Why Israel fights.

A friend from Israel sent the following poignant proposed text for a speech by the Israeli Prime Minister that would explain to the world exactly what the Israelis are fighting for:

MAARIV
July 31, 2006

We Will Not Capitulate
By Ben Caspit

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world. I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures. There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel.

We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana. Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere. The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon. We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens. No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children. This anarchy is over. You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.


A voice for six million citizens

Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish race off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims.

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers. Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives. Now we have our own air force. The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction - those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children. They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility.

Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack. This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all. You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us. But to kill us? Absolutely not.

Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria, the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us.

The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves. The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement? Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium? Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya? What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly.

We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more.

In a loud and clear voice

And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. What did it get us? A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm. And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.

An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees. And make no mistake - we won't go down alone. You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy. I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq. Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent. And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya. And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent. What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't?

In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders. It is also your battle. I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.

[Israel] [Iran] [Palestinians] [Jews] [anti-Semitism]

Hillary should stick to VODKA-drinking Contests , and NOT question Defense Sec. Rumsfeld on ANYTHING....

Drudge: HILLARY CLINTON, MCCAIN HELD VODKA-DRINKING CONTEST
Drudge Report ,28 July 2006



HILLARY CLINTON, MCCAIN HELD VODKA-DRINKING CONTEST Fri Jul 28 2006 19:19:50 ET

On a congressional trip to Estonia, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton astonished her traveling companions by suggesting the group do what one does in the Baltics: hold a vodka-drinking contest!

Delighted, the leader of the overseas delegation, Sen. John McCain, quickly agreed, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.

The after-dinner game went so well -- memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much. McCain later told people how unexpectedly fun he found Hillary to be.

TIMES reporter Anne Kornblut has filed a story on the curious relationship between Hillary and John McCain, newsrooms sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"One of the guys," is the way McCain describes her.

NYT TIMES editors plan a front page placement of Kornblut's report.

Clinton and McCain have developed an amiable relationship.

They worked together, both on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the issue of global warming. But as the 2008 presidential campaign begins to take shape, with McCain and Clinton at the top of the polls for their parties' nominations, they are increasingly doing things that underscore their differences.

"But the interplay between the two senators -- both celebrities, both self-styled centrists, both with compelling personal narratives and a knack for infuriating their own parties' bases -- remains intriguing as they navigate the early phase of a presidential race with an eye toward conceivably running against one another."

Developing...


[Hillary Rodham Clinton]
[Sec. Defense Rumsfeld]
[Iraq]
[Afghanistan]
[Armed Services Committee ]

The partition of Iraq may be a solution...

Divided We Stand
By Pejman Yousefzadeh : BIO| 03 Aug 2006



The current reconstruction effort in Iraq seeks to keep the current boundaries of Iraq whole. But by keeping Iraq whole, the United States may in fact be hindering a successful reconstruction effort and needlessly delaying the achievement of an honorable peace and the successful withdrawal of American troops.


It may be that Iraqis want to keep their country whole. If so, that choice ought to be respected. But in the event that keeping Iraq whole is not a sine qua non of the reconstruction effort according to the Iraqi people, the partition of Iraq into natural boundaries is a way to bring the reconstruction to a successful end while at the same time establishing successor states to Iraq that may be more coherent and easier to keep together than Iraq itself was.



The Original Creation of Iraq


Iraq was created through the Sykes-Picot Agreement and its current boundaries are the construction of Western powers. This has caused Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds to be lumped together into a single state.


Because of the sectarian tensions that have existed between these groups, their forced cohabitation into a single state has always been a dicey affair. Sectarian violence was kept at a minimum and tensions were sublimated by the presence of an autocratic Ba'athist regime -- led for most of its existence by Saddam Hussein. But it is doubtful that even Saddam's iron hand would have been successful for long in keeping sectarian tensions hidden away. Indeed, those tensions became strong enough even during the presence of the Ba'athist regime that the Shi'ites staged a rebellion in the immediate aftermath of the first Persian Gulf War and an autonomous Kurdish entity organized itself in northern Iraq. Even if the Ba'ath Party had remained in power, the potent sectarian divisions would likely have caused Iraq to be rent by internal violence.


The long term prospects for a coherent and unified Iraq were therefore never very good. Now, with the removal of the Ba'athist regime, sectarian violence has bubbled to the surface. This does not make the removal of the former regime somehow wrong, but it does mean that the sectarian divisions will have to be dealt with as an obstacle to a successful stabilization effort.


Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Iraqi people may be open to a partition plan. There remain arguments against partition that should be addressed and overcome.


Does partition constitute failure?


There is rhetorical value in saying that a reconstruction effort has been able to keep Iraq "whole" and "unified" instead of saying that at the end of such an effort, Iraq was left "divided." We generally operate under a psychological conceit that says that dividing a country into separate entities is a bad choice and denotes failure in dealing with that country.


But why should this be so? The former Czechoslovakia split apart into a Czech Republic and the country of Slovakia. The partition was peaceful and has led to the existence of friendly relations between both countries. The former Soviet Union is a prime example of a country with sectarian and nationalistic divisions seething underneath the surface. Its partition has significantly lessened the chances of war and conflict between the nationalities and sects that made up the former Soviet Union.


Sometimes partition is preferable to keeping a country together despite all of the internal conditions that doom unity in the long run. In these cases, partition serves as a recognition of and response to the existence of long term instability within a country. Iraq currently labors under its internal divisions. Those divisions may not be resolved in a way that will allow the current state of Iraq to exist in the long term. A new path -- one involving partition -- may have to be taken.


Will an independent Kurdistan poison relations with Turkey?


An independent Kurdistan would likely be one of the Iraqi successor states. Because of traditional animosities between Kurds and Turks, there is the question of what Turkish reaction will be to the creation of a Kurdish state.


Many anticipate that the creation of an independent Kurdistan won't be received well in Turkey. But bringing the Turks around to the fact that there is an independent Kurdish state is not impossible. For one thing, the existing autonomous Kurdish entity is in many ways a state in everything but name. For another, making the existing entity into a homeland for the Kurds might help remove pressure from Turkey to cede any authority or territory for the creation of a Kurdish state. The current Kurdish entity is renowned for functioning effectively and within present-day Iraq the Kurds clearly have the most effective institutions of government running. This autonomous entity is prepared to step into its role as a nation-state if a partition takes place and if an independent Kurdistan is recognized as a sovereign country. Indeed, it is already currently performing key nation-state-like functions.


The fact that a de facto Kurdish homeland exists for all practical purposes should help Turkey acclimate itself to the creation of a de jure Kurdish homeland. There may continue to be issues that need to be worked out between the Kurds and the Turks, but the current autonomous Kurdish entity provides us with a valuable template to fashion a peaceful and workable coexistence between an independent and sovereign Kurdistan and its neighbors.


Will the creation of a Shi'ite successor state lead to Iranian influence?


Along with an independent Kurdistan, two other successor states will likely be the result of any partition. One will be a Sunni successor state. Another will be a Shi'ite state.


The mere mention of the creation of a Shi'ite successor state will likely cause alarm bells to go off in the minds of American policymakers. The concern, naturally, will be that a Shi'ite successor state will become an Iranian satellite, given that Iran is overwhelmingly a Shi'ite country.


This conclusion is premature. The mere existence of two Shi'ite states side by side does not necessarily entail the subjugation of one as a satellite to the other. Nation-states have interests that they pursue rationally (if not always correctly) and these interests -- maintaining a balance of power, balancing against certain threats, bandwagoning with potential allies in favor of a particular policy goal -- play a powerful role in determining national policy and statecraft. Statecraft is not determined merely by the nature of domestic regimes or similarities and/or differences between the populations of various nation-states. Thus, despite the fact that they were both Communist regimes, the Soviet Union maintained a long rivalry with the People's Republic of China. Ditto for the relationship between the USSR and Tito's Yugoslavia.


Will a Shi'ite successor state to Iraq have friendly relations with Iran? Possibly. But that won't necessarily make that state a puppet or satellite of Iran. And we cannot automatically assume that a Shi'ite state will be friendly with Iran. A Shi'ite state will have its own security interests and foreign policy goals to follow. Iran will similarly calculate its own goals and interests and, given the existence of conflicting interests between Iran and Iraq (conflicting interests which led to the outbreak of an eight-year long war between the two countries), it is likely that there will also be conflicts between the interests of Iran and a Shi'ite successor state as well. These conflicting interests -- along with an overall Persian/Arab ethnic division -- will significantly lessen the chances that a Shi'ite state will become an Iranian vassal. To the extent that the nature of populations have any bearing on this issue, the existence of centuries-old tensions and rivalries between Arabs and Persians and the differences between the Iranian theological stance of direct clerical involvement in politics and the Iraqi Shi'ite belief in clerical "quietism" or political non-involvement serve to reduce concerns that a Shi'ite successor state will be in thrall to Iran.


None of this means that we should wholly discount the possibility that Iran may exercise an outsized degree of influence on a Shi'ite successor state. Indeed, any partition process must include strict warnings to Iran stating that attempts unduly to influence the affairs of a Shi'ite successor state will not be tolerated. But we should not believe that it is a foregone conclusion that such a state will become an Iranian puppet, and there are a whole host of disincentives for a Shi'ite successor state to allow itself to be sublimated to Iran. Moreover, if it is a foregone conclusion that a Shi'ite successor state will become an Iranian satellite, that may make the case for partition all the more compelling. Given the majority Shi'ite presence in present-day Iraq, leaving Iraq whole and unified may allow Iran to exercise influence throughout the country if we believe that Shi'ite political ascendancy will allow for the spread of Iranian influence into Iraq. In a worst case scenario, it is best to contain such influence by limiting it to a Shi'ite successor state rather than allowing Iranian geopolitical ambitions to also influence the fate of the Sunnis and Kurds in the context of an Iraq with present-day boundaries.


To arguing on behalf of partition is a difficult. But the amount of sectarian divisions in Iraq may be impossible to overcome while at the same time keeping the current boundaries of the country intact. Partition should be a last resort but it may prove to be an effective way to successfully reconstruct the region and institute a lasting and honorable peace. It deserves consideration as a serious policy option. And if the Iraqi people are open to the partition of their country, we should be as well.


Pejman Yousefzadeh is a TCS Daily contributing writer.
[Iraq]
[Shi'ite]
[Sunni]
[Kurds]
[Iraq Civil War]

Mel Gibson and his passion

Since we wrote several days ago that it was for the Jewish people to decide, we are placing this commentary written by Michael Medved for USA Today and which we believe the journalist candidly grabs "the bull by the horns" and exposes the truth as he sees it and what should be done by everyone concerned...

Reconciliation should follow Mel's Malibu meltdown
By Michael Medved

Mel Gibson's emotional apology to the Jewish community might help cool the rage surrounding his now notorious Malibu meltdown, but it can't eliminate the image-shattering impact of his drunken, anti-Semitic rant. Those of us who have defended and praised Gibson for his outspoken Catholic commitment, and for his efforts to use the movie medium to convey religious messages, feel inevitably betrayed and, yes, a bit humiliated. In that context, some pertinent points help place this painful incident in proper perspective:

•There is no excuse for Gibson's obscene outburst in the course of his DUI arrest. The fact that his blood alcohol level only slightly exceeded the legal limit suggests that his assertion that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" expressed deep-seated bigotry rather than some bizarre, booze-induced breakdown.

•At a time of surging Jew-hatred around the world, Gibson's remarks to arresting officers represent a far less serious threat than the very public anti-Semitic, anti-Israel comments by numerous celebrities, academics, United Nations officials and politicians. Neither Gibson nor anyone else in the country made the slightest attempt to defend the substance of his tirade, so his hate-filled words did more actual damage to himself than to the Jewish community.

•The "Mad Mel" Moment might change how we perceive Gibson's character, but it alters nothing about the images and messages he put on screen in The Passion of the Christ. It's still the same movie, frame for frame, line for Aramaic-and-Latin line. The millions of people who felt inspired and uplifted by a remarkable piece of cinema need not feel guilty because its creator insults a cop with ancient hatreds. In the same sense, moviegoers who are moved by the upcoming World Trade Center, with its stirring (and apolitical) story of heroes of 9/11, shouldn't question their reaction because of past outrageous, America-bashing off-screen statements (and drug busts) involving its director, Oliver Stone.

Gibson's personal disgrace in no way retroactively "proves" his movie contained dangerous anti-Semitic messages; if anything, the worldwide reaction to the film proved the opposite. Despite dire predictions (which I decried at the time) that The Passion would produce violent Jew-bashing outbursts, the movie earned more than half a billion dollars with no serious anti-Semitic incidents anywhere. In fact, audience surveys showed that negativity toward Jews actually decreased after moviegoers saw the film.

•Organized attempts to punish or ostracize Gibson will prove counterproductive for the Jewish community by distracting attention from our very real, deadly enemies and focusing instead on a wounded Hollywood titan who says he wants to make amends. The Anti-Defamation League initially demanded show biz insiders "distance themselves from this anti-Semite," and super-agent Ari Emanuel said the entertainment community should be "professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him." But no blacklist can eliminate Gibson's ability to make movies or destroy his influence on pop culture.

Like it or not, Gibson will not disappear, and it hardly serves Jewish interests to isolate him as a permanent enemy — especially when his abject apology says, "I'm not just asking for forgiveness. ... I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help."

Even if you believe that his anti-Semitic demons never can be exorcised, and that he'll always harbor secret hostility to Jews, isn't it preferable to encourage him to control or hide those sentiments?

My own acquaintance with Gibson suggests that at this tortured moment in his life, he sincerely craves an opportunity to deepen his obviously pathetic understanding of Jewish identity and history. In any event, the process of reconciliation he proposes — no matter how difficult or incomplete — can only be good for Gibson, and good for the Jews.

Film critic and radio host Michael Medved tells the inside story of the battle over The Passion in his book Right Turns. He is a member of the USA TODAY's board of contributors

[Mel Gibson]
[Jews]
[anti-semitism]
[Hollywood]
[Catholicism]
[The passion]

"While Muslims accept the trappings of democracy, they continue to reject its principles..."

The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution
by David Kennedy Houck
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2006

First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law?

Such questions are no longer theoretical. While Muslim organizations first established enclaves in Europe,[1] the trend is now crossing the Atlantic. Some Islamist community leaders in the United States are challenging the principles of assimilation and equality once central to the civil rights movement, seeking instead to live according to a separate but equal philosophy. The Gwynnoaks Muslim Residential Development group, for example, has established an informal enclave in Baltimore because, according to John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, "there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure."[2]

Baltimore is not alone. In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes.[3] While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create "a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs,"[4] the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.

The Internal Muslim Enclave

The internal Muslim enclave proposed by the Islamic Center for Human Excellence in Arkansas represents a new direction for Islam in the United States. The group seeks to transform a loosely organized Muslim population into a tangible community presence. The group has foreign financial support: it falls under the umbrella of a much larger Islamic group, "Islam 4 the World," an organization sponsored by Sharjah, one of the constituent emirates of the United Arab Emirates.[5] While the Islamic Center for Human Excellence has yet to articulate detailed plans for its Little Rock enclave, the group's reliance on foreign funding is troublesome. Past investments by the United Arab Emirates' rulers and institutions have promoted radical interpretations of Islam. [6]

The Islamic Center for Human Excellence may seek to segregate schools and offices by gender. The enclave might also exercise broad control upon commerce within its boundaries—provided the economic restrictions did not discriminate against out-of-state interests or create an undue burden upon interstate commerce. But most critically, the enclave could promulgate every internal law—from enforcing strict religious dress codes to banning alcohol possession and music; it could even enforce limits upon religious and political tolerance. Although such concepts are antithetical to a free society, U.S. democracy allows the internal enclave to function beyond the established boundaries of our constitutional framework. At the very least, the permissible parameters of an Islamist enclave are ill defined.

The greater American Muslim community's unapologetic and public manifestation of belief in a separate but equal ideology does not bode well. In September 2004, the New Jersey branch of the Islamic Circle of North America rented Six Flags Adventure Park in New Jersey for "The Great Muslim Adventure Day." The advertisement announcing the event stated: "The entire park for Muslims only." While legal—and perhaps analogous to corporate or other non-religious groups renting facilities, the advertisement expressly implied a mindset that a proof of faith was required for admission to the park. In his weblog, commentator Daniel Pipes raises a relevant and troubling question about the event: because it is designated for Muslims only, "Need one recite the shahada to enter the fairgrounds?"[7]

While U.S. law might give such Muslims-only events the benefit of the doubt, flexibility may not go both ways. There is precedent of Islamists taking advantage of liberal flexibility to more extreme ends. Canada provides a useful example into how Islamist groups can exploit liberal legal tolerance. In 1991, Ontario, Canada, passed a seemingly innocuous law called the "Arbitration Act."[8] This act permitted commercial, religious, or such other designated arbitrators to settle civil disputes outside the Canadian justice system so long as the result did not contradict Canadian law. Like U.S. authorities are beginning to do now, Canadian legislators decided to give religious groups the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they would still hold national law to be paramount.

In October 2003, under the auspices of the Ontario legislation, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice created Muslim arbitration boards and stated its intent to arbitrate on the basis of Islamic law.[9] A national furor erupted, particularly among Canadian Muslim women's groups that opposed the application of traditional Islamic (Shari‘a) laws that would supersede their far more liberal and egalitarian democratic rights. After nearly two years of legal wrangling, the premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, held that religious-based arbitrations "threaten our common ground," and announced, "There will be no Shari‘a law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians."[10] On November 15, 2005, McGuinty's provincial government submitted legislation to amend the arbitration act to abrogate, in effect, all religious arbitration.[11] Requests for Muslim enclaves within larger U.S. communities may signal that U.S. jurisprudence will soon be faced with a similar conundrum. Islamist exceptionalism can abuse the tolerance liberal societies have traditionally extended to interface between religious and secular law.

Prior to the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice demands to impose Shari‘a, the Arbitration Act worked well. Unfortunately for Canadian Jews, the repeal ended state-enforcement of agreements reached by the use of a millennia-old rabbinical court system called beit din (house of law) that had for decades quietly settled marriage, custody, and business disputes. Joel Richler, Ontario region chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress, expressed his lament: "If there have been any problems flowing from any rabbinical court decisions, I'm not aware of them."[12] Canadian Catholics likewise were stopped from being able to annul marriages according to Canon Law and avoid undue entanglement in civil courts. Abuse of the spirit of the law, though, ended up curtailing local liberty. Rather than soften the edge between religion and state, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice threatened to eliminate it with the imposition of Shari‘a. The Canadian experience demonstrates how flexibility can backfire when all parties do not seek to uphold basic precepts of tolerance. The Little Rock application raises the specter of a parallel situation. While The Islamic Center for Human Excellence may state it wants to create a clean-living community, might the community's extreme interpretation of Shari‘a force a reconsideration of just how much leeway the U.S. government gives religious communities?

As the Muslim community in the United States grows, an increasingly active Islamist lobby has submitted numerous white papers and amicus briefs to legislators and courts arguing for the religious right of Muslims to apply Shari‘a law, particularly in relation to family law disputes.[13] This looming jurisprudential conflict is significant for it raises issues about the rights of community members to marry outside the community, forced marriages, and the minimum age of brides, and whether wives and daughters may enjoy equal inheritance. In cases of non-family law, it raises the question about whether the testimony of women will be considered on par with that of men.

No previous enclave in U.S. history has ever been so vigorously protected by agents of group identity politics or so adamantly defended by legal watchdogs; nor has any previous religious enclave possessed the potency of more than one billion believers around the world. Islamic-only communities may also benefit from the largess provided by billions of petrol dollars to finance growth. The track record of Saudi and other wealthy Persian Gulf donations and charitable efforts are worrisome. There is a direct correlation between Saudi money received and the spread of intolerant practices. In 2004, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the assets of Al-Haramein Foundation, one of Saudi Arabia's largest nongovernmental organizations, because of its financial links to Al-Qaeda.[14] Additionally, American graduates of Saudi academies advance Wahhabist interpretations of Islam inside the U.S. prison system,[15] and Saudi-subsidized publications promote intolerance inside U.S. mosques.[16]

A Muslim enclave is uniquely perilous because there are few if any internal enclaves that adhere to a polity dedicated to the active abrogation of secular law and the imposition of a supreme religious law. The concept of Shari‘a is so fundamental to Islam, that even today, prominent Muslim jurists argue over whether a Muslim can fully discharge Shari‘a obligations while residing in a non-Muslim territory.[17] Yet, in spite of this apparent conundrum, Muslims have resided peacefully in non-Muslim lands since the seventh century. In the greater context, there may be a breach in the dike for Islamist groups residing in the United States because the Baltimore and Little Rock enclaves must acknowledge the U.S. Constitution as the paramount basis of civil law.

A dissident Islamic sub-community is filled with dichotomous propositions: from the presumed supremacy of Shari‘a-based law over secular law; the melding of religion and polity versus the constitutionally mandated separation of same; to the politics of group and factionalism, versus assimilation and pluralism. To deny the settlement of a Muslim-only community based solely upon prejudices formed after September 11 would be illiberal. But the alternative, opening the door to Islamic enclaves without scrutiny, is as dubious.

The Enclave under U.S. Law
Existing U.S. legal precedent, though, may provide some grounds for handling expansive demands for Islamic enclaves. U.S. legal views of internal enclaves derive from the famous 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled the concept of separate but equal to be unconstitutional.[18] While the case revolved around the right of black children to attend white schools, it promulgated a concept that is anathema in today's world of multiculturalism: neither the state nor any constituent group could claim equality through separation.

Enclaves can exist, though. As courts have ruled on issues relating to equality under the law and upon the autonomy of religious practice, two distinctive features of internal U.S. enclaves have taken shape: first, the boundaries of the enclave should be recognized by local inhabitants. Second, the enclave cannot supersede the constitutionally protected rights of the citizens of a state.

Because most rights secured by the constitution are protected only against infringement by government action, the Supreme Court has avoided establishing a bright-line test as to the limits of religious liberty. Any religious group or individual seeking to establish an internal enclave has the right to limit residency, promulgate local rules, and perhaps even collect fees or taxes to support nominal community services.

Such enclaves do not hold final sway over the rights of non-residents, however. In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company[19] and Flagg Brothers v. Brooks,[20] the court outlined constitutional protections for private citizens in which any entity, religious or otherwise, exercising governmental authority over private citizens remains subject to the provisions of the First and Fourteenth amendments. In both cases, the court affirmed that citizens of a state retain their right to "due process of law" under the Fourteenth Amendment, even when inside an enclave. These holdings, however, do not prevent enclaves from restricting the individual freedoms of their inhabitants.

The Supreme Court has ruled upon the limits of religious liberty. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the court outlined the circumstances in which the government could act to restrict religious independence. The court held that the free exercise clause "embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society."[21]

Christopher L. Eisgruber, professor of law at New York University, explained. He argued that, "the Constitution permits government to nurture ideological sub-communities founded upon premises inconsistent with the constitution's own commitments."[22] He maintained that such dissident sub-communities can provide important "sources of dissent"[23] and asserted that even if an enclave embraced ideals contrary to constitutional ideals, it should still be granted the right to pursue its own vision of good. For example, he wrote:

[Though] it is regrettable that young women in Kiryas Joel [a Satmar Hasidic enclave] will grow up in a starkly sexist culture, and it is regrettable that the Amish children of Yoder will find it very hard to become astronomers or lawyers … it would also be regrettable if the United States were not home to any sub-communities which, like the Satmars or the Amish, rejected principles of justice fundamental to the American regime.[24]

According to Eisgruber, tolerance of the intolerant is fundamental to the freedoms espoused by Western liberal democracy. While Islamists might use such logic to argue for the permissibility of Shari‘a communities, such tolerance has limits. Enclaves do not have carte blanche to act. Both the state and national legislatures must retain control over the extent of accommodation, and there should be no subsidization of the enclave by the government.[25] Such limits ensure that the government can constrain those sub-communities that might espouse more radical, violent, or racist views.[26]

It is usually when the U.S. government moves to uphold the rule of law that most Americans first learn of an internal enclave. Few Americans knew of the philosophy espoused by anti-government activist Randy Weaver until 1992 when the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms raided his compound at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, killing Vicki Weaver, their infant son, Sam, and the family dog.[27] Nor did many Americans know about David Koresh and his religious views until a raid the following year on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in which a resulting fire killed fifty adults and twenty-five children under the age of fifteen.[28] While tragic, such events involved cults or political splinter groups. The growth of Muslim enclaves raises the specter of such conflicts occurring on a much larger scale.

While the court has interpreted the establishment clause to empower the government to constrain dissident sub-communities when necessary to protect public safety, it has been wary of addressing legal issues requiring intrusion upon the religious polity. Because the First Amendment provides for religious freedom, the court has confined itself to ruling upon three basic issues: property disputes between national religious hierarchical organizations with affiliated breakaway entities; accommodations under the free exercise clause; and the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. New challenges, though, may lead to new interpretations.

The Antithesis to Democracy
Is concern over internal Muslim enclaves justified? On their face, the fundamental principles of the internal Muslim enclave are no more invidious than any other religious enclave. But ideology matters. Many proponents of an Islamic polity promote an ideology at odds with U.S. constitutional jurisprudence and the prohibition against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. The refusal to recognize federal law makes Islamist enclaves more akin to Ruby Ridge than to the Hasidic and Amish cases cited by Eisgruber.

Muslim theologians describe Islam not only as a religion but also as a system of state. The Qur'an—viewed by Muslims as the word of God—is replete with instructions about governance. An enclave promoting Islamic mores does not necessarily restrict itself to a social atmosphere but also one of governance. Traditional Islamic law controls the most basic aspects of everyday life and may make any Islamic enclave irreconcilable with the basic presumptions of Western liberal democracy and secular law.

While many American Muslims practice Islam and embrace the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution, others do not. There are consistent attempts by Islamist elements overseas to strengthen their own radical interpretation of Islam at the expense of moderation and tolerance. Saudi donors, for example, have propagated the ideology of Islamism, which seeks to interweave a narrow and often intolerant interpretation of religion into an all-encompassing political ideology. The number of imams and jihadists who have been outspoken in identifying the supremacy of Shari‘a to democracy underlines the incompatibility of Islamism and democracy. The late Saudi theologian, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair, for example, stated,

Only one ambition is worthy of Islam, to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of man-made laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation.[29]

Prior to Iraq's January 30, 2005 elections, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, released an audiotape in which he declared war upon democracy and denounced its tenets as "the very essence of heresy, polytheism, and error."[30] Nor is Islamist antipathy for democracy limited to popular elections. According to a Saudi publication distributed at a San Diego mosque, "[Democracy is] responsible for all the horrible wars … more than 130 wars with more than 120 million people dead [in the twentieth century alone]; not counting victims of poverty, hunger and disease."[31] Such sentiments reflect a common theme among Islamists: democracy is the antithesis to everything pious and pure in Islam; and, in truth, democracy is the direct and substantial causal effect of Muslim suffering and injustice in the world today.

This does not mean that Islamists are unwilling to use democracy for their ends. But while they accept the trappings of democracy, they continue to reject its principles because the Shari‘a, to them the perfect rule of law, cannot be abrogated or altered by the shifting moods of a secular electorate. Mohamed Elhachmi Hamdi, editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab weekly Al-Mustakillah, explained,

The heart of the matter is that no Islamic state can be legitimate in the eyes of its subjects without obeying the main teachings of the Shari‘a. A secular government might coerce obedience, but Muslims will not abandon their belief that state affairs should be supervised by the just teachings of the holy law.[32]

He could draw from plenty of examples. In 1992, for example, Ali Balhadj, a leader of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, declared, "When we are in power, there will be no more elections because God will be ruling."[33] While mayor of Istanbul, Islamist Turkish politician Recep Tayyip Erdoğan quipped, "For us, democracy is a streetcar. We would go as far as we could, and then get off."[34] As he eviscerates the judiciary, many Turks wonder about his sincerity.[35]

Experience abroad is relevant, as it goes to the heart of the sincerity of proponents of the Little Rock and Baltimore enclaves, an issue compounded by the willingness to accept donations from Persian Gulf financiers.

Conclusion
How Muslims reconcile Islamic polity within the confines of Western liberal democracy is an unresolved issue. This process will take years to evolve and is likely to convulse in further violent episodes. Presently, many Muslims reject wholesale the notion of a dominant secular law and instead seek the imposition of a pan-Islamist state under the guidance of Shari‘a. These Islamists view secular modernity and the democratic practices of radical egalitarianism, individual rights, and free exercise of religion as a direct and substantial threat to their belief system, and they are intent on employing violence against the West for the foreseeable future. The remainder and majority of the Muslim world must reject nihilism and engage in widespread debate regarding Islam's role within the world community.

The local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, might proceed with the proposed Muslim enclave, but the Arkansas courts and its legislature should not abdicate its responsibilities to ensure that Western liberal rights and protections remain supreme. The government should monitor both the rhetoric and behavior of these communities. As the Supreme Court stated in Cantwell: the freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act, in the nature of things, cannot be, especially as to the safety and preservation of the American democracy.[36]

David Kennedy Houck is an attorney at Houck O'Brien LLC, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

[1] See, for example, discussion of the Sonali Gardens project in London, The Evening Standard (London), Apr. 27, 2004.
[2] Marya Morris, "Muslim Community Development Initiatives," American Planning Association, Apr. 25, 2004.
[3] "Muslim Community Development Plans," Fox 16 News, Aug. 26, 2004.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Information on the Arkansas Islamic Center for Human Excellence website, accessed on Nov. 2, 2005, linked visitors to the "Islam 4 the World" website.
[6] U.S. Department of State, news release, Feb. 19, 2004.
[7] Daniel Pipes, "Muslims Only!" at Six Flags Adventure Park," www.DanielPipes.org, Sept. 10, 2004.
[8] "Arbitration Act," S.O. 1991, "Ontario Statutes and Regulations," e-Laws News, c. 17.
[9] Daniel Pipes, "Enforce Islamic Law in Canada?" The New York Sun, Sept. 27, 2005.
[10] Canadian Press News Agency, Sept. 11, 2005.
[11] Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, news release, Nov. 15, 2005.
[12] Canadian Press News Agency, Sept. 11, 2005.
[13] See, Asifa Quaraishi and Najeeba Syeed-Miller, "No Altars: A Survey of Islamic Family Law in the United States," Islamic Family Law project, Law and Religion Program, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.; American Muslims Intent on Learning and Activism (AMILA) in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the juvenile aspect of the death penalty that included citations to Shari'a law.
[14] U.S. Department of State, news release, Feb. 19, 2004.
[15] The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 5, 2003.
[16] Khaleel Mohammed, "Assessing English Translations of the Qu'ran," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2005, pp. 59-71.
[17] Khaled Abou El Fadl, "Islamic Law and Muslim Minorities: The Juristic Discourse on Muslim Minorities from the Second/Eighth to the Eleventh/Seventeenth Centuries," Islamic Law and Society, 1:2(1994): 141-4.
[18] Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[19] Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 419 U.S. 345 (1974).
[20] Flagg Brothers v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978).
[21] Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S 296 (1940), pp. 303-4.
[22] Christopher L. Eisgruber, "The Constitutional Value of Assimilation," The Columbia Law Review, Jan. 1996, pp. 87-8.
[23] Ibid., p. 91.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid., pp. 89, 91.
[26] Ibid., pp. 87, 92.
[27] CNN News, Aug. 21, 1997.
[28] "The Aftermath of the April 19 Fire," Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas (redacted version: Oct. 8, 1993), U.S. Department of Justice, chap. XIII.
[29] Amir Taheri, "Islam and Democracy: The Impossible Union," The Sunday Times (London), May 23, 2004.
[30] Nimrod Raphaeli, "The Sheikh of the Slaughterers": Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi and the Al-Qa'ida Connection," Middle East Research Media Institute (MEMRI), Inquiry and Analysis Series, no. 231, July 1, 2005.
[31] "Anti-American," Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, chap. 4, p. 4.
[32] Mohamed Elhachmi Hamdi, "Islam and Liberal Democracy: The Limits of the Western Model," Journal of Democracy, Apr. 1996, pp. 81-5.
[33] Michael Rubin, "Islamists Are Intrinsically Anti-democratic," www.bitterlemons-international.org, June 2, 2005.
[34] Hürriyet (Istanbul), Apr. 23, 1998.
[35] Milliyet (Istanbul), June 6, 2005.
[36] Cantwell, pp. 303-4.



This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at http://www.meforum.org/article/920


[Islam]
[Democracy]
[Middle East]
[Arab]
[Qu'ran]
[Koran]
[Mohammed]

Wake up Europe....

Iran’s Supreme Leader warns U.S. of impending jihad
Wed. 02 Aug 2006
Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Aug. 02 – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blasted United States policy in the Middle East and warned of an impending Muslim “jihad”, or holy war, against the West.

“Today, it is clear for everyone that the aggression against Lebanon was a premeditated U.S.-Zionist action as a key step in the path of dominating the Middle East and the Islamic world”, Khamenei said. His comments were reported in the official news agency IRNA and aired in part on state television on Wednesday.


“Today, Muslim nations more than ever despise the U.S.”, he said.

“With its support of the Zionists crimes and criminals and its blatant aggression against the rights of Muslim nations, the U.S. regime must be prepared for a hard slap and a destructive punch by Muslims”, Khamenei said.

“The U.S. is following a policy of creating insecurity, crisis, and war in the region”, he said, adding, “It must know that the more it expands insecurity, the more it will arouse the anger of nations against it and make the world insecure for itself”.

Khamenei praised the Lebanese militia Hezbollah for taking part in a “jihad” against the “enemies of Islam”, stating that the group was on the “frontline” of the defence of Muslims.

“The aggressive actions and nature of the U.S. and Israel will revive the spirit of resistance in the Islamic world and will make the value of jihad more prevalent for it”, Khamenei added.

“Islamic Iran believes resistance against American bullying and aggression and mischief by Israel to be its duty and will stand alongside all oppressed nations, especially the dear people of Lebanon and the combatant Palestinian nation”, he added.



[Iran]
[Israel]
[Islam]
[Europe]
[Palestine]

How New England influenced the World...

Theocracy: the Origin of American Democracy

The nature of theocracy in the New England colonies is widely misunderstood. Few recognize that the New England town meeting, the prototype of American institutions of democratic self-government, was nothing more than the governing process of each Congregational (Puritan) church community.

Theocracy is a broad term encompassing many different degrees of religious influence in civil government. Critics of New England Puritanism focus on two aspects: exclusion of non-church members from civil government, and reprobation of moral laxity.

Looking back at Puritanism only through the lens of present-day cultural standards leads most people to conclude that Puritans were repressive and anti-democratic. H. L. Mencken in the 1920s summed up liberal intellectuals’ judgment when he declared that Puritanism was a form of neurosis. This is the view taught in public schools and in our colleges and universities.

If one’s values extend no further than the adolescence of the Roaring 20s and today’s New York Times’s advocacy of rudeness, crudeness, and sexual promiscuity, that may be an understandable assessment.

If, however, one looks at fundamental matters the picture changes dramatically.

The foundation of our constitutional government – the concept that the source of civil power is the people of the nation, not the king – originated in the 17th century with the English Puritans and their Scottish confreres, known there as Presbyterians. Both groups opposed the luxury and elaborate ritualism of the episcopalian Church of England, along with its levels of hierarchical authority that dictated to the church members. In civil government they opposed the related doctrine of divine right of kings.

In “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville noted :

“Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency that had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society which the rigor of their own principles condemned, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world where they could live according to their own opinions and worship God in freedom.

“....The general principles which are the groundwork of modern constitutions, principles which, in the seventeenth century, were imperfectly known in Europe, and not completely triumphant even in Great Britain, were all recognized and established by the laws of New England: the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting of taxes, the responsibility of the agents of power, personal liberty, and trial by jury were all positively established without discussion.”

When James I succeeded Queen Elizabeth in 1603, he brought from his native Scotland an antipathy for Presbyterianism and vowed to suppress Puritanism in England. He also brought his Stuart family’s insistence upon the divine right of kings and loathing of “interference” by Parliament.

His harassment of Puritans led some of them to flee to Holland, whence came in 1620 the founders of the Plymouth colony in Massachusetts. Other Puritans, centered in Cambridge University, elected to remain within the Church of England and to work for reforms that aimed to return the church to the simplicity of its founding era under the Apostle Paul, a period without a hierarchy of bishops in which the church members elected elders and deacons from among their local members to administer each church’s affairs.

James’s son, Charles I, succeeded to the throne in 1625 and became even more abusive of religious and civil liberty than his father. Forced by Parliament to accept the 1628 Petition of Right, one of the fundamental documents of the British constitution, he simply refused to call Parliament into session for eleven years beginning in 1629. During this period he permitted Anglican Archbishop William Laud to employ crown troops to imprison and execute Puritans, making the Court of Star Chamber synonymous with arbitrary injustice.

Puritans led by John Winthrop and others in Cambridge University sorrowfully determined that the possibility of reforming the Anglican Church was too remote for them to remain in England and suffer Archbishop Laud’s depredations. They managed in 1629 to purchase the royal charter for the Massachusetts Bay Company, assembled a group of fellow Puritans, and sailed on the Arbella to establish a new church community in more tolerant circumstances.

The English political expression of Puritanism, after the end of Cromwell’s Protectorate, was the Whig Party that emerged in opposition when James II became king in 1685 and resumed the earlier civil and religious suppressions of his father Charles II. James II’s deposition in The Glorious Revolution of 1689 produced the English Bill of Rights, another fundamental document of the British constitution, and the model for our own Bill of Rights. It also most notably produced the “Second Treatise of Civil Government” by Puritan John Locke, the philosophical foundation, down to the borrowing of phraseology, for our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

The concept of the Biblical covenant is essential in understanding the civil and religious government in Puritan New England. Just as God established through Moses a covenant with the tribes of Israel making them His chosen people, so the Puritans en-route to found Boston solemnly instituted a covenant between themselves and God to establish a church community in the new world that would follow the Ten Commandments and be a “city upon a hill” serving as a model for reversion to the righteous simplicity of the original Christian churches.

As endlessly proclaimed by Old Testament prophets, the covenant between God and his chosen people was a two-way street. God would bless them so long as they remained faithful to His commandments, but would visit His wrath upon them when they strayed. So was the understanding and intent of the Puritan covenant entered upon with the founding of the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1630.

From this flows what 20th century hedonists construe as repressive intolerance. What they forget is that the peoples of Plymouth in 1620 and of Boston in 1630 voluntarily and gladly accepted the pledge of their covenants, as did all towns (Congregational churches) subsequently founded in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Putting this into a current-day framework, few people would describe General Motors or Citibank as intolerant or repressive because they require all people accepting employment also to accept their rules of conduct or be fired for breaches of those rules.

The Massachusetts Bay Company was in fact a corporation whose charter was owned by John Winthrop’s group, the founders of Boston. Thus they had both civil and religious authority, subject to the will of each church congregation, to set their own rules of conduct. Church members became shareholders in the chartered corporation.

For those early Puritan communities, adherence to their solemn covenant with God was regarded literally as a matter of life or death in the harsh conditions of wilderness in the formative years of each church community.

For that reason, when church members were deemed by their local church fellows to have engaged in conduct conflicting with the founding covenant, they were excluded from fellowship until they repented and reformed their conduct. No person coming into a church community was permitted membership in the church without satisfying the church members of his faith in Jesus Christ and his commitment to Godly conduct.

What must be stressed is that, within each church community, subject only to their covenant, the democratic wishes of all members of each congregation was the sole source of religious administration and civil authority. The 1648 Cambridge Platform, the product of the General Court, the colony-wide gathering of elected representatives of each local congregation, affirmed this in explicit detail.

Ministers undoubtedly exercised great influence on both church and civil administration, but that was a consequence of their having been selected and hired by each congregation and their subsequent satisfactory performance in office. No Puritan minister had independent authority to impose any doctrine or judgement upon any New England community. Ministers who attempted it were summarily dismissed by their congregations.

When congregants irreconcilably disagreed with their fellows, they departed and founded new churches. What few people know is that New England towns in the early 17th century were simply church communities. My home, Stamford, Connecticut, founded in 1641 as a split-off from the Wetherfield, Connecticut, church, was the last of those founded in New England.

The Cambridge Platform affirms that the people within each church community were the sole source of authority, subject to the Word of God. They elected their own preachers, teachers, elders, and deacons, each member having an equal vote. There was no external or overriding hierarchical body with the power to gainsay each church’s will.

These Congregational meetings became in subsequent years the celebrated New England Town meeting. Puritan Congregational Churches thus were the origin of American concepts of democratic self-government.
[Puritanism]
[New England]

Hezbollah uses propaganda in the same Nazi way...and the MSM falls for it.....

MEDIA CAUGHT OVER QANA PHOTOS

by Neal Boortz

Remember those photos that have been running in the media showing a rescue worker holding a dead child following the Israeli air strike in Qana? The message of those pictures has been powerful: look at what those evil Israelis did to that poor, innocent child. Well, now we learn that all may not be what it seems.

Many of those pictures were taken by the photographers for wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters and the always pro-terrorist Agence France-Presse, also known as AFP. But an enterprising British blogger decided to dig a bit deeper. He looked at the time stamp on some of the photos and noticed a discrepancy. A big one.


Without getting too technical, it was noticed that one of the photos taken at 7:21 by the AP shows a dead girl in an ambulance. Then, in a picture taken at 10:25am ... 3 hours later .... it shows the same girl being loaded into an ambulance. Yet another picture shows the same girl 20 minutes later, being carried by a rescue worker ... with no ambulance around.

In the ambulance ... out of the ambulance ... no ambulance at all. What does this tell us? The photos were staged. They're propaganda. Who would do such a thing? Hezbollah, of course. And why would the media be a willing accomplice in such a bold attempt to invent negative media coverage against Israel? Because they hate the United States and/or Israel, or because they're just plain on the side of the Islamofascists.

Now that the wire services and their photographers have been called out on it, they're all dancing on the head of a pin trying to explain away the discrepancy. They've been nailed as willing participants in the Islamic terror propaganda efforts.

[Hezbollah]
[Qana]
[Israel]

"Israel learned the lesson Carter never did: negotiating with terrorists breeds more terrorism"

Jimmy Carter: A Terrorist's Best Friend

By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com August 2, 2006


The anti-Israeli bias in Jimmy Carter’s op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post could not have been more evident if he had concluded, “Allahu akhbar!” Unlike Mel Gibson, Carter presumably wrote while sober, but his analysis and demonology barely differed for it.

The moral equivalence that led the worst president of the 20th century to decry our “inordinate fear of Communism” was on display from his first sentence, in which he took aim at “key players on all sides waiting for every opportunity to destroy their enemies.” The genocidal intent of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran is well known; he failed to indicate their opposite number in the Jewish State of Israel.



Carter indicates the cause of the most recent “cycle” of terrorism: the fact that Israel jails terrorists. “One of the special vulnerabilities of Israel, and a repetitive cause of violence, is the holding of prisoners,” he writes. Noting Hezbollah generously “offered to exchange the soldier” – the one they didn’t kill – “for the release of 95 women and 313 children…in Israeli prisons,” he huffs, “this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel.”



He overlooks the fact that, in addition to women and children, Hezbollah demanded the release of a number of terrorists, including a monster named Samir Kuntar, a Palestine Liberation Front terrorist from Lebanon who smashed a four-year-old girl’s skull against a rock with his rifle butt after forcing her to witness her father’s execution. In the process, the girl’s mother, who watched helplessly from a crawlspace, suffocated her two-year-old daughter while covering her mouth to muffle her wails. Nasrallah has indicated Kuntar’s release is a prerequisite. It was to secure Kuntar’s release that the Front hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985, pushing the wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer into the ocean for kicks.



Israel long rewarded such behavior by releasing convicted terrorists in exchange for a handful of Israeli soldiers…or their remains. Israel learned the lesson Carter never did: negotiating with terrorists breeds more terrorism.



Carter continues that while Israel has the “inarguable” right to defend itself, “it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response.” Israel has taken pains to avoid civilian casualties. Its opening response was to bomb an empty building, and it has warned civilians to flee from areas of attack – including Qana – losing tactical surprise in the process.



Although the 39th president believes it is “illogical” for the victims to properly identify their persecutors, this is exactly what is occurring.



The New York Times had to admit most Christians in southern Lebanon blamed Hezbollah for their devastation and accused the terrorists of killing villagers attempting to leave the war zone.
Saad Al-Hariri, chairman of the Lebanese Tayyar Al-Mustaqbal (“Current for the Future”) Party and son of murdered Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, said: “These adventurers [i.e. Hezbollah] have placed us in a difficult situation because of their irresponsibility, and in fact, the Saudi position [presented] the present situation as it really is...We demand a reckoning with these adventurers who embroiled Lebanon in a crisis it does not need."
Other Lebanese blame Hezbollah’s benefactor, Syria. Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt told reporters: “The Syrian regime is bearing a grudge [and saying to the Lebanese]: ‘You dared to rebel against [being] a [Syrian] protectorate, [so] this is our reaction. Our answer will be destruction.’”
Former Lebanese President Amine Gemayel stated, “Lebanon…is not willing to be the spearhead of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
Lebanese Communications Minister Marwan Hamada told Al-Mustaqbal newspaper, “Syrian Vice President Faruq al-Shara gives the commands, Hezbollah carries them out, and Lebanon is the hostage.”
A Beirut-based poster on the Lebanese Forces bulletin board wrote that the Israelis were justified in their undertaking: “We had 1 year to disarm Hizbollah. The Lebanese people couldn't do it…So now the free world is going to do it for us, backed by the UN and the Arab world. The cost will be heavy on Lebanon for sure, but there's no other way.”
Carter lies on. “The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.”



On the contrary:



Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah together condemned Hezbollah’s “adventurism that does not serve Arab interests.” and called on Lebanon "to establish its authority over all of Lebanese territory."
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal blasted the terrorists’ “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” before a meeting of the Arab League, adding, “we cannot simply accept them.”
Saudi Sheikh Al-Muhsin Al-‘Obikan wrote in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: “The capturing of the two Jewish soldiers - which [Hezbollah] thought of as gain - has [actually] led to disaster and to obvious loss. What [we] got in exchange [for the capture] of the Jews [was this]: One of our countries has been entirely destroyed; there have been severe damage to [its] infrastructure, expulsion and starvation of its inhabitants, the killing of many of [its inhabitants], the weakening of the strength of the Muslims, the breaking of their unified position, and division in their ranks.”
Wahhabist Abdullah bin Jabreen, who helped the Saudi government determine when to issue fatwas, announced “The Shari’a position on what is going on” as follows: it is sinful to help, aid, or pray for Hezbollah. “Our advice to the Sunnis is to denounce them and shun those who join them to show their hostility to Islam and to the Muslims.”
Ahmed Al-Jarallah, editor-in-chief of Kuwait's Arab Times wrote, “The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community.”
The former president’s blood libel rolls on: “Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon, responding to the global condemnation of an air attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, where 57 civilians were killed this past weekend and where 106 died from the same cause 10 years ago.” It appears, through the work of Robert Spencer in today’s lead story, that the Qana “massacre” was stage managed by Hezbollah; at a minimum, it is open to reasonable doubt.



Finally, Jimmy Carter proposes his solution:



The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's [Lebanon’s] regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners.



The sentence bears as much resemblance to reality as its slurred run-on sentences do to English (another similarity to Gibson’s drunken tirade). The United Nations considers Shebaa Farms not Lebanese territory but Syrian; thus, the UN certified Israeli withdrawal from all of occupied Lebanon. The number of Lebanese nationals remaining in Israeli jails is between two and four, all terrorists in the mold of Samir Kuntar. Why should they be released instead of, perhaps, executed?



His ceasefire plan would allow Hezbollah to survive infinitely. Lebanon’s army, deeply infiltrated by the terrorists’ Syrian confederates, is weaker than Hezbollah and cannot independently assert control over the south, a necessary condition if future attacks are to “be prevented.”



The champion of Kim il-Sung’s interests warns this ceasefire would be but a “band-aid” to the real problem in the Middle East: Israel and the United States.



“Palestinians,” he whimpers, are “surrounded by a provocative ‘security barrier’ that…fails to bring safety or stability.” Since construction of the security fence, terrorist attacks are down sharply, declining by 90 percent according to some estimates.



“There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key UN resolutions…by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians.” Somehow in Jimmy’s schema, Israeli “oppression” of innocent Arabs – by allowing them suffrage and representation in Knesset – displaced the Palestinian penchant for strapping munitions to preteen shahids and telling them to hug Jewish children as a threat to lasting peace.



He resolves, “Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored.” This has long been Israel’s goal: to negotiate for defensible borders approximating those of pre-1967 in return for elusive peace treaties. The Arab Street has shown no interest in the talks, and the Muslim nations would never grant the al-Naqbah defensible boundaries. Ceding the Golan Heights to Syria would mean the resumption of daily bombardments from the north, Haifa everyday. One of Carter’s (many) superior Democratic predecessors, LBJ, acknowledged, “a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace.” The settlements cannot be the cause of war, if the Arab nations attacked before they existed.



In any event, UN Resolution 242 requires no such thing: international law recognizes Israel’s right to keep any land gained in a defensive war, including all of Sinai had it so chosen.



Carter then adds the final villain: he has met the enemy, and it is us. He writes, “A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions.” In his view, and that of the Left he represents, Americans are imperialists imposing their will upon innocent brown people who would otherwise frolic amid their liberated olive groves contemplating the beauties of Islamic doctrine. The sooner we (and the Little Satan, Israel) begin rewarding terrorists, the sooner this event can come to be.



How long until Jimmy Carter’s plan produces peace? At least 444 days.
[Jimmy carter]
[Israel]
[Hezbollah]
[terrorism]

Spain--a Historical Enigma:Foreign Secretary Moratinos to meet with Hezbollah

Spain and the Jihadists by Chuck Colson

If you know where to look, it’s easy to find evidence of Spain’s Islamic past: You can see it in Spanish architecture and in the faces of the people. You can hear it in Spanish music, especially flamenco, and in the Spanish language itself.


Despite these undeniable historical links between Spain and the Islamic world, Spaniards have no interest in turning back the clock, not after their ancestors spent seven centuries expelling the Muslim invaders who forced themselves on Spain. However, there is one group that remains committed to such a “reunion”: Islamist radicals.


A few weeks ago, the FBI arrested eight men in charge of plotting to blow up the underground rail tunnels that link New Jersey and New York. The suspects included members of al-Qaeda living both in and outside of the United States.


An overlooked detail in the story was the name of one of the alleged masterminds of the plot: “Emir Andalusi.” As with many terrorists, that’s not his real name but, instead, what the French call a nom de guerre, a war-time alias. And as with most such aliases, it provides an insight into his and other jihadist motivations and aspirations.


“Andalusi” comes from “Al Andalus,” the Arabic name for southern Spain, the part known as Andalusia today. As one Israeli writer has pointed out, references to “old Muslim Spain are . . . [increasingly] common among jihadists who have set themselves against the Western world.”


The best-known such reference is Osama bin Laden’s 2001 video message that declared that al-Qaeda would not permit the repeat of “the tragedy of Andalusia” in Palestine. The “tragedy” he was referring to was the expulsion of the Muslim invaders by Spanish Christian forces.


In case the Western world didn’t get the point, al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two, “later swore that ‘the tragedy of Al Andalus’ must not be repeated.”


It isn’t just al-Qaeda that wants to force this. Hamas isn’t just interested in Israel. It has “demanded the return of the city of Seville to Islam” and what it calls “the lost paradise of Al Andalus.”


These dreams of “Al Andalus” make Spain a target as the Spanish have already learned the hard way. And Spain isn’t a target because of its policies toward the United States or the Middle East, but because its existence is regarded as a “tragedy” by the jihadists. As former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar put it, the problem with al-Qaeda has been 1,300 years in the making.


Unfortunately, the current Spanish Prime Minister, Zapatero, seems to share the same sense of denial that the British elites do as described in Melanie Phillips’s book Londonistan, which I have talked about on “BreakPoint.” He has demonstrated open contempt for Spain’s Catholic heritage while increasingly accommodating Islamic interests. Some five hundred years after the fall of the last Islamic stronghold in Spain, his government is financing the teaching of Islam in public schools.


What’s it going to take for the West to wake up? There is a real clash of worldviews, and it’s deadly. And just like between the two great World Wars, Europe is asleep.



[Zapatero]
[Moratinos]
[Hezbollah]
[Lebanon]
[Syria]
[Islam]
[Israel]

Mel Gibson apologizes to the Jewish people...

That's for the Jewish people to decide. His statement seems sincere. However, he should take this opportunity to take a stand. And instead of referring to a "world gone mad"... ("It’s about existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad",)he should specify who the "mad" are. A hint: the Islamist fascists that are causing all this turmoil in the world.

So Mel, take your frustrations out on the only evil doers. And you are in a position to influence...

[Mel Gibson]
[Anti-semitism]
[Israel]
[Islamist fascism]
[Jewish people]

Hezbollah’s Iwo Jima Delusion
August 1st, 2006
Michael Lopez-Calderon



Recent dueling essays on The American Thinker have debated whether Israel is following the tactics of British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery at the expense of Gen. George S. Patton’s methods. James Lewis argued that indeed the IDF’s approach was more Monty than Patton whereas Glen Tschirgi countered that Israel would be better advised to choose a lesser Patton over the “full Monty.”

Unfortunately, though both writers make impressive arguments, the appropriate analogy is not found in the Europe Theater of Operations during World War II but rather the Pacific. Hezbollah’s predicament comes closer to the Japanese forces at Iwo Jima than the German Army in Normandy and Western Europe. And as such, Israel’s strategy in part calls for trapping the Hezbollah terrorist forces in their entrenched, fortified positions where Israel will cut them off from re-supply and then tear apart piece-by-piece.

The formerly Hezbollah-controlled, fortified hilltop Lebanese border town of Maroun al-Ras was the scene of intense fighting between Hezbollah terrorist-guerrillas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The IDF claims Maroun al-Ras is under its control, though accounts of subduing nearby Bint Jbeil proved premature. Apparently, hundreds of Hezbollah fighters in Bint Jbeil were holed up in fortified bunkers, and have reentered the town via an elaborate series of interconnected tunnels, or hid amongst the few remaining civilians in the initial days of fighting.

The pro-Iranian, Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization has turned a number of southern Lebanese hillsides and towns into fortified death-traps. It has spent the better part of the past six years since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon turning several hilltop towns into an Iwo Jima-like maze of fortified bunkers, spider holes, pill-boxes, sniper dens, fields of anti-tank mines and IEDs, and interconnected tunnels.

An Israeli Army commander, Siman Tov said Hezbollah guerrillas in Maroun al-Ras were
“fighting from tunnels, some equipped with above-ground cameras. They are armed with … sophisticated weapons … including longer-range antitank missiles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. ‘Here we’re dealing with missiles, a little army.’”

Hezbollah’s strategy appears geared for a massive Israeli armor and infantry incursion up to and perhaps beyond the Litani River.

Hezbollah was counting on a twofold IDF tactic of digging out the entrenched fighters in a costly war of attrition while also moving rapidly into Lebanon, leaving its lines of communications vulnerable to guerrilla ambushes in the rear. The Israelis thus far have not taken the bait.

Hezbollah apparently banked on Israel falling for a “rope-the-dope” strategy. Instead, it is Hezbollah that is trapped, like the Japanese Imperial Army on Iwo Jima, in a delusion of its own making.

Although the initial Israeli incursions into Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon have been cautious, painfully slow, and unfortunately costly, a deeper analysis reveals that this is the IDF’s plan unfolding. One observant writer has noted that the Israeli strategy is more Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and less Gen. George S. Patton. Some inside and outside of Israel question this strategy; critics contend that the IDF risks losing the initiative while simultaneously and unwittingly boosting Hezbollah’s fighting-prowess image in the Arab world. The Washington Post reports

“Israeli news outlets, which had largely lined up behind the army’s conduct of the war, have begun to ask why an army that once defeated the armies of several Arab neighbors in six days was finding it so difficult to push one militia off Israel’s border.”

Indeed, the first week of the IDF’s limited ground offensive delivered what appeared to be mixed results.

A total of five elite commandos were killed when Hezbollah “ambushed the ambushers” in the first two Israeli ground operations. Since then and as of this writing, several Israeli-manufactured Merkava tanks have been heavily damaged, one completely destroyed with the loss of its four-man crew. Two Apache helicopters have collided, killing a pilot and hurting three others. A third, an Apache Longbow, crashed, killing both pilots. Nine Israel soldiers were killed in fighting on Wednesday, July 26, bringing the total to 33 Israeli soldiers killed in the past two weeks. Even more troubling is the fact that Israel has suffered these losses even though it had barely entered Lebanon, its deepest penetration thus far being no more than three miles. The current incursion into, underway as this article goes to press may well produce more casualties.

Many fear that Israel’s difficulties in the current fighting signal a sea-change in the IDF’s fortunes. These drawbacks might give credence to Hezbollah’s charge that IDF military supremacy is a myth. The critics and doom-and-gloom pessimists ought to take a deep breath and appreciate the Israeli strategy.

It is Hezbollah that has been outsmarted here, though uninformed, mainstream reporting of the initial results obscure this fact. For in banking on a massive Israeli offensive, Hezbollah apparently posted a sizeable force in the Lebanese border towns that are being picked apart one by one by the IDF. Already there are IDF reports of as many as 230 Hezbollah terrorists killed in Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil. The Bint Jbeil meat-grinder, where Hezbollah appeared determined to make an ill-advised last stand, has done its work.

The IDF and the Israeli Air Force (IAF) have destroyed an estimated 1,300 Hezbollah missiles that range from the Katyushas to Farj-3s, Farj5s, and Zelzal-2s. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has expended an estimated 2,000 missiles and has little to show for it. Israeli military officials report soldiers have found and destroyed Katyusha rocket launchers, antitank missile launchers and large caches of ammunition. Few launchers are reported available. Like the Japanese at Iwo Jima, Hezbollah has stored enormous quantities of ammunition in the Lebanese border towns, perhaps planning to wage a hit-and-run guerrilla war on Israel’s supply convoys as the IDF repeats the 1982 invasion. But Israel’s been there, done that, and she is not going to make the same mistake twice. “‘This battle against Hezbollah is going to last,’ Avi Dichter, Israel’s public security minister” informed reporters. “‘We’re not in any hurry.’”

Over whatever time remains before the conflict is forced to end, the IDF will take apart the Hezbollah terrorist-guerrillas that made the ultimate error of remaining in fixed positions. It is Hezbollah that is stoked in the passions and delusions of over-confidence. If Hezbollah takes comfort from fighting in fixed positions, they need only brush up on Napoleon, who said “the army that remains in its forts is beaten.” Or perhaps read up on how General Kuribayashi Tadamichi’s Japanese force of 21,000 at Iwo Jima was reduced by the United States Marines to just over 120 POWs (an additional 900 wounded were captured).

IDF Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, commander of the Galilee Division, summed up Israel’s piecemeal, probing strikes:

“When you fight a regular army, it’s different from fighting guerrillas. They are using everything they have extensively. They have been preparing for this for many years, and we are taking action to dismantle all of that. The government has given me plenty of time, and I intend to use it as long as it takes.”

Israel’s government called up an additional 30,000 reservists, and is heading into Lebanon right now. Israel will chip away, using her superior firepower, soldiers, and leadership to render Hezbollah a defeated Islamist terrorist group.

Quietly, confidently, and assured that they are both fighting for their homeland and backed by more than eighty percent of the Israeli public, the Israeli citizen-soldier will win the day.





[Hezbollah]
[Israel]
[Iwo Jima]
[Japanese]
[Lebanon]
[Arabs]

"Chaos in Lebanon suits Hezbollah and its masters in Iran and Damascus perfectly as it gives them a chance to keep the world focus away from Tehran’s

The World’s New Order

Tashbih Sayyed, Ph.D.

August 1, 2006



Events unfolding since the dismemberment of the Soviet Union indicate the emergence of a new world order - a world order in which non-state and militant entities like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Lashkar-e-Taiba, have come to play an influential role on the world stage. They have not only been able to influence the direction of the world events and the policies of the major world powers but have also forced the common man to bring about changes in his daily life.



The world powers, despite their abhorrence of these entities, have found themselves compelled to enter into negotiations with them. Russia held direct talks with Hamas after it won the Palestinian elections and a Reuters news report quoted a Hamas leader as saying that the United States and the European Union have been in contact with the militant group despite having listed it as a terrorist organization. Pakistan has never completely severed its relationship with the Taliban and it is believed that Islamabad also maintains some kind of a liaison with Al Qaeda.



The non-state players have used all possible tactics and have exploited all available opportunities to make themselves relevant for their constituencies. In Pakistan, Palestinian Authority territories, and Lebanon, these groups have successfully exploited the democratic process to transform themselves from non-state actors to elements of the legitimate government through participating in elections.



Consequently in Pakistan, the groups and madrassahs that spawned the Taliban, empowered the Al Qaeda mentality, and successfully revived the institution of jihad, formed governments in two of the four provinces. The significance of their political success cannot be overemphasized as both these provinces, the Northwest Frontier province and Baluchistan, not only border Afghanistan but have been a hotbed of jihad against the United States of America. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and other prominent Al Qaeda leaders are believed to be hiding somewhere in this region.



The best example of how a terrorist group can coerce acceptance for itself by the international community is Hezbollah. Hezbollah was founded by the followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the Iran’s Islamic revolution to spread their Islamist revolution in the world. It was also committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.



Taking advantage of a weak and impotent central government in the country, Hezbollah has been able to entrench itself as the most powerful politico-military group in Lebanon. Iran has also played a very vital role in enhancing Hezbollah’s power. Tehran not only financed the group, but has also provided it with weapons, manpower and training. The latest Hezbollah terrorist attack of July 12, 2006, when it entered Israeli territory and killed three Israeli soldiers, kidnapped two others and began launching rocket attacks against Israeli cities, proved a non-state player’s ability to hijack a state’s sovereign right to make its own war and peace. Many people now believe the latest Hezbollah terrorism is part of an Iranian plan to test U.S. resolve to fight terrorism and destabilize Lebanon. Chaos in Lebanon suits Hezbollah and its masters in Iran and Damascus perfectly as it gives them a chance to keep the world focus away from Tehran’s nuclear activities.



In Iraq, too, Al Qaeda-inspired insurgency has proven that without engaging the terrorists in a dialogue, the country will remain destabilized and in a perpetual state of an undeclared civil war. The world has come to recognize that Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah are quite capable of frustrating any effort on the part of the major world powers to affect peace and stability in the world. The United States and its coalition partners, despite their resources, have not been able to defeat a Wahhabi insurgency led by groups inspired by Al Qaeda in Iraq. Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi militia remains a force to be reckoned with and Ayatollah Ali Sistani continues to be the real source of political power in post Saddam Iraq. Consequently, Iraq remains in the grip of chaos, blood continues to flow on the streets and the citizens are losing their life, honor and property without any hope of redemption.



The fact remains that in this competition between state and non-state players to establish their authority over men and material, non-state players have emerged as winners for many reasons, forcing the world to take a pause and ponder on the reasons behind their successes. First, the Western powers, despite their resources, have not been able to find a single ruler who is sincere, honest, above corruption and law abiding to represent them in a world that is historically and traditionally suspicious of them. Pro-West rulers are too frequently known to be the most corrupt, tyrannical in their conduct of state affairs, and insincere toward the causes that they professed to uphold.



Second, the Muslim states, despite being rich and resourceful, have failed to fulfill their basic obligations. The common man in these parts has remained a destitute. He has no hope and no future and naturally blames the western powers for imposing incompetent and corrupt rulers on him. There are many states, like Somalia, Afghanistan and Lebanon, where the writ of the state is either very limited or remains impotent. Such states provide an ideal shelter for a non-state entity to gain strength and develop.



Third, there are states, like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, who for their own reasons find it beneficial to support, and empower non-state actors to be used to advance their strategic causes in different parts of the world. They have established agencies that take care of the destitute, helpless and needy. They provide jobs for the jobless, health care for the sick, education for the children, financial support for widows, and shelters for battered and abused women. By providing such basic human services, these non-state players win the confidence of the masses. Once they achieve a position of trust, they then exploit a trusting mind to work for their hidden agendas. Madrassahs, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the most trusted institutions and groups in Pakistan’s tribal belt. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood are loved by the people in their regions.

These religious extremists understand what people under an unrepresentative and corrupt government miss; they make sure to fill the vacuum. People feel a tremendous amount of gratitude toward these agencies and find it rather impossible to betray them.



Over time, popular gratitude turns into an unflinching faithfulness, invested in such individuals as Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. This trust makes it extremely difficult for the West to apprehend terrorist leaders. These murderers abroad are playing the role of modern day Robin Hoods at home. So long as these non-state players have a way with the masses, they will remain a formidable foe. This war on Islamist terrorism cannot be won by military means only. A way has to be found to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim masses.



Can we win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world? We can, but we must find a way to prove that we are their friends, not the source of their trouble. We will have to find Muslim leaders who are honest and who sincerely believe in an open and pluralistic way of life. And eventually we will have to free ourselves of the leaders and groups who have won our trust just to misguide us and ultimately destroy our way of life.



FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tashbih Sayyed is the Editor in Chief of Pakistan Today and The Muslim World Today, President of Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of Hudson Institute, and a regular columnist for newspapers across the world.



©2003-2006 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserve







[Hezbollah]
[Iran]
[Syria]
[Israel]
[terrorism]
[Al Qaeda]
[Pakistan]

Hezbollah uses disabled children as targets in Qana

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

Lebanese website blames Hizbullah for Qana deaths

Anti-Syrian elements in Lebanon openly point finger at Hizbullah as guilty of killing of dozens of civilians in order to curtail plans for disarming group. 'Hizbullah has placed rocket launcher on building's roof and brought invalid children inside in bid to provoke Israeli response,' they write
Roee Nahmias

Is Hizbullah behind the tragic incident in the village of Qana that claimed the lives of some 60 people? While the Israeli army continues to investigate the circumstances leading to the building's collapse, some in Lebanon do not hesitate to point the finger at the Shiite organization and claim it is to blame for the death of dozens.



The Lebanese website LIBANOSCOPIE , associated with Christian elements in the country and which openly supports the anti-Syrian movement called the "March 14 Forces," reported that Hizbullah has masterminded a plan that would result in the killing of innocents in the Qana village, in a bid to foil Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's "Seven Points Plan", which calls for deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon and the disarming of Hizbullah.



'Disabled children placed inside building'



"We have it from a credible source that Hizbullah, alarmed by Siniora's plan, has concocted an incident that would help thwart the negotiations. Knowing full well that Israel will not hesitate to bombard civilian targets, Hizbullah gunmen placed a rocket launcher on the roof in Qana and brought disabled children inside, in a bid to provoke a response by the Israeli Air Force. In this way, they were planning to take advantage of the death of innocents and curtail the negotiation initiative," the site stated.



The site's editors also claimed that not only did Hizbullah stage the event, but that it also chose Qana for a specific reason: "They used Qana because the village had already turned into a symbol for massacring innocent civilians, and so they set up 'Qana 2'." Notably, the incident has indeed been dubbed "The second Qana massacre" by the Arab media.




[Hezbollah]
[Qana]
[Israel]
[Islam]
[Terrorism]