The Lone Wolf Jihad

by Raymond Ibrahim

As we near the ten-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 strikes, the Obama administration is stressing that the threat remains, but in a different form. In a speech at a Chamber of Commerce event yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said:

[T]he U.S. has a "layered system of security that would give us multiple ways to deter" an attack like the one a decade ago in which airplanes were weaponized. "What we see now is smaller plots," she said. "We are also seeing a rise of activities by individuals who are actually in the country, and they are acting by themselves and that kind of attack is the most difficult to prevent because there is nothing to intercept." Napolitano's comments echoed what President Obama said in an interview Tuesday in discussing the 10-year anniversary of Sept. 11…. With the nation preparing to observe the 10th anniversary of hijacked airliners crashing in New York and Washington and in the Pennsylvania countryside, Obama said the government is in a state of heightened awareness. "The biggest concern we have right now is not the launching of a major terrorist operation, although that risk is always there," the president said. "The risk that we're especially concerned over right now is the lone wolf terrorist, somebody with a single weapon being able to carry out wide-scale massacres of the sort that we saw in Norway recently," he said. "You know, when you've got one person who is deranged or driven by a hateful ideology, they can do a lot of damage, and it's a lot harder to trace those lone wolf operators."

While it is nice that the administration is able to acknowledge that jihadis are going lone wolf—that the jihad has metastasized—this report is a reminder of the administration's failed policies, policies which in many ways led to the current situation, where it is no surprise that, a decade after the strikes of 9/11, "the government is [still] in a state of heightened awareness."

For starters, rather than once attempting to understand the ideology of jihad itself and its place in Islamic history and tradition—not to malign, but for proper context, to understand what one is up against—the administration, like the one before it, preferred to take the easy, politically-correct, way out: focus on formal organizations and people—al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as the root source of the problem—while ignoring the jihadi elephant in the room.

Indeed, all evidence indicates that the focus remains on the tangible, the quantifiable—al-Qaeda—without wanting to look at the surrounding context which produces groups like it and even jihadi lone wolfs. In the CNN interview, "Obama said the government continues to monitor and gather information about potential terror plots, even though Al Qaeda's capabilities have been degraded." Note the ingrained "even though," as if the very demise of al-Qaeda, its total eradication, is naturally supposed to equate the demise of jihad, which is some 1400 years older than al-Qaeda.

And if ever there was talk on the context that fuels the jihad, it was always the idea that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East was to blame (regurgitating what the jihadis themselves were saying). Likewise, it was believed that terrorism was a "foreign" problem that could never infect American Muslims, as it has nothing to do with Islam.

Yet here is Napolitano saying that "We are also seeing a rise of activities by individuals who are actually in the country." More to the point, months earlier, Attorney General Eric Holder said that "the threat has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born."

None of this is surprising, considering that the Obama administration went out of its way to ban the use of accurate words—such as jihad and Islam from national security documents—thereby epistemologically undermining American discourse on the nature of the threat.

In short, Fort Hood style attacks—both the successful one of 2009 and the unsuccessful one from weeks ago—should have been expected. Expect more to come as the lone wolf jihad runs loose.

Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam-specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3017/lone-wolf-jihad

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

Mubarak Deceived Israel as Muhammad Deceived Infidels?

by Raymond Ibrahim

In light of ousted president Hosni Mubarak's ongoing trial, Western readers may be surprised to learn who some of Mubarak's staunchest defenders are: Salafi Muslims, those Muslims who practice the 7^th century Islam of Muhammad, and who are often referred to as "radicals."

Sheikh Mahmoud Amer, leader of Ansar al-Sunna in Damanhur, recently appeared on the Egyptian news program Life Today arguing that, according to Sharia, it is illegal to try Mubarak, whose dealings with Israel—specifically the charge that he sold gas to it at cheap rates—were similar to the prophet Muhammad's dealing with infidel enemies. Here are translations of the most relevant excerpt:

He [Hosni Mubarak] was the imam [Muslim leader]; all his actions have their circumstances. Regarding this gas issue you are talking about, whoever said that exporting gas to enemy combatants, Jews or otherwise, is impermissible? Who among the Muslim jurists [fuqaha] said this? The prophet himself died while his armor was given to a Jew [an infidel enemy] as collateral; and in the Battle of the Trench [627], the prophet negotiated with one of the polytheist tribes [enemies] to give them dates, Medina's main source of income, just so they would quit the war—because "war is deceit"; he negotiated for this purpose . Nor did divine inspiration [Allah] come down to censure him for his actions, had such actions violated Sharia. So, show me one jurist saying that it is impermissible to deal with enemy combatants—I do not say treaty-holders, as there is a treaty between us and the Jews, but I posit that between us and the Jews is war. So who among the classic jurists said that it is impermissible to deal with combatants, buying and selling? Here are the books of jurisprudence… I say the prophet negotiated with the polytheists to give them free dates to keep their strength at bay at that time [as opposed to Mubarak, who only sold gas cheaply, Muhammad went one step further giving things for free]. So these are political and military matters, and the authority is free to pick whichever he deems most appropriate.

Along with stressing Muhammad's attempt to appease Islam's infidel enemies with gifts when the latter were stronger than the Muslims, the sheikh also stressed that Mubarak was the "sultan"—an Arabic-Islamic term of special significance, conveying a certain form of sovereign political and temporal authority in Islam, complete with dispensations unavailable to the average Muslim.

Nor are these arcane notions: al-Qaeda itself has stressed these exact points. When discussing the permissibility for Muslims to deceive infidels, the late Osama bin Laden often alluded to Muhammad's attempt to appease the infidel tribe; and Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's new leader, quotes Islam's jurists as "unanimously agreeing" that "it is forbidden to overthrow" Muslim rulers, even if they are "cruel and despotic," yet "it is obligatory to wage jihad against" Muslim rulers found to be "apostate infidels" (The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 26-27, 121-122, 129 ).

The non-hijabbed, Westernized-looking female host, somewhat flustered, retorted: "Excuse me sheikh, but this issue of comparing the actions of our blessed prophet and a former president, I mean, forgive me, but maybe one can't speak on or judge between similar circumstances."

Then Montaser al-Zayyat, an Islamist lawyer who regularly represents jihadists -- including, formerly, Zawahiri -- chimed in saying that he too found it hard listening to the sheikh, and insisted that Mubarak should be condemned for selling gas to the Zionists, for "this is a betrayal of the [Egyptian] people."

Eventually, the debate descended into the usual shouting and yelling, with the sheikh boasting that at least Mubarak was a hero in Egypt's 1973 war with Israel, and asking the hostess and Zayyat, "Where were you on October 6, 1973?... Did you ever shoot a single bullet at a Jew?!"

Perhaps most telling is that, while the two Muslim experts on Sharia argued over many things, there was no disagreement over two points: enmity for Israel and Jews, and the permissibility of using deceit [taqiyya] to undermine them.

Raymond Ibrahim, a widely published Islam-specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2356/mubarak-deceived-israel

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

Why Is Amnesty International Attacking Canada?

by Adam Daifallah

It is a rare occurrence when a top government official comes out – on the record – to attack a human rights group. But that is what happened last week when Canada's Immigration Minister ripped into Amnesty International after it criticized Canada's plan to crack down on alleged war criminals hiding out in Canada.

Earlier this month, the secretaries general of Amnesty International's Canadian branches, Alex Neve and Béatrice Vaugrante, wrote an open letter to Canadian government ministers Vic Toews and Jason Kenney to express outrage over Canada's recent outing of 30 men residing in Canada – all of whom who are accused of war crimes.

Their names were published on a government website, asking for people to help find them. All were missing inside Canada's borders (six have since been arrested) and are wanted for deportation.

The men the Canadian government wishes to deport are not Canadian citizens. And they are not merely accused of war crimes: a quasi-judicial panel found there were reasonable grounds to believe the men were complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes -- and in some cases, there were voluntary admissions to these.

Cutting through the preachy jargon, the point Amnesty is making in its letter is that if Canada deports these immigrants, they probably will not face any further investigation or criminal charges;and that by deporting them, Canada may be violating its "international human rights obligations if they face the possibility of serious human rights violations." Read: If Canada sends them home, they [Editor's correction follows] may be persecuted [may not be prosecuted] in their native countries.

Kenney's response was fierce, taking the group to task on a number of fronts and rightly calling into question Amnesty's decision to single out the Canadians for scorn.

"Our primary duty as a government is to protect Canada and Canadians," wrote Kenney. "Deporting these men discharges this duty and ensures Canada will not become a sanctuary for international war criminals and serious human rights abusers."

Amnesty's preferred course of action – to prosecute these men in Canada – would cost taxpayers millions to try these men for crimes committed in other countries, often eons ago. Such a move would clog criminal courts even further than they are now. And it would give war criminals an extra incentive to try immigrating to Canada in the hopes of having a trial there, thus being able to stay longer while they wait and launch appeals.

Kenney's larger point is the key: Why is Amnesty attacking Canada? Amnesty's attack has the effect of lumping Canada in with some of the most repulsive countries Amnesty attacks, even though Canada has one of the most generous immigration systems in the world. Why focus such a disproportionate amount of energy on Canada and other free countries when there are so many unspeakable human rights violations taking place on a daily basis in unfree countries?

A quick check of the group's website shows that in the past year, Amnesty had 151 mentions of human rights issues in the United States, and yet only 140 for Iran, 20 for Cuba -- and a whopping 6 for North Korea. Perhaps Canada should aspire to be more like North Korea?

The Western democracies are paying a price for being transparent. Amnesty does not focus its energy on the biggest human rights abusers, but rather on documenting what it can to produce improvements and heighten public awareness. This is not conjecture: Amnesty confirmed in February 2007 that it reports disproportionately on more democratic and open countries with access to information rather than on worthier targets.

It must be strange to be an Amnesty donor and to see money being used to fund operations used principally to criticize one's own governments, while the organization remains relatively quiet on blood-curdling human rights abusers.

Amnesty is also lining its wallets. Earlier this year, the British newspapers revealed the salaries and bonuses given to senior Amnesty staff. Secretary General Irene Khan was paid £132,490 (USD $217,284) and received a severance package of four times that. As British parliamentarian Philip Davies noted, "I am sure people making donations to Amnesty, in the belief they are alleviating poverty, never dreamed they were subsidizing a fat cat payout. This will disillusion many benefactors."

Given this, plus its false outrage over Canada's recent move, plus Amnesty's long-standing hypocrisy in turning a blind eye to some of the most horrific human rights violators, it seems almost impossible to take Amnesty International seriously anymore.

Adam Daifallah

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2358/amnesty-international-attacking-canada

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

Snubbing the Real Syrian Democratic Movement

by Joseph Puder

Yahoo News reported on August 2, 2011 that “Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton​, met this morning with members of the U.S. based Syrian opposition.” According to Sherkoh Abbas, president of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria (KNA-S) and a founding member of the Syrian democratic opposition group known as the Syrian Democracy Council (SDC), the “opposition members” Clinton invited are associated with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Abbas contends that his group of pro-Western democrats seeks to create a federal democratic Syria that would enfranchise all segments of Syrian society, would strive for peace with Israel, disassociate Syria from Iran and respect Lebanon’s sovereignty, but has been shunned by Clinton and the Obama administration.

It is perhaps not surprising to see the Obama administration snubbing pro-American allies and pandering to those nations and groups who are clearly anti-American. This past February, Obama told President Mubarak of Egypt – a country which, under his rule, had been a U.S. ally – that “he must go,” but has refrained from demanding that President Bashar Assad — an ally of Iran, a sponsor of terrorism, and an enemy of the U.S. — must also go. Nor has the Obama administration/State Department recalled its ambassador.

The Palestinian news agency, Maan, reported on February 2, 2011 that:

President Barack Obama​ told Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak that he must begin to transition power “now,” hinting his offer to leave after September elections may not go far enough. Obama also made another subtle shift toward crowds amassed in Cairo and other Egyptian cities after days of rage against Mubarak’s rule, saying America had heard them, and they would certainly get the change they craved.

Obama, it seems, couldn’t grasp the Syrian people’s rage against Assad, nor feel the pain of the Syrian people with the cold-blooded murder of thousands of their countrymen and women by the Assad regime.

With atrocities too glaring to ignore, and the resistance to the Baathist regime increasing rather than subsiding, Hillary Clinton has woken up and decided that the Obama administration must react. The recognition of the opposition and condemnation of the killings has been, in fact, mere lip service and contradicts her assertions made on March 28, 2011 as reported by Bloomberg News Radio that “the elements that led to intervention in Libya – international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution – are not going to happen with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is a reformer.” It would be more accurate, however, to say that it was the Obama administration that considered Assad to be a “reformer.” Moreover, both the Arab states and the U.N. condemned the atrocities in Syria. And, while Khadafy’s Libya has not endangered American troops, Assad’s Syria has actively allowed Arab-Muslim terrorists to cross the Syrian border into Iraq where they have attacked U.S. personnel.

The hypocrisy embedded in the Obama administration’s choices speaks volumes. The Huffington Post reported on February 14, 2011 that:

Under Obama’s proposal, released Monday, the State Department’s Democracy Fund would be cut by 21 percent from its current $140 million appropriation, leaving it with $111 million for fiscal 2012. Subsidies for the National Endowment for Democracy, a private nonprofit that focuses on spreading democracy, would be cut by 12 percent, from $118 million to $104 million.

The Obama administration also reduced funding for democracy and governance programming in Egypt by more than half from $50 million in 2008 to $20 million in 2009.

Sherkoh Abbas believes that the U.S., “working with Salafi groups, and the Turkish government, would create an opposition in Syria that is strictly Islamist, and thus serve Turkish economic interests in Syria, and keep the Kurdish issue as dormant in Turkey as well as in Syria.” He continued:

By placing the U.S. behind such political parties as the Muslim Brotherhood​, the U.S. will lose touch with the real opposition on the ground, which seeks democracy, peace with its neighbors, economic stability, guided by a pro-Western outlook.

Abbas asserted that only a fraction of the Syrian people belong to political parties and that the MB, aided by the Islamist Turkish government, seeks to hijack the Syrian revolution.

“The Obama administration,” says Abbas, “is doing nothing to support the Syrian people’s quest for freedom and democracy, and for the idea of a federalized Syria, which could reduce the influence of the MB, isolate Hezbollah, and contain the threat of Iran in the Middle East. In our view, the only people who will benefit in maintaining the current regime in Syria are Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.” So, why doesn’t the Obama administration support regime change in Syria or provide support for democratic groups such as the Syrian Democracy Council? Abbas believes that the Obama administration has leveraged its policy on Syria by giving Turkey a free hand to sort things out in Damascus and Aleppo.

Tayyip Erdogan​, Turkey’s prime minister, boosted by another decisive electoral victory earlier this year, has developed hegemonic ambitions for the region and beyond, and has assumed the mantle of protector of Sunni Islam. In the current upheaval in Syria, Erdogan (according to Asia Times):

made a startling claim that what happens in Syria is an “internal affair” for Turkey and not a foreign policy issue, given the 850 kilometer border between the two countries and their deep cultural and historical links. This is the first time Erdogan has hinted Turkey might intervene in Syria. It wasn’t one of those intemperate outbursts for which he is well-known. Erdogan intended it as a calculated affront to the Syrian regime and he had the Sunni Muslim Arab audience in mind.

Unlike President Obama, Sherkoh Abbas’s vision for Syria, under the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), would be most endearing to Americans. As he points out:

What we want is a stable, secure democratic and federal Syria, a free-market economy, peace with Israel and a country friendly towards the West. The current centralized Baathist government has proved that it is the cause of unrest, not only in Syria, but in neighboring countries and to the world as well. Syria, moreover, cannot be a stable state as long as the second largest ethnic groups – the Kurds – are marginalized and disenfranchised. If the SDC were to be in a position of power in Syria, we would respect Lebanese and Iraqi sovereignty, and we will guarantee security and peace to Israel.

Both houses of Congress, as well as the American people, must take the Obama administration to task for its policy choices. The Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should initiate immediate hearings on the State Department’s exclusion of the democratic opposition in Syria. The American people must be clear on where their country’s policy makers stand and are leading this country.

Joseph Puder

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/17/snubbing-the-real-syrian-democratic-movement/

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

The Makings of a Terrorist State

by Frank Crimi

Despite a recent UN report that found the country of Eritrea, located on the Horn of Africa, to be actively planning terrorist attacks as well as funding a wide array of terror groups, the Obama administration has declined to list it as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The report by a UN monitoring group in June 2011 alleged the Eritrean government was providing military, financial and logistical support to Islamist and other militant terror organizations throughout East Africa, including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Sudan.

The terrorist and militant groups receiving Eritrean support include Somalia’s Islamist al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam; Ethiopia’s Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and Oromo Liberation Front (OLF); and Djibouti’s Front pour le Restauration de la Democratie (FRUD).

Eritrean support to these terror outfits include “training, people smuggling, arms trafficking, money laundering and extortion,” all facilitated by a large number of Eritrean political, military and intelligence officials. Moreover, Eritrea has established its own training camps, built for the purpose of training foreign fighters.

While Eritrea has outsourced most of the implementation of its terrorist agenda, it has proven quite willing to undertake terrorist activities on its own. That willingness was cited in the UN report as well, which alleged that the Eritrean government was behind a failed plot to bomb several civilian and government targets in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa during an African Union (AU) summit in January 2011.

According to the UN report, the Eritrean aim was to make Addis Ababa “like Baghdad” by setting off car bombs outside AU headquarters and assassinating targeted AU delegates.

For its part, the UN Security Council had already imposed sanctions against Eritrea in December 2009, which included embargoes on the delivery of military equipment, as well as a travel ban and an asset freeze on Eritrean political and military leaders. Now, the UN monitoring group is urging the UN Security Council to impose yet another round of sanctions on the Eritrean government.

While US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the United States was prepared to add additional sanctions, she would not say if the latest findings would be enough to place Eritrea on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. Instead, Rice voiced concern that the sanctions not be designed so they would “harm the people of Eritrea, who are suffering enough as it is.”

Eritrea’s suffering stems from its inclusion as one of the nations severely affected by the drought in the Horn of Africa, a drought which has forced an estimated 61,000 Eritreans to find refuge in Ethiopia. Added onto that burden is Eritrea’s status as an already desperately impoverished nation, one with a gross national income per capita of $360.

Yet, despite famine and grinding poverty, Eritrea has still been able to finance a far flung terrorist support network. According to the UN report, cash transfers to al-Shabab and other groups are facilitated by a “vast and complex system” in which senior officials of the Eritrean government and ruling People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) collect and control hundreds of millions of dollars each year in unofficial revenues.

In addition to private business arrangements involving PFDJ-run companies or business partnerships abroad, most revenues come largely from a 2 percent tax levied on the estimated 1.2 million Eritrean nationals (or 25 percent of its entire population) living overseas.

Still, the Eritrean government has categorically denied the UN charges, sloughing it off as “irresponsible interference” ginned up by the United States and Ethiopia. However, Eritrea’s past behavior puts that denial into some question.

In fact, Eritrea’s role as a destabilizing force in East Africa has been in play since 1991 when Eritrean President Issayas Afewerki led the country to independence from Ethiopia. Since then, Eritrea has at various times gone to war with Ethiopia, Yemen, Djibouti and Sudan, the most bloody conflict being a border war with Ethiopia between 1998 and 2000 that claimed over 80,000 lives.

So, given its past track record, it wasn’t too surprising that even prior to the release of the UN report, the Inter-Government Authority on Development (IGAD) — a six-country security and economic partnership that includes Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda — had called for toughened UN and African Union sanctions against Eritrea for its terrorist activities.

Ironically, however, Eritrea was once an American ally in the war on terror. In fact, Eritrea was one of the “coalition of the willing” — those nations that supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. That support was underscored in May 2004 by the Eritrean ambassador to the United States who said that Eritrea stood “ready to assist the United States in any way it can.”

However, by 2005 Eritrea had quickly slipped out of favor with the United States and much of the international community due to its repressive human rights abuses. So, by November 2006, Eritrean President Issayas Afewerki had reversed course and broke ties with America, claiming that the US was now “an historic enemy” of Eritrea.

At that same time, Afewerki began accelerating Eritrea’s descent into a rogue state by seeking ties with extremist groups and regimes all over the world. To that end, Afewerki began focusing Eritrea’s relations on countries like Libya, Sudan and Iran.

Most disturbing perhaps has been Eritrea’s push to become a military launch pad for Iran. Specifically, in 2008 Iranian ships and submarines reportedly deployed an undisclosed number of Iranian troops and weapons — long-range and ballistic missiles — at the Eritrean port town of Assab on the Red Sea.

The Eritrean-Iranian military agreement had been preceded by an accord between the two nations that called for Iran to “revamp, manage, and exercise complete authority” over production and maintenance of Eritrea’s oil refining facilities. As the world’s second largest importer of gasoline, Iran has been able to refine its crude oil in Assab to cover shortages it faces at home from Western sanctions on refined products.

Yet, all this nefarious activity has been unable to qualify Eritrea alongside Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Instead, it was named by the State Department in May 2011 as a Specially Designated Country — along with Israel — for “not cooperating fully with US anti-terrorism efforts.”

So, while some in Washington may not view Eritrea as being the greatest global threat, as demonstrated in the latest UN report, it’s certainly not been for a lack of trying.

Frank Crimi

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/17/the-makings-of-a-terrorist-state/

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

Erdogan: No Apology? No Thaw

by Gil Ronen

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reacted Wednesday to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's refusal to apologize to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara affair, and told reporters: "Rejection of our decision is unacceptable. As long as Israel does not apologize, does not pay compensation and continues to place an embargo on the Palestinian people, there will be no improvement in the relations between Turkey and Israel."

Earlier Wednesday it was reported that Netanyahu turned down U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s requests and will not apologize to Turkey for the IDF’s counter terrorist action.

Senior members of the Cabinet have strongly opposed the apology that Turkey has demanded and they said that if anyone should say he is sorry, it should be Erdogan.

Likud Ministers Benny Begin and Moshe Ya’alon, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beiteinu and Interior Minister Eli Yishai of Shas have said that Israel has nothing to apologize for. There were reports that Lieberman threatened to resign if an apology was issued.

The Obama administration has been anxious to improve ties between Jerusalem and Ankara.

A United Nations report by an investigation committee headed by Geoffrey Palmer is due to be published next week. It is expected to partly blame Turkey for the confrontation on the high seas, while accusing Israel of a disproportionate action.

Gil Ronen

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146913#.TkwRkV3Smdc

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

Egyptian Forces Seize Sinai Weapons Depot

by IMRA

Egyptian security forces said they had seized a mega-factory for manufacturing weapons in the northern Sinai town of El-Arish on Tuesday night.

Explosives, rockets and other weapons were captured, and a suspect was detained at the scene, security officials told Ma'an.

The Egyptian army and police have flooded the peninsula region bordering Israel and Gaza, in an operation termed "Eagle", to clamp down on militants accused of five attacks on a gas pipeline to Israel this year.

An Egyptian police officer was killed at the end of July in a shoot out between forces and gunmen at El-Arish police station.

Six men were detained in El-Arish on Monday, and earlier Tuesday Egyptian forces apprehended four men they said were preparing another attack on the supply line to Israel.

Egyptian security officials told Ma'an that the army located the factory -- believed to be the main site for weapons production by extremists in the Sinai region -- at the western edge of El-Arish city, in a building owned by a known "jihadist", a reference to Islamic militants.

Forces raided the depot Tuesday night, and discovered amongst the projectile and explosive manufacturing equipment, three sacks of gunpowder and of urea, used to create explosives, five bags of TNT explosive, seven anti-aircraft projectiles, three rocket-propelled grenades, and 30 individual and tank mines, the officials said.

A sniper rifle belonging to the officer shot dead at the end of July was also discovered.

The forces detained a man inside the factory for interrogation, and reported that he confessed a colleague had taken the rifle after shooting the officer.

Operation Eagle targets extremists in the sparsely-populated Sinai, and extra force deployment received approval from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, following the terms of the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty.

Attacks on gas pipelines to Israel, and the new regime's pledge to review all preferential supply agreements to the country, have put Israel's energy supplies on edge.

Egypt supplies ag:\israel\politics\blog\hard_nl OUT.txtbout 40 percent of Israel's natural gas, which is used to produce electricity.

IMRA

Source: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=413748

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

Gaza Ministry of Interior Announces New Restrictions on NGOs

by IMRA

PCHR Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Press Release

PCHR Is Shocked by Declaration of the Ministry of Interior in Gaza Regarding Travel of Representatives of Programs and Projects of NGOs and Institutions

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) is shocked and strongly denounces the declaration issued by the Ministry of Interior and National Security in Gaza regarding the travel of representatives of programs and projects of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and institutions to the West Bank or abroad. PCHR believes that this trend, as a part of a series of decisions recently taken by the government in Gaza, is an unprecedented and unacceptable intervention in NGOs work, which implies imposing restrictions on NGOs and activists and dealing with them on security basis. As a result, the foundations of the relationship between NGOs and the government, which is regulated by the Basic Law and all other laws in force, are threatened to be undermined. PCHR calls upon Isma'il Haniya, the Prime Minister in Gaza, to immediately and personally intervene to ensure respect for the law, the relationship with NGOs and their role, and to ensure their independence.

On 10 August 2011, the General Department of Public Affairs and NGOs in the Ministry of Interior and National Security in Gaza posted a declaration on its website regarding the travel of participants through NGOs' programs and activities:

"The General Department of Public Affairs and NGOs in the Ministry of Interior and National Security announces that each person of those wishing to travel through NGOs' programs or projects to the West Bank or abroad has to refer to the General Department of Public Affairs and NGOs not less than two weeks from the date of travel. He/she also has to inform us of the following: - The destination - The period of travel - The purpose of travel, in addition to identifying the program - The target group (a list of names and data of allg:\israel\politics\blog\hard_nl OUT.txt participants) - The hosting body

This declaration was published after days of posting a news item on website of the Council of Ministers in Gaza – Secretariat General – on 02 August 2011. It stated that the government "decided not to allow any NGO or non-profit organization to implement any project that is funded by a donor without the approval of the Ministry of Interior, National Security and concerned bodies." This news was negated by the government in communications made with the Secretariat General of the Council of Ministers and with the government's spokesperson. However, it was not officially cancelled.

Additionally, on 31 May 2011, the Council of Ministers in Gaza issued a decision to make amendments to the executive bill of Charitable Associations and Community Organizations Law No. 1/2000, which has not been officially published in the official gazette yet (al-Waqa'e Newspaper in Gaza). The amendments included adding article (47 bis) which stipulates that:

"1. All the branches of local organizations shall provide to the Ministry and the Competent Ministry any documents or papers upon request; and 2. The Ministry and the Competent Ministry shall implement activities implemented by branches of local organizations to make sure that the funds of the said branches are spent for the designated purpose."

PCHR had reservations over this amendment, which substantially destroys the essence of this relationship and grants more power to the Ministry of Interior to intervene into the affairs of organizations. Further, this amendment constitutes an encroachment of the law.

PCHR strongly denounces this declaration and warns against its risks, as it violates the law and is part of the restrictions imposed on the Palestinian people due to the illegal siege; and:

1. Calls upon Mr. Isma'il Haniya, the Prime Minister in Gaza, to immediately and personally intervene to ensure respect for the law, the relationship with NGOs and their role, and to ensure their independence.;
2. Calls upon the Ministg:\israel\politics\blog\hard_nl OUT.txtry of Interior and National Security in Gaza to withdraw this trend and annul the decision immediately;
3. Stresses that the freedom of movement is ensured for all persons under the law and the constitution;
4. Rejects that the Ministry of Interior and National Security deals with NGOs' activists on security basis. PCHR expresses its concerns that this trend is part of a policy that will eventually lead to undermining the foundations of an independent and active society;
5. Believes that this trend raises a question concerning what civil society the government wants, and whether there is an appropriate environment for an independent civil society or the trend is part of persistent efforts for control and containment, which violate the spirit and text of the law.

IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis)

Source: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=53440

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

The World of Political Discourse Aims at the Imagination

by Herbert I. London

When the president of the United States says we have to control expenditures and then advocates dramatic increases in the budget, it is perplexing.. When we are told the economy is in recovery, but according to recent reports the unemployment rate has ballooned to over 9 percent, it is confusing. When we are told we must win the war against radical Islamic forces but we will be withdrawing our troops from the Middle East, it is baffling.

This is not merely Orwellian double-speak; something else is at work. Words create a picture, but It is a picture obscured by reality. Ludwig Wittgenstein spent his life trying to show how language can be useful in understanding the world, while still remaining inexact. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world," he noted. We are presumably imprisoned by what we can say.

The mathematician Godel spoke of the "incompleteness theorem": "a statement cannot be proven," he said. In other words, there is a truth outside the limits of words and logic.

What this suggests for those who are trying to make sense of the contradictions in the political world is that language is imprecise and truth is evasive. Invariably politicians use metaphors or word pictures to convey impressions. President Obama, during the course of his presidential campaign, relied on a tabula rasa -- a blank slate -- onto which his constituents could project anything they wished he would embrace.

Citizen searching for truth realize at some point that truth cannot be final: there is always a next truth. Francis Fukuyama may discuss "the end of history," but history cannot have an end. Ultimately people try to assemble an understanding of life through the thickets of specialized terminology, political propaganda and conceptual coinage, searching for a moment of revelation.

Emerson noted that "consistency is the hobgoblin of fools;" however, inconsistency in the political realm leads inevitably to cynicism. What can you believe, what confidence can you have in leaders, when one action contradicts the next? Politics by its very nature consists of metaphors on steroids; impressions are what count. Facts give impression texture, but it is what lies beyond the logic that enters our imagination. Thomas Mann in Doctor Faustus characterized this well by noting: "All that one may well call vast, strange, extraordinary magnificent, without thereby giving it a name because it is truly nameless." This vast space ocean of the unknown, kindled Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream in which Bottom says, "I have had a most rare vision. I have had a dream, past the wit of man to say what dream it was. Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream."

There is much that we know without knowing it. And there is much we would wish to explain, without explication. Alas the world is confusing, but our politicians have an obligation at least to make the metaphor provide us with impressions that are sound.

Herbert I. London

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2353/political-discourse-imagination

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

Norway and Anti-Semitism

by Manfred Gerstenfeld

A huge international debate has developed around who is responsible for influencing the thoughts of the despicable Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik. His acts have also generated much unusual international publicity about Norway. This is therefore an appropriate time to investigate another type of Norwegian hate mongering: the major anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism there.

There are many indications that anti-Semitism, partly manifesting itself as anti-Israelism, is widespread in Norway – which has less than 2,000 Jews. Many acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism occur in this country with a population of less than 5 million.

In June this year, a quantitative study was published on racism and anti-Semitism in Oslo high schools. It was the first official report on an aspect of anti-Semitism in Norway. The study revealed that one third of Jewish children were physically or verbally harassed at least two or three times a month. That was far more than other children. The next in line were Buddhists at 10%, followed by Muslims at 5%. Fifty-one percent of the students consider the word “Jew” as pejorative.

There is also much anecdotal evidence about this. One Jewish girl told the media that all Jewish children she knows have been harassed in school. After Breivik ‘s massacre, a Jewish schoolteacher said in an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency that he has Jewish students who do not publicly identify as such, to avoid harassment.

As far as adult Norwegian anti-Semites are concerned, they are often too polite to make anti-Semitic remarks to a Jew in his presence. Thus, some Jews can honestly claim that they have never experienced anti-Semitism personally.

At the beginning of this century, the Jewish community began to complain publicly about the greatly increased anti-Semitism. Thereafter, two of their active members received an envelope with a live bullet in it. This was confirmed to me by various people, none of whom wanted their names mentioned publicly. Subsequently the Jewish community lowered its profile.

There has been anti-Jewish violence on various occasions. In 2006 during the Second Lebanon War, the cantor of the Oslo community was beaten up on the street. A Pakistani man fired shots at the synagogue and the Jewish cemetery was desecrated. In 2009 during the Cast Lead War in Gaza, the largest anti-Semitic riots ever in Norway took place in Oslo. A Christian man who walked to a pro-Israel demonstration with an Israeli flag was beaten up and severely wounded. When I met him recently I saw his scars. Projectiles, which could have killed people, were thrown at the demonstrators. The perpetrators were almost all Muslim immigrants. Eirik Eiglad, a Norwegian has described this in a booklet in English titled The anti-Jewish Riots in Oslo.

One also finds classic anti-Semitism in the media in a typically Norwegian form. In 2008, comedian Otto Jespersen​ told his nationwide TV audience that he commiserated with the billions of fleas and lice that lost their lives in the German gas chambers without having done anything wrong other than settling on people of Jewish background. Such an outrageous statement could have happened elsewhere perhaps, because management cannot control a live performance in front of the cameras. What made this incident specifically Norwegian was that the management of TV2, the country’s second largest TV station, supported Jespersen’s “freedom of speech.”

Another uniquely Norwegian example of anti-Semitism promotion is that this same TV station invited Holocaust denier David Irving​ for an interview. They paid his expenses and for more than one quarter of an hour, he expressed his views after the unqualified interviewer asked superficial questions. In several countries, Irving is denied entry and it’s highly doubtful any other Western European country would give him TV time, let alone with an ignorant interviewer.

In a more indirect way: in 2009 Norway spent $20 million on festivities on the occasion of the 150^th birthday of Nobel Prize for Literature winner Knut Hamsun. A new museum was built in his honor. This ardent Hitler-admirer had dedicated his Nobel Prize to Joseph Goebbels and had been condemned after the Second World War​. The Norwegian government promised that they would also point out his collaboration with the Nazis during the festivities. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has documented that this promise was largely neglected.

Norway is a democracy ruled by ‘progressive’ hate-mongers. The current government headed by Labor Party Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg is soft on anti-Israel terror and sometimes even indirectly promotes it. In view of the horrific murders at the Utoya camp of the AUF Labor youth movement, many commentators have been rightly wary to fully expose the anti-Israel hatred which was promoted there to youngsters of 14 years old and up. Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere spoke there a day before the murders and called upon Israel to remove the security barrier, which has dramatically reduced the number of Palestinian suicide bombings. Demands like that make Stoere an indirect promoter of terror. He was also photographed at Utoya in front of a sign stating “Boycott Israel.”

According to the country’s largest paper, Verdens Gang, the Norwegian government financed the Gaza War​ trip of two extreme left-wing physicians, Mads Gilbert​ and Erik Fosse, through a development organization. They spread their anti-Israel hatred widely, via the international media, but failed to mention the fact that the Hamas leadership was camped in the hospital where they were working. After 9-11, Gilbert had told the daily Dagbladet that the mass murders by Arabs in the U.S. were justified. Norway is a NATO ally of the U.S. One would expect that government ministers in a democracy would have nothing to do with someone who justifies terror, leave alone against an ally. Yet Stoltenberg called the physicians in Gaza and stated that all of Norway stood behind them. Later, Gilbert and Fosse wrote a book in which they claimed that Israel went into Gaza to kill women and children. This is a new version of the classic anti-Semitic blood libel. Stoere wrote a back cover comment for the book.

When President Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, former Conservative Prime Minister Kare Willoch stated that the appointment of a Jew to that position was bad for the peace process. In a rare public reaction, a Norwegian Jewish journalist, Mona Levin, called him an anti-Semite.

Another extreme example of government-sponsored incitement occurred in autumn 2010, when the Norwegian government co-financed an exhibition of anti-Israel hate graphics from the artist Hakon Gullvag, in Damascus. The Norwegian Jewish community, in light of its dependence on the government, often does not react publicly to such acts of hate. However, when a leading daily, Aftenposten, printed one of Gullvags works Oslo’s rabbi, Yoav Melchior, could no longer remain silent. He wrote that he hid the paper from his son. One can give tens of other such examples of hate promotion.

To understand all this one has to know that the ruling cultural elite in Norway largely consists of Labor Party and Far Left constituents. Its worldview dominates politics, media, universities, culture, trade unions, NGOs, the official churches and so on. It is characterized by a far-reaching lack of self-doubt and self-criticism with an overlay of Marxism. This combination often produces a mixture of arrogance, shamelessness, lack of morality and intellectual dishonesty. The elite has succeeded in misinforming a large part of the population about Israel. This supports the expansion of anti-Semitism.

With such a mindset, it is easy for the ‘progressive’ elite to abuse their positions of power in order to demonize opponents, such as some opposition politicians and evangelical church movements. These people often invest great effort on behalf of Jews and Israel. The demonization is also directed at individuals who make “politically incorrect” statements.

The situation is likely to get worse. After the murders, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said that Norway will react by becoming an even more democratic, open and humanitarian society. What will probably happen is just the opposite. Some dissenters tell me that they now practice self-censorship and remain silent. One encouraged me to continue exposing what goes on in the country saying: “As almost everyone in opposition in Norway shuts up, and for the moment seem to completely have lost their right to freedom-of-speech, it is nice to see voices from the outside analyzing and speaking up.”

Norwegian establishment figures often demonize these dissenters as extremists. In America however, one would probably define them as liberal Republicans. Another one of them wrote to me about the establishment: “I think they actually hate us for being professional, if we were raving phobes they wouldn’t have minded, but we beat them at their own game. They have so much to hide. What they don’t understand is that it is impossible to seal the doors in the internet age. What they fall back on is the blame game and witch hunt.” It is a sign of the times in Norway that these quotes better remain nameless.

Manfred Gerstenfeld has published 20 books. Two of these address Norwegian anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/16/norway-and-anti-semitism/

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