This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

“Christianity Through Jewish Eyes”

Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

Women and the Iranian Unrest

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

By Rosslyn Smith, www.AmericanThinker.com

 

 Are the Ayatollahs learning that hell hath no fury like 34 million women scorned, forced out of the workplace, harassed, and humiliated by religious police for three decades? I have noticed some of the bravest protesters in Iran have been women, including a few who have been without headscarves and showing a great deal more of their figures than the regime would approve. Roger Cohen of the NY Times has noticed this, too.

 

 …. Iran’s women stand in the vanguard. For days now, I’ve seen them urging less courageous men on. I’ve seen them get beaten and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”

 

CNN has noted that for at least some of these women it is about far more than a stolen election.

 

Like thousands of other Iranian women, Parisa took to Tehran’s streets this week, her heart brimming with hope. “Change,” said the placards around her.

 

 The young Iranian woman eyed the crowd and pondered the possibility that the rest of her life might be different from her mother’s. She could see glimmers of a future free from discrimination—and all the symbols of it, including the head-covering the government requires her to wear every day.

 

 Earlier stories about the Iran election noted that Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, is a formidable political force in her own right, having been the first woman chancellor of an Iranian university since the Revolution. That she may have lost that position in a purge of reformists after Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005 helps explain some of the enmity between the candidates. Unusual for Iran, Rahnavard’s actively campaigned for her husband, particularly among university students and women. On the campaign trail she noticeably flouted violations of the dress codes that tightened up after Ahmadinejad’s 2006 election. Her head covering was a brightly colored scarf, her use of makeup was noticeable, and her chador was worn so you could glimpse the outfit underneath.

 

The flouting of the moral police was probably political theater. A more substantive reason that Rahnavard’s active campaign presence excited women is this dismal fact about how the kleptocracy of misogynist ayatollahs has thwarted human expectations: More than 60 percent of Iran’s university students are women, but women make up only perhaps 15 percent of the workforce. One sector often favored by college educated American women, that of civil service, has been increasing hard for women to access under Ahmadinejad.

 

Women left alone with children after the death or desertion of a husband are particularly hard hit in a culture that openly discriminates in employment. So are those in abusive relationships with fathers or husbands. One of Iran’s dirty little secrets is how many women are forced into prostitution. News stories from 2002 reported as many as 300,000 women were engaged in prostitution in greater Tehran. In an area with a population then estimated at 12 million that is close to 5% of the total female population. 

The religious fig leaf for the business of selling sexual favors is a practice allowed in Shiite branch of Islam know as sigheh, or a marriage contracted for a fixed period of time. Supposedly the woman contracted in such a marriage is not to enter into a new contract until one menstrual cycle has passed. This was obviously not the case because the reason prostitution came to official attention in 2002 was that two women engaging in the trade infected over 1,100 men with the HIV virus.

 

I am not a bit surprised that women are among the leaders of this revolt. Several years ago I read Azar Nafisi’s memoir of life in Iran during and after the 1979 revolution, Reading Lolita in Tehran. Educated in the West where she was active on the political left, Dr, Nafisi returned to Iran in 1979 to teach English language literature. Some of the best passages in the book relate to her fight not to have to wear the head covering and shapeless cloak increasingly being mandated by Iran’s new rulers. Those forcing her to become a walking mummy included Marxists who went along with the Islamic fundamentalists on the issue before they, too, were squeezed out of the power structure. The Marxists argued that staying with Western-style dress was a symbol of solidarity with colonial oppressors! When Nafisi lost the fight on the chador, she vowed to teach her own children, sons and daughters alike, about the injustice of such restrictions on women.

 

Dr. Nafisi knew that her favorite students mostly agreed with her on such issues, but she later learned she had also had a great influence on some others who had gone with the flow in 1979. Near the end of the her book, when she is preparing to emigrate to America, Dr. Nafisi runs into one of her students. This young woman had belonged to the Muslim Students’ Association. She had vocally objected with fellow MSA members on being made to read about “immoral” characters like Heathcliff and the foolish, unreasonable, stubborn, and equally immoral Daisy Miller. It seems the student had been far more engaged in the material than her classroom protests would have indicated. She told Nafisi she had continued to read literature “for her own heart” after leaving school. She was married now, with a newborn daughter she named after the professor! Not the name on the birth certificate. That was the name of a favorite aunt, now deceased.

 

…but I have a secret name for her. I call her Daisy. She said she had hesitated between Daisy and Lizzy. She had finally settled on Daisy. Lizzy was the one she had dreamed of, but marrying Mr. Darcy was too much wishful thinking. Why Daisy? Don’t you remember, Daisy Miller? Haven’t you heard that if you give your child a name with meaning she will become like her namesake? I want my daughter to be what I never was — like Daisy. You know, courageous.

 

When I read Nafisi’s words, I thought of how one of the events that helped the women’s movement initially resonate in America was the manner in which some women who had taken jobs outside the home during the labor shortages of WW II were summarily fired in peacetime. A good friend’s mother who taught at a noted left-wing university during and immediately after the war never let her son forget that she had lost her job just as soon as a male with a newly minted degree under the GI bill had became available. The injustice done American women pales besides that inflicted on the women of Iran. But in both situations the women made sure their sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews all knew that such discrimination was wrong. And like the student who wished she had spoken for herself instead of allowing the MSA to speak for her, many American women of the post-war era urged their own daughters to do what they had not dared to do.

 

When I watched the brave and often incredibly beautiful young Iranian women take to the streets the last few days, I also thought back to how Dr. Nafisi’s favorite students mocked a culture that allowed them a university education while attempting to confine them to gender roles more appropriate to 7th-century warring Arab nomads. One favorite way to do so was to parody the opening sentence of their favorite novel from Dr. Nafisi’s syllabus:

 

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Muslim man, regardless of his fortune, must be in want of a nine-year-old virgin wife.

 

I could see them marching through Iran’s cities, casting a wary eye at onlooking security forces even as they poked fun at then. They talk about how the Islamic Revolution was for men who couldn’t find a wife another way, and how Elizabeth Bennett wouldn’t go near a man who wanted a child bride — or multiple wives.

 

Iranian-American journalist Roya Hakakian, who left Iran in 1984 at the age of 18, echoed the sentiments of Nafisi and her students in a recent interview in which she noted that in the last ten years a new generation of women has organized in ways not seen since 1979. She notes the women of this generation learned an important lesson from their predecessors. (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/political-climate-elections-iran-forbes-woman-power-feminism.html)

 

The feminist movement, which has been ongoing in Iran, has now joined the broader public movement against the regime. This happened in Iran in the late 1970s too, but it actually had a terrible effect on the women’s movement in Iran. Women were somehow “hoodwinked” to think that the veil wasn’t such an important issue, that it was more important to sacrifice for the greater good. So the Shah went and the veil stayed.

 

This generation is a lot smarter. The broader social movement is far more sympathetic to the cause of women than in the late 1970s. Thirty years later, Iranian men now realize that their fate is entwined with that of their female counterparts: If women are doing better, then men will do better too.

 

Azadeh Moaveni, born in Palo Alto of Iranian parents in 1976 and co author of Iran Awakening with Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, had this to say about the extent of the repression:

 

The weight of discrimination against women is felt most profoundly through Iran’s legal system, but Moaveni said Ahmadinejad added to the hardship by clamping down on women’s lifestyles. He mandated the way women dress and even censored websites that dealt with women’s health, Moaveni said. A woman would be hard-pressed to conduct a Google search for something as simple as breast cancer.

 

Azar Nafisi, now a professor at Johns Hopkins, told CNN she has been watching the footage from Iran with “inordinate pride.”

 

After Saturday, Dr. Nafisi probably wants to add “and great sorrow” to her statement.

 

Another Iranian woman not allowed to use her education, who has taken to the streets:

 

Artemis, a 41-year-old Tehran woman, is the proud holder of a law degree, but has never been allowed to work. She was clear about why she joined the million-plus men, women, and children who took to the streets of Tehran last Monday.

 

“People want freedom and justice,” she said. “They stole the vote. No one in his right mind believes this result.”

 

She said she had been afraid to voice criticism before. “The neighbors listen to you, and people go to prison just for what they say, or what they write. But this is contagious. What you are seeing, all these people, this comes from 30 years of oppression and now we have had enough.”

 

Perhaps the most poignant words about what is happening comes from an Iranian woman sending messages to Nico Pitney at the Huffington Post who has been living blogging events for a week now (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html). She wrote that she would be in Saturday’s demonstrations where she may be killed. Saturday evening she got out a message that she was okay, but that her ”sister” had died.

 

Here is the translation of part of her message.

 

I’m here to tell you, my sister who died was a decent person… and like me, yearned for a day when her hair would be swept by the wind… and like me, read “Forough” [Forough Farrokhzad]… and longed to live free and equal… and she longed to hold her head up and announce, “I’m Iranian”… and she longed to one day fall in love to a man with a shaggy hair… and she longed for a daughter to braid her hair and sing lullaby by her crib…

 

my sister died from not having life… my sister died as injustice has no end… my sister died since she loved life too much… and my sister died since she lovingly cared for people…

 

Much of the world has seen the video of this beautiful young woman, sister to us all, taking her last breath before our eyes. It is being reported that her name was Neda, which is said to be Farsi for voice or call. Her actions give voice to the oppressed women of Iran, and call out to all of us to stand with them against oppression.

Are There Prospects for Peace with Islam?

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
Participants at the 2009 Jerusalem Conference, held in late April, were fortunate to have the opportunity to share a candid conversation with Professor Bernard Lewis, world-renowned expert on Islam, on the prospects for peace in the Middle East. The historian, a nonagenarian, was questioned by Dan Diker of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Below is a transcript of the talk, in which the professor explains that the Arab world must be seen in context of its religious heritage, rather than its ethnicity.

Dan Diker, Introduction: The region’s so crazy there are really more questions than answers. There are some that say there are no conflicts that can’t be solved, and there are others that don’t have answers. The first question that I have is, or that we have, as I am speaking on behalf of everyone here, is, what is going on in this recent conflict? You had three major Arab powers publicly condemning the Hamas. And in a way, silently expressing support for Israel. What’s going on with that, Bernard?

Bernard Lewis: I think what we are seeing is a recurrence of what one would call the Sadat bit. Let me remind you of what happened with Sadat. Sadat didn’t make peace with Israel because he was suddenly persuaded of the merits of the Zionist case. It for was a quite different reason. What drove Sadat towards peace was the growing awareness on his part and on the part of the Egyptians that Egypt was becoming a Soviet colony.

I was in Egypt during the late 60s and early 70s, and I saw for myself that the Soviet presence had become more obvious and to Egyptians more offensive than the British presence had been in the last phase of the British occupation of Egypt.

He tried to deal with it in other ways, through Washington but Washington responded with [an] agreement, which was in effect handing Egypt back to the Russians. They decided that Israel was less dangerous than the Soviets, which was true.

That is what led him to make peace and it has endured since–a peace that is at best cool and at times frosty, but it has held. What I think we are seeing now is a similar phenomenon.

The danger that they see this time is not the Soviet Union, which has disappeared, but the multiple dangers presented by Iran. This comes in many forms, one which you might call the Iranian Danger.

Iran, unlike most of the countries of this region, is a real nation with a history and a self-awareness going back not just centuries, but millennia, and it is quite prominent in Jewish history if you recall.

We have two images of Iran in the Jewish memory, one typified by Haman and the other by Cyrus. Both are visible at the present time, though Haman seems to be dominant.

Let me come back to my point. Iran is once again stretching out westward and eastward. Eastward to Pakistan, and across the Middle East towards the Mediterranean. This comes in several forms, one of them I just mentioned, it’s what you might call the Iranian imperial.

The second is the Shi’ite threat. Islam almost since its beginning has been divided into two major sectarian groups, the Sunnis and the Shi’ites. The Sunnis are the overwhelming majority and in countries where there are only Sunnis and no Shi’ites the differences are unimportant and they are hardly aware of it.

Where it is important is where Sunni and Shi’ite meet, particularly in countries where you have Sunni dominance over Shi’ite population, a situation for which I would borrow a word from Irish history and call it a Sunni ascendancy. The most notable is Iraq.

Iraq has had a Shi’ite majority as far back as we can trace the history. And it has remained under the rule of the Sunni minority through ancient times, medieval times, Ottoman times, under the British, under the various rules. Only now for the first time is there a Shi’ite majority government in Iraq. And the links with Iran are obviously a matter of concern.

Going beyond Iraq, there are significant Shi’ite populations in Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain, in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in that region.

Now for the first time in many centuries, they see Shi’itism as a serious threat, a mortal threat to the Sunni ascendancy which has prevailed since time immemorial. What makes this threat even worse is that it is linked with what one might call the Iranian Revolutionary Regime.

The word revolution is much used in the Middle East but most regimes that call themselves revolutionary could be better described by the French term ‘coup d’etat’ or the German ‘putsch’, English history happily provides no equivalent.

The Iranian revolution is a genuine revolution resembling in some ways the French and the Russian revolution — the struggle between modernists and extremists, the terror, the vast impact on the world which they share, common universal discourse.  And now, I think, they are following the French model, the Russian model. You might say that the Iranian revolution is entering the “Napoleonic” or the “Stalinist” phase.

Dan Diker: So that means — oh wait, would you like to finish that point?

Bernard Lewis: Yes, this obviously represents a mortal threat to the established regimes in the region. A threat far more deadly, far more dangerous, far more profound than anything Israel could ever offer even on the worst estimate of Israel’s intentions. That is why, like Sadat in his day, before even more compelling reasons this time, they are looking to Israel for help in what they see is a major threat.

Dan Diker: Professor Lewis, if Iran, as you say, is racing for regional supremacy and upending the stabilizing Arab regimes with the same energy that it intends to destroy Israel, what does that mean for places like Gaza and the West Bank? To what extent are they a part of that Iranian plan? And how should we think about the closer battlefields to home?

Bernard Lewis: 
I think one might divide them into two groups. On the one hand you have the group that are themselves Shi’ites. Shi’ites are an important part of the population of Lebanon and Hizbullah is a Shi’ite organization. So their link with Iran and the Iranian revolution is clear and obvious. There are no Shi’ite Palestinians. But again, in places where there is no Sunni-Sh’iite conflict it is easier for them to take up the Iranian cause because for them, in the historical, religious awareness the Sunni/Shi’ite difference is not that important.

Dan Diker: So therefore, on balance, there is a major debate that has been going on about this conflict, meaning in a narrow sense the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That we’re really in an ethno-national conflict some say, we’re in a political conflict some say, but from what you’re saying, to what extent are we in a religious conflict?

Bernard Lewis: I think from the Muslim perspective it’s particularly a religious conflict to decide who will dominate Islam, whose version of Islam will prevail in the Islamic world.

There is no doubt that the Iranians have plans that go far beyond the Middle East. They extend eastward into south and Southeast Asia and westward into Muslim Africa and there are signs of that in various places. The impact has been enormous as I said; it has the same pattern as the French and Russian revolution in their days.

There is one other point, and that is what I would call the apocalyptic aspect.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there is a scenario for the end of times, where the final battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil will occur. For Christians and Muslims alike, this means between “us” and “them.” The “us” being differently defined, the “them” being more or less the same.

From the view of a certain section within the Iranian leadership, it’s not by any means unanimous, that time is now.

For a group… whose main leader is [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, the apocalyptic time has come. “Ma’adi,” the Muslim messiah is already here. The final battle has already begun.

That is important for another reason, and that is concerning Iran’s nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union had weapons right through the cold war, but neither side used them because they were aware the other side would use them as well. It was called mutual assured destruction (MAD) which was the main deterrent of using the weapons.

For most of the Iranian leadership, MAD would work as a deterrent. But for Ahmadinejad and his group, with their apocalyptic mindset, MAD is not a deterrent, but an inducement. They believe that the end of time has come and the sooner the better. So the good can go enjoy the delights of paradise and the wicked, meaning all of us here, can go to eternal damnation.

Dan Diker: Many in the West, your colleagues, have not seen it the way you’ve seen it. You’ve expressed concern in your writings from the return of Islam to the roots of Muslim rage to even more recent articles. That the West is not getting something about Islam, what are they missing?

Bernard Lewis: It’s normal for human beings to judge others by ourselves. We are now in the 21st century of the Christian era; they are in the early 15th century of the Muslim era. It’s a different religion, based on entirely different historical experience, different messages, different teachings, and therefore it is a grave error to do what people normally do, which is judging others by ourselves. It doesn’t work and it is dangerously misleading.

If one looks at Islam from within — and for that it’s necessary to learn at least one Muslim language, which something most Middle East experts are reluctant to do — if one learns the language and understand what they say amongst themselves and understand it in the context of their own history and background, then it is not too difficult to understand what is happening.

Dan Diker: Then why is it that if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, The Gulf States and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank are publicly condemning Iran and their servants, why is the Arab establishment unwilling to fight when they are so frightened of what they perceive as an existential threat to them?

Bernard Lewis: Because the Arab establishment is a rather unpopular autocracy. Looking at it from a Western point of view, if you look around the Middle East you can divide the countries into two groups, countries with pro-American governments and therefore anti-American population and countries with anti-American governments and therefore pro-American populations. The second consisting mostly of Iran. We in the West are seen as the sponsors of the tyrannies that rule over them.

Now, I said a moment ago that the regimes now in these countries, the rulers of Egypt and others see the threat and are now turning to Israel. That doesn’t mean that the populations of those countries see that way.

Take the specific case of what’s been happening in Gaza. Mubarak and his government feel mortally threatened by the pro-Iranian presence in the Gaza Strip and want to see it demolished but that is not the case with many of the parts of Egypt. Most people in Gaza are part of the Muslim Brotherhood who have a very significant opposition group within Egypt and the Egyptian population. And there too, the Sunni-Shi’ite business is not important. The revolutionary appeal, even the apocalyptic appeal of Shi’itism has some impact.

Dan Diker: Professor Lewis, what we’ve seen with the emergence of the communication revolution are a lot of brave attempts, one might call them, to criticize regimes in television, in the newspaper and on the internet. Why is that happening now, and what is the prospect for them? Can we say there are democracy oppositions as well?

Bernard Lewis: The communications revolution has determined some impact. In the past, the Muslim world was better situated than the Western world when it comes to communication. Even in the pre-modern era, the pilgrimage of Muslims from all over the Muslim world make a feeling of common identity, a common awareness that has no parallel in the Western world. The mosque gave them a medium of communication free from censorship.

With the advent of modern communications, now they have even more than that on a much greater scale. Radio, television, and internet are now operating on a vast scale. There is growing evidence that a large part of the population in Iran are thoroughly fed up with the regime that rules them.

This appears in a number of ways, through websites and telephone etc. Their opinions are widely expressed through political jokes such as, “Two Iranians are talking about how dreadful the situation is in their country — this is bad, that’s worse, this is terrible etc. Finally one says to the other, “What we need for this country is for us to bring Osama Bin Laden here”. And the other one turns to him in horror and says, “What are you crazy??” and the first one says, “No, then the Americans will come.”  Now that is an authentic Iranian joke. Communicated from Iran. It tells you something. Another one; at the time when [U.S.] President [George W.] Bush launched his attack on Iraq, a lot of people telephoned from Iran to say ‘You should have tackled your problems in alphabetical order’.

Dan Diker: By the way, in the first reorganization of the Arab world, you coined a phrase about what happened in Kuwait when Iraq conquered that country. What did you call it?

Bernard Lewis: I said the operation should be renamed, instead of Desert Storm, it should be called “Kuwaitus Interuptus”

Dan Diker: Now that’s a positive note. This means something for Israel what you’ve said here. That if Israel was being sought after, in a sense, by the Arab world, what does that mean for Israel’s own perception of itself in terms of being a regional player as opposed to a bilateral player against the Palestinians, which has been the definition until today?

Bernard Lewis: I think Israel needs to redefine itself in accordance with contemporary realities.

Dan Diker: Which means…?

Bernard Lewis: That’s for Israelis to decide.

Dan Diker: How about the longer view? You’ve written some 30 books and for some reason, you’ve just written a book with a dear friend, Buncielles Churchill and this book is called Islam; the Religion and The People. Why is the focus on the religion of Islam now?

Bernard Lewis: Because religion is very much the topic of discussion now. We are dealing with this revolutionary movement in Iran which defines itself as an Islamic movement. We are in a time where Islam is challenging the Western world, which it hasn’t done since the Middle Ages.

Remember that in the perception of Muslims of today that there has been a cosmic struggle going on between the two world religions, Christianity and Islam, for centuries.

The Muslims came out of Arabia and invaded and conquered a large part of the Christian world, Europe, Spain, Italy — but Europe reacted and drove them back. Second attempt, the Ottomans, advanced as far as Vienna and again they were driven back. Many people in the Muslim world see this as, shall we say, third time lucky. This is the third attempt of the Muslims to bring their Holy War into the land of the unbelievers.

Dan Diker: What you wrote in 1990, an article titled ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage’ was just 36 months before the first World Trade Center attack, and that question of rage, how do we understand it today? Is it modernity? Is it Christendom? How should the West respond to that rage?

Bernard Lewis: I think it’s important to point out that the Arabs have a very strong sense of history, without parallel in the West. In America, the ignorance of history is appalling even in universities.

The Muslims are very aware of their history — which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s very accurate. They talk of the first attempt, where they made progress and were driven back. The second attempt, where they made progress and where driven back and now the third. What’s the difference now? Each time they were driven back by a new European force, the Byzantines, the European Empires.

Osama Bin Laden puts it very clearly that this struggle has been going on for 13 centuries; the Islamic rule was led by successive dynasties from successive capitals, Medina, Damascus, Bagdad, Cairo, Istanbul. In the final phase, he says the world of the unbelievers will be divided between two rival superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In Afghanistan he says, ‘we defeated the deadlier of the two,’ meaning the Soviet Union; dealing with America will be comparatively simpler.

This is the motivation of the Jihad at the present time, the feeling that this is the final phase. They’ve taken over parts of Europe and the next phase is to take over the rest of the world.

Dan Diker: Let’s look at the symmetrical case in the West. The West’s experience in the Middle East has not been a positive one. Attempts to confront or approach radical Islam have not succeeded. Why is that? What’s missing in the analysis of the West?

Bernard Lewis: I think the first thing missing in the analysis is the awareness of what we confront. A more accurate perception of what is happening and what the different forces are in the Islamic world, I think, would be a more helpful beginning. The second thing is recognition of the magnitude of the threat we are facing. It is not some sort of colonial war.

Dan Diker: Professor, let me go back to Iran for moment. I want to talk about Iranian Imperialism and use of genocidal talk and incitement against Israel in its attempt to gain regional supremacy. What is the role of genocide within Iran’s imperial design? Can it be compared to some sort of Nazi behavior in the past?

Bernard Lewis: Genocide is not part of the Muslim scenario for the end of times. Yes, there will struggles between Jews and Christians. But genocide does not have precedence. What we do find is that there is no lack of anti-Jewish feelings that are also found in Koran and can be cited to that effect. But this is a new one that can obviously be connected with the formation of the State of Israel.

Dan Diker: You have given us some reason for worry. Having said that, you have been a proponent for some optimistic assessments with some historical precedents of democracy and freedom in the modern world. Where are we today in terms of the mix of optimism and pessimism when it comes to the possibility of democracy and freedom in the Arab world?

Bernard Lewis: Well I mentioned before what I call the Sadat gambit, that there are some rulers in the Middle East looking to make peace with Israel because they feel a greater danger which led to the peace treaties between Egypt and Jordan with Israel. That is what is happening now.

The other thing I see that is more hopeful is what I am tempted to call the Sharansky effect — the spread of the idea of democracy, our form of it, to places that otherwise would have thought it to be inconceivable. It is still small scale, it is limited. And for various reasons it is dangerous to express. But there are signs. That is the best hope for the future.

I’ve sat with some people who want democracy and have watched Israeli television with them. They’ve seen Arab leaders denounce their actions on television and go home safely and it’s something they cannot comprehend.

I remember once an Arab boy, around 12 or 13 years old, had his wrist broken by an Israeli soldier or policeman. He was interviewed the next day by Israeli television and denounced Israeli brutality. I was watching this in Jordan and with me was an Iraqi, who looked at this in bewilderment, and said, “I would happily let Saddam Hussein break both my arms and legs if he would let me speak on television like that.”

Another example, when Sadat came to Jerusalem and gave his famous speech to the Knesset, he was accompanied by two Egyptian guards. When Sadat spoke it was totally quiet. You could here a pin drop. When he finished, and Begin spoke, the Knesset reverted into its normal behavior, telephone calls, catcalls, conversations. A friend of mine was sitting next to the two Egyptian guards, who looked at this in utter bewilderment. One said to the other “What is this?” and the other responded “This is democracy.” And the first one said, “what a sweet thing.”

Dan Diker: There’s nothing left to say after that. Ladies and Gentlemen, please join me in thanking Professor Bernard Lewis.

Transcribed by Aviva Woolf.

Israeli Jewish-Christian Duet To Compete At Eurovision

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

www.Israel21c.org

Noa (left) and Miri Awad (right) hope that by performing together they will show the world a true model of coexistence happening inside the borders of Israel.

Noa (left) and Miri Awad (right) hope that by performing together they will show the world a true model of coexistence happening inside the borders of Israel.

It’s like the Grammy’s, MTV Awards and American Idol rolled into one: Every year European musicians and singers compete for the coveted Eurovision Song Contest granted to the best performing act around Europe. It was this contest that catapulted ABBA to international fame with Waterloo.

This year a Jewish-Christian duet will head to Eurovision to represent Israel, May 14 to 16. The two women – one a Jewish Israeli with roots in Yemen and the United States, and the other an Arab Israeli Christian, are hoping to sing their hearts out with a message for Middle East peace.

A star in her own right – in Israel and on international stages – Achinoam “Noa” Nini was approached by the Eurovision community asking her to sing at the 2009 contest. She said she would agree on one condition: if she could share the stage with Mira Awad her friend and long-time musical collaborator. For Noa, opportunities like this come and go. For Awad it is a golden opportunity to earn international acclaim.

Despite it being a difficult choice for Awad who has suffered criticism from the Arab population in Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the rest of the Arab world, Noa says that their performing together shows the world a true model of coexistence happening inside the borders of Israel.

True friends, a true partnership

“Beyond everything, it’s a great thing. It’s not some invention, some kind of clever ‘twist’ showing that an [Israeli] has managed to outsmart everyone again,” says Noa, responding to negative criticism she’s felt in Europe and from Arabs.

Neither an artificial pairing to show a fake display of friendship, nor a political statement, she says of her teaming up with Awad: “We’ve been friends for eight years. I was asked, and I said I only want to go together with her.”

Noa is one of Israel’s most popular singers. Born in Tel Aviv, she grew up in the United States, returning to Israel at age 17. Awad’s father is a Christian Arab from the Galilee region in Israel, where she grew up, and her mother is from Bulgaria.

“At the end of the day we’re giving an example of co-existence – what can be if people choose dialog over violence,” Noa says. “Now we’ll see how much time it takes for the wheels to turn.”

Noa and Awad won’t be the first mixed Israeli group to hit the Eurovision stage, but with wounds from renewed fighting in Gaza earlier this year still open, theirs might be the most inspirational act yet, showing how people and art, not politics can be a bridge for peace.

Seeing a new side of the Jewish and Arab community

Israel has won the Eurovision contest a few times since it began participating in the show in 1973. Although geographically not located in Europe, Israel is a member of the European Broadcast Union and therefore qualified to enter.

Israel has won three times, once by Izhar Cohen and Alphabeta who won in 1978 with the song A-Ba-Ni-Bi, then in 1979 with the song Hallelujah performed by Gali Atari & Milk and Honey. The third and most controversial win came in 1998, when the transsexual Dana International won with her song Diva.

Noa and Awad hope their song Your Eyes,, which they co-wrote, might help people see their complicated reality in a different light. Sung in Arabic, Hebrew, and English, the song carries a message of peace and hope, and it may win the duo first place at the awards happening this May in Moscow.

Noa says that there has been “all kinds of reactions” in the international community – some critical, some supportive. The criticism, she says, comes mainly from people with political motives.

These reactions are sometimes expressed on Noa’s Myspace site. Noa admits that Awad, who is shy to talk with the press, has had a hard time dealing with the negative publicity. She herself is more “experienced” having dealt with anti-Israel demonstrations outside her shows in Europe.

Singing with a peace plan in mind

Despite this, Awad is determined to go ahead. “I believe that by representing this country I am nailing to the wall my existence here,” said Awad in a BBC interview.

Personally, Noa deals with any political attacks by giving a prepared speech before she opens a show. “It also has the peace plan in it,” she says. “As I see it, there is a lot of propaganda and lies [in this world], with lots of evil powers, and I know it sounds like Darth Vadar,” admits the songstress. “I have my mantra,” she says, and it’s “one that involves mutual recognition.”

Will the message of faith, hope, friendship, and peace be heard in Europe, where polarized views of the Israeli-Arab conflict appear to get stronger every year? Stay tuned for Noa and Awad’s debut performance at Eurovision, it’s bound to create a sensation.

And even if they lose Eurovision, they will still be winners in many people’s eyes.

Click on this link (or copy and paste it into your web browser) to hear this lovely song:

http://www.eurovision.tv/event/artistdetail?song=24675&event=1480

Lyrics

Eurovision Song Contest 2009 Semi-Final (1)
Israel (IBA)

Performer: Noa & Mira Awad
Song title: There Must Be Another Way
Song writer(s): Noa, Mira Awad, Gil Dor
Song composer(s): Noa, Mira Awad, Gil Dor

There must be another, must be another way
עינייך אחות
כל מה שליבי מבקש אומרות
עברנו עד כה
דרך ארוכה
דרך כה קשה
יד ביד
והדמעות זולגות זורמות לשוא
כאב ללא שם
אנחנו מחכות
רק ליום שיבוא אחרי
There must be another way
There must be another way
عينيك بتقول
راح ييجي يوم وكل الخوف يزول
بعينيك اصرار
انه عنا خيار
نكمل هالمسار
مهما طال
لانه ما في عنوان وحيد للاحزان
بنادي للمدى, للسما العنيده
There must be another way
There must be another way
There must be another, must be another way
דרך ארוכה נעבור
דרך כה קשה
יחד אל האור
عينيك بتقول
كل الخوف يزول<
And when I cry I cry for both of us
My pain has no name
And when I cry I cry to the merciless sky and say
There must be another way
והדמעות זולגות זורמות לשוא
כאב ללא שם
אנחנו מחכות
רק ליום שיבוא אחרי
There must be another way
There must be another way
There must be another, must be another way

Hezbollah uses Mexican drug routes into U.S.

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

By Sara A. Carter, www.washingtontimes.com

A Mexican marine patrols near the U.S.-Mexico border wall in Tijuana, Mexico, on March 18, 2009. The administration of President Obama is preparing to send federal agents to the U.S.-Mexico border as reinforcements in the fight against Mexican drug cartels. The Obama administration is preparing to send federal agents to the US-Mexico border as reinforcements in the fight against Mexican drug cartels. (Associated Press)

A Mexican marine patrols near the U.S.-Mexico border wall in Tijuana, Mexico, on March 18, 2009. The administration of President Obama is preparing to send federal agents to the U.S.-Mexico border as reinforcements in the fight against Mexican drug cartels. The Obama administration is preparing to send federal agents to the US-Mexico border as reinforcements in the fight against Mexican drug cartels. (Associated Press)

Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security, current and former U.S. law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism officials say.

The Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America’s tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. Increasingly, however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S.

Hezbollah relies on “the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers, and transportation experts as the drug cartels,” said Michael Braun, who just retired as assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

“They work together,” said Mr. Braun. “They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected.

“They’ll leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle contraband and humans into the U.S.; in fact, they already are [smuggling].”

His comments were confirmed by six U.S. officials, including law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism specialists. They spoke on the condition that they not be named because of the sensitivity of the topic.

While Hezbollah appears to view the U.S. primarily as a source of cash – and there have been no confirmed Hezbollah attacks within the U.S. – the group’s growing ties with Mexican drug cartels are particularly worrisome at a time when a war against and among Mexican narco-traffickers has killed 7,000 people in the past year and is destabilizing Mexico along the U.S. border.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Mexico recently to discuss U.S. aid. Other U.S. Cabinet officials and President Obama are slated to visit in the coming weeks.

Hezbollah is based in Lebanon. Since its inception after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, it has grown into a major political, military, and social welfare organization serving Lebanon’s large Shiite Muslim community.

In 2006, it fought a 34-day war against Israel, which remains its primary adversary. To finance its operations, it relies in part on funding from a large Lebanese Shiite Muslim diaspora that stretches from the Middle East to Africa and Latin America. Some of the funding comes from criminal enterprises.

Although there have been no confirmed cases of Hezbollah moving terrorists across the Mexico border to carry out attacks in the United States, Hezbollah members and supporters have entered the country this way.

Last year, Salim Boughader Mucharrafille was sentenced to 60 years in prison by Mexican authorities on charges of organized crime and immigrant smuggling. Mucharrafille, a Mexican of Lebanese descent, owned a cafe in the city of Tijuana, across the border from San Diego. He was arrested in 2002 for smuggling 200 people, said to include Hezbollah supporters, into the U.S.

In 2001, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani crossed the border from Mexico in a car and traveled to Dearborn, Mich. Kourani was later charged with and convicted of providing “material support and resources … to Hezbollah,” according to a 2003 indictment.

A U.S. official with knowledge of U.S. law enforcement operations in Latin America said, “we noted the same trends as Mr. Braun” and that Hezbollah has used Mexican transit routes to smuggle contraband and people into the U.S.

Two U.S. law enforcement officers, familiar with counterterrorism operations in the U.S. and Latin America, said that “it was no surprise” that Hezbollah members have entered the U.S. border through drug cartel transit routes.

“The Mexican cartels have no loyalty to anyone,” one of the officials told The Washington Times. “They will willingly or unknowingly aid other nefarious groups into the U.S. through the routes they control. It has already happened. That’s why the border is such a serious national security issue.”

One U.S. counterterrorism official said that while “there’s reason to believe that [Hezbollah members] have looked at the southern border to enter the U.S. … to date their success has been extremely limited.”

However, another U.S. counterterrorism official confirmed that the U.S. is watching closely the links between Hezbollah and drug cartels and said it is “not a good picture.”

A senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing operations in Latin America, warned that al Qaeda also could use trafficking routes to infiltrate operatives into the U.S.

“If I have the money to do it – I want to get somebody across the border – that’s a way to do it,” the defense official said. “Especially foot soldiers. Somebody who’s willing to come and blow themselves up. That’s sort of hard to do that kind of recruiting, training and development in Kansas City.”

Adm. James G. Stavridis, commander of U.S. Southern Command and the nominee to head NATO troops as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, testified before the House Armed Services Committee last week that the nexus between illicit drug trafficking – “including routes, profits, and corruptive influence” and “Islamic radical terrorism” is a growing threat to the U.S.

He noted that in August, “U.S. Southern Command supported a Drug Enforcement Administration operation, in coordination with host countries, which targeted a Hezbollah-connected drug trafficking organization in the Tri-Border Area.”

In October, another interagency operation led to the arrests of several dozen people in Colombia associated with a Hezbollah-connected drug trafficking and a money-laundering ring. Hezbollah uses these operations to generate millions of dollars to finance Hezbollah operations in Lebanon and other areas of the world, he said.

“Identifying, monitoring and dismantling the financial, logistical, and communication linkages between illicit trafficking groups and terrorist sponsors are critical to not only ensuring early indications and warnings of potential terrorist attacks directed at the United States and our partners, but also in generating a global appreciation and acceptance of this tremendous threat to security,” he said.

Mr. Braun, who spent 33 years with the DEA and still works with the organization as a consultant, said that members of the elite Quds, or Jerusalem, force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also are showing up in Latin America.

“Quite frankly, I’m not opposed to the belief that they could be commanding and controlling Hezbollah’s criminal enterprises from there,” Mr. Braun said.

The DEA thinks that 60 percent of terrorist organizations have some ties with the illegal narcotics trade, said agency spokesman Garrison Courtney.

South American drug cartels were forced into developing stronger alliances with Mexican syndicates when the U.S. closed off access from the Caribbean 15 years ago, Mr. Braun said.

Mexico’s transit routes now account for more than 90 percent of the cocaine entering the U.S., he said. The emphasis on Mexico intensified after the Sept. 11 attacks, when beefed-up U.S. security measures greatly reduced access to the U.S. by air and water, he said.

The shift put Mexico’s drug cartels in the lead and helped them amass billions of dollars and an estimated 100,000 foot soldiers, according to U.S. defense officials.

Hezbollah shifted its trade routes along with the drug cartels, using Lebanese Shiite expatriates to negotiate contracts with Mexican crime bosses, Mr. Braun said.

The World Trade Bridge between Nuevo Laredo and its sister city, Laredo, as well as Interstate 35 and Highways 59, 359 and 83, are like veins feeding the Mexican syndicates, running from southern Texas to cities across the U.S. and as far north as Canada, U.S. officials say. In addition, access routes from El Paso, Texas, to San Diego are also high-value entry points.

Mubarak is the Only One Who Got Gaza Right

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

By Dan Gordon, www.AmericanThinker.com

It’s been several weeks since I’ve been home from Israel and the fighting in Gaza. A few weeks since I turned in my helmet, body amour, and M-16 and exchanged the olive drab fatigues for the jeans and a t-shirt which is my daily uniform in civilian life. The story of that conflict has been pushed to the back burners. But during the fighting itself, it generated millions of words and literally hundreds of hours of media coverage and yet, it seems, to this day no one but Hosni Mubarak the President of Egypt has gotten the story right.

There may be a lot of things that one can say about President Mubarak, not all of them complimentary, but one thing that cannot be said is that he is either a newcomer or naïve in the nuances, strategies, and politics of the Middle East. Here is what President Mubarak said in a speech earlier this month:

“Why did (Hamas) object to our attempts to prolong the cease fire? And why did they not heed our warnings that their positions constitute an open invitation for an Israeli assault? Was this planned and deliberate? For whose benefit?… the recent crisis has exposed an attempt to exploit the Israeli aggression in order to impose a new reality on the Palestinian and Arab arena — a new reality that will stack the cards in favor of a well known regional force, Iran, for the benefit of its plans and agenda.”

Well, that’s an interesting take and it didn’t come from the Israeli Foreign Ministry or any Zionist advocacy group. It came from the President of the largest Arab country in the world. What he was referring to when he stated that Hamas had objected “to our attempts to prolong the cease fire” was the period just prior to Israel’s incursion into Gaza. There had been a five-month-long tahadya or lull in Hamas’s rocket attacks against Israel and Israel’s reprisal raids against Hamas. This lull had been painstakingly negotiated by the Egyptians with a good deal of behind the scenes help from the Palestinian Authority, the Jordanians, the European Union, and the United States. In December of 2008, however, Hamas unilaterally announced that the lull was over and they would resume their attacks against Israel.

They did so to the tune of seventy to eighty rocket attacks a day aimed exclusively against a civilian population of almost a million people in Southern Israel. It should be noted that most of these attacks were timed to coincide with when people dropped their children off at schools, kindergartens, pre-schools, and when they picked them up. These rocket attacks were terror attacks, pure and simple. That Israeli children were not killed is a testament to the effectiveness of Israel’s civil defense program in Southern Israel.

I walked the streets of Sderot with a former US Marine Captain who noted that literally every single street corner had a bus stop that had been converted into a blast proof shelter while every other block had at least one “life shield” bunker. Every school, every playground, had the same type of reinforced steel and concrete shelters. He looked around incredulously, “Camp Faluja is the only place I’ve ever seen with such force protection in place.” And yet, he noted, “Sderot has no rocket launching pads or artillery equipment. Not only is there no offensive military presence but there is no mechanism to return fire either. If you told marines that they would be living in a place that received regular mortar and rocket fire, had no counter fire capability… they would tell you that you were completely insane… among other things.” He said quite simply for civilians living in Sderot, “Israel is Iraq without the body armor.”

When the five-month tahadya ended Israel did everything humanly possible to extend the ceasefire. It made it clear that it did not want to have to go into Gaza. Israel worked with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, leaders of the European Union and the American Secretary of State, trying to extend the ceasefire indefinitely. Hamas’s response? Seventy to eighty rocket attacks a day. Israel’s Prime Minister finally went on Arabic language television and literally almost begged the people of Gaza to get their leaders to extend the ceasefire. He stated again that Israel had withdrawn from all of Gaza three years ago to give peace a chance and hopefully never to return. He warned that if Israel had to invade it was stronger and it would prevail and there would be needless loss of civilian life as is the case in any war.

Hamas’s reply was more vollies of rockets and mortars.

So like President Mubarak, any objective observer would have to ask the question why? “Was this planned and deliberate? For whose benefit?”

The answer is yes of course it was planned and deliberate. What major news outlets have completely missed is not the fact that Israel invaded. The story they have missed is that Hamas knowingly provoked Israel’s incursion because this was to be their offensive. It had been planned and prepared for months. It was their strategy, their tactics, their battlefield, prepared according to their doctrine, to be fought at the time of their choosing.

I first put on the uniform of the Israel Defense Forces over 35 years ago. I have been involved in four wars and countless training exercises preparing for war. I have watched Israel’s doctrine change and adapt to almost every new eventuality and the one thing I can say with absolute clarity and certainty is that Israel never goes to war in the winter time of its own accord. Never. When Israel can choose, its offensives take place in the spring and summer. It is as if there is a line drawn across the calendar that says from mid autumn and until well into the spring Israeli doctrine precludes offensive action.

The reason is quite simple, the cloud cover and rain of wintertime can neutralize Israel’s advantage in air and armor. Even with the most advanced avionics, aircraft have a tough time taking out targets which they cannot see because of cloud cover. Rain can turn the terrain of southern Israel into a soupy mud that can bog down Israel’s tanks and armored personnel carriers making them sitting ducks for anti tank rockets and missiles. Israel has never gone to war in the winter of its own choosing, which is precisely why Hamas chose the dead of winter for its offensive.

The villages of the Gaza strip were crisscrossed with tunnels dug underneath the houses. Not weapons smuggling tunnels, mind you, these were kidnapping tunnels. They were communication tunnels through which Hamas militants could go unseen from house to house and carry out combat in a civilian environment disappearing from one house, as it came under fire, to pop up in another. Those tunnels were not dug after Israel invaded as a response to that invasion. No one in Hamas said “Quick let’s dig these tunnels because the Israelis are coming!”

This was their battlefield and they prepared it according to a doctrine that said they would launch rockets from civilian areas in order to draw Israeli troops into those areas. They would turn whole villages into booby-trapped battlefields while the villagers were still in them. Their hope was to kill two to three hundred Israeli soldiers and kidnap and take prisoner as many as fifty.

At the same time, because they were fighting in civilian areas, their plan was to maximize civilian casualties amongst their own people. In this way, any action Israel took against Hamas fighters would become a war crime. Photos of innocent Palestinians killed in an Israeli onslaught would arouse public sympathy and that sympathy in turn could be translated into political pressure to effectuate a ceasefire advantageous to Hamas. In that way, they could at one and the same time, wear the mantle of victimhood and victor.

Here is what the New York Times reported on January 16th, 2009, when one of its reporters was imbedded with Israeli forces in the northern Gaza strip,

“The scene was one of rusting green houses and blown up houses that had been booby trapped with mannequins, explosive devices, and tunnels. The area was a major site for Hamas launchers.”

The reporter was briefed by an Israeli paratroop brigade commander who began his comments by stating that he hated war and that he did not want to be here, but that this operation was necessary to limit Hamas’s abilities to launch rockets against Southern Israel. Here once again is the reporter from the New York Times:

“The rocket launchers, which sent deadly projectiles into Ashdod and Ashkelon, Israeli cities due north, were placed amongst the potatoes and peppers, explosive devices around them to prevent their dismantling… the soldiers found improvised explosive devices in the houses and, on Wednesday, in a mosque. The typical ruse for the houses was a mannequin with an explosive near by and a hole or tunnel covered by a rug. I can say that one third of the houses are booby trapped. ….

“He said. “You get into the houses and you see many IEDs…”

The reporter went on to state,

“The idea behind the set ups… was that Israeli soldiers would shoot the mannequin mistaking it for a man, an explosion would occur, and soldiers would be driven or pulled into the hole where they could be taken prisoner.” The ruse failed, in part, the reporter went on to state because “the soldiers had found a hand drawn map with the booby traps laid out.”

I was with that reporter in Gaza. We went in the same armored personnel carrier. Hamas’s plan was to fire from civilian houses, draw infantry into those houses which were booby trapped, and then kill and wound soldiers inside. There were kidnapping teams standing by in the tunnels to pop up from under a false floor and drag the wounded soldiers or the bodies of the dead into those tunnels which criss crossed the whole village. Once inside the tunnels, the dead and wounded Israeli soldiers could be whisked off and taken prisoner. I held the map the reporter referred to of the village and studied it with an intelligence officer. The entire village is laid out as a battlefield… with the villagers still in it, sometimes unaware that their own houses or the houses of neighbors have been rigged. This plan was duplicated throughout Gaza.

This was Hamas’s offensive and at least one part of it failed. Only ten Israeli soldiers were killed and none were taken captive. The part of their plan, however, which did not fail was making this war on the backs of their own innocent civilians. There is an old saying in journalism “if it bleeds it leads.” Networks will go with the most sensational stories, without much investigation. The picture will speak more than a thousand words and Hamas knew that and counted on it. But there are other pictures. I have linked footage taken of Hamas’s so-called “militants” machine gunning Palestinians whom they felt were of rival factions during their bloody coup and take over of Gaza in 2007. This picture tells exactly who Hamas is and what Israel faces on its southern border. Moreover, in the weeks since the fighting ended many of the charges against Israel have been refuted not just by Israel but International Aid Agencies.

One of the most sensational charges was that Israeli targeted a UN school and killed 43 Palestinian civilians who were hiding inside it. Israel maintained that it returned fire to a Hamas mortar launching site outside the school. On Tuesday, the UN office for Humanitarian Affairs stated categorically, “The shelling and all the fatalities took place outside rather than inside the school.”

Separately, Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict stated that the organization would investigate the use of children as human shields by Hamas during the recent fighting. The head of the International Red Cross has stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Israel had used any weapons, including white phosphorous, in any manner banned by International Law.

The Italian newspaper Courierre Della Sera quoted a Palestinian doctor in Schifa hospital as saying that contrary to reports of 1300 people killed he estimated that there were only seven to eight hundred killed and of them the vast majority were males between the age of 17 and 23. It should be noted that by the second or third day of fighting Hamas militants had taken off their uniforms and were fighting exclusively in civilian clothes and most of them of course were young males between the ages of 17 and 23.

In the words of President Mubarak

” I have stressed this before and I’ll say it again (Hamas) must face the cost benefit test… of the benefits it has brought for their problems along side the casualties, the pain, and the destruction it has caused… For how long will Arab blood be shed, only to listen to those who admit their mistakes later… and who wave resistance slogans over the corpses of casualties, the ruins and the destruction.”

One wonders when some in the Western media will begin asking the same question and demanding the same answers.

Al-Qaeda Founder Launches Fierce Attack on Osama bin Laden

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

One of al-Qaeda’s founding leaders, Dr Fadl, has begun an ideological revolt against Osama bin Laden, blaming him for “every drop” of blood spilt in Afghanistan and Iraq.

By David Blair in Cairo for www.telegraph.co.uk

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, who writes: The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive.

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, who writes: The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive.

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, who goes by the nom de guerre Dr Fadl, helped bin Laden create al-Qaeda and then led an Islamist insurgency in Egypt in the 1990s.

Twenty years ago, Dr Fadl became al-Qaeda’s intellectual figurehead with a crucial book setting out the rationale for global jihad against the West.

Today, however, he believes the murder of innocent people is both contrary to Islam and a strategic error. “Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers,” writes Dr Fadl.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive, he writes. “Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?” asks Dr Fadl. “That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11.”

He is equally unsparing about Muslims who move to the West and then take up terrorism. “If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum,” writes Dr Fadl, then it is “not honorable” to “betray them, through killing and destruction”.

In particular, Dr Fadl focuses his attack on Zawahiri, a key figure in al-Qaeda’s core leadership and a fellow Egyptian whom he has known for 40 years. Zawahiri is a “liar” who was paid by Sudan’s intelligence service to organise terrorist attacks in Egypt in the 1990s, he writes.

The criticisms have emerged from Dr Fadl’s cell in Tora prison in southern Cairo, where a sand-colored perimeter wall is lined with watchtowers, each holding a sentry wielding a Kalashnikov assault rifle. Torture inside Egyptian jails is “widespread and systematic,” according to Amnesty International.

Zawahiri has alleged that his former comrade was tortured into recanting. But the al-Qaeda leader still felt the need to compose a detailed, 200-page rebuttal of his antagonist.

The fact that Zawahiri went to this trouble could prove the credibility of Dr Fadl and the fact that his criticisms have stung their target. The central question is whether this attack on al-Qaeda’s ideology will sway a wider audience in the Muslim world.

Fouad Allam, who spent 26 years in the State Security Directorate, Egypt’s equivalent of MI5, said that Dr Fadl’s assault on al-Qaeda’s core leaders had been “very effective, both in prison and outside.”

He added: “Within these secret organizations, leadership is very important. So when someone attacks the leadership from inside, especially personal attacks and character assassinations, this is very bad for them.”

A western diplomat in Cairo agreed with this assessment, saying: “It has upset Zawahiri personally. You don’t write 200 pages about something that doesn’t bother you, especially if you’re under some pressure, which I imagine Zawahiri is at the moment.”

Dr Fadl was a central figure from the very outset of bin Laden’s campaign. He was part of the tight circle which founded al-Qaeda in 1988 in the closing stages of the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. By then, Dr Fadl was already the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, an extremist movement which fought the Cairo regime until its defeat in the 1990s.

Dr Fadl fled to Yemen, where he was arrested after September 11 and transferred to Egypt, where he is serving a life sentence. “He has the credibility of someone who has really gone through the whole system,” said the diplomat. “Nobody’s questioning the fact that he was the mentor of Zawahiri and the ideologue of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.”

Terrorist movements across the world have a history of alienating their popular support by waging campaigns of indiscriminate murder. This process of disintegration often begins with a senior leader publicly denouncing his old colleagues. Dr Fadl’s missives may show that al-Qaeda has entered this vital stage.

But in a book written from inside an Egyptian prison, he has launched a frontal attack on al-Qaeda’s ideology and the personal failings of bin Laden and particularly his Egyptian deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Terrorist Camps in America

Friday, February 6th, 2009

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ryan Mauro, the founder of WorldThreats.com. He is currently a national security researcher for the Christian Action Network and a researcher for the Reform Party of Syria. A frequent guest on radio and TV programs, he is the author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq. He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.

FP: Ryan Mauro, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Mauro: Thank you Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to discuss “Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Camps Around U.S.,” the new documentary being released by the Christian Action Network. Tell us about it.

Mauro: This documentary is premiering at Washington D.C.’s Landmark Theater on February 11, at 7:30 PM. It is free to attend and I strongly encourage everyone in the area to come, and those out of the area to go to ChristianAction.org and order a copy. The Christian Action Network (CAN) is a non-profit organization and I personally will not see a penny from the sales. This documentary is simply too important; the threat too severe; and the public too unaware for me to not promote this is any way possible and call myself a patriotic American.

“Homegrown Jihad” documents the networks of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist group run by a radical Muslim leader in Lahore, Pakistan named Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, an individual who, as I said in my last interview, does us the favor of not hiding his true colors. While he casts himself as a peace-loving Muslim, his actions and the actions of his network are anything but. In the documentary, we show a secret videotape, one which Gilani strictly instructs his followers to keep hidden, where he personally engages in terrorist training, from killing guards to hijacking vehicles to setting off explosives. On this tape, he says that those seeking to “join one of the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare” can contact any of his “Muslims of America” compounds in the United States, almost all of which still operate today.

“Muslims of America” is a group set up by Gilani to act as a thinly-veiled front for Jamaat ul-Fuqra. There are at least 35 “Muslims of America” compounds in the U.S. alone, along with at least 3,000 members, many of which have criminal backgrounds. The websites of these compounds do not hide the fact that they are devoted to, and are led by, Sheikh Gilani. The compound at Red House, Virginia, even has a street named after him. With Gilani saying things like “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are in America”, “Jews are an example of human Satans,” and “Act like you are a friend, then kill him”, we need to question the motives and beliefs of those who live in and are educated in his communities and take action to stop them from acting upon these beliefs.

Members of this group continue to be arrested and convicted for involvement in terrorism and all sorts of criminal activity. Members are also required to make a pledge: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake.” They continue to recruit members, build and expand compounds, and operate in isolation, away from the eyes of the public.

Perhaps the most riveting part of the documentary is when CAN travels to several of these compounds in an attempt to get members of the group to view the terrorist training videotape and get a reaction. Before joining CAN, I personally visited the 70-acre large headquarters in Hancock, New York. Although the residents were friendly, almost immediately after greeting the man who I spoke to, he said with a disarming smile, “Are you Jewish? It’s clear that the anti-Semitism and overall beliefs of Sheikh Gilani are present at these compounds.

FP: What sort of terrorism has Jamaat ul-Fuqra been involved in?

Mauro: Members of the group have carried out at least 17 firebombings and 10 assassinations, including stabbing a moderate Muslim cleric to death, bombing a power station, killing police officers, and attacks on Hindus. In 1991, five members were involved in a plot to bomb a Hindu temple and an Indian-owned cinema near Toronto; in 1993, one member was involved in the World Trade Center bombing; and five were involved in the massive “Day of Terror” plot aimed at bombing various buildings in New York in 1993.

There have also been various suspected links between Jamaat ul-Fuqra members and terrorist plots since then. It was reported that the Beltway Snipers of 2002 took shelter in one of Gilani’s compounds in Georgia, and it was also reported that the Pakistani government thought that Shiekh Gilani may have funded a plot in 2006 to hijack airliners leaving Great Britain on the way to the U.S. so they could be blown up in mid-air using funds supposedly raised to help earthquake victims in Kashmir.

Let us not also forget that Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped on the way to meeting with Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan. Although the government has not charged Gilani with involvement in the murder, Gilani’s website says that Pearl was part of an assassination team sent to kill him, and Gilani maintains that Pearl is still alive, despite the fact that his beheading was videotaped. That’s just one of the various conspiracy theories Gilani espouses, from 9/11 and Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, to New World Order and Illuminati forces aimed at destroying him and controlling the world, to secret Zionist control of the government media.

The State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism Report has described Jamaat al-Fuqra as a terrorist group that “seeks to purify Islam through violence,” and a 2006 Regional Organized Crime Information Center report limited to law enforcement said that the group’s compounds are similar to “classically structured terrorist cells” and are led by Sheikh Gilani who is “now known as an international terrorist.”

FP: What sort of activity are the groups’ members involved in now? Is there terrorist training still going on?

Mauro: These are closed communities so few people know what really is going on. In 2001, ATF Special Agent Thomas Gallagher said at a bond hearing for an al-Fuqra member that illegally purchased weapons that “individuals from the organization are trained in Hancock, NY, and if they pass the training in Hancock, they are then sent to Pakistan for training in paramilitary and survivalist training by Mr. Gilani. We have information from an informant that one individual did further his training by going to Afghanistan.”

The most recent incident involving a Jamaat al-Fuqra member is the assassination of a police officer by Ramadan Abdullah in 2001, who plead insanity but got a life sentence in 2008. It is important to note that the prosecutor said “This was a very well-aimed and well-timed shot that was fatal to Deputy Erik Telen hitting him directly in the head.” Where did Abdullah receive his training?

Gilani’s compounds have also been extensively engaged in criminal activity, a trend that began when they were founded and continues today. For example, a compound in California was abandoned in 2002 after the leader was arrested after being caught stealing $1.3 million from the government through a charter school. Al-Fuqra members also own security companies, which likely gives them access to weapons. The head of one such company recently had his offices raided for not paying his taxes. Three people from the site at Red House were arrested for making illegal arms purchases as well.

A September 2004 report by the National White Collar Crime Center said that “Members of the Fuqra group have raised money by taking advantage of a variey of social services programs, including worker’s compensation, public health care, welfare, and food stamps programs. Other crimes committed by Fuqra members include the creation and use of false identification cards, birth certificates, and other forged documents…” The report also confirms that Fuqra is recruiting criminals and describes them as “one of the most elusive terrorist groups resident in the U.S.”

One theory is that Gilani is having his followers lay low because the compounds here are now mainly used for recruiting followers, picking out the best to send to Pakistan, and to raise lots of money. Members of these compounds are said to donate stunning amounts of their paychecks or welfare checks to him. This doesn’t change the nature of the threat if this is true; it would still mean that the compounds are part of a radical Islamic network that seeks to use crime and violence to achieve its objectives.

Put the pieces together: A terrorist training video, a radical Islamic leader, many incidents of members engaging in terrorism and an even larger amount engaging in criminal activity, and a clear pattern emerges that this is not a group that should be allowed to operate in the U.S., much less have isolated communities closed off to the outside world.

FP: Does Jamaat ul-Fuqra have any links to Al-Qaeda?

Mauro: This is unknown, but we do know members of the group have associated with Al-Qaeda. The most important evidence is a reported videotape of Sheikh Gilani in Sudan in December 1993 for the Popular Arab Islamic Conference. There have been differing reports as to whether Osama Bin Laden himself attended (which is what most reports indicated) or if representatives of Al-Qaeda were present, but the truth is that Gilani attended a major terrorist conference where Al-Qaeda members were present, as were members of other groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

We also know that Khalid Khawaja, a former pilot for Osama Bin Laden whom he was close friends with, is also extremely close friends with Sheikh Gilani. Having been exposed to both leaders’ followers, Khawaja had this to say: “I am telling you, Osama does not have even one of his followers as committed as Sheik Mubarak Gilani” and “If you push him [Gilani] to that stage, that he has no option but to declare jihad on America, it will blow like a volcano.”

The Asia Times reported that a high-level Al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan, Ghulam Mustafa, had become a part of Gilani’s inner circle and that he had been arrested in Lahore, which is also where Gilani lives. Another common associate is Wadih El-Hage, who worked as a secretary for Bin Laden and was given a life sentence for his involvement in Al-Qaeda’s bombings of embassies in Africa in 1998.

Credible experts certainly have not ruled out the possibility that Al-Qaeda, or a similar group, could team up with Jamaat ul-Fuqra for an attack on the United States. The Center for Policing Terrorism says that ul-Fuqra “may be the best positioned group to launch an attack on the United States, or more likely, help al-Qaeda to do so.”

FP: Why doesn’t the government shut down these compounds?

Mauro: There are a few reasons. The first is that Jamaat ul-Fuqra is not designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department, and the second is that the law enforcement authorities do not have the tools they need to search these compounds yet. Right now, members involved in terrorist and criminal activity are being treated as if they are isolated incidents; rogue followers of an otherwise innocent cult.

Legislation on the state level also needs to be passed to permit the authorities to search these compounds. There is an example of such legislation at CAN’s website here.

Hopefully, this documentary educates the government that purpose behind this group’s very creation is to conduct criminal activity and violence, even if individual members of the ul-Fuqra compounds remain unaware of the network’s purpose as a whole.

FP: Ryan Mauro, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Mauro: My pleasure Jamie.

FP: I’ll reiterate for the readers that this documentary is premiering at Washington D.C.’s Landmark Theater on February 11, at 7:30 PM. It’s free to attend.

Iran On International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

By Susan Estrich
news.yahoo.com

On Jan. 27, 1945, Soviet soldiers entered the largest Nazi death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Poland and liberated the 7,000 prisoners who were still there, most of them sick and dying.

In 2005, for the 60th anniversary of the liberation, the United Nations designated Jan. 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

And so it was certainly not a coincidence that the official spokesman for Iran’s government chose Jan. 27, 2009, to make a statement denouncing the Holocaust as a “big lie” used to justify the existence of the state of Israel. “The Holocaust is a concept coming from a big lie in order to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world,” Gholam Hossein Elham told a conference on Gaza held in central Iran’s religious city of Qom.

Iranian leaders are well known for their embrace of the real “big lie.” In 2005, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the Holocaust as “myth” and said that Israel was doomed to disappear. The following year, Tehran played host to a convention of liars and deniers; a mass-circulation newspaper sponsored a cartoon competition seeking the “best” cartoon mocking the deaths of millions; and only last September a student group got more attention than they deserved for a disgraceful book celebrating anti-Semitism and mocking the Holocaust.

Sixty-four years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the generation who witnessed the barbarism first-hand is slowly passing on, many of them, like those who were liberated, sick and dying. The danger is that with the passage of that generation, the very existence of the Holocaust becomes not a matter of historic fact, but a subject of pseudo-intellectual debate, a subject about which reasonable people can differ, and a rallying cry for the ignorant and hateful enemies of Israel. News organizations will report the comments of the likes of Gholam Hossein Elham as if they were opinions, not lies. Children will grow up believing that he might be right — or at least that he is not certainly wrong.

On Monday, the eve of the anniversary, President Obama reached out to the Muslim world, granting his first network interview as president to the Dubai-based al-Arabiya network. It was an important symbol, intended to convey to the Muslim world that “the Americans are not your enemy.” The new president said America had made mistakes in the past, but “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”

I do not believe America is the enemy of the Muslim world. But we are, and should be, the enemy of those who would deny the slaughter of six million Jews and denounce Israel as a nation doomed to disappear. I don’t know exactly what “mistakes” the president was referring to, but supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself is not, at least in my book, among them.

It is right, and appropriate, to reach out to the Muslim world diplomatically. It is right, and appropriate, for the new president to reach out personally, to remind Muslims of his many relatives who share their faith and of his commitment to find common ground.

But the common ground must include recognition of the lessons of history. It must include respect for the suffering of those who died at the hands of Jew-haters. It must include support for the security of the state of Israel. January 27 is an appropriate day to remember and reaffirm that.

Hamas Placed Women, Children in Line of Israeli Fire

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

By Aaron Klein
www.WorldNetDaily.com

HERZLIYA, Israel – In the aftermath of Israel’s three-week offensive targeting Hamas in the Gaza Strip, reports are emerging of how the terrorists used civilians during the conflict.

“Entire families in Gaza lived on top of a barrel of explosives for months without knowing,” stated Israel Defense Forces Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg.

Eisenberg charged Hamas sent civilians, including women and children, to transfer weapons to gunmen engaged in battles with Israeli forces, and he accused Hamas of booby-trapping many of the civilians’ homes. He labeled Hamas’ alleged use of civilians as “monstrous” and “inhumane.”

Similar reports were provided to WND during previous Israeli battles with Hamas. During one battle focusing largely on the Hamas infrastructure in the city of Jabaliya, about one mile into the Gaza Strip, an Israeli commander said Hamas drew Israeli forces into populated civilian areas, shooting at Jewish fighters from occupied civilian homes while women and children were inside.

In another case, Israel’s Haaretz daily quoted an Israeli commander describing how Hamas sent a 10-year-old boy into the battlefield in full view of the Israeli military to remove a gun from a felled terrorist and then pass the weapon to another terrorist. The commander at the scene said he ordered his troops to halt their fire as the Israeli military watched.

Another commander speaking to WND said Hamas snipers used the windows of a Jabaliya house that was clearly occupied by women and children to shoot at his unit.

“The aim is to draw us into killing civilians to bring about international pressure to end our operation,” the commander said.

The international community and much of the world media constantly berated Israel for purportedly killing more than 1,250 Palestinians during the conflict.

Many media members claimed those numbers were mostly civilians. WND reported the media was parroting Hamas casualty counts with no independent verification.

Now the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera quoted what it said was a Palestinian doctor at Gaza City’s main Shifa Hospital disputing the Hamas casualty numbers.

“It’s possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas – who sent them to their deaths,” he said.

The IDF’s own estimate, which is not based on verification of deaths, puts the toll at about 1,000, two-thirds of which it says were gunmen.

The Gaza doctor continued: “Perhaps it is like Jenin in 2002. At the beginning they (Palestinians) spoke about 1,500 dead, and at the end it turned out to be only 54 – of whom 45 were militants.”

The doctor was referring to a 2002 Israeli anti-terror raid in the northern West Bank town of Jenin after which Hamas and the PA claimed hundreds of Palestinian civilians were murdered.

Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed on CNN that “more than 500 people” were killed. He repeated the charge on CNN a day later, adding that 300 Palestinians were being buried in mass graves.

It was later determined 54 Palestinians were killed, mostly terrorists, while the IDF lost 23 troops while they engaged in house-to-house combat “instead of massive air raids” in order to limit civilian casualties.

Hamas torturing Fatah members in Gaza

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

By Khaled Abu Toameh www.jpost.com

Hamas militiamen have rounded up hundreds of Fatah activists on suspicion of “collaboration” with Israel during Operation Cast Lead, Fatah members in the Gaza Strip told The Jerusalem Post.

They said the Hamas crackdown on Fatah intensified after the cease-fire went into effect early Sunday morning.

The Fatah members and eyewitnesses said the detainees were being held in school buildings and hospitals that Hamas had turned into make-shift interrogation centers. Hamas has also renewed house arrest orders that were issued against thousands of Fatah officials and activists in the Gaza Strip shortly after the military operation started.

The official said that the perpetrators belonged to Hamas’s armed wing, Izaddin Kassam, and to the movement’s Internal Security Force.

According to the official, at least three of the detainees had their eyes put out by their interrogators, who accused them of providing Israel with wartime information about the location of Hamas militiamen and officials. A number of Hamas leaders and spokesmen have claimed in the past few days that Fatah members in the Gaza Strip had been spying on their movement and passing the information to Israel.

Two Hamas officials, Salah Bardaweel and Fawzi Barhoum, accused Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his “spies” in the Gaza Strip of tipping off the Israelis about the movements of slain Hamas interior minister Said Siam, who was killed in an IAF strike on his brother’s home in Gaza City last week.

The Fatah official in Ramallah said that, apart from being baseless, the allegations were aimed at paving the way for a ruthless Hamas attack on Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip. “They were afraid to confront the Israeli army and many Hamas militiamen even ran away during the fighting,” he said. “Hamas is now venting its anger and frustration against our Fatah members there.”

Eyewitnesses said that Hamas militiamen had turned a number of hospitals and schools into temporary detention centers where dozens of Fatah members and supporters were being held on suspicion of helping Israel during the war. The eyewitnesses said that a children’s hospital and a mental health center in Gaza City, as well as a number of school buildings in Khan Yunis and Rafah, were among the places that Hamas had turned into “torture centers.”

A Fatah activist in Gaza City claimed that as many as 80 members of his faction were either shot in the legs or had their hands broken for allegedly defying Hamas’s house-arrest orders. “What’s happening in the Gaza Strip is a new massacre that is being carried out by Hamas against Fatah,” he said. “Where were these [Hamas] cowards when the Israeli army was here?”

The activist said that Hamas’s security forces had also confiscated cellular phones and computers belonging to thousands of local Fatah members and supporters.

Relatives of Abed al-Gharabli, a former Fatah security officer who spent 12 years in Israeli prisons, said he was kidnapped by a group of Hamas militiamen who shot him in both legs after severely torturing him. Ziad Abu Hayeh, one of the commanders of Fatah’s armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, is reported to have lost his sight after Hamas gunmen put out his eyes. According to Fatah activists, Abu Hayeh was kidnapped from his home in Khan Yunis by Hamas militiamen.

The Fatah men said that in a number of incidents, Hamas militiamen had kidnapped Fatah activists while they were attending the funerals of people killed during the war. In other cases, activists were detained and shot in the legs after they were spotted smiling in public – an act interpreted by Hamas as an expression of joy over Israel’s military offensive.

Last week, three brothers from the Subuh family were abducted by Hamas militiamen and taken to the Abdel Aziz Rantisi Mosque in Khan Yunis, where they were shot in the legs, a local journalist told the Post.

In a more recent incident, Hamas gunmen shot and killed 80-year-old Hisham Tawfik Najjar after storming his home and beating his four sons – all Fatah activists.

Fahmi Za’areer, a Fatah spokesman in the West Bank, revealed that at least 16 Fatah activists had been executed by Hamas in the past few days. He strongly condemned the Hamas clampdown on Fatah and warned against a bloodbath in the Gaza Strip.

A leaflet distributed by the Aksa Martyrs Brigades in various parts of the Gaza Strip called on Hamas to “respect the blood of the Palestinian martyrs” and stop pursuing Fatah members. The leaflet said that Hamas had placed hundreds of Fatah men under house arrest in the past 48 hours and was warning that anyone who failed to comply with these orders would be shot.