The American Kafir

2012/04/05

A Quiet Transformation in China’s Approach to Israel

Filed under: Arab Nations, China, Israel — - @ 9:17 am

A fascinating read. W

Source JCPA

A Quiet Transformation in China’s Approach to Israel

Vol. 12, No. 6    2 April 2012

  • In recent years, the world has witnessed China’s growing involvement in the international arena – whether through its veto in the UN Security Council, its military conducting anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden and contributing to peacekeeping missions in Africa and the Middle East, buying U.S. and EU debt, or its declaration that the South China Sea is an integral part of China.
  • In the minds of the Chinese, Jews retain a highly respected status as a people who have survived over the millennia against all odds and have attained achievements that belie their miniscule numbers. The Chinese take great pride in Shanghai’s status as one of the only cities in the world that accepted Jewish refugees during World War II.
  • In the 12th Five-Year Plan, published in 2011, China’s leadership announced a national intention to raise the country from being the world’s factory to becoming a leading innovator. This new focus led the Chinese to seek the potential contribution of Israel – the “Start-Up Nation.”
  • Interactions between China and Israel had risen significantly over the years but had remained largely “off the record,” due to the Arab nations’ strong influence on the PRC leadership’s public approach to Israel. In 2011 this began to change. Five formally acknowledged Israel Studies programs were established across China, and in September, China’s most powerful political body – the Communist Party – expressed a formal interest in Israel’s political echelons in a public fashion by participating in the first-ever China-Israel Strategy and Security Symposium at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.
  • Despite its close ties with the Arab world, China was caught completely off guard by the Arab Spring. They were devastated by the $20 billion in losses they suffered with the fall of Gaddafi, hammering home their lack of understanding of the Middle East. In their search for accurate and reliable information, leading academics began to seek out Israel, an island of stability whose geographic proximity to the Arab Spring offers unique access.

China’s Growing International Involvement

Historically China was inward looking, for over 1200 years seeking no role in the international theater. The world’s most populous nation was preoccupied with its own culture, history, and survival.

Driven by the pressing goal to feed and provide basic resources to their people, the Chinese leadership ventured outside their territory beginning in the early 1980s. While this trend grew, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) kept its head down and focused on building its economy and pulling itself out of the turmoil and desolation created by the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976).

Within 25 years, this Asian nation transformed itself into an economic power and China has bestowed new responsibilities on the nation’s government. In recent years, the world has witnessed China’s growing involvement in the international arena – whether through its veto in the UN Security Council,1 the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy conducting anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden2 and contributing to peacekeeping missions in Africa and the Middle East, buying U.S. and EU debt,3 or its declaration that the South China Sea is an integral part of China.4

Israel-China Relations

Though the Israeli government extended recognition to China on January 9, 1950, it took until January 1992 for the two nations to establish formal diplomatic relations.5 Subsequent to an August 1950 resolution by the Arab League forbidding any Arab country from acknowledging China, the 1955 Bandung Conference was held which excluded Israel and forged a bond between China and the Arab world.6 Nevertheless, as China came to recognize Israel’s potential to contribute to its economic and military modernization goals, clandestine military exchanges between the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the PLA slowly developed. They began with an initial contact made at the Paris Air Show in 1975. By the early 1980s, Israeli technology in the fields of agriculture, solar energy, information and communications technology, and construction made their way to Asia’s largest nation.7

Sino-Israel relations took a turn for the worse, however, when Israel adhered to a U.S. mandate to renege on a major sale in 1999 of the Phalcon, a sophisticated reconnaissance aircraft that would allow the Chinese to gather intelligence at a distance,8 and again in 2004, when Israel began repairs and upgrades on the Harpy drones, laser-guided unmanned aircraft Israel had sold to China in 1994. Israel eventually succumbed to U.S. pressure, backing out of its earlier agreements with the PRC.9

Economic Synergies Form Common Ground

While political relations deteriorated significantly, Israel continued to contribute to agricultural and water technology advancement in China.10 Over time and with great effort by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, business interaction was soon revived and growth was nurtured. The value of total bilateral imports and exports reached $7.65 billion in 2010, nearly 150 times their 1992 value.11 In the minds of the Chinese, Jews retain a highly respected status as a people who have survived over the millennia against all odds and have attained achievements that belie their miniscule numbers. China is a nation with no indigenous anti-Semitism. The Chinese continue to see Jews and themselves as two ancient civilizations, with shared values in, among others, family, education, and hard work. The Chinese continue to take great pride in Shanghai’s status as one of the only cities in the world that accepted Jewish refugees during World War II.12

Beyond cultural affinities, key occurrences in the past few years have engendered a noticeable warming in China-Israel relations. In the economic arena, the 2008 subprime debacle drew the economies of the West into recession, causing Israeli businesses to look east in a more comprehensive and serious fashion. In 2010, Foxconn,13 the leading manufacturer of such products as the iPad, iPhone, Kindle, PlayStation 3, Wii and Xbox 360, with 13 factories across China, suffered suicides by a number of its employees said to be protesting oppressive pressure in the workplace. China’s leadership responded by making innovation a priority in the country’s 12th Five-Year Plan, published in 2011. The ruling Communist Party announced a national intention to raise the country from being the world’s factory to becoming a leading innovator. This new focus led the Chinese to seek the potential contribution of Israel – the “Start-Up Nation.”14

With Wealth Comes Responsibility

Economic factors influenced political ones. During 2010, China was internationally recognized as having the second largest economy in the world, following the U.S.A. This led to growing self-confidence by China’s leadership and the nation as a whole. One manifestation of its new self-image was the political echelon’s public acknowledgment of a growing interest in relations with Israel. Interactions between the two countries had risen significantly over the previous years but had remained largely “off the record.” For example, prior to this transformation in attitude, China’s provincial leaders and other officials and diplomats could visit Israel to advance business, finance, technology, and science exchanges. However, few could formally meet with Israel’s political sector or deal with Israel regarding geopolitics. This stemmed in part from the Arab nations’ strong influence on the PRC leadership’s public approach to Israel.

Signs of change were subtle but convincing. SIGNAL (Sino-Israel Global Network & Academic Leadership) experienced the transformation firsthand through our research in mid-2010 investigating China’s interest in high-level academic interchanges with Israel. We learned that there were 10 Jewish Studies centers across China, all established over the past 20 years. However, there was not a single Israel Studies program. This was a symptom of China’s official attitude towards Israel – the study of Judaism and Jewish history is non-political and non-offensive to the Arab world. Studying Israel, however, would indicate an official sanctioning of the Jewish nation as an academic focus.

When SIGNAL proposed the idea of establishing Israel Studies Programs at Chinese universities in mid-2010, a university in Southwest China responded with great interest. The director of their Jewish Studies Institute wanted to re-name the center “Israel Studies.” However, she was advised by more experienced and politically connected scholars that just making such a request could shut down the center. If there was interest in Israel Studies, it should be done quietly, without any formal acknowledgment. In 2011, SIGNAL established five formally acknowledged Israel Studies programs across China. Less than one year into the program, the same university that was advised to avoid the word “Israel” submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Education to form an Israel Studies center. It was now possible to obtain official government funding for a program bearing the name “Israel.”

Academia Bridging the Gap

Another example of change in China’s official approach to Israel was the staging of the first-ever China-Israel Strategic Studies conference. Never before had scholars from China and Israel come together to address geopolitical issues of mutual concern. SIGNAL’s due diligence in mid-2010 indicated that high-level and influential Chinese academics and experts would not come to Israel for such an event, nor would they host one in China. The alternative was to hold the event at a leading university in the U.S.A. – capitalizing on China’s strong interest in improving U.S.-China relations. However, in late 2010 there was a glimmer of change in China’s public recognition of Israel. China’s Communist Party invited the Likud “foreign minister” to visit.

Since Israel’s political parties do not have foreign ministers, the ruling Likud Party sent MK Yuli Edelstein. Perhaps more significant was the Communist Party’s invitation to Edelstein to participate in a “think tank conference” joining the Likud Party think tank with the Communist Party think tank. While China’s Communist Party did not realize that Israel’s political parties do not have affiliated think tanks, the salient point was that the party publicly invited Israel’s ruling party to take part in an Israel-China academic event focusing on issues of political interest. The significance of this development lay in China’s most powerful political body expressing formal interest in Israel’s political echelons in a public fashion. Due to this transformation in attitude, in September 2011, SIGNAL held the first-ever China-Israel Strategy and Security Symposium at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, co-hosted by the Center for Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) and in conjunction with the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at the Lauder School of Government.

2011 proved to be a banner year for warming China-Israel relations. Official visits between the two governments grew in both number and rank, capped with visits by General Chen Bingde and Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. But for all the governmental and academic exchanges taking place, on close examination it becomes clear that China’s leadership continues to lack a basic understanding of Israel and the region. The minimal information they and their academic advisors do have is primarily sourced via their 50-year-old network of affiliations throughout the Arab world and Iran. Israel and China share no such network of trusted associations built over years of studying in each other’s universities, touring each other’s countrysides, or interacting extensively within shared diplomatic frameworks.

“Arab Spring” Stirs Mid-East Policy

Despite their close ties with the Arab world, China’s government and ruling party were caught completely off guard by the Arab Spring. They were in virtual shock to discover that 65,000 of their citizens were working in Libya when the evacuation of foreigners from that country began, and were devastated by the $20 billion in losses they suffered with the fall of Gaddafi,15 hammering home their lack of understanding of the Middle East. In response, China’s leaders directed their academic advisors to find new avenues for investigation. In their search for accurate and reliable information as well as analysis and interpretation, leading academics from Beijing and Shanghai began to seek out Israel. They learned that Israel is an island of stability, while its geographic proximity to the Arab Spring offers unique access without being drawn into the fray.

Perhaps due in part to the Arab Spring, the ambassadors of the 22 Arab nations have been putting increasing pressure on China to take action in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As is often the case in China, policy advice on such matters is sourced to the nation’s leading academic community. The Middle East Research Center at Shanghai Jiaotong University (SJTU) developed a new model for diplomatic involvement in the Middle East and North Africa. In response to the Arab community’s complaint that China sits on its proverbial hands, showing indifference to the region, the Center coined the new program, “Constructive Participation.” “Constructive Participation,” which aims to be the new paradigm for Chinese public diplomacy in the Middle East and North Africa, infers China’s gradual shift away from its traditional “non-interference” policy towards a strategy in which government, businesses, and NGOs seek to contribute to the development of the region.

The Middle East Center’s pilot trip brought a 30-person delegation of business leaders and scholars to Israel and the PA on February 26-29, 2012. The CEOs, presidents, and general managers comprised the largest group of high-level business people ever to come to Israel and the PA for the sole purpose of investment. The scholars accompanying them aimed to promote economic stability while collecting empirical information on the region in order to carry out “Constructive Participation.”

China’s economic achievements have created a new reality for the world’s most populous nation. Demands and expectations internally and externally will continue to grow and to some extent, China will be seeking out Israel, its scholars, and experts as a trusted source of information and greater understanding in order to meet the responsibilities brought by its economic success.

* * *

Notes

1. http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/russia-china-veto-un-security-council-resolution-on-syria-1.411033

2. http://maritimeindia.org/article/military-operations-other-war-pla-navys-role-peaceful-development-china

3. http://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/detail/article/how-the-debt-crisis-can-advance-sino-european-relations/

4. http://peoplesreview.com.np/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7897:explosion-in-the-south-china-sea&catid=40:view-point&Itemid=59

5. E. Zev Suffot, “Israel’s China Policy 1950-1992,” Israel Affairs 7 (2000): 103; Zhang Shuguang, “Constructing ‘Peaceful Coexistence: China’s Diplomacy Toward the Geneva and Bandung Conferences, 1954-1955,” Cold War History 7.4 (2007): 514.

6. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-09/07/c_131112714.htm

7. John Burns, “Israel and China Quietly Form Trade Bonds,” New York Times, July 22, 1985.

8. http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp473.htm

9. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2004/12/29/Israels-China-US-weapons-dilemma/UPI-26081104355028/

10. http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/foreign-view/2011-03/628938.html

11. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-03/03/content_12106851.htm

12. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5488614

13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn%20-%20cite_note-wsj-5

14. Dan Senor and Saul Singer, Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle (2009).

15. http://chonzfashion.hubpages.com/hub/Chinas-investment-in-Libya-is-more-than-20-billion-and-the-amount-of-loss-is-difficult-to-estimate

*     *     *

About Carice Witte

Carice Witte, SIGNAL’s founder and executive director, is a graduate of Yale University in East Asian Studies with a focus on China and has served as President of the Yale Club of Israel for the past eight years. After a 20-year entrepreneurial career in Israeli high tech and international real estate, Witte merged a commitment to Israel, respect for China, and belief that academia can provide a key to discovering creative approaches leading to much needed solutions by establishing SIGNAL, Sino-Israel Global Network & Academic Leadership (中以学术交流促进协会), to enhance strategic, diplomatic, cultural, and economic relationships between China and Israel through academia.

2012/03/24

Israel Warns Neighbors Over March to Jerusalem

Source Link: Arutz Sheva

Israel Warns Neighbors Over March to Jerusalem

Israel warns neighbors that it will forcefully respond to attempted breaches of its borders during the ‘Global March to Jerusalem’.

By Elad Benari, Canada

Jerusalem

As activists are planning to lead a Global March to Jerusalem next Friday, Israel has warned neighboring countries that it would forcefully respond to attempted breaches of its borders.

The Global March to Jerusalem initiative aims at getting over one million Arabs and their supporters to attempt to infiltrate Israel’s borders on March 30th. A spokesman for the march said last week the initiative “demand[s] freedom for Palestine and its capital Jerusalem.”

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) has presented information that Iran is behind the initiative and openly supports it. The march has also been endorsed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was U.S. President Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Diplomatic sources told the London-based Asharq Alawsat newspaper on Friday that Israel has sent messages to the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, the Hamas government in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority regarding the planned march.

The report said that in the messages Israel made it clear that anyone who will come near its borders would be considered an infiltrator and the IDF will act against him with full force.

Israel also reportedly demanded that Arab countries not allow an escalation of the tension in the region through marches toward its borders.

Channel 10 News, which cited the Asharq Alawsat report, said that the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s Office refused to comment on the report.

Earlier this week, radio host Aaron Klein of WABC radio in New York offered $50,000 to an organizer of the Global March to Jerusalem, if he could name one city in the Middle East, outside of Israel, that has more freedom than Jerusalem. The activist was unable to do so.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

2012/01/12

The Genocide Doctorine

The Genocide Doctorine

View this document on Scribd

2011/12/13

Gingrich Gets It Right

Source Article Link: FrontPageMag

Gingrich Gets It Right

by David Horowitz

In an interview on Saturday, Newt Gingrich put some reality into the surreal discussion of the Middle East conflict and (as he put it) the delusional nature of the current “peace process.” The Palestinians are indeed an “invented people” — invented by the Nasser dictatorship and KGB by the way — and the Hitlerian lie that Israel occupies one square inch of “Arab” let alone “Palestinian” land needs to be buried for any clarity on what the conflict is about, let alone progress towards peace.

Of course there is no peace in the Middle East and there can be no peace so long as the Muslim Arabs want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. That is the explicit goal of the enemies of Israel in the terrorist entities of Gaza and the West Bank, and also of Israel’s principal enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Newt Gingrich’s gutsy statements — if he will hold to them — could change the nature of the debate not only about how to deal with the Islamic terrorists of the Middle East but with the Islamic jihad itself. For the campaign to destroy Israel is at bottom a campaign to restore the Muslim (not Arab) ummah — as it was under the Turkish empire and the caliphate.

According to CNN, a Palestinian spokesman called Gingrich’s observation that the Palestinians are “an invented people” quote “the most racist I’ve ever seen.” This just shows what brazen liars Palestinian spokesmen are. Everything that Gingrich said was obvious fact. For nearly 2,000 years “Palestine” referred to region not a people — just as “New England” refers to a region not a people. In 1948 the Arabs of the Palestine region were not talking about a Palestinian state and were not referring to themselves as Palestinians. That came in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, engineered by the KGB and the Jew-hating dictator of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser​. Even then the PLO charter (which is still available on the web) (A copy is provided below also a copy of the Palestinian The PLO’s “Phased Plan”) did not call for the liberation of the West Bank or Gaza (annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively) but for the destruction of the Jewish state. Jew hatred is what has driven the conflict in the Middle East which is more precisely described as a genocidal war against the Jews.



David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”



View this document on Scribd


View this document on Scribd


Related Articles:

Arab-Israeli Confilict Basic Facts



Israeli Nation History



Oslo accords and “Peace Process”



What is Palestine and Palestinians?

2011/12/08

Arabs scared of the truth

Filed under: Arab Nations, Gaza, Israel, Palestine — - @ 7:21 pm

Source Article Link: YNet

Arabs scared of the truth

Op-ed: Time has come for Arabs to stop viewing conflict via distortions, blind hatred

By Nizar Amer

During the many years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Arab public opinion has adopted a single, focused and uncompromising point of view. In very few cases we hear a different opinion or unusual criticism of the common perception. If the impossible happens and one person or another dares challenge the dominant view, the Arab soil starts to shake and quickly we see charges against the “sinner” In various ways and forms, in a bid to smear him and repress his thoughts.

Many Arab leaders utilize the Palestinian issue as a means to sowing fear among their own peoples. The greater the oppression and deprivation of human rights, the greater the scaremongering dosages and the injection of Israel-hate into the Arab nation’s veins. This is done while the media under these dark regimes strictly refers to the Jewish State as the “Zionist enemy,” lest the simple folk get confused and perceive Israel as a friendly, peace-seeking state.

Naturally, over the years we have seen non-Arabs joining the cycle of manipulation of Arab public opinion: Out of nowhere comes the voice of one Iranian official or another, who slams Israel and expresses his genuine love and concern for the Palestinian people, even though in reality he views the Palestinians as a cheap means for serving his own means.

The years go by yet the conflict persists. At times there are periods of terror and war, and other times we see optimistic winds of reconciliation and understanding. At other junctions, it appears that everyone is simply fed up. Yet recently, something happened in the Arab world: The Tunisian Spring was the first to arrive, while changing many of the old perceptions. The Egyptians waited for the heat of summer to rise up, and now we are witnessing the beginning of the Syrian winter, with growing calls to topple the Alawite regime.

Some Syrian citizens may have realized that the demonic Israeli monster is the product of the government press’ and outlandish TV stations’ imagination. The historical truth shows that Israel fought wars that were forced upon it by those who convinced themselves that Israel is simply fiction, a fleeting phenomenon that shall quickly disappear from the Middle East’s map. In practice, this tiny state scored one victory after another, proving that that it is a living and breathing fact, entrenched deep in this soil.

Gaza versus Ramallah

Israel is being accused of drawing out the negotiations and lacking a genuine, honest will to secure peace among its leaders and citizens. I shall not attempt to discount these claims or lament the hesitation and difficulties produced by the Palestinians. Instead, I shall make do with reviewing two points: The first is historical and pertains to Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Don’t these agreements attest to Israel’s serious intentions?

Notably, Israel gave up, for peace, the Sinai Peninsula (an area three times Israel’s size and rich with natural resources.) On the northern front, Israel showed on several occasions genuine willingness to secure a fair agreement with the Syrians, yet every time encountered a peace obstacle in the form of the Syrian president (both father and son,) who may have been preoccupied with utilizing his secret police at every corner.

The second point pertains to the Shalit swap. In an Egyptian TV interview, after five and a half years in captivity and in his first encounter with the sun, Shalit chose to express his hope that the conflict shall end and all prisoners shall return to their families. On the other hand, released Palestinian prisoners chose to commit to continuing terrorism and bloodshed. I hoped that these detainees, who tried the path of terror and failed, would choose this time to embark on a new path that does not rely on killing and violence. I had hoped hopes, yet was disappointed.

Gaza residents are suffering, yet the question remains: Who’s responsible for this suffering? Israel can be blamed, as usual, yet if we compare the situation in the Gaza Strip to the situation in the West Bank, and compare Gaza City to Ramallah, it won’t be difficult to spot the huge difference. The reason for this is rather clear and stems from the difference between the Fatah government and Hamas government, which espouses a policy of terror, carnage and violence, also implemented against its own citizens.

This terror policy constitutes the main obstacle to Palestinian reconciliation efforts and the achievement of peace. It’s also important to pay attention to the following point: At this time we are talking about two states for two peoples, yet it seems that three states for two people shall be required. One for Israel, one for Fatah, and a third one for Hamas. We may need more mini-states in case of further splits down the road. Is this reasonable? How can one make peace given such reality? And who should we make peace with? I’m afraid that ultimately we shall have to secure peace with every Palestinian individual separately.

In love with zeal

Many in the Arab street examine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via the logic of fatalities and quickly produce virtual scales. On one hand they look at the Palestinian fatalities, and usually forget Israel’s fatalities.

The death of innocents is regrettable, regardless of the way and reason it happened. Yet the difference between Hamas and Israel has to do with intention: Hamas activists fire missiles and rockets into the heart of civilian population centers, hoping to kill innocent civilians. On the other hand, Israel attempts to hit Hamas men, and if civilians are hurt as result the reason is usually Hamas’ cynical use of mosques, schools and hospitals as missile-launching platforms, as well as the utilization of their own countrymen as human shields. Of course, at times we see operational mishaps on the Israeli side.

A person of conscience cannot ignore the Palestinian pain, but also should not ignore the killing of Israeli children and civilians with inhumane brutality. The solution to the Palestinian pain will not be achieved via the killing of Israeli innocents or the adoption of terrorism as a policy, but rather, by abandoning the path of violence and returning to negotiations. Let’s hope they understand this soon.

Israel is a democratic state, a world-leader in science, medicine and culture, and boasts free media and a flourishing economy. It is a state that grants its minorities the possibility of self-fulfillment and the ability to play an active role in the life of the nation. However, just like any other state, Israel is facing many challenges, and quite a few problems persist in the process of integrating Arabs into the life of the country as citizens equal to the Jewish majority.

The Arab world is still in love with zealous words and mindless attacks: Impassioned calls, baseless threats, and the flexing of muscles. Needless to say, this way of thinking is useless. Hasn’t the time come for an Arab process of self-reflection? For understanding reality as it is and changing the Arab perception of the conflict? Hasn’t the time come to rely on historical fact and objective arguments, instead of relying on blind hatred and the distortion of the truth?

The time has come to abandon the path of hatred and exploit the opportunities for peace via negotiations, because there is no other way.

Nizer Amer is a member of Israel’s Foreign Service and is stationed in Ankara, Turkey

2011/11/28

ARE AMERICAN POLITICIANS STILL IN THE STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT FRENCH THREAT?

The below article is written by Joseph Haba, a reader of The American Kafir,  used the articles as a comment to several articles here.. I find it an excellent read and quite factual concerning the relationship of France, Islamic Ideology and the United States. I hope you will enjoy it as well. Walt

ARE AMERICAN POLITICIANS STILL IN THE STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT FRENCH THREAT?

By Joseph Haba
October 2, 2011

Politicians today believe they are good for the people. While they become multibillionaires, the population becomes extremely poor as they suffer humiliation in the hands of self-serving politicians. To humiliate people, politicians attack the economic power of ordinary people. Next, they engineer social injustice, social division, and interest groups to create enmity and distrust among the constituents. Finally, they enshrine psychological concepts of superiority for the wealthy and inferiority for the poor. In his gripping account of terror, Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef who is one of the founding leaders of Hamas (a terrorist organization) wrote, “A moderate Muslim is actually more dangerous than a fundamentalist, however, because he appears to be harmless, and you can never tell when he has taken that step toward the top. Most suicide bombers began as moderates” (p. 12). Are moderate Muslim in the world ready to join American enemies to attach America one day from this comment? This author was a terrorist who is now a born again Christian.

The relationship between the United States and France, for most scholars and those who care about the United States appears to be harmless, and American politicians can never tell when France has taken the step to attack the United States. However, my research has proved that France is more dangerous than any terrorist organization for the following reasons:

AMERICA’S KINDNESS IS THROWN AWAY UPON EVIL FRENCH POLITICIANS AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES

The United States politicians and the media have not told Americans that France is a viper numb with cold and out of perceived friendship. France is placed in America’s bossom. However, sooner will France be capable of uniting the whole world against the United States, France will turn upon its benefactor and inflict a fatal bite upon Americans. The warning signs are there.

First France has to stifle the United States army by creating conflicts and involving the United States. For example, “In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line.” Was it necessary for the United States to help France to retain control of its colonies?… And everyone knows how the Vietnam war ended.

France has to prevent the United States from getting lucrative markets, and France will continue to do everything to immobilize the United States economic power. For example, “With the end of the Cold War the list of disagreements between the USA and France increased. France and the USA clashed about the liberalisation of cultural goods, knowing both that the spread of culture goes with that of values and economic powership. They clashed again about NATO’s strategies and leadership, in 1996, and again for the appointment of the new UN Secretary-General, after B. Boutros-Ghali.” France has been dismembering American business in Africa, and the French consider the United States as a threat to their national security. According to French officials, “US threat is a genuine concern for French authorities, as admitted by Michel Roussin, then Minister of Co-operation : a series of meetings were held at the highest levels of the French Government, in 1993-1994, to discuss strategies to defend French interests against those of the US. While visiting Gabon in July 1995, President Jacques Chirac verbally attacked “the Anglosaxons (who) dream of pushing France out of its position in Africa without paying a price”.

Finally, and maybe most important, France uses American officials to weaken and undermine American security For example, Barack Obama has declared that France is America’s greatest ally, yet France exported nuclear technology to Iran, according to U.S. intelligence reports, which had an active nuclear weapons program at least until 2003. France also sold nuclear technology to Pakistan (www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/…/nuclear-power-in-france-setting.pdfSimilar). “U.S. intelligence officials claimed Pakistan was a key supplier of uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, and some media reports suggested that Pakistan had exchanged centrifuge enrichment technology for North Korean help in developing longer range missiles” France also delivered and built Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq that was bombed by Israel in 1981. “France’s Areva nuclear engineering firm said it would sell China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp. 20,000 tons of uranium over a decade. The contract is worth around $3.5 billion dollars.”

For French President Nicolas Sarkozy, nuclear reactors are the bridge between the West and the Islamic world… Since December, Sarkozy has signed deals with or offered nuclear technical advice to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Libya, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco.” “France hopes to sell a nuclear power station to Libya in 2010…French firms also want to gain access to Libya’s massive unexploited oil reserves, as do the rest of the world’s oil companies. France has a 1.3 billion-euro trade deficit with Libya, mainly due to oil imports.” “French nuclear scientist with involvement with a terrorist group Monday, opening a formal investigation into his suspected links with Al-Qaeda in North Africa” (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/118/article_5467.asp). More troubling, “Did you know Obama is using your tax dollars to support pro-Al Qaeda brigades in Libya?”

What does it mean for France to sell nuclear technology to countries that support terrorists? First, it allows France to have many friends while America’s enemies are emboldened. Second, Muslims who want to attack westerns will consider France as their protectors against the United States. As a result, more Americans will be trying to fight emboldened enemies as billions of dollars are spent for war on terror and thousands of Americans are killed and wounded. In addition, many tourists will not consider the United States as their destination for vacation, and many investors will prefer doing businesses elsewhere, but the United States. America will continue to spend her time defending itself against enemies while French people continue to create jobs for the French people. Should we say that all of these are making the United States to lose millions of jobs? Should Americans care? Do you understand why France was against President Bush for the Iraq war?

Many Americans don’t know that by 2050 Muslim leaders will be ruling Europe because the number of Muslims will be more than the number of White Europeans. Europeans know this and they are doing their best to befriend them. In the United States, there will be about 26 million Muslims in 2050. If war breaks out between Europe and the United States, will Muslims in the United States support European Muslims? The Qu’ran is clear:

In another development, France has used the United States to remove pro-American presidents from power in Africa. We saw the cases in Guinea and Ivory Coast where France financed Al-Qaido through Muslim rebels, and burning pro-American Christians (See picture). What Americans don’t understand is that if the French occult network, Francafrique, was dismantle, America could create more than 20 million jobs by doing business in Africa. “On top of its mining opportunities, the continent offers interesting agricultural opportunities, “such as the plantations or outgrower production of tea, coffee, cocoa, cotton, sugar, and the like” as well as “some low-tech manufacturing for local markets, such as beer and soft drinks, plastics and cement, and a very limited amount of export manufacturing (eg textile) by subsidiaries of foreign firms, especially under the Lomé Convention which gives African countries special access to European markets” Not only that if American businesses could legally supply weapons, logistical support to courts and police units, training of soldiers and officers, and the organisation and management of “presidential guards” to about 50 countries in Africa. Do you understand the stakes?

FRANCE OPPOSE ENGLISH AND SUPPLY PROSTITUTES TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES

“Pro-French elites in Africa are selected through various means, including the promotion ofFrench language (as opposed to English), in general, and the maintenance of close relations between the main actors, including heads of states. These relations are very similar to those in force in crime syndicates, with the promotion of a fake friendship based on the share out of riches, private meetings involving exchanges of gifts or supply of prostitutes, implying in return a secrecy linking accomplices, and even familial ties, with, for instance, current French President being the godfather of one of Senegalese President Abdou Diouf’s daughters”

2011/11/25

‘They Stole Our Land’ vs. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

Source Link: FrontPageMag

‘They Stole Our Land’ vs. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

Posted By David Meir-Levi

The cornerstone argument in the Arab narrative against Israel is that the Zionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries came to the Land of Israel and stole Arab land.  This is a very simple assertion, easy to visualize, seemingly logical and amenable to a brief presentation: after all, Zionists did come from Europe to what was then Palestine, and the Arabs were already living there.  So obviously when the Jews came they took Arab land.

Although there exists voluminous evidence to the contrary in Arab and Turkish and British sources indicating the exact opposite, it is difficult to present this contrary evidence and explain its importance in as brief and simple a manner as is done with the Arab assertion.  There are too many variables: Arab demographics, Jewish demographics, Zionist agrarian reclamation technology, land purchases, crown land vs. privately owned land, absentee landlords, etc.  This imbalance puts the advocate on behalf of Zionism and Israel at a disadvantage, even though the evidence supporting the Israeli narrative and contradicting the Arab narrative is vast and thoroughly vetted.  For an excellent compilation and analysis of this evidence, see Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (University of North Carolina Press, 1984, reviewed here and here).

However, there is one testimony from an unimpeachable source stating that the Jews stole no land, but rather bought land in vast quantities from willing sellers who were the legal owners of the land that was sold.  This unimpeachable source is so unarguably innocent of any pro-Israel or pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist sentiment that there can be no rational question regarding the veracity of his testimony.  That source is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (1895 to 1974).

El-Husseini was a key figure in the creation of the concept of Palestinian nationalism and the most high-profile leader of violent and incendiary opposition to Zionism from the 1920’s onward, until the creation of the State of Israel rendered his leadership irrelevant.  He used his powerful political and religious position as the Grand Mufti (supreme religious leader) of Jerusalem to promote Arab nationalism, incite violence against the British, and preach Jew-hatred and the annihilation of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine.  He was an ally of Hitler before and during World War II, recruited Muslim legions in Bosnia to serve on the eastern front in Hitler’s Weirmacht, and developed full-blown plans for concentration camps in Palestine in imitation of the German “final solution.”   During the 1948 Israel-Arab war, he represented the Arab Higher Committee and rejected the UN partition plan of November 29, 1947 (for a brief biography of el-Husseini and a list of book-length biographies see here).

As the highest official representative of the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine, el-Husseini was interviewed by the Palestine Royal Commission led by Earl William Robert Wellesley Peel, hence known as the Peel Commission.

The Peel Commission was a Royal Commission of inquiry sent to British Mandatory Palestine in November of 1936 for the purpose of examining and reporting on the causes of the Arab-Jewish violence in Palestine and suggesting possible resolutions.  After months of research and interviews of major Zionist and Arab leaders, the Commission published its report in July of 1937.  The report recommended a partition plan for separate Arab and Jewish states; but this plan was never implemented, although the Zionists accepted it, due to vociferous Arab opposition.

The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

“The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report).

El-Husseini’s interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission’s notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report.  It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman’s The Palestine  Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.).

The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here.  Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness.  He spoke through an interpreter.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.

MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?

MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.

SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?

MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned?  Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams?

MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered.

SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.

MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?

MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.

SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?

MUFTI: No.

SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold?

MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases.

SIR I HAMMOND: I don’t quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them?

MUFTI: Land owners.

SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs?

MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?

MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?

MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords?

MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated?

MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs.

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers.

The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed.  Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners.  Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.

 

Reports of Coming Military Action in Syria

Filed under: Arab Nations, Bashar Assad, National Security, Syria, Turkey, War — - @ 6:58 pm

Reports of Coming Military Action in Syria

by Ryan Mauro

Syrian dictator Bashar Assad​ can feel the noose around his neck tightening. France is now calling for a humanitarian corridor in Syria and multiple reports talk of a Turkish-Arab military action following an authorization from the Arab League. The U.S. is telling its citizens to immediately leave the country. War may be on the horizon.

On Thursday, the French Foreign Minister asked the Arab League to endorse a “secured zone to protect civilians” in Syria. France is also officially embracing the Syrian National Council, an umbrella of opposition groups and figures, as a legitimate body. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe played a game of semantics, saying France was not endorsing a military intervention for a “buffer zone,” while admitting that the proposed “secured zone” would need military protection to ensure the delivery of aid.

At the same time, Israeli officials expect Turkey to soon establish buffer zones within Syrian territory near the border to create a safe haven for civilians and military defectors. The Turks are already housing the leadership of the Free Syria Army that is waging an armed struggle against Assad. The Kuwaiti Al-Rai newspaper is being told by senior sources in Europe that the plan is for a no-fly zone to be enforced by Arab and possibly Turkish air power after the Arab League approves of it. The U.S. will be involved behind-the-scenes, offering logistical support but no direct participation. NATO has ruled out military action in Syria.

According to the report, the no-fly zone will not be limited to only stopping Syrian airplanes and helicopters, which have been rarely used in putting down the uprising. It will enforce a ban on all movement of military vehicles and artillery, forcing them off of the streets. It is hoped that Assad’s military will be forced to end operations “in less than 24 hours.” This account differs from the Israeli one in that it states that Turkey has ruled out sending its military into Syrian territory to create a buffer zone.

Turkish state television revealed on Tuesday that the commander of the army was evaluating the forces stationed along the border with Syria. The Syrian military is reinforcing its positions in the area, digging trenches and moving tanks behind trees. The Turkish government is telling its citizens returning from their pilgrimage to Mecca not to travel through Syria following an incident where Assad’s security forces fired upon two buses filled with Turkish citizens.

The U.S. is telling its citizens in Syria to immediately depart. Ambassador Robert Ford’s planned return to Syria has been canceled. It should be noted that the Obama administration waited to support military intervention in Libya until all American citizens had left.

Three cities near the Turkish border have become the focal points of the protests and the fighting between the regime and the Free Syria Army: Idlib, Homs and Hama, the lattermost being the base of the Muslim Brotherhood​ revolt in 1982 that was crushed by the regime. Part of Idlib is said to be free of the regime’s control. This makes it a candidate to be the Syrian version of Libya’s Benghazi where the opposition headquartered its revolution.

The Free Syria Army’s strategy is to create a safe haven in northern Syria near Turkey and then win international support for its fight to overthrow Assad. The leader of the Free Syria Army claims to have 15,000 defectors under his command, up from the number of 10,000 he regularly boasted of. This may be an exaggeration, but it is clear that the forces’ capabilities are increasing. It recently carried out attacks on the Air Force Intelligence headquarters near Damascus and the ruling Baath Partyheadquarters in the capital.

Read the entire article at FrontPageMag

Related Article:

Only Action Can Stop the Syrian Slaughter

2011/11/10

African Jihadists’ Grand Ambitions

Source Link: Family Security Matters

African Jihadists’ Grand Ambitions

By Clare M. Lopez

Boko Haram Wants to Put Nigeria Under Islamic Law

The armies of Islam arrived in the Nigerian kingdoms as early as the 9th century. The forcible conquest of North Africa—including present day Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco—imposed Islamic law (shariah) according to the Maliki school of Sunni jurisprudence over this vast swath of territory. Over subsequent centuries, relentless jihadist raids (razzias) as well as the penetration of Muslim merchants, scholars, and traders into areas of the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa eventually succeeded in subjugating Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali and the entire northern half of the modern country of Nigeria to Islam.

Today, Nigeria is a large and populous West African country of some 160 million people, about half of whom are Muslim and half Christian and animist. Nigeria is comprised of 36 states, 12 of which have implemented shariah in the northern half of the country. As the renowned political scientist, Samuel Huntington wrote, “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards.” Islam in Nigeria, as in every other place on earth where it establishes power, has shown itself aggressive and violent. Shariah commands Muslims to jihad to spread the faith and, especially throughout the second half of the 20th century, Nigeria’s Muslims have obeyed: wars of domination against non-shariah-adherent Muslims like the Hausa exploded into jihad against non-Muslim tribes like the Yoruba and the Ibo (Biafra) leaving as many as a million dead. Shariah Implementation Committees drew up detailed plans to establish Shariah Courts, train and hire shariah judges, create a Religious Affairs Ministry, set up a Zakat Board, codify the Islamic penal code (hudud punishments like amputation, lashing, and stoning), and make the educational curriculum shariah-compliant.

In 2002, a fanatic jihadist group calling itself “Boko Haram” emerged from among the vast network of Nigeria’s savage Islamic militias, determined to conquer all of Nigeria, seize its oil wealth (largely concentrated in the south), and impose shariah on the entire population, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. “Boko Haram” means “Western education is forbidden” in the local Hausa language and expresses the group’s visceral hatred of all things modern, Western, and non-Muslim. Boko Haram leaders have expressed solidarity with al-Qa’eda, explicitly rejected the Nigerian constitution and democracy, and demanded nation-wide implementation of Islamic law.

Since its inception, Boko Haram, which is loosely modeled on Afghanistan’s Taliban, has unleashed a wave of vicious attacks against Nigeria’s central states that border the Muslim north and Christian south. Abuja, the country’s capital, is a planned city that was built mostly during the 1980s, became the official capital in 1991, and was deliberately positioned almost exactly in the middle of Nigeria. Unfortunately, this location puts Abuja squarely on the Nigerian fault line between the jihadist north and Christian south, sometimes called the “Middle Belt.”

A steady stream of murderous Islamic attacks against Christian churches, towns, and villages across northern and central Nigeria exploded into large-scale terrorist assaults in early November 2011 that killed more than 100 people. A car bomb that killed a number of security personnel outside a military barracks in the northeast state of Yobe was followed by a night of rampaging gunmen who blew up a bank, and attacked multiple police stations and churches, leaving behind a trail of destruction. That wave of deadly attacks was followed by U.S. Embassy warnings that Boko Haram planned to bomb three luxury hotels in Abuja over the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which fell on November 8th this year. An August 2011 suicide car bomb attack against the UN Headquarters in Abuja that killed 24, including 12 UN staff, left no doubts about Boko Haram’s willingness to attack targets identified with the West.

Media reports that describe the violence and refer to Boko Haram as “Islamists” or a “radical Islamic sect” miss the point: just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the mullahs’ regime in Iran, al-Shabaab in Somalia, or the al-Qa’eda rebels that have seized control of Libya, Boko Haram is following in the footsteps of Muhammad, obeying the command of Islamic law to wage war against infidels “…until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.” (Q 8:39) According to shariah, there is nothing particularly radical about this command, which is the same command given to every generation of Muslims since the time of the earliest Muslim warriors.

Mistaking Boko Haram’s jihad for mere disgruntlement over poverty or wealth disparity plays into its hands, enabling this sophisticated Islamic terror organization, with possible ties to al-Qa’eda, to claim its war of conquest against non-Muslim Nigerians is nothing more than a righteous effort to end corruption.

Jihad is about waging war in the name of Islam in order to spread the religion. Nigeria, with its vast oil wealth, is a coveted prize and would make a formidable base from which the armies of Islam might link eventually with al-Qa’eda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to threaten all of West Africa.

Family Security Matters Contributor Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments. Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Sr. Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Vice President of the Intelligence Summit. She is also a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund.

2011/11/04

Arab Spring or Islamist Surge?

Source Article Link: National Interest

Arab Spring or Islamist Surge?

By Benny Morris

Rioting in Tunisia and Egypt in early 2011 unleashed a tidal wave of unrest across the Arab world that was soon designated the “Arab Spring.” Enthusiasts in the West hailed a new birth of freedom for a giant slice of humanity that has been living in despotic darkness for centuries. But historians in fifty or a hundred years may well point to the 1979 events in Teheran—the Islamist revolution that toppled the Shah—as the real trigger of this so-called “spring” (which is looking more and more like a deep, forbidding winter). And the Islamist Hamas victory in the Palestinian general elections of 2006 and that organization’s armed takeover of the Gaza Strip the following year probably signified further milestones on the same path.
For, if nothing else, the past weeks’ developments have driven home one message: That the main result of the “Arab Spring” will be—at least in the short and medium terms, and, I fear, in the long-term as well—an accelerated Islamization of the Arab world. In the Mashreq—the eastern Arab lands, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq—the jury may still be out (though recent events in Palestine and Jordan are not encouraging). But in the Maghreb—the western Arab lands, from Egypt to the Atlantic coast—the direction of development is crystal clear.

In Tunisia the Islamist al-Nahda (Ennahda) Party won a clear victory in the country’s first free elections, winning some 90 out of 217 seats in the special assembly which in the coming months is to chart the country’s political future. Speculation about whether the party is genuinely “moderate” Islamist—as its leader, Rachid Ghannouchi, insists—or fundamentally intent on imposing sharia religious law over Tunisia through a process of creeping Islamisation a la the Gaza Strip and Turkey is immaterial. The Islamists won, hands down and against all initial expectations—and in a country that was thought to be the most secular and “Western” in the Arab world. Freedom of thought and religious freedom are not exactly foundations of Islamist thinking, and whether Tunisian “democracy” will survive this election is anyone’s guess.

To the east, in the tribal wreckage that is Libya, the Islamist factions appear to be the major force emerging from the demise of the Qaddafi regime. In the coming weeks and months we are likely to see movement toward elections that will hammer down another Islamist victory.

And much the same appears to be emerging from the far more significant upheaval in Libya’s eastern neighbor, Egypt, with its 90 million inhabitants—the deomographic, cultural and political center of the Arab world and its weather vane. The recent crackdown, by a Muslim mob and then the ruling military, against Coptic Christian demonstrators (protesting the destruction of a church) was only, I fear, a taste of things to come. All opinion polls predict that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood—which has long sought the imposition of strict sharia law and Israel’s destruction—will emerge from next month’s parliamentary elections as the country’s strongest political party, perhaps even with an outright majority. An Islamist may well win the presidential elections that are scheduled to follow, if the army allows them to go forward.

And the Sinai Peninsula bordering Israel and the Gaza Strip has become, following Mubarak’s fall, a lawless, Islamist-dominated territory. Egyptian writ runs (barely) only in the northeastern (El Arish-Rafah) and southeastern (Sharm a-Sheikh) fringes. The peninsula’s interior is in the grip of Islamists and bedouin gunmen and smugglers and has become a major staging post for Iranian arms smuggling into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

For months now the Egyptian natural gas pipeline to Israel (and Jordan) has been cut, the military unable to prevent continued incidents of Islamist-beduin sabotage. The severance of the gas export—in effect, a continuing Egyptian violation of an international commercial agreement—has meant that Israel has had to dole out hundreds of millions of additional dollars for liquid fuel to run its electricity grid.

And last week witnessed a further, violent aftereffect of the “Arab Spring”—three Grad rockets (advanced Katyushas), launched from the Gaza Strip, landed 20-25 miles away in open fields outside the central Israeli cities of Ashdod and Rehovot. There were no casualties and air force jets hit what Israel called “terrorist” targets in the strip in retaliation (apparently also causing no casualties).

But the direction is clear. After the Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange, the region may be heading toward increased violence. If so, such violence would be part and parcel of the unfolding Islamisation of the region—both in terms of the anti-Zionist Islamist ethos and attendant concrete developments on the ground, one of which is the giant arms smuggling operations that have followed the downfall of Gaddafi. Thus, the “Arab Spring” has brought both Islamization and chaos (and the Islamization will only benefit from this transitional chaos). Ordinary smugglers have collaborated with Islamists to plunder Qaddafi’s armories, and the Middle East’s clandestine arms bazaars are awash with Grads and relatively sophisticated shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles. Israeli intelligence says that many of these weapons have recently made their way into the Gaza Strip via the Sinai Peninsula. One anti-aircraft missile was fired at an Israeli helicopter in a recent skirmish on the Sinai-Israel border.

All these developments suggest an accelerating trend in the Middle East that is far different rom what many Western idealists anticipated when they coined the term “Arab Spring.” It’s a trend that could severely alter Muslim-Western relations across the board.

Benny Morris is a professor of history in the Middle East Studies Department of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His most recent book is One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict (Yale University Press, 2009).


Links:
[1] http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=nationalinterest
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/benny-morris

2011/11/03

PM Netanyahu’s Speech at Opening of the Knesset’s Winter Session

Source Article Link: Israel Prime Minister Office

PM Netanyahu’s Speech at Opening of the Knesset’s Winter Session

October 31, 2011

Photo By GPO

The Knesset is returning to its winter session at a time when the most dramatic events of our time are taking place in our region.

The Arab street has awoken; old regimes have toppled, others are swaying and new ones are rising.

No-one can guarantee how good or how stable these new regimes will be, nor their attitude towards Israel. Unfortunately, this attitude, which left much to be desired to begin with, is not expected to get any better in some, or most, of the new regimes, not in the foreseeable future.

These new regimes depend on the masses, the raging masses, of which many of the people have been systematically poisoned with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist propaganda. This incitement began even before the State of Israel was established, and continues at full steam today.

If the results of the elections in Tunisia a few days ago are anything to go by, we will probably see the rise of other governments with a dominant Islamist component.

In most countries in the region, the Islamist movements are the strongest, most organized power, while the liberal forces, striving for freedom and progress, as we define the terms, are divided and weak.

If the positions of the religious extreme do not become more moderate, I doubt that any of the high hopes that blossomed in the Arab spring, will be realized.

It is possible that these hopes will only be fulfilled a generation from now, after this wave subsides, when progress will be given a chance to lead the Arab world along a new path.

If I had to summarize what will happen in our region, I would use two terms: instability and uncertainty.

The collapse of Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, the bloody incidents in Syria, the American forces leaving Iraq, the new government in Tunisia, the upcoming elections in Egypt and many other events – these are all expressions of the immense changes occurring around us. These changes can increase the instability within these countries, and the instability between countries.

Regional powers who have control in the Middle East will try to ensure they have greater influence on the new regimes – influence that will not always support us or be of benefit to us, to say the least. One of these regional forces is Iran, which continues its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would pose a dire threat on the Middle East and on the entire world. And of course, it poses a grave, direct threat on us too.

To cope with the instability and the uncertainty we are faced with, we need two things: strength and responsibility. Strength in all areas: security, economy, society, everywhere; and responsibility in navigating the stormy sea in which we are sailing. We must continue to strengthen Israel in all areas of security so that we can respond to the new challenges and threats we are facing.

Only a few days ago we were reminded that one of the challenges we face is dealing with the tens of thousands of rockets and missiles in the hands of our enemies, and aimed at our cities.

The Iron Dome batteries and other defense systems provide only a partial solution. They boost the protection of the citizens of the South, and I intend to deploy these systems in other places in the country. But a security philosophy cannot rely on defense alone. It must also include offensive capabilities, which is the very foundation of deterrence.

We operate and will continue to operate intensely and determinately against those who threaten the security of the State of Israel and its citizens.

Our policy is guided by two main principles: the first is “if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” and the second is “if anyone harms us, his blood is on his own hands.”

For two thousand years our people could not realize these two basic principles of self defense. The Jewish people paid the ultimate price in the history of the world due to this inability.

This changed when the State of Israel was established, and the Israel Defense Forces was founded. The governments of Israel acted on these principles: they fought those who threatened us and attacked those who harmed us.

Since assuming the office of Prime Minister, I have instructed the IDF and security forces to act systematically and decisively against the terrorist leaders and those who carry out the attacks.

That is what we did with the terrorist group from the Sinai a couple of months ago. The person who initiated and organized the attack was eliminated several hours later. That is also how we acted this weekend. And I would express my appreciation once more to the IDF soldiers, to the armed forces and the intelligence units who work tirelessly, around the clock, morning-evening-night, to protect our country and all of us.

We will continue to act strongly to defend ourselves, and we will continue to conduct ourselves responsibly in the complex reality of our region. Some of the Members of Knesset may not have noticed that we live in a complex reality.

We witnessed this complexity two months ago, when an enraged mob attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The mob didn’t care whether we have a treaty or not. Its intentions were clear and its message was obvious. Those were intense and complex moments. I thank Defense Minister, Barak and Foreign Minister, Lieberman. We worked together with the US Administration and the Egyptian Government and we brought the incident to its conclusion, bringing those who were trapped in the embassy, ​​and their families, home.

Reality, which is changing before our very eyes, presents many obstacles that we are faced with from time to time. It also provides us with opportunities that we do not necessarily see. In this changing world, Israel is rapidly becoming a leading force in the cyber field, known as the war of computers.

Thanks to our special abilities in this area, large, important countries want to cooperate with us. This opens up opportunities for establishing new partnerships that were not available to us in the past and I anticipate that it will become a major factor on the international level. In order to strengthen our standing in the cyber arena, I recently established the National Cyber ​​Directorate. That is the future, and we are already there.

Fostering the strength and responsibility required to fortify Israel’s security is also paramount in our quest for peace. In the Middle East, peace is made with the strong, not with the weak. The stronger Israel is, the closer peace will be.

The people in Israel are united in their desire for peace. Yet we seek real peace; peace that is anchored in the right of the Jewish people to a nation-state in its homeland; peace that is based on security.

We are willing to compromise, but not to discard our security. Even before the earthquake shook our region, I stood firm on Israel’s security interests, and today more than ever.

I assure you that in the negotiations for peace, we will continue to insist on our national interests, first and foremost, security.

Last weekend it was said that I am a tough bargainer. I know that was said as criticism, but I take it as a compliment.

Well, Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, President Abbas, I am not tough when it comes to peace. I am tough about the security of the State of Israel and its citizens, and I will continue to be so – that is my utmost duty, my very basic responsibility as the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.

I am willing to make real peace with our neighbors, but I am not willing to risk our security and future. Any peace deal must be accompanied by firm security agreements on the ground; otherwise it just will not last.

For the negotiations to end, they first need to be started. I have called upon the Palestinian leadership time and time again to enter direct negotiations without delay. I appealed to them to do so in my Bar Ilan Speech, I asked them to do it in my speech at the Knesset, I urged them to do it in my speech at the American Congress and I recently proposed it to them at the United Nations , and dozens of other times in between.

I also accepted the Quartet’s proposal for direct negotiations with the Palestinians with no preconditions. Regrettably, the Palestinians continue to refuse to engage in direct negotiations with us. Instead of sitting at the negotiation table, they decided to join the Hamas and take unilateral steps at the United Nations.

We will not idly sit by while these steps harm Israel and severely violate the most basic obligation that the two parties took upon themselves in the peace process – to resolve the conflict between us only through direct negotiations.

Unfortunately, while we support the foundation of a Palestinian state as part of a peace agreement, the Palestinians are trying to reach a Palestinian state without a peace agreement. That is the essence of our reality and anyone with eyes to see and a sense of decency knows it.

And I will not agree to that.

No responsible leader would.

Our friend, the United States, stands firmly at our side and opposes the Palestinian unilateral steps at the United Nations, and we are very grateful for that.

I know that there are those who have doubted the Israeli-American relations. But the alliance between us is deeply rooted and solid. The cooperation between the United States and Israel encompasses many important areas.

The alliance is based on the strong support of the American people for Israel, on shared values ​​and common goals. This support has become even stronger in the last few years.

Like us, the United States attaches great importance to the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

These treaties are an anchor of stability in the region and are clearly an Israeli interest.

Over the last year we also enhanced our ties with other countries in the region from Greece to Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria.

And regarding Turkey, we see that even when we disagree, we help each other out in times of need due to natural disasters.

That is what Turkey did during the Carmel forest fire and it is what we did after the earthquake in Turkey last week.

I hope that we find the way to improve the relations between the two countries in the future.

Strength and responsibility, they are the driving force behind our actions in the political and security arena, and they are our compass.

The same means are needed for successfully dealing with the great challenges in the economic and social area.

Over the last few years, the world economy has been in a crisis which is not over yet. The sea is stormy there too.

Major Western countries that did not act responsibly, that did not heed the danger, were occupied with chatter and did not do what was required of them – those countries now find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. Not only have their credit ratings gone down, but many, many people are unemployed.

So far this economic storm has skipped over Israel. There is no doubt that the responsible way in which Israel has conducted itself over the last decade contributed to that fact.

There is one golden rule that every citizen knows from his own home economy: over time, if you spend more money than you make, you will eventually go bankrupt. The overdraft grows and you collapse. This is true for a family and it is true for a country. There are countries around the world that forgot the rule, and are now paying dearly. Israel acted differently, responsibly.

Israel acted differently, responsibly. That is how I acted as Finance Minister, it is how the finance ministers after me acted, and it is how we act today. But you cannot generate the growth that is vital for creating jobs, growth that is vital for resources, for education, health, you cannot generate growth only by responsibly sticking to the budget. In order to make the market grow one must encourage competition. Not cartels, not monopolies, but fair, supervised competition that benefits the consumer. Competition is not the enemy of the consumer. On the contrary – it is the consumer’s greatest friend. It reduces prices, improves service, reduces gaps, and raises the standard of living. Lack of competition in Israel is one of the most severe causes for the increase in the cost of living, and that is why a year ago, Mr. Speaker, not now, not two or three months ago, I established the Committee on Increasing Competitiveness in the Economy. That is why we are advancing the section of the Trajtenberg Committee’s recommendations on increasing competition in the market, and for good reason.

Yesterday, at the Cabinet Meeting held in Tzfat, we approved the recommendations of the committee dealing with taxation; we cancelled the planned increase on excise tax, a step that benefits every Israeli citizen; we reduced the purchase tax and duty on commodities; we gave extra tax credit points to fathers of children up to the age of three, which will be very helpful for young couples. But these are only the first steps.

I am pleased that all the Members of Knesset want to help, and you will all have the opportunity to do so, as I plan to introduce several bills to the Knesset during this session that will help the citizens – guaranteed. Education for preschoolers will cost less, the burden of taxes will not be so heavy and housing will be more available. I am aware of the real difficulties which you speak about, Mr. Speaker, and I am committed to solving them, including resolutions that we will pass during this session, and I hope the opposition will help too.

Members of Knesset, I promised that I would give you an answer. We are committed to acting with the utmost social sensitivity to change priorities, but I do not accept the claim that the free-market system has collapsed, that we must return to a centralized economy run by clerks, an economy in which the government must be involved in everything and control everything, an economy in which the citizens will have to run around government buildings and beg before the bureaucratic powers. We have been there and we are not going back. That is how to kill an economy, how to destroy it.

MK Gilon is concerned about social needs. But you cannot take care of these things if you do not create the resources, and the resources are not generated by the government, but by the free, open economy. So we must balance the needs of economic growth with social needs, and that is precisely what we are doing and are going to do. […] And invest in the periphery of Israel.

Yesterday, we inaugurated, with you, Mr. President, a new medical school in Tzfat. This is great news for the Galilee. After a decade of promises, we will soon start moving military bases to the south, which is great tidings for the south. We are a government that not only promises but does, a government that not only talks about things but realizes them. We are building highways, interchanges, overpasses, trains, and we are finally easing Israel out of the Hadera-Gedera traffic jam.

Yesterday, at Tzfat, I gave an account of my grandfather and father going there 91 years ago. They went from Yaffo or Neve Tzedek, that what Tel Aviv was at the time. They took the Emek (Valley) railroad. They arrived in Tzemach and sailed in a stormy sea to Tiberius. And from there they continued up. Before leaving for Tzfat I asked my father, and he said “a hard, harsh journey.” That is how he described it. Through Rosh Pina, having to change the horses with carriage. This trip, this journey took three days, 91 years ago. A few years ago it would take three hours. I asked the Mayor of Hatzor HaGlilit, Swissa, how long it takes him now. He said one hour and 40 minutes. I told him it’s going to be faster. Not only because of the interchange at HaMovil Junction which has opened up the Galilee, but soon there will be interchanges at Golani Junction and Amiad Junction, and in our vision, among others, there will be one multilane highway, with no traffic lights, all the way from Metula to Eilat. It is not impossible, but it hasn’t been done. We are doing it. We are bringing the periphery of Israel closer.

Our goal is to strengthen the periphery and bring it closer to the center, but ultimately, when the drive to most areas in the country will be so short, we will be able to cancel the term ‘periphery.’ There is no reason in our country … I want to tell you, our country is huge, in spirit, in actions, our nation is skillful, but our country is tiny, and there is no reason why there are places that are cut off, disconnected, distant in such a small country. Therefore, in addition to the roads and the trains and the interchanges and the overpasses – and the entire country can see the great things we are doing at huge investment, whether they want to admit it or not – we are diligently developing the two largest areas of the country, the Galilee and the Negev. That way we will get people out of Gush Dan, we will better their lives and improve the lifestyle of the residents of the Galilee and the Negev, Jews and non-Jews alike. That is a very important social step.

But the biggest social revolution we are creating is in education. After many years of decline – and it was measured; it has been tested in IDF reading tests, standardized tests, international tests – for the first time since the reforms were implemented, and new changes are being introduced now, we can already see a change in direction, we can see an improvement in the test results of Israeli children.

And after a decade we began salvaging higher education. Two years ago, Nobel Prize laureate Ada Yonath, said that she was afraid that without investing in education and in higher education, we would not have any more Nobel Prize winners. And I took what she said seriously, and Professor Trajtenberg who we all now know, is committed to helping create a revolution in higher education.

We have invested, we have started to invest over NIS 7 billion in a multi-year plan, and I was so happy to hear from our new Nobel Prize laureate Professor Dan Shechtman, that he can see the changes that our government is leading. And he is right, because we launched the program to save higher education. I want to promise you, we will continue to invest and we will see many more Israeli Nobel Prize laureates.

Members of Knesset, I have spoken, and I must admit not always successfully, about strength and responsibility.

I also want to talk about something that links the two: unity. Two weeks ago we brought our soldier Gilad Shalit home after being held captive by Hamas for over five years. Like everybody else, I was extremely moved when I saw Gilad step off the helicopter. For a few days the entire country was united, unified, excited about one soldier whom we had brought home. Last week, in coordination with Egypt and with the help of the American government, we released Ilan Grapel, who made aliya alone, volunteered to serve in the paratrooper unit and was injured during the Second Lebanon War. We will continue to work for the release of Uda Tarabin who has been imprisoned in Egypt for 11 years. And I want to tell you and the entire people of Israel, I never, not for a moment, forget Jonathan Pollard, who has been in jail in the United States for 26 years. We will continue to do everything we can to bring him to Israel and we will not cease to try to obtain information about the fate of our missing soldiers.

The unity that brings us to work together for one soldier is a testament to the ability of our people to come together in times of trouble. It is an expression of our strength, our responsibility, our mutual accountability. I believe in the power of this unity in times of trouble in the Knesset too. I believe that in spite of all the disagreements, at the moment of truth we will rise above them and work together for the important and common goals. These are the things that guide us: strength, responsibility and unity. We have one country, together we can protect it.

Thank you.

2011/10/23

The Sharia-Math of Public Beheading

Source Article Link: Family Security Matters

The Sharia-Math of Public Beheading

Written By Hasan Mahmud


On October 7th, 2011 eight Bangladeshis were publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia for the crime of murdering an Egyptian in 2007. The execution created a virtual tsunami of support and protest worldwide. The proud declaration of the Saudi ambassador in Bangladesh that his country follows “Allah’s Law” was immediately addressed by nybangla.comwith a video of Saudi prince in a nightclub, acting in a decidedly unIslamic fashion (see below). This occurs at a time when there is raging debate transpiring the world over, about the legitimacy of capital punishment. Many countries have abolished it. Creating theological awareness in the Muslim masses about its anti-Islamic nature can help its elimination.

References from the Quran and Prophet Mohammed’s statements, quoted below, show that like many Sharia laws the rule of public beheading has some apparent legitimacy from Islamic scripture.

  1. Death sentence is allowed – 5:33.
  2. Beheading is allowed by the words “Smiting Neck” – 8:12 and 47:4.
  3. Blood money can be paid for unintentional killing of a Muslim – 4:92.
  4. Punishment of intentional killing of a Muslims is consignment to hell– no worldly punishment ismentioned – 4:93.
  5. “Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equalfor equal”.  Forgiveness is encouraged – 5:45, 2:178.
  6. Punishment in public is instructed – 24:2.
  7. The Prophet is reported to have publicly beheaded adult captives of Banu Quraiza by the  verdict of Sa’ad b. Mu’adh – (Banu Quraiza had already agreed to comply with his judgment)- Sahih Bukhari 4-280, 5- 148, Sahih Muslim 4368, 4369, 4370, Sirat of Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq page 464 etc.

Let’s note that the Quran and Sahi Bukhari 9-21 encourage forgiveness and other options such as exile and forbids killing without “good reason.” This does not adequately explain what that exactly could be. According to Sharia law an intentional murder can be adjudicated in 3 ways:-

(1)   If the family of the victim pardons then the murderer is acquitted.

(2)   If the family of the victim accepts Blood-Money then the murderer is acquitted.

(3)   If the family of the victim does not agree to pardon or take Blood-Money then the murderer is sentenced to public execution.

This law shows sympathy to the victim’s family and grants a right which none, not even the State, can supersede. On the other hand we see in secular democracies that a governor or president at times “pardons” convicted murder who face a death sentence, without even consulting the victim’s family. This can be heart-breaking for the victim’s family to see the convicted murderer of their beloved one roaming around proudly! But this law has some devastating impact also – see below #5. The law of public-beheading and the killer’s acquittal by forgiveness or payment (the principle of “compoundability”) are problematic in our time for these theological and practical reasons.

(1)   This law is the reason for the increased number of honor killings. When a woman is killed by her father or brother for alleged relationship or anything else, the family members “pardon” the killer because they don’t want to lose another member of the family by death sentence of the court.

(2)   This law will create havoc among people if applied in many Third World countries. There are criminals/ killers who are enormously rich, well connected, politically powerful, and brutish in nature, and have pet brutish young cadres under their command to boot. They will be free to kill because they are in a position to threaten and force the poor helpless family of the victims to “Pardon” them with or without Blood-money and the State cannot do anything.

(3)   Verses 5:33, 8:12 and 47:4 were revealed in a context of war; these can not be stretched to cover personal murder.

(4)   Verse 24:2 is about adultery, it cannot be stretched to murder.

(5)   This law discriminates against women because if the victim has son/s, his daughter/s cannot pardon the murderer – (Sharia the Islamic Law – Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi – page 235).

(6)   The Banu Quraiza incident has always been debated – there are good references against it. There are enormous problems and violence in all secondary sources of Islam. Although Hadiths and Sharia law stipulate that denying them turns a Muslim into an apostate (this is sheer blackmailing in the name of Islam), we must apply our right to accept or reject any or all of them totally or partially to achieve sustainable peace.

(7)   Above all and most importantly, the institution of Sharia law totally ignores the Islamic dynamics of updating social laws while keeping the value or the spirit of the Quranic and Prophetic injunctions intact.  Even Sharia-leaders admit that many of the Quranic dicta are contextual and cannot be applied today. Examples include slavery, Jizya tax for non-Muslims etc. Some are already updated such as some rituals of Hajj, zakat or Islamic Tax (originally it was given to a State-fund) etc.

Public beheading might have been necessary in the past in which the society consisted of unenlightened people or there was no better way of carrying out the death sentence. We don’t need it anymore.  More human ways are developed to punish a criminal. Even if death sentence to murderers is accepted, it must not be by beheading and in public. Moreover, people who believe that public beheading reduces murder cases are utterly wrong. Public beheading measurably failed to reduce murder cases.  As the BBC reports, last year (2010) 26 criminals were beheaded in Saudi. This year until October, 56 people have already been beheaded – more are coming up. So, all this law manages to do, is defame Islam and Muslims.

Criminal laws reflect the nature and magnitude of intellectual resistance to crimes. Lest we forget – “Language of protest shows the nature of the protester”.

Family Security Matters Contributor Hasan Mehsud is a member of AILC (American Islamic Leadership Coalition). He can be contacted at hasan.mahmud@hotmail.com.

2011/10/10

Irans Two Navies

By Commander Joshua Himes, U.S. Navy

The Arab Spring has fomented increasing uncertainty in the Middle East, a circumstance in which Iran’s regional intentions are of increasing concern. U.S. attempts to isolate the regime are driven by concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, the enduring energy chokepoint at the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s export of radical Shi’a militancy through proxy groups across the region, particularly as it affects Iraq, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.

Tehran has historically used its naval forces to send strategic signals and project its foreign policy ambitions and priorities. The regime views its naval resources as its most visible counterforce to U.S. and allied operations off Iran’s shores and the best prepared of Iran’s military services to conduct conventional military operations.

View this document on Scribd

Source Link for above PDF: Understanding War.Org

2011/09/30

Issue VII of ‘Inspire,’ the English-Language Magazine of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – A General Review

Source Link: MEMRI.org

Issue VII of ‘Inspire,’ the English-Language Magazine of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – A General Review

By: Steven Stalinsky*

On September 27, 2011, the media wing of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released the seventh issue of the English-language jihadist magazine Inspire.

The cover of the 20-page issue, which is dated Fall 1432 (2011), shows an image of the World Trade Center made out of dollar signs. The cover story, written by editor-in-chief Yahya Ibrahim and titled “The Greatest Special Operation of All Time,” is dedicated to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The magazine was released 16 days after the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and was provided exclusively to the Al-Fida forum, which is operated by Al-Qaeda’s media company Al-Fajr. It can be assumed that the venue was Al-Fida because the main jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam, which released all previous issues of Inspire, went offline on September 26, 2011, after loading slowly for several days. A message posted by one of its administrators on Al-Fida claimed that Shumoukh Al-Islam had been shut down for maintenance and would be back online shortly. However, Al-Fida members speculated that Shumoukh had been the target of a cyber attack. The magazine was released about 24 hours after Shumoukh went offline.[1]

Shumoukh reappeared online about five hours later, and this incident is similar to what happened prior to the release of the first issue of Inspire, in June 2010.   According to media reports, a debate was underway about Inspire magazine within the U.S. government and military; there were also reports of the U.K. government’s handling of online jihad, and Inspire magazine in particular.  A June 2, 2011 article in The Guardian revealed that U.S. Cyber Command chief Gen. Keith Alexander had argued that blocking the online release of the magazine was a legitimate counterterrorism objective, while the CIA argued that such an action would expose sources and methods and disrupt an important source of intelligence. According to the report, the CIA won out, and the proposal to block the magazine’s online release was rejected. But as the debate was underway within the U.S. government, British government cyber-warriors went ahead with their own plan, and corrupted the original release.[2]

The following is a general review of issue seven of Inspire:

Letter From the Editor: 9/11 is “Merely An Episode in a Long, Protracted War”

Issue VII of Inspire includes a letter from editor-in-chief Yahya Ibrahim stating that this issue is a “special supplement to the great events of the Expeditions of Washington DC and New York, as Shaykh Usama would call it, or simply 9/11. As America mourns and we celebrate this glorious event, we look into what 9/11 means ten years on.” He praises Osama bin Laden, noting that “9/11 has left a permanent scar on the American psyche and will live long after in the hearts of every American. The pain, suffering and agony that Shakyh Usama brought to America is fair payback.” He also warns that 9/11 was “merely an episode in a long, protracted war that started at the time of the Messenger of Allah.”

Al-Qaeda Criticizes Iran for Promoting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

An op-ed by “Abu Suhail” – which, according to the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and as noted in a previous MEMRI report on Issue V of Inspire,[3] is an alias once used by American Al-Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn[4] – claims that Iran has promoted conspiracy theories about who is really behind 9/11 because it is envious of Al-Qaeda’s prowess and accomplishments: “Iran and the Shi’a in general do not want to give Al-Qaeda credit for the greatest and biggest operation ever committed against America because this would expose their lip-service jihad against the Great Satan.”

This article is the latest in a dispute between Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Hizbullah. In April 2008, Al-Qaeda’s media wing Al-Sahab released a two-hour audio recording by Al-Zawahiri that was a response to questions posted on Al-Qaeda forums for him to answer, earlier that year. One question concerned “the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” Al-Zawahiri accused Hizbullah’s Al-Manar television of starting the rumor, saying, “The purpose of this lie is clear – (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it.”[5]

Yahya Ibrahim on “The Greatest Special Operation of All Time”

In the cover article, titled “The Greatest Special Operation Of All Time: The Expeditions Of Washington D.C. And New York,” editor-in-chief Yahya Ibrahim sets out the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks and the consequences of the attacks for the U.S. Ibrahim says that the 9/11 attacks were catalyzed by decades of American aggression [against Muslims], and by U.S. support for the state of Israel – support, he said, that is the main reason behind the continued Israeli occupation of the Holy Land. He enumerates further reasons for the 9/11 attacks: the U.S. attack and subsequent embargo of Iraq in the first Gulf War, which led to the deaths of over a million and a half Iraqis; the desecration of the Arabian Peninsula by its stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia; and U.S. support for authoritarian regimes [in the Arab world].[6]

Samir Khan Praises Online Jihad

In another lead article, U.S.-born Samir Khan hails Al-Qaeda’s “media jihad” as a component in the war against the U.S. that is equal in importance to actual attacks on it. Khan asserts that Al-Qaeda has won the preliminary stages of the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims, thus ensuring that the organization’s ideology will live on. One of the reasons for this victory, he explains, lies in the fact that the West and the media present Al-Qaeda’s ideology as nothing but terrorism, whereas the organization’s creed is that of Islam, a fact that earns it the support of Muslims. Khan concludes the article by listing the four key elements which enable Al-Qaeda to win the media war: the technological savvy of Al-Qaeda’s media operatives, the U.S.’s failure to respond to Al-Qaeda’s propaganda, the U.S.’s media “blunders” which damage its image in Muslim public opinion, and the general suspicion with which Muslims view the U.S.[7]

A Decade in Photos – From 9/11 To Today

This section of Inspire comprises 10 pages of photos of the 9/11 attacks, with quotes from Al-Qaeda leaders, including  Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Khalid Hussain, Abu Musab Al-Suri, and Anwar Al-Awlaki. Also included are quotes from leaders of Al-Qaeda offshoots AQAP and Al-Shabab.

A Threat Against New York?

The last pages of the magazine include a quote by Faisal Shahzad, perpetrator of the failed May 1, 2010, Times Square car bombing: “Brace yourself for war with Muslims. I am just the first drop in what will be a flood.” The quote is superimposed on a photo of Times Square.

The last page is an image of Grand Central Station in New York City, with text noting that “coming soon” is an article by Anwar Al-Awlaki, titled “Targeting the Populations of Countries That Are At War with the Muslims.” Also promised as “coming soon” is an exclusive interview with Adam Gadahn, titled “The Arab Intifada, Hopes, Concerns and Dangers.”

It should be noted that Issues V and VI of Inspire promised an upcoming Q&A with Anwar Al-Awlaki that has not yet materialized. The announcement read: “Send your questions to Shaykh Anwar Al-Awlaki. We will hold an exclusive video interview with the Shaykh where he will answer your questions. See the contact page for details on sending an e-mail to al-Malahem.”

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to Readers: “How to Communicate With Us”

As in previous issues, Issue VII offers readers encryption codes for directly contacting them.[8] They also note to readers that they have changed their public encryption code.

*Steven Stalinsky is the Executive Director of The Middle East Media Research Institute.

Endnotes:

[1] See MEMRI Special Dispatch Report No. 4166, “Uncertainty on a First-Tier Al-Qaeda Forum After Apparent Cyber-Attack – Followed By Release of Issue 7 of AQAP’s ‘Inspire Magazine’,” September 27, 2011.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5678.htm

[2] The Guardian, June 2, 2011.

[3] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Report No. 680, “Issue V of ‘Inspire,’ the English-Language Magazine of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – A General Review,” March 30, 2011. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5155.htm

[5] BBC, April 22, 2008

[6] See MEMRI Special Dispatch Report No. 4168, “Inspire Editor Yahya Ibrahim On 9/11: “The Greatest Special Operation Of All Time,” September 27, 2011. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5681.htm

[7] See MEMRI Special Dispatch Report No. 4169, “Issue 7 – American Jihadi Samir Khan: ‘A Powerful Media Production is as Hard-Hitting as an Operation in America,'” September 27, 2011. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5680.htm

[8] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Report No. 704, “Al-Qaeda’s Embrace of Encryption Technology: 2007-2011,” July 12, 2011. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5457.htm

Hizb ut-Tahrir Emerges in America

Hizb ut-Tahrir Emerges in America

Source Link: ADL

Introduction

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), an international organization that seeks to establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy, is increasing its efforts to spread its message and recruit members in the U.S.

The American branch of HT convened its 2011 Khilafah Conference, titled, “Revolution in the Muslim World: From Tyranny to Triumph,” on June 26, 2011, in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois.

Messages at the conference primarily centered on promoting the organization’s vision of establishing worldwide Caliphate and how the revolutions in the Middle East affect the movement’s goals.

HT held its first major event in the U.S., a conference entitled “Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam,” at the Hilton in Oak Lawn, Illinois, on July 19, 2009. Although HT America’s Web site states that the group “does not work in the West to change the system of government,” speakers at the conference focused on HT’s larger agenda of establishing a global Islamic caliphate, which entails ousting existing governments.

While HT has operated as a predominately clandestine organization in the U.S., the Oak Lawn conference marked the group’s emergence onto the public stage in America.

HT is increasingly using the Internet to organize meetings in the U.S. and distribute materials, and has become active on social networking sites like YouTube and Facebook, which it used to advertise both of its conferences.

A closer look at the group’s ideology and international activity reveals that HT not only promotes Islam as a way of life, but is also fundamentally opposed to capitalism and democracy and is explicitly hostile toward Israel and Jews. These basic tenets, along with its record of advocating violence, contradict the group’s attempt to portray itself as a political party seeking change through nonviolent means.

Khilafah Conference 2011

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s American branch convened its second Khilafah conference in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois, on June 26, 2011. The conference, which was not advertised as broadly as it first conference in 2009, was attended by approximately 250 people.

Messages at the 2011 conference, titled “Revolution in the Muslim World: From Tyranny to Triumph,” primarily centered on promoting the organization’s vision of establishing worldwide Caliphate and how the revolutions in the Middle East affect the movement’s goals.

One session at the conference, titled “Breaking the Shackles,” gave voice to the organization’s idea that capitalist and nationalist systems of the West are “enemies to Islam,” and the only solution is for a unified Islamic state to replace such systems with “the rule of Allah,” Sharia, and the Sunnah. The speaker at this session, indentified as Brother Abu Saib, offered the February 2011 ousting of the Mubarak regime in Egypt as evidence of the Islamic nation awakening and starting on a path toward establishing a Caliphate.

Another session, “The Meaning of Real Change,” was accompanied by a follow-up question and answer with a panel of HT representatives in the U.S. The session addressed practical steps the Muslim community can take to bring forth the Caliphate and to prevent another dictator from seizing power in newly liberated Arab countries, like Egypt . Panelists in the Q&A session emphasized that HT was “working with the Ummah [Muslim community] in Egypt ,” and that a Muslim’s duty is to “get the West out of our lands.”

The last two sessions, “Shaking the Thrones” and “Life Under the Khilafah,” examined the state of suffering the Ummah and Islam have fallen into since the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, and how everyday life will be governed once Islamic law is implemented worldwide with the rise of a new Caliphate. One of the speakers, identified as Abu Atallah, emphasized that the rise of the Caliphate would mean that borders become obsolete, nationalist ideology would be abandoned and Muslims would control the military.

The meeting ended with organizers stressing the importance of pushing forward for a unified Islamic state, and that the “Qur’an is a message for all mankind and a solution to all of man’s problems.” This was detailed in a pamphlet, “Khilafah State Structure: Introduction to the Constitution,” that was handed out during the conference.

The constitution provides a detailed look at the structure, laws, and methods of governance the global Caliphate is expected to embody once it is established. The source of the Caliphate’s authority and sovereignty will be derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, which will help the Caliph “adopt certain rules […] and obliges the people to act according to them.” This pamphlet was designed to be “studied by Muslims while they are working to establish the Islamic State that will carry the Islamic daw’ah to the world.”

Some key points mentioned in the draft constitution:

  • Article 1 states that ‘aqeedah (Islamic creed) will be the sole basis of the State’s foundation. The government’s structure in its entirety can only exist if it is from the Islamic ‘aqeeda.
  • Article 7 describes that the State will be charged with implementing “divine law”, therefore those “guilty of apostasy (murtad) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy…”
  • Article 23 details the eight institutions of the Caliphate system, which includes an Amir of Jihad (war). The Amir of Jihad will oversee all war-related activities in the government.
  • In the “Army” section, Article 56 states, “Jihad is a compulsory duty (fard) on all Muslims. Military training is therefore compulsory. Thus, every male Muslim, fifteen years and over, is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for jihad.
  • The social system of the Caliphate would strictly enforce gender segregation between the two sexes, and while women will have the same rights and obligations as men, a woman’s primary role “is that of a mother and wife,” and she may not hold any positions of power within the structure of governance. (Articles 108-118)
  • In reference to trade with foreign nations, Article 157 states that “Any country we have real war between us and its citizens (such as Israel) is excluded” from trading with the Caliphate and its citizens.
  • Article 194, Section 3, describes “imperialist states” like the UK, U.S., France, and Russia as potentially belligerent states that do not have a treaty with the Caliphate.*

*With regards to Israel and the Caliphate’s policy toward the Jewish state, Section 4 states that there can be no peace, and that “a state of war must be taken as the basis for all dispositions with them. They must be dealt with as if a rear war existed between us – whether an armistice exists or not.”

Khilafah Conference 2009

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) held its first ever Khilafah (Arabic for “caliphate”) conference in the U.S. on July 19, 2009, at the Hilton in Oak Lawn, Illinois. The conference, entitled the “Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam,” advocated for the implementation of an Islamic financial system and promoted the organization’s larger agenda of establishing a global Islamic caliphate, or Islamic rule worldwide, which entails ousting existing governments.

Speakers addressed a crowd of approximately 400 men and women on a range of issues, including the “Islamic economic system,” “suffering under capitalism” and the rise of Islam in the United States.

Mohammad Malkawi, an HT spokesperson and computer engineer from Chicago, argued that capitalism is responsible for the world’s poverty, hunger and war. “It is time to deliver the world to Islam, an idea whose time has come,” he said.

Another speaker from Chicago, Jaleel Abdul-Adil, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Illinois – Chicago, spoke about the role of Muslims in the U.S., arguing that every Muslim should utilize his skills in the struggle for an Islamic caliphate. Abdul-Adil, who has reportedly appeared at past HT conventions in Britain, declared that “Every home and every community and every masjid [mosque] must contribute to the struggle.”

Abdul-Adil also urged the audience to never “stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life…unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt.”  During a question and answer session following his presentation, Abdul-Adil was asked if shari’a, or Islamic law, would trump the U.S. Constitution. “Yes, it would be gone,” Abdul-Adil replied.

Another speaker, identified only as Abuatallah, outlined how capitalism has failed America, and African-Americans in particular. “Making a black man president will not stop this systemic oppression, will not stop what we see in the urban ghettos,” he said. “Making Obama president is only a scheme, a plot, designed to quiet us.”

In a session on “The Global Rise of Islam,” Burhan Hanif, a member of HT in Britain, criticized Western governments and values and called for Muslims to “work for khilafah,” or the establishment of Islamic rule worldwide.  “Freedom and democracy has become an opium of the masses,” Hanif claimed. “We see how the call of Islam resonates in the increased desperate measures in governments around the world… they are destined to fail.”

HT presented several videos at the conference, including a recruitment video showing HT conferences and demonstrations around the world. “Now it is your turn,” the video says, “Join Hizb ut-Tahrir America.”

A pamphlet entitled “Islamic Reformation: Exposing the Battle for Hearts and Minds,” was reportedly distributed at the conference.  The pamphlet, written by Adnan Khan, an HT member in Britain, calls for the death penalty for those “in the khilafah [who] openly leave Islam.” The pamphlet is also critical of the West, where “crime, sexual promiscuity, individualism and civil disorder is rife.”

The Aqsa School in Bridgeview, Illinois, which was originally scheduled to host the event, cancelled two weeks before the conference, claiming that the group did not disclose the true nature of HT or the conference.

Hizb ut-Tahrir Background

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), Arabic for “Party of Liberation,” is an international organization that seeks to establish a global Islamic caliphate.  Established in Jerusalem in 1953, HT claims to be a political organization “whose ideology is Islam.”

HT maintains an extensive international following; it is currently active in more than 45 countries, and its August 2007 convention in Indonesia drew approximately 100,000 delegates.

HT’s strategy to establish a global Islamic caliphate consists of three stages. In the first, the group seeks to recruit “people who believe in the idea and the method of the Party.”  This stage mimics that of the prophet Muhammad, who “gathered together secretly those who believed in him on the basis of this ideology,” according to HT’s Web site.

In the second stage, HT seeks to educate the larger Muslim community about its interpretation of Islam so that the community can work “to establish it in the affairs of life.”  This stage consists of approaching the masses through “lessons, lectures, and talks in the mosques, centers, and common gathering places, and through the press, books and leaflets.”

The third and final stage entails replacing all governments and implementing a global Islamic caliphate.

HT conferences around the world suggest that the group is currently in the second stage of its goal of establishing a global Islamic government. In commemoration of the anniversary of the abolishment of the Islamic caliphate 85 years ago, HT held worldwide events throughout the summer of 2009, calling “on Muslims around the world to mobilize to re-establish the Islamic Khilafah.”  In addition to the July 19 conference in Oak Lawn, Illinois, events took place in Ukraine, Mauritius, Lebanon, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Britain, Indonesia, Sudan and Turkey, among other places.

HT claims that it does not engage in violent activities and generally espouses a policy of nonviolence.  However, in a January 2010 press release, HT called for violence against U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan.  The group accused “US crusaders” of killing nine school children and injuring 85 others in Afghanistan.  “Such incidents,” HT said in the press release “has to be answered by sharp swords of Muslim united armies under a true Muslim leader (Imam/K), not by few words of condemnations, rallies and demonstrations or submissions of list of demands to the UN’s or Human Rights, which are the protector of these crusaders, not us.”

Its position on nonviolence is complicated by its admission that “jihad” is compulsory for Muslims in an Islamic country to fight their perceived enemies. According to the group’s Web site, “the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir in that country are a part of the Muslims and it is obligatory upon them as it is upon other Muslims, in their capacity as Muslims, to fight the enemy and repel them.” HT’s statements in response to the Israeli naval operation to stop a flotilla of ships en route to Gaza, which called on Muslim armies to “fight the Jews” and “blow ‘Israel’ off the map,” further demonstrate the group’s acceptance of violence.

The radicalization of HT members who adhere to the group’s extremist ideology can also lead to violent acts.  In 2007, German police arrested three men on suspicion of plotting to bomb military and civilian airports, restaurants and nightclubs. Two of the men were allegedly Uzbek members of the HT splinter cell Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), which carried out a terrorist attack against the American and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan in July 2004.

Two British HT members were also allegedly involved in terrorist activities. One of the men was among those responsible for the 2003 suicide bombing at Mike’s Place, a bar in Tel Aviv.  Another HT member was suspected of joining Al Qaeda and plotting to attack several New York-Based financial targets.  He was arrested in 2004 by British authorities.

Some observers have suggested that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda in Iraq’s former leader, were also members of HT.

In 2003, Germany banned HT for allegedly spreading anti-Semitic propaganda.  Russia declared the group a terrorist organization that same year after reportedly detecting links between HT and Chechen terrorists.  The group had previously been banned in Russia in 1999 for being a criminal organization.  HT has similarly been banned in several Arab and Central Asian countries as well.

Several other European countries, including the United Kingdom, have considered banning HT.  The British government sought to ban the group after allegations that it was linked to the London bombings in July 2005.

HT also has a growing presence in the West Bank, which stands in opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and rejects the legitimacy of both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.  In 2007, the group held a conference in Ramallah that reportedly drew approximately 20,000 supporters.  That same year, HT marched through Ramallah in opposition to the “Zionist provocation” against the Al Aqsa mosque.  Palestinian officials banned HT from holding a July 2009 rally opposing both Fatah and Hamas and the concept of a modern nation-state.

On Israel and Jews

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) claims that Islam is in conflict with the existence of Israel, which it says harms both Islam and Muslims, and has a history of encouraging followers to eliminate Israel and the Jews as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  This long record of hostility toward Israel and the Jews belies HT’s claim that it does not espouse or condone violence, and, according to the U.S. State Department, can yield violent acts against the U.S. and its allies and generate support for terrorism.

A press release dated May 31, 2010, was posted on HT America’s Web site in response to the Israeli naval operation to stop a flotilla of ships en route to Gaza on the same day. “O people: indeed Hizb ut-Tahrir strengthens your determination… there is no solution except to mobilize armies, gathering the capable soldiers and fight the Jews,” the statement declared.  The release also calls on Pakistan and Iran to attack Israel, saying “O you possessors of the missiles that you boast can blow ‘Israel’ off the map, so where are you now, O Pakistan and Iran’s rulers?!”

In another press release in response to the flotilla incident, the Pakistani branch of HT issued a statement calling on the Pakistani army to “prepare nuclear bombs and other weapons for Jihad… fight under this command to annihilate Israel.” The Bangladeshi branch of HT also condoned violence in a press release that called upon Muslim armies to “eradicate Israel and purify the earth of Jewish filth.”

In March 2008, HT posted a press release on its Web site in response to Israel’s retaliatory military action in Gaza, which was employed to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns.  “There is only one and uniquely one solution,” the statement declared, “and that is to exterminate the entity of the Jews from existence.”  In another press release that month, HT called on Pakistan and Iran to attack Israel as “the only option that the state of Jews deserves.”  The statement also urged Muslims to “direct your anger at the armed forces so that they stir up fighting the Jews.”

In addition to the inflammatory pronouncements on its Web site, HT America has also condoned violence and jihad during their monthly online discussions. In April 2010, an HT America leader asserted, “When the Muslim land is occupied, jihad is the obligation to those who are attacked by the kufar [non-Muslims].”

Leaders of HT America also produce a monthly newsletter, titled “The Shield,” which has condemned Israel.  In the May 2010 newsletter, an editorial claimed, “Israel was created by the West in order to ensure the Ummah remains divided and continually occupied in an endless struggle with a Western proxy.”

HT has also distributed virulently anti-Israel leaflets. In 2007, HT Australia reportedly promoted a conference in Sydney with a leaflet that depicted a dagger plunged into a map of the Middle East with the words “‘Israel’ is an illegal state” written in blood.

HT Denmark’s spokesman Fadi Abdelatif was convicted in Copenhagen in 2002, and again in 2005, for inciting young Muslims to kill Jews, first in an Internet posting and later in a leaflet.  The leaflet, which called Jews “a people of slander…a treacherous people,” made threats against Jews and called on Muslims to “kill them all, wherever you find them.” The leaflet, which was available on HT’s Web site, encouraged suicide bombings in Israel as “legitimate” acts of “martyrdom.”

HT has also been prosecuted elsewhere in Europe for distributing anti-Semitic publications.  Germany banned the group in 2003 for “spreading hate and violence” in leaflets that called for the killing of Jews, according to German officials. In 2005, the National Union of Students barred HT from universities in the UK after accusations of anti-Semitism.  The group does, however, still operate legally in the UK.

HT’s leadership has also publicly expressed opposition to Jews and Israel.  In an April 2002 response to Israel’s military operations at the Jenin refugee camp, HT in Sudan released a press statement on its Web site condemning the “miserable brethren of pigs and monkeys” of carrying out “brutal massacres.”  “Recognition and negotiation with the Jews,” the press release continued, “is a betrayal of Allah.”

In a 2000 interview with the Central Asia Caucasus Institute at John Hopkins University, an unidentified HT Central Asian leader openly stated, “We are very much opposed to the Jews and Israel… The United States is the enemy of Islam with the Jews.”

HT’s former global leader, Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, reportedly declared an injunction in 1988, saying, “If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it.”

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

2011/09/27

Palestinian Nationhood: Truth… The Key to Peace

Filed under: Arab Nations, Gaza, History, Israel, Palestine, United Nations — - @ 9:55 am

This is a great explanation of the historical timeline Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speech was about at the United Nations. W

Source Link: Family Security Matters

Palestinian Nationhood: Truth… The Key to Peace

Written By Gadi Adelman

September is here in the midst of the “Arab Spring”, the month that I have been writing about and speaking about on my radio show for months. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has entered its application for Statehood with General Ban Ki-moon and the UN.

The announcement came from PA President Mahmoud Abbas as he addressed the UN this past Friday. Why the “President” of a non-existent country should even allowed to address the UN can be answered with two words: Yasser Arafat.

On October 14, 1974, the United Nations invited Yasser Arafat, then Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to address the General Assembly, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 3210. Arafat was the first representative of a non-governmental organization to address a session of the UN General Assembly. He was also the first leader to address the UN while wearing a holster, although contrary to stories, it did not contain a gun.

Not long after, the PLO was given observer status and the UN recognized the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination in Resolutions 3236 and 3237.

Yes, the PLO, the same organization that spawned such groups as Fatah, Black September, Tanzim and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. The same organization that was responsible for hundreds of bombings, hijackings, assassinations as well as other known terror acts. These included the killing of the 11 individuals that made up the entire Israeli Olympic team and their coaches in Munich in 1972, the murder of Cleo Noel, American ambassador to Sudan, in 1973, as well as the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship which resulted in the murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer.

What I consider to be an important side note, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade also claimed responsibility for the November 1975 bombing in Jerusalem, an attack that I survived and which claimed the lives of 7 children.

After October 1974 and Resolution 3210, we saw the “leaders” of the PLO and later the Palestinian Authority (PA) address the UN General Assembly time and again. Friday’s address was far removed from those in the past. This time PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, told the UN and the world,

We aspire for and seek a greater and more effective role for the United Nations in working to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in our region that ensures the inalienable, legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people as defined by the resolutions of international legitimacy of the United Nations.

International legitimacy”, in other words, an independent state or country. Abbas laid out five points during his speech. The first point was, in part,

The goal of the Palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the land of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied in the June 1967 war…

During the Six Day War in 1967 Israel captured land through battles and bloodshed. That land later became known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But whose land was this? Was this a state or country known as Palestine? No. The West Bank was part of Jordan and the Gaza Strip was part of Egypt.

That was not the only land that Israel captured.  In addition they captured the Golan Heights which was a part of Syria. So why are the so-called Palestinians not also asking for the Golan Heights? Because the Golan was never a refugee camp of displaced people.

On December 9, 1917, as the First World War was winding down, Jerusalem surrendered to the British forces. Two days later General Allenby entered Jerusalem. This marked the end of four centuries of Ottoman-Turk rule (the Ottoman Empire) and the beginning of thirty years of British rule, otherwise known as the British Mandate.

The mandate system was established in the League of Nations (the forerunner to the UN) by Article 22 which was formulated at the Paris Peace Conference between January and June 1919. Article 22 stated in part,

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

To put it in to simple terms, the territories would be entrusted to advanced nations until such time as the local population could handle their own affairs. This was all incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919.

At the end of the British Mandate, on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote (33 to 13 with Britain and nine others abstaining) passed Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Yes, that is fact. One Jewish, which would later become Israel, and one Arab.

The Jews of Palestine accepted this partition despite the small size and strategic vulnerability of the proposed state. Additionally  this proposed territory was one tenth of the original size that had been promised as a Jewish homeland.

As soon as the vote was announced, the Arab delegations of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen stormed out, threatening war and the annihilation of all Palestinian Jews. The Arab national movement in Palestine, as well as all of the other Arab states, rejected any partition. They demanded the entire country and threatened to resist the partition by force.

So we need to explain how Trans-Jordan (known today as Jordan) figures in to all this. According to the website History of Nations,

At the end of World War I, the League of Nations as the mandate for Palestine and Transjordan awarded the territory now comprising Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem to the United Kingdom. In 1922, the British divided the mandate by establishing the semiautonomous Emirate of Transjordan.

It must be stressed here that the White Paper (also known as the Churchill White Paper) stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right. It partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. The land was 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land. It was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.

A British memorandum that was presented to the League of Nations on September 16, 1922, stated that the provisions of the Mandate document calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home were not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, thereby severing almost 80% of the Mandate land from any possible Jewish Homeland.

It amazes me that the world forgets the fact that the Arab demands for a state or a “Palestine” were already satisfied once, it’s called Jordan.

The British divided the mandate establishing Trans-Jordan, but that is also how the West Bank and its “refugees” enter the picture.

Once the Arabs rejected the partition of Palestine, the surrounding Arab nations told the Arabs of Palestine to flee due to the impending war. Many went to Trans-Jordan. Again, according to the History of Nations website,

Transjordan was one of the Arab states which moved to assist Palestinian nationalists opposed to the creation of Israel in May 1948, and took part in the warfare between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The armistice agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank and provided that the armistice demarcation lines were without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.

In 1950, the country was renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to include those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. While recognizing Jordanian administration over the West Bank, the United States maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.

“The armistice agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank”, so, the West Bank was part of Jordan from 1949 until 1967. It was during this time period that Jordan set up “refugee camps” for the Palestinians because they were not “Jordanians”.

There are many reasons as to why Jordan created these refugees in camps, but simply explained, according to Wikipedia,

At the time, the population east of the Jordan River contained over 400,000 Palestinian refugees who made up one-third of the population of the Kingdom; another third of the population was Palestinians on the West Bank. Only one third of the population consisted of the original inhabitants of Trans-Jordan, which meant that the Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics and played a critical role in the political opposition. Since the 1950s, the West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem that was the key issue of Jordan’s domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled “life or death” for Jordan and would remain the country’s overriding national security issue.

In reality, the West Bank was Jordan, yet Jordan is not asking Israel for that area back. That is because in 1988, Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank. It did not want to deal with the “Palestinian” issue yet again.

The same holds true for the Gaza Strip, once an area belonging to Egypt. Once again, we must look at the UN 1947 partition plan. The United Nations 1947 partition plan allotted the coastal strip from Yavneh to Rafiah on the Egyptian border to be an Arab state. But remember the Arabs rejected that offer.

In 1948 before the Arabs attacked the newly formed Israel, most Arab inhabitants in Gaza fled or were expelled, settling around Gaza City. The Israeli Defense Forces captured Gaza in 1948, but Israel gave control of the Gaza Strip to Egypt in negotiations, keeping the towns of Ashdod and Ashkelon. In 1956, Israel again went to war with Egypt and captured Gaza yet again, only to return it again.

When Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt as part of their peace agreement in 1979, Egypt refused to take the Gaza Strip back. Again, these “people” were not really Egyptians and therefore were not wanted.

These are the facts and they had to be explained. Too many people have no clue how we have gotten to this point. As clear as Netanyahu’s speech was, it did not explain the facts leading up to today.

So now Gaza is somehow Israel’s problem even though Israel left Gaza in 2005. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained in his UN speech shortly after Abbas spoke,

We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn’t calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and made it stronger.

Netanyahu did address the problem with territorial compromises,

Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times — if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened; the radicals will be kept at bay. And don’t worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.

These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there’s only one problem with that theory. We’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.

“Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn’t even respond to it.”
He went on to state facts about what happens each time Israel gives land for peace,

Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals; the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM in Gaza didn’t stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace. We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

He explained the fact of what happened to the PA in Gaza when Israel withdrew,

But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day — in one day.

He spoke about the fact of weapons,

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

When it came to the rights of Arabs in Israel, he again spoke in facts,

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day — in fact, I think they made it right here in New York — they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free — Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That’s racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

The Palestinian Authority refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, how can Israel be expected to make peace with a neighbor that refuses to recognize them? Netanyahu spoke of this as well,

Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don’t you think it’s about time that Palestinians did the same?

He explained the fact that the problem is not settlements while pointing out with Abbas’s very own words that the issue is Israel and not the “territories”.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for — was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the — I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict.

Lastly he offered Abbas and the PA to sit down once again,

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I’ll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We’ve both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same building. So let’s meet here today in the United Nations. Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

I am sad to report the fact that,  once again, Abbas has failed to respond.

FamilySecurityMatters.org  Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 8PM est. on his own radio show “AmericaAkbar” on Blog Talk Radio. He can be reached through his website gadiadelman.com.

2011/09/23

Harsh Words From Turkey About Israel, and From Iran About United States

Source Link: Gainesville.Com

Harsh Words From Turkey About Israel, and From Iran About United States

NEIL MacFARQUHAR
September 22, 2011

Damon Winter/The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS — Evidently heedless of American attempts to engineer a thaw in Turkish-Israeli relations, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey used his appearance before the annual General Assembly on Thursday to enumerate a long list of grievances with Israel, a former regional ally.

Mr. Erdogan was the second major Middle Eastern leader addressing the General Assembly, with the widespread focus on the region’s most intractable problem, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, due to culminate Friday with speeches by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority.

Representatives of the so-called quartet — the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia — were still trying late Thursday to reach an agreement on a statement about moving peace negotiations forward, intended to counterbalance the controversial proposal for United Nations membership that Mr. Abbas has vowed to present. The future of the Quartet could be at risk, some diplomats suggested, with the Americans and the Europeans, close to an agreement, ready to abandon the other two members and issue a statement by themselves. It could go down to the very moment after the Netanyahu and Abbas speeches, the diplomats said.

At the General Assembly, a couple of hours before Mr. Erdogan spoke, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delivered one of his characteristic anti-Western broadsides, embroidered with tinges of religious mysticism. He blamed the United States, Israel and Europe for the global recession and a list of other ills.

He also suggested that the American military’s killing of Osama bin Laden last May and the disposal of his body at sea were part of a dark conspiracy to conceal the real perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks provoked what has become a ritual large-scale walkout of delegations, led by the United States.

Mr. Erdogan, describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a “bleeding wound” that the international community can no longer accept, accused Israel of thwarting all attempts to solve the problem. From nuclear weapons to control of the occupied territories to humanitarian aid, Mr. Erdogan said, Israel has contradicted the wishes and norms of the rest of the world.

“If you want to send a box of tomatoes to Palestine, this is subject to approval from Israel, and I don’t think that is humanitarian,” Mr. Erdogan said, suggesting that the new spirit of change in the Middle East meant Israel could no longer continue to foster strife.

The Turkish leader repeated a drumbeat of accusations against the Israelis that he has leveled for months, and there was no immediate reaction from Israel.

The tension is rooted in differences over the Gaza Strip, particularly a May 2010 raid by the Israeli military on a Turkish-organized flotilla trying to run the Gaza blockade, which left eight Turks and a Turkish-American dead. Turkey rejected a United Nations report that found the blockade legal but said Israel had used excessive force.

Mr. Erdogan’s veiled threats to take action against joint efforts by Israel and Cyprus over gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean did elicit a response from Demetris Christofias, the president of Cyprus, divided into hostile Turkish and Greek halves. He called Turkish naval maneuvers in the area “provocative and a real danger for further complications in the region.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad, appearing before the General Assembly for the seventh year in a row, said poverty, homelessness and denial of basic rights were traceable to “greed for materialism in the United States and Europe.”

Iran has been estranged from the United States since the Islamic Revolution more than 30 years ago, and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech has become something of a signature event at the annual session. There were no surprises in either his criticisms or his singular interpretation of world events.

As he has done in previous speeches, Mr. Ahmadinejad raised questions about the Holocaust, blaming the West for using it as an excuse for unwavering support for Israel and for the oppression of the Palestinian people. “They threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and Sept. 11 with sanctions and military action?” he said.

By the time he got to that line in his 30-minute speech, the low-level American and European diplomats who had been there were no longer around.

The United States delegation was the first to leave when Mr. Ahmadinejad referred to the Sept. 11 attacks as “mysterious” and suggested that the decision to kill Bin Laden, instead of bringing him to trial, was intended to bury the truth of who sent the planes to attack New York and Washington. “Is there any classified material secret that must remain a secret?” he said.

After the Europeans walked out, the hall, not terribly full in the first place, was mostly empty. Oddly, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain, whose government has repeatedly blamed Iran rather than domestic ills for inflaming the Shiite population there, stuck around.

The United States quickly condemned the speech, as did many other Western governments and nongovernmental organizations. “Mr. Ahmadinejad had a chance to address his own people’s aspirations for freedom and dignity, but instead he again turned to abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs and despicable conspiracy theories,” said Mark Kornblau, the spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations.

The Iranian leader, whose previous visits to New York have been contentious, generated less interest this year. Though he did inspire protests outside the United Nations and his Midtown Manhattan hotel, his power clashes at home with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have cast some doubt over the extent of his authority.

That doubt, in turn, has made him personally a less threatening figure, despite significant international concerns about important issues like the possibility that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Stolen History

View this document on Scribd

The Durban Perversion

Source Link: FrontPageMag

The Durban Perversion

Written By Joseph Klein

September 23, 2011

Literature available at the first Durban conference

The United Nations hosted a full-day celebration on September 22nd commemorating the tenth anniversary of one of its greatest embarrassments since its founding: the adoption of the so-called Durban I Declaration and Programme of Action. This Declaration was the final outcome document of the 2001 anti-Semitic, anti-Western hatefest known formally as the UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. It singled out the Palestinians as the victims of alleged Israeli racism. And the Holocaust deniers who were running Durban I refused to include any reference to the twentieth century’s most vile example of racism, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The “Durban III” self-congratulatory anniversary conference resulted in a consensus reaffirmation of the Durban I Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as the Outcome Document of the Durban II Review Conference adopted in 2009 – the conference Iranian President Ahmadinejad opened with an attack on Israel, which he called the most racist country in the world.

Expecting the anti-Israel, anti-Western agenda to continue at the Durban III conference, thirteen nations decided to boycott the conference – New Zealand, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Poland (which is currently heading the European Union), Israel, and the United States. However, that left 180 UN member states that took no such action against this obscene perversion of the concepts of true anti-racism, tolerance and human rights.

Anne Bayefsky, Hudson Institute senior fellow and director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights & the Holocaust, correctly pointed out that there is a direct link between the UN’s Durban III gathering on September 22nd and the General Assembly address of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas the following day seeking full state recognition and membership in the United Nations.

“It’s clear that this is intended to be a one-two action: You label Israel racist, and then the next day you say you don’t have to negotiate with it,” Bayefsky said. “Durban is not about combating racism, it is about demonizing Jews and the Jewish state.”

Durban III continued the propaganda campaign waged by the Palestinians and their friends in the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. However, at first glance, if one did not know its historical context, the Durban III final statement would seem perfectly benign. Its surface message is that racism and related acts of intolerance and discrimination occur on a daily basis all around the world. It calls for increased action and accelerated implementation of measures to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

The authors of the statement made it as plain vanilla as possible in order to attract as many supporters as they could. Iran did not play a visible role in the planning of the conference this time. Its minister of foreign affairs, Ali Akbar Salehi, filled in at the conference for President Ahmadinejad, who saved his vile remarks for a speech he delivered to the UN General Assembly on the same day as Durban III. Ahmadinejad predictably repeated his golden oldies from past UN speeches, including his Zionist conspiracy theories and questioning who was behind 9/11.

But Ahmadinejad knew that Durban III would achieve its sinister objectives by stealth – reaffirming previous anti-racism world conference declarations going back to 1978 that had expressly promoted the Palestinians’ false narrative that they were the victims of Israeli racism and apartheid. This was just a few years after the UN General Assembly had equated Zionism with racism. While that toxic resolution was revoked in 1991, the campaign to delegitimize the right of Jews to have a single state of their own in their own historic homeland continues.

The first World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination was held in Geneva back in 1978.  In its Declaration and Programmes of Action, this conference concluded that “[A]partheid, the extreme form of institutionalized racism, is a crime against humanity and an affront to the dignity of mankind and is a threat to peace and security in the world.” While it focused attention on the apartheid regime of South Africa, this document specifically linked Israel to that regime and condemned “the insidious propaganda by the Government of Israel and its zionist and other supporters against the United Nations organs and against Governments which had advocated firm action against apartheid.”   One paragraph accused Israel of practicing “diverse forms of racial discrimination against Palestinians affecting all aspects of their daily lives in a manner which prevents their enjoyment of their elementary human rights on a basis of equality.”

This declaration, written in 1978, decried “the cruel tragedy which befell the Palestinian people 30 years ago and which the (sic) continue to endure– manifested in their being prevented from exercising their right to self-determination on the soil of their homeland, in the dispersal of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, the prevention of their return to their homes…”

The second World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, also held in Geneva, took place in August 1983 and repeated the same rhetoric. It called for “the cessation of all the practices of racial discrimination to which the Palestinians and other inhabitants of the Arab territories occupied by Israel are subjected.”

In 1997, the UN General Assembly called for a World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, to take place no later than 2001.

Iran led the planning for the United Nations’ 2001 Durban I Conference. The Durban I Declaration, which the UN member states participating in Durban III just reaffirmed, referenced all the prior anti-Israel declarations from the previous UN-sponsored world conferences against racism mentioned above.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its allies in the non-aligned movement held sway at Durban I, and the Palestinians were singled out as victims of racism. In fact, the “anti-racist” Durban I conference turned into a racist hatefest against the Jewish state. It was marked by vitriolic displays of anti-Semitism, which were so bad that the United States walked out of the conference.

Iran headed up preparations for the equally biased follow-up Durban II Review Conference in 2009. Several delegates, mostly from the European Union, walked out during Ahmadinejad’s speech. Most delegates, however, not only remained for the speech, but applauded at its conclusion. Fortunately, the United States, along with Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Poland, had boycotted the whole conference, rightly sensing in advance that something like this would happen.

It is this litany of lies that the Durban III conference has decided to reaffirm. The common theme running through the litany is that Israel’s “neo-colonialist” Zionist regime should be isolated by the international community for committing alleged “racist crimes” against the “oppressed” Palestinian victims.

Nevertheless, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay voiced their strong support for this perversion of human rights and platform for the world’s worst human rights abusers, which has characterized the whole Durban process from the start.

With a straight face, Navi Pillay actually said that the Durban I Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as the outcome of the 2009 Durban II Review, provide a “comprehensive framework to address the scourge of racism.” Did she bother to take a look at the list of dictatorships that were given a forum to spew their hate and hypocrisy? Does she really consider, for example, that the racist Arab regime of Sudan, which has embarked on a campaign of murdering, ethnically cleansing and enslaving millions of indigenous black Africans – a campaign that continues today – is committed to addressing the scourge of racism? Apparently the organizers of the Durban III conference thought so, since Sudan was given the honor of addressing the conference on behalf of the Group of African States. Since Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir was facing arrest on warrants issued for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape) and two counts of war crimes (pillaging and intentionally directing attacks against civilians), it would have been a bit risky for him to make a personal appearance.

The honors went to Rahamtalla Mohamed Osman Elnor, Sudan’s undersecretary, ministry of Foreign Affairs, who complained about  – what else — the transatlantic slave trade.  He said that the African Group for whom he spoke welcomed the actions undertaken to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the end of the transatlantic slave trade and the establishment of a permanent memorial at United Nations Headquarters.

The Sudanese undersecretary also threw in apartheid, colonialism and what he called the “new and emerging forms of slavery such as human trafficking.”

If only the United Nations would have had the moral courage to have invited to the Durban III podium, instead of Bashir’s mouthpiece, a heroic Sudanese refugee and survivor of child slavery in Sudan. Kudos to Anne Bayefsky for organizing a conference of sanity and truth across the street on the same day as the Durban III circus, at which this Sudanese refugee, Simon Deng, was given an opportunity to speak.

At the counter-Durban III conference, titled “The Perils of Global Intolerance: The United Nations and Durban III,” Mr. Deng told of how he was nine years old when he was enslaved by an Arab family. He was forced to work around the clock, beaten, and subject to harsh living conditions for three years. Mr. Deng was not alone. Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese have been kidnapped and sold into slavery. Here was a living demonstration of the “emerging forms of slavery such as human trafficking,” perpetrated within Sudan by the racist Arab government and population, which Sudan’s undersecretary so piously condemned at the Durban III conference.

Mr. Deng managed to escape permanent enslavement, but thousands of other blacks in Sudan remain in slavery. The UN, he said, knew about the Arab enslavement of black Sudanese and the Arab government’s policy of apartheid against the black population, but chose to do nothing. His fellow blacks and other persecuted minorities were abandoned by the UN, Mr. Deng said, in favor of giving the racist Arabs a global platform to persistently push their false accusations of Israeli racism against the Palestinians.

By ignoring the true victims of racism, such as Simon Deng, and providing a platform to the racists themselves to excoriate Israel and other democracies, the United Nations has forfeited whatever moral authority and legitimacy it may have had at its founding.

2011/09/19

Overview: Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy

Filed under: Arab Nations, Israel, Laws, Palestine — - @ 6:48 pm

Click on the title for a PDF copy of the study.

Source Link: JCPA.Org

Overview: Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy

Overview Written By Alan Baker

  • A concerted campaign is being waged against Israel to question its very legitimacy in virtually every aspect of its historical, political, and cultural life, with the aim of undermining the very foundations of Israel’s existence.
  • In response, several world-renowned experts have joined to present an authoritative exposition of Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy, published jointly by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the World Jewish Congress.

As the United Nations is about to be manipulated by a Palestinian attempt to impose its statehood on the international community in a manner that undermines a vital negotiating process based on the UN’s own resolutions, a concerted campaign is being waged against Israel by Palestinian, Muslim, and other non-Arab elements in the international community to question the very legitimacy of Israel in virtually every aspect of its historical, political, and cultural life, with the aim of undermining the very foundations of Israel’s existence.

In response, several world-renowned experts have joined to present an authoritative exposition of Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy, edited by Alan Baker, former legal counsel of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and former ambassador to Canada, and published jointly by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the World Jewish Congress.

The National Rights of Jews

Prof. Ruth Gavison, Professor (emerita) of Human Rights at the Faculty of Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and recipient of the Israel Prize in Law (2011), challenges the often- repeated denial by the Arabs of the rights of Jews to establish their own nation. The Jews have always had the characteristics of a nation, both ethnical and cultural, and not only religious. This was true before Israel was established and it is true today. It is justified for Jews to have sought revival of their political independence in their ancient homeland – Zion.

Zionism is not a colonial or an imperialist enterprise. The Arab population in pre-state Israel had never enjoyed or established political independence, and Jews were at liberty to seek political revival in the only place in the world that had been their homeland.

“An Overwhelmingly Jewish State” – From the Balfour Declaration to the Palestine Mandate

World-renowned British historian and author Sir Martin Gilbert, who is Winston Churchill’s official biographer, discusses how Great Britain viewed the right of the Jews to a national home in Palestine. The Times of London declared on September 19, 1919: “Our duty as the Mandatory power will be to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling State, but one that is capable of vigorous and independent national life.”

Winston Churchill announced publicly on March 28, 1921: “It is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national center and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in the land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”

On June 3, 1922, the British Government issued a White Paper, known as the Churchill White Paper, which stated: “During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000….It is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.”

Churchill told the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission: “We committed ourselves to the idea that someday, somehow, far off in the future, subject to justice and economic convenience, there might well be a great Jewish State there, numbered by millions, far exceeding the present inhabitants of the country and to cut them off from that would be a wrong.”

Self-Determination and Israel’s Declaration of Independence

Israel Prize recipient Prof. Shlomo Avineri, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University and Director-General of the Israel Foreign Ministry in the first term of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, analyzes Israel’s right to self-determination in the context of its Declaration of Independence. He notes that the Arabs of Palestine and Arab states went to war not only against the emerging Jewish state, but also against a UN resolution in the only known case when member states of the UN not only did not abide by a UN resolution but went to war against it.

Had the Arab community gone through a profound internal debate and come out of it – as did the Jewish community – with an acceptance, however reluctant, of the compromise idea of partition, be it on moral or realistic grounds, or both – history would have been different: on May 15, 1948, two states – Israel and Palestine – would have been established. There would have been no 1948 war, no Palestinian refugees, no nakba, no further Arab-Israeli wars, no terrorism, and no Israeli reprisals. This could have happened – but it did not. The moral and political responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Arab side. Had the Palestinian Arabs and the countries of the Arab League chosen a different path, this would have made the Middle East a region of prosperity, mutual respect, progress and abundance for all its peoples.

Despite the difficult war situation, the practical steps taken by the newly established, independent State of Israel reflected the country’s willingness to abide by obligations inherent in the UN partition plan. Israel adopted a multicultural approach toward its Arab minority, maintaining the status of Arabic as an official language. Israeli Arabs send their children to schools which teach in Arabic, with the curriculum tailored to their culture.

The acceptance by most Israelis today of a two-state solution – of a Jewish and a Palestinian state living in peace with each other – is a testimony to the fact that, despite decades of war and siege, the fundamental decision adopted by the Jewish community in 1947 continues to guide the moral compass of the Jewish state.

The United Nations and Middle East Refugees: The Differential Treatment of Arabs and Jews

Dr. Stanley A. Urman, Executive Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC), contrasts the considerable diplomatic advocacy and discussion concerning the Palestinian refugee issue with the utter lack of consideration for the Jewish refugee issue. The mass violations of the human rights of Jews in Arab countries and the displacement of over 850,000 Jews from their countries of birth has never been adequately addressed by the international community, although on two separate occasions, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) specifically declared that Jews fleeing from Arab countries were indeed refugees “who fall under the mandate” of the UNHCR.

From 1949 to 2009, General Assembly resolutions focused much greater attention on the issue of Palestinian refugees (163 resolutions) – some 20 percent – than on any other Middle East issue. There were never any General Assembly resolutions that even mention Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Since 1947, billions of dollars have been spent by the international community to provide relief and assistance to Palestinian refugees. During that same period, international resources provided to Jewish refugees from Arab countries were negligible.

For the United Nations or other international entities to continue to ignore or reject the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries is to validate past and continuing injustice.

Israel’s Rights Regarding Territories and the Settlements in the Eyes of the International Community

For over 40 years, it has been persistent UN practice to repeat in parrot fashion the phrases “Israel the occupying power,” “the occupied Palestinian territories,” and to refer to Israel’s settlement activity as illegal, irrespective of the facts and the correct legal situation. Amb. Alan Baker stresses that the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995, signed by Israel and the PLO, was witnessed by the United States, the European Union, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, and Norway, and supported by the UN. This agreement changed the status of the territory and the status of each of the parties to the agreement as well.

Israel’s continued presence in Area C of the West Bank, pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations, enjoys the official sanction of the PLO. It cannot, by any measure of political manipulation or legal acrobatics, be considered “occupied territory.”

Construction activity by each side in those parts of the territory under their respective control was expressly permitted in the agreement. Israel’s presence in the territory of the West Bank, pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations, was with the full approval of the Palestinian leadership and thus is not occupation.

Furthermore, analysis of the introduction to the 4th Geneva Convention as well as the official International Red Cross Commentary to it makes it very clear that Article 49 of the Convention was never intended to apply, and cannot apply, to settlement activity carried out by Israel.

The Historical and Legal Contexts of Israel’s Borders

Prof. Nicholas Rostow, senior director of the U.S. National Defense University’s Center for Strategic Research, addresses the claims against Israel’s rights to defensible and recognized borders. He notes that UN Resolution 242 left open for negotiation where Israel’s final boundaries would be in exchange for withdrawal from Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, and disputed territory, rather than requiring a restoration of the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines as the international boundary of Israel. The resolution thus treated that boundary only as marking a minimum Israeli territory. Resolution 242 arguably entitled Israel to more territory than that. Adjustments were contemplated, as implied by the requirement for “secure and recognized boundaries.”

The Misleading Interpretation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)

Israel Prize recipient Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, former legal adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry and member of Israel’s negotiating team, analyses the way in which Israel’s rights are being consistently negated through misleading interpretations of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The resolution does not request Israel to withdraw from all the territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War and does not recognize that the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel.

The establishment of secure and recognized boundaries requires a process in which the two states involved actually negotiate and agree upon the demarcation of their common boundary. The UN Security Council did not regard Israel’s presence in the territories as illegal. As an act of self-defense, this military occupation was and continues to be legitimate, until a peace settlement can be reached and permanent borders agreed upon.

Defending Israel’s Legal Rights to Jerusalem

Israel’s rights regarding Jerusalem are perhaps one of the most sensitive issues on the agenda of the international community. Amb. Dore Gold, former ambassador to the United Nations and currently President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, sets out Israel’s rights regarding the city. The Jewish people restored their clear-cut majority in Jerusalem not in 1948 or in 1967 but in 1863, according to British consular records. This transformation occurred well before the arrival of the British Empire in the First World War and the Balfour Declaration. It even preceded the actions of Theodor Herzl and the First Zionist Congress. Indeed, in 1914 on the eve of the First World War there were 45,000 Jews in Jerusalem out of a total population of 65,000.

In the last seventeen years, a number of key misconceptions about Jerusalem took hold in the highest diplomatic circles in the West as well as in the international media. When Israel signed the Oslo Agreements in 1993, for the first time agreeing to make Jerusalem an issue for future negotiations, that did not mean that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin planned to divide Jerusalem.  On October 5, 1995, one month before he was assassinated, he detailed to the Knesset his vision for a permanent status arrangement with the Palestinians: “First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev – as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.”

In the years of the Arab-Israeli peace process, proposals were raised and considered for the re-division of Jerusalem, but no binding agreements were actually reached and brought to the Knesset for ratification. Israeli opinion remained firm about the rights of the Jewish people to retain their united capital under the sovereignty of Israel. The recognition of those rights in the future by the international community will depend on Israel demonstrating that it alone will protect the Holy City for all faiths.

Palestinian Unilateralism and Israel’s Rights in Arab-Israeli Diplomacy

Dan Diker, Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress and Adjunct Fellow of the Hudson Institute in Washington, addresses the attempt to deny Israel’s rights to settle the conflict through bilateral negotiation. UN support for or endorsement of Palestinian unilateral actions would clearly negate the principles of negotiated settlement of disputes as set out both in the UN Charter and in the major Security Council resolutions regarding the Middle East peace process.

A unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians robs Israel of all its rights and negates the peace process’s validity in its entirety. The Palestinians’ rush to unilateral statehood cannibalizes the basis of all past agreements including those that established the Palestinian Authority, and ignores and dismisses the concessions already made by Israel during the Oslo Accords and in later agreements.

Is the Gaza Strip Occupied by Israel?

In light of the attempts to represent Israel as if it is still occupying the Gaza Strip, even after having evacuated its forces and citizens from the area, Col. (res.) Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, former head of the IDF International Law Department who served as legal adviser to the Israeli negotiating teams during Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations between 1993-2009, places the legal status of Gaza in the correct perspective.

The evacuation of Israeli citizens and IDF forces from Gaza was aimed to reduce friction with the Palestinian population and improve Palestinian living conditions. The hope was that the Palestinians would take advantage of the opportunity created by Israel’s disengagement to break the cycle of violence and reengage in a process of dialogue. Israel is clearly not an occupier of Gaza. Israel has fully withdrawn and carries out no governmental authority over the population in the area.

According to the Supreme Court of Israel: “Israel is under no general obligation to provide for the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip and to preserve the public order there, according to the body of laws pertaining to belligerent occupation in international law.” Israel does not possess full control over the external perimeter of Gaza and has no effective control over the area. Thus, there is no valid legal basis to regard Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip. The Hamas government exercises effective powers of government there. Consequently, the laws of occupation do not apply.

The Violation of Israel’s Right to Sovereign Equality in the United Nations

Amb. Alan Baker notes that since becoming a member of the UN in 1949, Israel has been denied its Charter-based right to “sovereign equality,” and is the only UN member state that is excluded from the UN geographical groupings and that cannot be elected to the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or any other major UN body. Sovereign equality in the UN – judicial equality, equality of voting, equality in participation in all UN activities and processes, and equality in membership in all forums – break down with respect to Israel, which is clearly discriminated against.

Since Israel has been excluded from its geographical regional group – the Asian Group – by vote of the Arab and Muslim members of that group, and is not accepted as a full member in the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Israel is being denied its UN Charter-guaranteed equality.

In such a situation, Israel can never put up its candidacy for membership in the Economic and Social Council, or other major UN organs. It is denied any chance of having its jurists chosen as candidates for the major juridical institutions, tribunals, and courts within the UN system, and it cannot participate in consultations between states, organized within the regional group system, to determine positions and voting on issues, resolutions, and other matters. In 1998, the UN Secretary-General called “to rectify an anomaly: Israel’s position as the only Member State that is not a Member of one of the regional groups….We must uphold the principle of equality among all UN member states.”

Sir Robert Jennings, former President of the International Court of Justice, wrote in 1999: “Exclusion of one member from an essential part of the workings of an international organization in which all other members are entitled to participate is a crude breach of the rule on non-discrimination.” He continued: “I venture to suggest that Israel’s exclusion should no longer be tolerated; and that it is now an issue of primary importance for the [UN] Organization itself to see that it be remedied.”

Countering Challenges to Israel’s Legitimacy

Persistent and oft-repeated charges against Israel’s legitimacy, such as the charge that Israel is an illegitimate, “colonial” state; that it secured its statehood unlawfully; that it is an apartheid state; and the claim for a “one-state solution” are analyzed by the eminent U.S. jurist Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He notes that the Jewish refugees in Palestine had established their homeland without the assistance of any colonial or imperialist power. They relied on their own hard work in building an infrastructure and cultivating land they had legally purchased. These Jews had the right to determine their own future consistent with the Wilsonian principle of self-determination.

Israel’s statehood was secured lawfully by, among other instruments and acts, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, the 1937 Peel Commission Report, the 1947 United Nations partition resolution, Israel’s Declaration of Independence, subsequent recognition of the State of Israel by numerous world powers, and Israel’s acceptance into the United Nations. What other country has its origins so steeped in international law?

A binational state would not only imperil Israel’s Jewish population, but would eradicate the one state in the Middle East that affords its Muslim citizens more expansive civil liberties and political prerogatives than any other. Israeli Arabs are better off – as measured by longevity, health care, legal rights, even religious liberty – than other Arabs in the Middle East.

*     *     *

This book will serve as a vital tool for all those who are genuinely interested in looking through the shallow and clichéd attempts by those in the international community who are determined, for whatever reason, to question Israel’s legitimacy and to deny its rights.

About The Authors

Prof. Ruth Gavison, Professor (emerita) of Human Rights at the Faculty of Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and recipient of the Israel Prize in Law

Sir Martin Gilbert,world-renowned British historian and author, Winston Churchill’s official biographer

Prof. Shlomo Avineri, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University and former Director-General of the Israel Foreign Ministry, Israel Prize recipient

Dr. Stanley A. Urman, Executive Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC)

Amb. Alan Baker, former legal counsel of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and former ambassador to Canada

Prof. Nicholas Rostow, senior director of the U.S. National Defense University’s Center for Strategic Research

Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, former legal adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry and member of Israel’s negotiating team, Israel Prize recipient

Amb. Dore Gold, former ambassador to the United Nations and President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Dan Diker, Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress and Adjunct Fellow of the Hudson Institute in Washington

Col. (ret.) Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, former head of the IDF International Law Department who served as legal adviser to Israeli negotiating teams in 1993-2009

Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School

Older Posts »