest more in it."

Is the tremendous worldwide reputation of the Mossad justified?

"I am, of course, biased, but the answer is a resounding yes. I love that organization. It is my home, and I truly think it is an exceptional organization which is even better than what people think. The Mossad is a relatively small organization. It can change very fast, identify the threats and invest and apply the appropriate resources. It is an organization with exceptional people who possess excellent capabilities. It is good that the public does not know everything it does, as that means that we are okay. When people know – it normally means that something went wrong."

So do you hope to return to the Mossad next year as Director?

"Very much."

Who, in your opinion, will be selected as the next Director of the Mossad?

"All of the candidates are worthy this time. It is up to the Prime Minister to decide." 

Amir Rapaport

Source: http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/middle-east-faces-new-arms-race

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

Sorry, Egypt No Longer a Province of the Ottoman Empire - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

• Egypt is increasingly unnerved by overt Turkish activity to support the Muslim Brotherhood politically, and covert Turkish activity to support alleged subversion.
• Erdogan's obsessive shadow-fighting with the Egyptian regime in the hope of rebuilding a Muslim Brotherhood regime in the former Ottoman "Khedivate" is bad news: it undermines any Western effort to stabilize -- relatively -- the turbulent Middle East.

In August, possibly the first cheerful news containing the words "Turkey" and "Egypt" hit the headlines in the Turkish press since July 2013, when Egypt's army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi spearheaded a coalition to remove Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Turkish chargé d'affaires in Cairo (Turkey and Egypt withdrew their ambassadors after a row) married an Egyptian actress and former beauty queen on August 2. Their wedding was by attended by Turkish, Egyptian and foreign diplomats at a Turkish embassy residence in Giza.

At the wedding ceremony, the Turkish groom, Alper Bosuter, said that Turkey's relations with Egypt have been tense but would eventually return to their normal course. The Egyptian bride, Inci Abdullah, said she wished their marriage to have a positive effect on the two countries' relations.

Best wishes. But not so fast, given Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's obsession about building a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Cairo.

In 1805, Muhammad Ali Pasha ["Kavalali Mehmet Ali Pasa" in Turkish], an Ottoman army commander of Albanian origin, seized power in Egypt. His dynasty would rule Egypt until the revolution of 1952. Under his rule, Egypt was nominally an Ottoman province. In 1867, Egypt was granted the status of an autonomous vassal state or "khedivate." It would remain an Ottoman "khedivate" until 1914.

With the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2012, Turkey's neo-Ottomans, most notably (then prime minister) Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (then foreign minister) miscalculated that Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, could once again become a "khedivate" of an emerging Turkish empire, with its Muslim Brother rulers paying servitude to their Turkish ideological next of kin.

Instead, today, Morsi is imprisoned, a death sentence hanging over his head, possibly never to be executed; Muslim Brothers are on Egypt's terror list; Turkey and Egypt have downgraded their diplomatic relations to the level of chargé d'affaires; and hostilities between Turkey's ruling Islamists and Egypt's ruling Muslims are deepening every day, with no prospect of normalization in the foreseeable future.

Erdogan keeps on investing in the Muslim Brotherhood, politically and otherwise. No doubt, the Brotherhood's famous "Rabia" sign, four fingers raised, the symbol of Brotherhood's riots against President Sisi, will be cheerfully featured at election rallies in Turkey -- by Erdogan -- in the run up to renewed parliamentary elections on Nov. 1.

The Muslim Brotherhood "Rabia" sign was a major election campaign theme used by the Turkey's ruling Islamists in the last three elections: municipal (March 2014), presidential (August 2014) and parliamentary (June 7, 2015). There is no reason why it should be abandoned, as Erdogan et al view it as an inexpensive and easy vote-catcher.

In this image, widely circulated in social media, Turkey's then-Prime Minister [now President] Recep Tayyip Erdogan flashes the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's four-fingered "Rabia" sign.

Meanwhile, Egypt is increasingly unnerved by overt Turkish activity to support the Muslim Brotherhood politically, and covert Turkish activity to support alleged subversion.

In July, news reports said that the Egyptian military had captured Turkish intelligence officers and jihadists involved in guerrilla warfare targeting Egypt and Sisi's regime. An Egyptian news site provided the names of a Turkish intelligence officer and his Arab operatives, who were captured and accused of attacks against Egyptian troops stationed in the Sinai Peninsula. Moreover, Egyptian officials often accuse Turkey of providing safe haven to Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, including their broadcasts from Turkish territory.

Erdogan's obsessive shadow-fighting with the Egyptian regime in the hope of rebuilding a Muslim Brotherhood regime in the former Ottoman "khedivate" is bad news: it undermines any Western effort to stabilize -- relatively -- the turbulent Middle East.

To augment any allied campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) the United States needs regional support. Egypt remains a staunch ally in the war against radical Islamists. Turkey has just recently joined the coalition campaign after several months of negotiations with its NATO allies. But Turkey's deep ideological problems with Egypt would only weaken the allied-plus-regional-powers effort against ISIS.

In remarks late in July, Egypt's Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said: "For a long time now, we have called on all states in the region to be more forthcoming in dealing with the ISIS threat, including monitoring and control of borders. Unfortunately, this has not been the case with Turkey."

The neo-Ottoman ambitions of Turkey's Islamists, to make Egypt a "neo-khedivate," have crashed into the wall of Middle Eastern realities. But those ambitions are still alive and kicking, and could damage a cohesive allied fight against the jihadists.
 

 

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6450/egypt-turkey

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

Use Espionage to Destroy ISIS - William A. Levinson

by William A. Levinson

The basic idea is to foment distrust among enemy personnel, and there are several ways to do this with social media along with the Deep Web.

Sun Tzu's Art of War admonished more than 2500 years ago, "Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver in honors and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity." In other words, noting that it probably costs our armed forces millions of dollars to kill one enemy (the figure was purportedly $200,000 during the Vietnam War), six-figure outlays for collaborators and spies are dirt cheap.

Utopia and a World without ISIS

Sir Thomas More's Utopia described very explicitly how a government can destroy a corruptible enemy organization.

"As soon as they declare war, [the Utopians] take care to have a great many schedules,that are sealed with their common seal, affixed in the most conspicuous places of their enemies’ country. This is carried secretly, and done in many places all at once. In these they promise great rewards to such as shall kill the prince, and lesser in proportion to such as shall kill any other persons who are those on whom, next to the prince himself, they cast the chief balance of the war. And they double the sum to him that, instead of killing the person so marked out, shall take him alive, and put him in their hands. They offer not only indemnity, but rewards, to such of the persons themselves that are so marked, if they will act against their countrymen. By this means those that are named in their schedules become not only distrustful of their fellow-citizens, but are jealous of one another, and are much distracted by fear and danger; for it has often fallen out that many of them, and even the prince himself, have been betrayed, by those in whom they have trusted most; for the rewards that the Utopians offer are so immeasurably great, that there is no sort of crime to which men cannot be drawn by them."

There is no need to carry the messages secretly today because social media, as used by ISIS itself for recruiting purposes, is even more effective. The basic idea is to foment distrust among enemy personnel, and there are several ways to do this with social media along with the Deep Web. If criminals can get into the Deep Web, law enforcement and intelligence agencies should have no trouble doing so either.

(1) "Out" ISIS Internationals as Collaborators

U.S. and other Western intelligence agencies can create fake social media IDs for purported ISIS sympathizers, and even fabricate extensive backgrounds for them. These purported sympathizers can then warn ISIS that identifiable foreign nationals who have joined ISIS are really CIA, MI6, or Mossad operatives whose mission is, for example, to leave tiny locator beacons in ISIS camps to mark them for drone attacks. A similar technique was illustrated in the Red Dawn movie, in which the invaders implanted a beacon in a prisoner's body and then released him, but an infiltrator obviously does not want the marker for a drone or missile strike anywhere near him when the world of hurt arrives.

These operatives could also poison ISIS's food and water, or taint the supplies with a deadly disease that has in fact killed hundreds of terrorists. Who is to say that the Leishmaniasis was not, in fact, delivered to ISIS by an American, Briton, or other international who joined purportedly to cut off heads and rape women, but was really earning a free college education from whatever spy agency recruited him or her?

The purported informer could tell ISIS of a new recruit, "I met So-and-So in college, and he interviewed with some kind of government agency." Intelligence agencies can go even further. If a movie can depict Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump shaking hands with John F. Kennedy, it should be easy enough to send ISIS photos or video of the targeted international walking into CIA headquarters or even shaking hands with the King of Jordan. It is quite likely that ISIS would kill the internationals in question on the spot.

"Secret" messages could be sent to the targeted internationals with the intention that they be intercepted by ISIS. A commentator on The Art of War described how an army sent a secret message to an enemy general while setting up the courier to be captured by the enemy. The enemy king then had his loyal general executed for "receiving messages from the enemy." The Nazis purportedly used this method to get Stalin to execute one of his best commanders.

(2) Pay Rewards for Setting up ISIS Personnel to be Killed

U.S. and other Western intelligence agencies could imitate the Utopians by posting a reward of, for example, $100,000 per ISIS fatality due to an informer's actions. A cell phone call that indicated where ISIS was going to be might well be adequate to arrange a rendezvous with some drones, cluster munitions, or whatever. Another method would be for the infiltrator to use a laser designator to "paint" an ISIS camp for a missile strike. (The armed forces would, of course, confirm the target as hostile before shooting, lest ISIS try to set up innocent people to be killed in this manner.) The reward would then be paid secretly in any manner the informer chose. It is difficult to envision how any terrorist organization could survive when any recruit could make himself or herself a millionaire in a single day, as long as he caused the deaths of enough terrorists.

 (3) Use Social Media as Bait for ISIS Sympathizers

Fake ISIS social media accounts could be used as bait for internationals who seek to join ISIS. The individuals in question could then be arrested and prosecuted for material support to a foreign terrorist organization, which is a felony. (If Congress were to actually declare war on ISIS, "material support" would become treason, which is punishable by death.) It is important, however, that law enforcement agencies never initiate or encourage the contact because that might constitute entrapment. If, however, somebody seeks to join ISIS through social media, he is not being entrapped if an FBI agent who is posing as an ISIS terrorist says, "Meet me here so we can travel to Iraq together." Law enforcement agencies already use these techniques to catch child predators, e.g. by posing as minors who are available for sex.

Is it poor judgment to advocate these methods where ISIS might see them? It doesn't matter because there are no realistic countermeasures against them. It is one matter to be aware of the danger, and another to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Miyamoto Musashi wrote in his Book of Five Rings, "…you must make fullest use of your weaponry. It is false not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn." ISIS has, like the hordes of Genghis Khan, declared war on the entire civilized world. We must use every weapon at our disposal to put ISIS down like a rabid animal, and this includes the psychological arm.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/use_espionage_to_destroy_isis.html

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

Koran Discovery Only Strengthens Islam - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

It’s not the age of the Koran but its contents that cast doubt on Islam.

The media is abuzz with news that a portion of the Koran, which Muslims believe was first recited by their prophet, Muhammad, may actually predate Muhammad himself.  Many seem to think that such news will have a large impact on the Muslim world and make Muslims rethink the veracity of their faith.

Thus Tom Holland, a British historian, asserts, “It destabilizes, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged.  And that, in turn, has implications for the historicity of Mohammed and his followers.”

A Koranic manuscript consultant at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, Dr. Keith Small, is more emphatic and “told the Times that if the dating is confirmed, as he believed would happen, it could raise serious problems for Islam,” since “This would radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition.  The history of the rise of Islam in late Near Eastern antiquity would have to be completely revised.”

Nonsense.  This recent discovery, far from threatening “the edifice of Islamic tradition” or “rais[ing] problems for Islam” is currently being used all around the Muslim world in support of Islam, for a number of reasons.

First, the carbon dating is not radically incongruous with Islamic dating.  It indicates that the text was written sometime between 568 and 645.  Muslim tradition holds that Muhammad lived between lived 570 and 632, and that the Koran was collated and finalized around 650. 

In other words, if the text was written anytime from 610-645—a full 35 years that fall within the range of the carbon testing—it poses no problems for Islam, for Muslims believe that Muhammad began receiving “revelations” or the ayat that became the verses of the Koran when he was forty.  All it would mean is that, instead of believing that the Koran was collated in 650, portions of it were written down a few years earlier.  

Hardly a thing to rock the faith of most Muslims.

In fact, there is very little that Western scholars and scientists can do or say about Islam that would have much influence on the Islamic mindset.  The fact is, over centuries, lots of things have emerged that should put the veracity of the Koran and Islam to the test—whether the plausible suggestion that Muhammad never existed, certainly not the Muhammad of Islamic tradition, or whether the fact that the Koran, which says of itself that it is written in “pure Arabic” (see 12:2, 13: 37), has several Syro-Aramaic words in it.  Or perhaps that the Koran says, very literally, that the sun sets in a pool of dark mud (18:86).

Science doesn’t hold much weight with the modern Islamic mindset—not when it contradicts the Koran.  The earth is round?  So say the lying infidels, responded the late Saudi grand mufti, Bin Baz: if the Koran says the earth is flat (88:20), the earth is flat!

Interestingly, even in the West, if people come to believe that the Koran predates Muhammad, it won’t matter much: we will still be told to respect Islam; after all, Muslims believe it.  Whether one rejects the prophethood of Muhammad—the definition of a non-Muslim—or whether one rejects traditional Islamic chronology it’s the same conclusion: Islam is a false religion.

The problem here is that we are dealing with reciprocal projection—the Western mentality projecting its appreciation for reason onto Muslims, and the Muslim mentality projecting its own subversive methods onto the Other, the Infidel, the sworn enemy.  Westerners may think this will have an impact on Muslim faith because they know it would have an impact on their own.  Conversely, Muslims, who from the start have built their faith on casting doubt and aspersions on the faiths of others, are convinced that any Western claim, scientific or otherwise, that casts doubts on the origins of Islam is merely the latest infidel conspiracy theory. 

After all, was it not Muhammad himself who taught that the texts of Judaism and Christianity—the Bible—are corrupt and fraudulent.  Is it not obvious, Muslims are thinking, that the infidels will turn this argument on us by saying the Koran is of dubious authenticity? 

If reason was a cornerstone of Islamic thinking—it was laid in its grave by the ulema in the 10^th century—Muslims would have lost faith in Islam a long time ago (many have and do but remain nominal Muslims due to fears of the apostasy penalty).  

It’s not the age of the Koran but its contents that speak against its veracity.  

A book that calls for savagely killing all who do not submit to its authority; that calls for beheadings, crucifixions, and mutilations; that justifies theft, extortion, and the sexual enslavement of “infidel’ women and children; a book that calls for everything ungodly but claims to have been written by God is false on principle.  Carbon dating is irrelevant.

But of course, while Western academics, politicians, and media can openly discuss this issue of the Koran’s dating—after all, it’s “scientific”—criticizing the Koran from a moral point of view, which is what’s needed here, remains unthinkable (remember: morality is relative in the West).  

And so, when all is said and done, the mantra that “Islam is peace” will continue to be chanted mindlessly in the West.  

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260023/koran-discovery-only-strengthens-islam-raymond-ibrahim

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

Brandeis to Award Endowed Chair to Anti-Israel Scholar - Winfield Myers

by Winfield Myers

"Too many of the centers [of Middle East studies] that currently exist are so infused with ideology, so obsessed by the Israeli-Arab conflict, they have become less interested in scholarship and more interested in scoring political points."

Pascal Menoret, who has a history of anti-Israel activism, will be officially named the Renee and Lester Crown Chair in Modern Middle East Studies in a September 8 ceremony marking the tenth anniversary of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University, the nation's only non-sectarian Jewish-sponsored college.

While teaching at NYU's Abu Dhabi campus, Menoret was among the faculty signatories to an "NYU Out of Occupied Palestine" petition urging the university to "divest from all companies in its portfolio that contribute to or profit from the Israeli occupation," which the petition defines as including "the West Bank and East Jerusalem." It goes on to decry Israel's alleged "denial of the most basic human and civil rights to the 4.5 million Palestinians who live in these occupied Palestinian territories." His Facebook page cover photo extends this theme, as it shows a portion of Israel's security fence at the Aida refugee camp in Beit Jala in the West Bank on which is painted Palestinian agitators hurling stones at Israelis, thereby romanticizing violent "resistance."

In 2014 Menoret, who specializes in Saudi cultural history, signed a petition defending the NYU chapter of the virulently anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from "disciplinary action" for the mock eviction notices it slipped under dormitory doors—many of them belonging to Jewish students—allegedly to mimic the notices given to Palestinians prior to home demolition.

Menoret's appointment to the prestigious Crown Chair confers the university's imprimatur on an individual whose politicized, anti-Israel actions are inimical to Brandeis's history and mission while ensuring that students are taught that Israel--the region's sole democracy--is an unjust, oppressive nation unworthy of their support. When Brandeis opened the Crown Center in 2005, then-president Jehuda Reinharz justified it by observing: "Too many of the centers [of Middle East studies] that currently exist are so infused with ideology, so obsessed by the Israeli-Arab conflict, they have become less interested in scholarship and more interested in scoring political points." What was true of others then is today true of the Crown Center as well.


Winfield Myers

Source: http://www.campus-watch.org/blog/2015/09/brandeis-to-award-endowed-chair-to-anti-israel

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