|
THE ARAB AND MUSLIM POINT OF VIEW.
What they say, write, publish and argue about.
Pride of suicide attacker's mother
Photo: Naima: "This is the best day of my life"
A video released by Hamas shows a
proud mother taking up arms beside her favourite son. First a warm embrace, then
a loving kiss. Naima al-Obeid was saying goodbye to her 23-year-old Mahmoud, a
college student on his way to carry out a suicide attack. "God willing you will
succeed," she says. "May every bullet hit its target, and may God give you
martyrdom. This is the best day of my life." Mahmoud says: "Thank you for
raising me." Naima got her wish. Mahmoud was shot dead attacking the Jewish
settlement of Dugit in the Gaza Strip on Saturday. Deaths celebrated: Two
Israeli soldiers were killed in the ambush. Their deaths are being celebrated
near Mahmoud's home. We found crowds coming to the mourning tent - and not just
because of him.
 People
here aren't just remembering Mahmoud - they are honouring his mother. She has
become a heroine, being talked about on the streets, praised in the local
papers. Some Palestinians are taking a great deal of pride in a mother who saw
her son go to kill and die without shedding a tear. They are already saying she
will inspire other women to do the same. Heaven and hell: In her home, in
Gaza, she showed me pictures of the son she calls "my heart". She had no
sympathy for the dead Israelis, no regrets over the loss of her own son. "Nobody
wants their son to be killed. I always wanted him to have a good life. "But our
land is occupied by the Israelis. We're sacrificing our sons to get our
freedom," she told me. I asked her if it mattered whether her son killed women
and children. "The women and children are also Jews," she said, "They're all the
same for me. "And I want to tell Jewish mothers - take your children and run
from here because you will never be safe. We believe our sons go to heaven when
they are martyred. When your sons die they go to hell." Naima is surrounded by
well-wishers, no one asking why she gave her son a licence to kill. She has nine
more children, whom, she says, all have a duty to fight the Israeli occupation.
By Ourda Gerin.
PALESTINIANS CELEBRATING THE
ATTACKS ON NEW YORK
Photo: In the west bank of
Nablus, approximately 3.000 Palestinians poured into the streets shortly after
the attacks on New York World Trade Center. They celebrated the attacks and
hailed the terrorists chanting Allah is Great and death to the Americans.
PALESTINIAN CHILDREN TRAINED
TO FIGHT TO DEATH
________________________________________
PALESTINIANS ACCUSED ISRAEL AND THE WEST OF DOUBLE
STANDARDS.
Photo: Children injured in Gaza Hospital due to Israeli
bombing raids.
Photo: Israeli mobs attack a
Palestinian woman.
Photo:
Palestinian baby decapitated by Israeli rocket.
Photo: An Israeli
bulldozer destroys Palestinian olive trees.
_____________________________________________________________
THE ISRAELI/JEWISH POINT OF VIEW.
What they say, write, publish and argue about.
INTERVIEW WITH RABBI SHEA
HECHT
Rabbi
Shea Hecht: "From the religious perspective, this land was given to us by G-d
and we have no right to give it away."
Photo: Rabbi Shea Hecht, is
the Chairman of the Board of the National Committee for the Furtherance of
Jewish Education in New York City.
Rabbi Hecht: "President Bush and
Secretary Rice agenda is questionable. Perhaps with fiasco in Iraq as the
backdrop they are hoping that success in Israel will be redeeming."
 Brief chat
with Rabbi Shea Hecht, one of the most brilliant Jewish scholars and brightest
minds of our time.
Q: Rabbi Shea,
what is your take on the whole Gaza pullout scenario? What is a good move on the
part of the government of Israel?
Rabbi Shea:
Why should we give away land to the Arabs if
they are not willing to give us anything in return. This is not part of the
peace treaty nor the peace process. Why should we give it away?
Q: What is going
to happen next? Any prediction (s)?
Rabbi Shea:
It's hard to speak about a prediction, but as a
prayer, I hope that the miracle we were all waiting for will
happen.
Q: Do you
believe the Palestinians are satisfied now or they could or would ask for more.
I mean more Jewish cities? Qurei wants Jerusalem!
Rabbi Shea:
The Palestinians have stated and restated their
position that they are not going to stop until they have the entire Jerusalem.
They want to drive the Jews into the sea.
Q:
Why all of a sudden Condoleezza Rice and President Bush are warming up to the
Palestinians? What is their agenda?
Rabbi Shea:
Their agenda is questionable. Perhaps with
fiasco in Iraq as the backdrop they are hoping that success in Israel will be
redeeming. In essence, they are only creating more havoc and sending confusing
messages with the pressure they are putting on Israel.
Q: We hear a lot
about possible civil war in Israel. What is your prediction?
Rabbi Shea:
There will never be civil war in Israel if it
means Jew against Jew. Even the Arabs in Israel recognize that they are way
better off than they were before 1948. Israel is a democracy. Arabs can vote and
be elected to the Knesset.
Q: Rabbis in
Israel claim that depriving the Jewish settlers from their lands is against the
Jewish Law. Do you share this claim?
Rabbi Shea:
From the religious perspective, this land was
given to us by G-d and we have no right to give it away. Everything must be done
for the safety of the people living in Israel. Ariel Sharon himself is seen on
tape explaining to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin how important and
strategic the Gaza strip is for the safety of Jews and all those who live in
Israel.
The Koran - Something Lost
in the TranslationBy Dr. Jerome S.
Kaufman, National Secretary
Zionist Organization of America.
Now that all the politically correct and
agenda-motivated rhetoric has been completed, maybe we can take a less emotional
view of exactly what happened following the Newsweek magazine story of American
guards at the Guantanamo prison flushing a Koran down the toilet? Shortly
following publication, Newsweek admitted the story was a complete fabrication.
After some investigation, the US military did conclude some isolated incidents
of Koran abuse had occurred but determined that most of those were done by the
prisoners themselves. What was the reaction in the Muslim world? Reported were
riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, Palestinian Arab territories,
Iraq, wherever. About sixteen people were reportedly killed and hundreds
injured. By some coincidence, many of these riots occurred immediately following
Friday services in the mosques. Thus, this rioting of thousands of people did
not occur spontaneously. These riots were, in the main, initiated by the
inflammatory rhetoric of the mosques’ imams. Why? Is not the transparent goal of
the religious hierarchy, the imams, et al, to maintain their virtually absolute
power over Muslim countries and their citizens? Every ploy, especially using the
United States and Israel as the whipping boys, is used to maintain the imam’s
destructive power and delude the Muslim people that their societies remaining in
abject poverty and ignorance for the last 800 years is somehow our fault. The
West is also being subjected to a constant barrage of religious “information” on
the Koran. We are told, “it glorifies Abraham, Moses and Jesus and teaches
lessons of faith, family values, caring for orphans, feeding the poor, helping
the suffering, removing racism and oppression from society and bringing the joy
of justice and freedom to the people of God.” But something surely got lost in
this translation. Rather than grant Christianity and Judaism the respect
claimed, M. Kedar, Professor of Arabic Studies points out that Muhammad, with a
stroke of his imagination, has simply “Islamized” their religious leaders. He
made Abraham the first Moslem and Jesus and St. John prophets, along with Adam,
Joseph, Seth and Aaron. According to Muhammad’s dream, he then takes them to the
Seventh Heaven to meet Allah, who obligingly accepts Muhammad as their master.
Thus a religion of triumphalism was created wherein Christians and Jews have
been designated as “dhimmis”, a “protected class” of people, whose rights in
Muslim countries is completely subservient to those of the Muslim.
As
to the statement that the Koran “defends family values, cares for the poor,
removes oppression,” that also has somehow been lost in the translation Mitchell
Bard in Myths and Facts presents the real world of human rights in Arab Islamic
countries. He writes, “The popular press has chosen to virtually ignore
violations of fundamental human rights that take place daily in almost every
Arab country. According to annual reports by the American State Department,
most of the Arab states are ruled by oppressive, dictatorial regimes, which deny
their citizens basic freedoms of political expression, speech, press and due
process. The Arab Human Development Report published by a group of Arab
researchers from the UN Development Program concluded that out of the seven
regions of the world, Arab countries had the lowest freedom score. They also had
the lowest ranking for "voice and accountability," a measure of various aspects
of the political process, civil liberties, political rights and independence of
the media. And what has been our own recent experience with religious
desecration? Mary Mostert, political commentator, reports that in Serbian Kosovo
alone since 1999, 140 Christian Churches were blown up with 25 churches
destroyed just this past year! When the Jordanians invaded Israel in 1948 and
maintained Judea and Samaria (West Bank) as theirs for 19 years, 57 synagogues,
in Jerusalem alone, were defaced and their Torah scrolls destroyed. The ancient
Mount of Olives Jewish cemetery was decimated with 38,000 gravestones torn loose
and used to pave roads and Jordanian army latrines. These are just two examples
of the hundreds of desecrations of Christian and Jewish holy sites that have
occurred in Muslim countries over the centuries. How does that compare with the
recent purported Koran book desecration? Certainly it is wrong to demean anyone
else’s religion in this country. People are encouraged to believe whatever they
want but please do not make us the fall guys for their own self-inflicted
problems, in the process.
Muslim Sensitivity
 By Dr. Jerome S. Kaufman,
National Secretary Zionist Organization of
America.
Perhaps we should re-evaluate the
constant drumming we hear as to our lack of sensitivity toward Muslims and
their religion. The latest episode revolved around an error made by Newsweek
magazine in its blatant attempt to again discredit President Bush and
our own armed forces. The ploy backfired. It turns out Newsweek created a
false story describing the flushing of a Muslim holy book, the Koran, down
the toilets at the Guantanemo prison Abu Ghraib. This tactic was supposedly
used in order to extract information from Muslim prisoners, a doubtful
strategy at best. The story proved completely false and Newsweek offered an
inadequate apology. But what happened in the Muslim world as a result?
Reported were riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, Palestinian
Arab territories, Iraq, wherever. About sixteen people were reportedly killed
and hundreds injured. By some coincidence, many of these riots occurred
immediately following Friday services in the mosques. Thus, this rioting of
thousands of people did not, as usual, occur spontaneously. These riots were
initiated by the inflammatory rhetoric of the mosques' imams. Then what about
this Muslim sensitivity? The Muslims were rioting theoretically over a single
episode of their holy book flushed down a toilet and, even that, proved to be
false.\ There happens to be
another much neglected side to the equation. Where is their "sensitivity" to
us? Mary Mostert, political commentator reports that in Serbian Kosovo alone
since 1999, 140 Christian Churches were blown up with 25 churches destroyed
just this past year! When the Jordanians invaded Israel in 1948 and maintained
Judea and Samaria (West Bank) as theirs for 19 years, 57 synagogues were
defaced and destroyed in Jerusalem alone. The ancient Mount of Olives Jewish
cemetery was decimated with 38,000 gravestones torn loose and used to pave
roads and Jordanian army latrines.
These
are just two examples of the thousands of desecrations of Christian and
Jewish holy sites that have occurred over the centuries. How does that
compare with the reporting of a Koran book desecration that in fact, never
occurred? But, never mind the "spontaneous riots?" What is really at play
here? Professor Robert A. Pape, associate professor of political science at
the University of Chicago, declares after an extensive study of suicide
bombings that, "What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in
common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies
to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be
their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in
recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause."
Cannot one easily apply the same conclusions to Islamic rioting? What is the
common factor here? Is not the common factor the transparent goal of the
religious hierarchy, the imams, et al, to maintain their virtually absolute
power over Muslim countries and their citizens? Every ploy, especially using
the United States and Israel as the whipping boys, is used to maintain their
lethal power and delude the Muslim people that their societies remaining in
abject poverty and ignorance for the last 800 years is somehow our fault. The
imams are rightfully very frightened that President Bush's so-called War on
Terror may actually result in bringing democracy to Islamic lands. In fact, it
is already happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestinian Arab
territories and the very thought itself, of Democracy, suddenly occurring to
Islamic regimes in the rest of world. What might this do? Of course it would
take a giant step toward removing the imams from their strangle hold of power,
educate their people and hopefully help bring them into the 21st century. Our
looking the other way will not work anymore and did not really work in the
first place. If we are truly to have some remote chance of relative peace,
than the root causes must be unequivocally addressed .
Who is owed the apology and
much more?
Yesterday, (June 19, 2005)
Israel apologized to the United States, via Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
for agreeing to sell Harpy attack drones and other advanced technology to China.
"It is impossible to hide the crisis between Israel and the United States with
regard to the security industries. We are doing everything possible to put it
behind us," Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said on Israel Radio "The United
States is our biggest ally, and none of the things that were done were done with
the intention of harming U.S. interests," he said. Miss Rice had raised concerns
about the deal on her way to the Middle East on Friday. "I believe that the
Israelis now understand our concerns, and I'm certain that, as good partners
can, that we can come to some resolution to allow us to proceed," she said
yesterday It is absolutely impossible for me to understand why Israel has to
constantly apologize to the United States for selling weaponry to China or India
or anyone else. How dare the United States demand such an apology and such
control over Israeli military exports to countries thousands of miles,
fortunately from our borders, when the United States, at the very same time, has
been supplying, in massive quantities, the most sophisticated weaponry to
Israel’s mortal enemies - all of whom are either on her immediate borders or
very short flying miles away? Is Israel less needy of import funds than the
gargantuan American Military Industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower
so clairvoyantly warned us against 45 years ago According to the legally
required Arms Sales Monitoring Project that keeps track of the administration's
notifications to Congress of proposed government-negotiated Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) agreements, export licenses for industry-negotiated Direct
Commercial Sales (DCS), leases of equipment, and reduced price or free excess
defense article (EDA) transfers, the following countries have impending military
sales, not to mention the billions of dollars of sophisticated military hardware
furnished to them in the previous 10 years Saudi Arabia – 370 million, Egypt 2.7
billion, Jordan 161 million, Kuwait 113 billion, United Arab Emirates 455
billion Would you not think that only when the US stops these sales to Israel’s
mortal enemies (current cosmetic peace treaties not withstanding) can the US
legitimately raise concerns as to Israel’s arms sales?
CAN
HEZBOLLAH AND HAMAS BE DEMOCRATIC?
By Dr. Daniel Pipes
If
Al-Qaeda renounced terrorism, would the U.S. government welcome its running
candidates in American elections? Had the Nazis denounced violence, would
Hitler have become an acceptable chancellor for Germany? Not likely, because
the tactics of Al-Qaeda and the Nazis matter less than their goals. Similarly,
Hezbollah and Hamas are unacceptable because of their goals. These
organizations are important elements of the Islamist movement that seeks to
create a global totalitarian order along the lines of what has already been
created in Iran, Sudan, and in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They see
themselves as part of a cosmic clash between Muslims and the West in which the
victor dominates the world. Washington, trying to be consistent in its push
for democracy, prefers to ignore these goals and instead endorses involvement
by Hezbollah and Hamas in the political process, pending their making some
small changes. These signals began last week when President
George W. Bush stated
that although Hezbollah, a Lebanese group, is “a terrorist organization,” he
hopes it will change that designation “by laying down arms and not threatening
peace.” White House spokesman
Scott McClellan then
elaborated on this comment by specifying the two alternatives:
“organizations like Hezbollah have to choose, either you’re a terrorist
organization or you’re a political organization.”
Bush himself explained
further what he meant a day later, presenting elections as a method to shed
the terrorist designation:
I like the idea of people running
for office. There’s a positive effect when you run for office. Maybe some will
run for office and say, vote for me, I look forward to blowing up America. I
don’t know, I don’t know if that will be their platform or not. But I don’t
think so. I think people who generally run for office say, vote for me, I’m
looking forward to fixing your potholes, or making sure you got bread on the
table. Hamas a Palestinian organization, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice noted,
could also evolve in the right direction once it enters the democratic
process: When people start getting elected and have to start worrying about
constituencies and have to start worrying not about whether their
fire-breathing rhetoric against Israel is being heard, but about whether or
not that person’s child down the street is able to go to a good school or that
road has been fixed or life is getting better, that things start to change.
The theory implied here is that running for office – with its emphasis on such
mundane matters as fixing potholes and providing good schools – will temper
Hezbollah and Hamas. Count me skeptical. The historical record does not
support such optimism. When politically adept totalitarians win power
democratically, they do fix potholes and improve schools – but only as a means
to transform their countries in accordance with their utopian visions. This
generalization applies most clearly to the historical cases (Adolf Hitler in
Germany after 1933, Salvador Allende in Chile after 1970) but it also appears
valid for the current ones (Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh since 2001, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan in Turkey since 2002). Then there is the matter of their undemocratic
intentions.
Josef Goebbels explained in
1935 that the Nazis used democratic methods “only in order” to gain
power. Looking at Islamists, then-assistant secretary of state for the Middle
East
Edward Djerejian
explained in 1992, “While we believe in the principle of ‘one person, one
vote,’ we do not support ‘one person, one vote, one time’.” Khomeini’s Iran
indicates that Islamists do manipulate elections to stay in power. Washington
should take a principled stand that excludes from the democratic process not
just terrorists but also totalitarians using the system to get into power and
stay there. It is not enough for Islamist organizations to renounce violence;
being irredeemably autocratic, they must be excluded from elections. In a
famed
Supreme Court dissent in
1949, the eminent justice Robert H. Jackson argued for the arrest
of a neo-Nazi rabble-rouser in Chicago on the grounds that not doing so “will
convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” The same
imperative for self-protection applies also to international politics. Even if
Hezbollah and Hamas promise a change in tactics, the U.S. government – or for
that matter, Israel and other Western states – should not accept them as
legitimate political parties.
In
Israeli eyes, Hamas is the worst kind of terrorist enemy.
The militant Islamist movement
has traditionally concentrated on its confrontation with Israel. But now it is
moving into the democratic political arena. In the last bout of local elections
in January - held only in Hamas's Gaza stronghold - Fatah suffered a series of
landslide defeats. A repeat performance this time out would have been
disastrous. But this was avoided. As one senior Fatah spokesman put it, the
results showed that his party "remained the biggest force on the Palestinian
street". And another spokesman said Fatah had learnt its lessons from the
defeats of January. It had found a more open system designed to produce a
better, stronger slate of candidates. But Hamas too can take strength from this
election. It won important contests in big population centres, like the town of
Rafah in Gaza, and Qalqilya in the West Bank. Hamas is claiming that the final
results will show that it won half the seats it contested. Up for the
fight: But even if it wins no more than the 35% of the vote that officials
say it scored, that will not be a bad result. If Hamas could do the same come
July's general election it might take a third of the seats. And Hamas is up for
the fight. "We're not afraid of any election," said a Hamas spokesman, Mahmood
Zahar. "We enjoy massive support on the popular level both as a liberation
movement and representatives of true Islam." In Israeli eyes, Hamas is the worst
kind of terrorist enemy. Its charter still speaks of ultimately seeking to
destroy Israel, and its suicide bombers have struck repeatedly. But its
supporters regard Hamas as merely hitting back in retaliation for decades of
dispossession and occupation at Israeli hands. If the movement is able to exert
significant influence over parliament and the decision making process here it
will do everything it can to ensure that the Palestinian side drives the hardest
possible bargain in any dealings with Israel. But many Palestinians welcome the
prospect of the ending of Fatah's monopoly on parliamentary power. They want to
see the emergence of a more democratic, representative political system.
Hizbullah:
'Israel must cede more land'.
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah says seven villages inside
Israel belong to Lebanon; expert says rhetoric comes in framework of terror
group's efforts to avoid disarmament Seven Arab villages currently in northern
Israel belong to Lebanon and should be ceded, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah
said in an election rally in Lebanon Thursday. Nasrallah's demands regarding the
villages have been voiced before and mark the latest attempt to deflect growing
calls for the Hizbullah to disarm, Arab affairs expert Eyal Zisser told Ynet in
response to the report. "Nasrallah mentioned this several times in the past,
including prior to the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon," he said. "It should be
viewed as a tactic in an attempt to. avoid disarmament." Nasrallah looking for
excuses? Meanwhile, political sources said Nasrallah's remarks are an effort to
extend the group's "resistance" efforts, after other disputes with Israel on the
Lebanese border have been resolved. The villages in question were annexed to
what is today Israel prior to the state's establishment through agreements
between France and Britain, but Nasrallah chose to provide his own reasoning for
why the area should in fact be considered Lebanese territory. Deputy Defense
Minister Ze'ev Boim also dismissed Nasrallah's comments. "It's surprising that
Nasrallah is even attempting to find excuses to justify his war of Jihad against
Israel, which is his only objective," Boim said. "Nobody is surprised by his
threats. IMRA
|
|
THE ISRAELI/JEWISH POINT OF VIEW.
What they say, write, publish and argue about.
______________________________________________________
Photo: Israelis cross the
border between Egypt and Israel at the Israeli town of Eilat, across from
the Egyptian resort of Taba on Thursday, after a strong explosion shook the
Hilton hotel in Taba, only yards from the Israeli border, as many Israelis
were vacationing Thursday night at the close of a Jewish holiday. Israeli
police confirm at least 30 dead at the Hilton blast and "a large number of
wounded."
 Photo: Israeli woman killed by a
Palestinian suicide bomber.
Yet, the organizational phase of al-Qa'ida
and affiliated groups of Global Jihad was in the hands of leaders who were far
more operational than ideological-- Usama bin Ladin, Ayman Zawahiri, Muhammad
Atef, or nowadays Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi. Moreover, the second generation of
al-Qa'ida members, operatives, supporters, or sympathizers is growing in the
fields of other Islamist battlegrounds in areas other than Afghanistan or
Bosnia, namely, such as Iraq, Europe, Southeast Asia, and worldwide.
 Photo:
Israeli mother mourning her killed son.
The modus operandi of al-Qa'ida--to move
the battle to enemy soil; martyrdom operations; and the killing of Muslims,
legitimized by clerics--is led by the operatives, and affect the imagination
of Muslim youth worldwide, giving priority to new strategies over basic
ideology. Even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become less important and
is no longer a crucial issue, at least relative to the priorities of global
Jihad. Ayman Zawahiri wrote several times, adopting the traditional position
of Egyptian Jihad, that "the road to the liberation of Jerusalem moves through
the liberation of Cairo and Damascus." The present strategy of al-Qa'ida and
its global Jihad is mostly the result of processes and developments in the
core of the Arab world--oppression by Arab governments; the war in Iraq and
the American occupation there; the inability to infiltrate the Palestinian
territories because of traditional opposition by Hamas, which has a very
different agenda; the relative weakness of the Saudi regime; and rising
support in Saudi Arabian society, as well as in other parts of the Arab world,
for the insurgency in Iraq. Other processes such as the relative operational
freedom in Europe also contributed to its development.
The basic ideology remained the same: To
liberate the entire Muslim world from any Western/Zionist/Crusader
colonialism, both in its physical presence in the Muslim world and its
cultural influence, in order to create a Muslim state or states totally ruled
by the Islamic Shari'ah and liberated from any man-made laws. These goals are
to be achieved through a long Jihad led by well-indoctrinated avant-garde
groups, whose members are more eager to reach the world to come than to live
in this "worthless" one. By contrast, the strategy is in accordance with the
developments in the field, primarily Iraq and the Arab world. Iraq became one
of the most important elements in al-Qa'ida strategy, a kind of the jewel in
the Jihadi crown. Iraq and the insurgency there is also a model of global
Jihad's ability to mutate itself to become independent groups of Moroccan
immigrants in Spain, or Pakistanis in the United Kingdom, Jamaican converts to
Islam, Somalian immigrants to Europe, etc., who are willing to sacrifice
themselves for the global strategy of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. Iraq is not an
ideological target, yet it is the most important factor directing the rage of
Arab or Muslim youngsters towards terrorism. Jihadi-Salafi ideologues of the
first generation of global Jihad might not approve of it, as we saw recently,
but the control is in the hands of the strategists, who by their
indoctrination and incitement became the heroes of this generation, angry and
humiliated in its eyes.
They are a generation of Muslims whose
knowledge of Islam is usually poor, but their apocalyptic notions lead them to
blindly follow the strategists, believing that this is true religion and
faith. One of the problems deriving a different analysis is the social element
behind the rage and the sense of humiliation. An Egyptian sociologist, Dr.
Huda Husseini, defined it very well in the 1990s: They are youngsters at the
age of fruitful creativity but under a lot of pressures that push them towards
militancy. It is easy therefore, to use them and organize them like soldiers
in a group that serves also as an alternative to the old grouping, such as the
family or the society that surrounds them. The person who carries out the
operation is offered to kill or be killed while death is presented as
martyrdom that brings him closer to Allah. The person who plants such ideas in
the mind of a youngster turns him into a canon, after his personality has been
reshaped according to the needs of the his new social group and its
destructive interests.
The group programs him in a manner that he could
explode any minute as if he is activated by remote control. The new group
carries out its indoctrination by totally different means of his natural
former social framework. The older plants its values gradually through
childhood and youth with the aim of continuance and construction. The new
alternative group activates rapid indoctrination by the most sacred means for
the soul such as religious belief. Its target is not continuance but to shock
the society and the destruction of the existing system. It pours into its
instructions and prohibitions a sense of sacred religion so one cannot argue
its orders or refrain from carrying them out. That way it achieves maximum
discipline and abolishes any self-thinking.[ii] Dr. Ajai Sahni, an Indian
scholar, wrote in March 2004, that "The Islamist terrorist agenda is more
inflexible than most of us imagine, and its ends are defined, not in terms of
the transient political parameters of the discourse of international
relations, but by a perspective rooted in religious absolutisms that will
endure long after the reverberations of the crises of transition in
Afghanistan or in Iraq have come to an end."[iii] His words can very well
define the fundamental goals of al-Qa'ida or global Jihad. However, these
targets might long remain, not only after "the reverberations of the crises of
transition in Afghanistan or in Iraq have come to an end," but also after Bin
Laden's or Zarqawi's death or imprisonment. In the meantime, the crises in
Afghanistan and especially in Iraq are far from coming to an end, and such
crises might last for quite some time, affecting the entire Arab world, the
cradle of global Jihad's ideology and strategy.
The operatives do not possess the same
endurance of the ideologues, but they are the dominant party.A good example of
the tension between the ideologues and the strategists is found in the recent
public criticism of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdesi, Zarqawi's mentor, over his
disciple saying, "The indiscriminate attacks in Iraq might distort the true
Jihad." This was not his first criticism of Zarqawi and his group. In
September 2004, Al-Maqdesi sent a long message from Al-Qafqafa prison through
Jihadi forums on the Internet.[iv] In both cases this criticism generated a
wave of responses by Jihadi scholars, clerics, and youth who were both
surprised and confused. Zarqawi was not affected by this criticism, and he did
not stop his suicide attacks against Sunni officials, Shi`i civilians, nor the
more recent attacks on Sufi crowds of praying Muslims. In May 2005, he sent a
very long audiotape in which he justified his policy, including the killing of
Muslims. In July, he answered him again, basing his arguments on rulings by a
new class of Saudi clerics that supports Global Jihad. To sum up--Zarqawi,
unlike Usama bin Ladin, is consolidating a class of Jihadi-Salafi clerics who
provide the necessary legitimacy for the insurgence in Iraq as a "proper
Jihad." Hence, he is doing what the older generation of Jihadi clerics used to
accuse Muslim governments and clerics of--creating the Ulama al-Salatin--the
clerics who obey the political rulers.
The U.S. administration is right to claim that Global Jihad attacked Western
targets before Iraq and might continue to do so after Iraq. This is the al-Qa'ida
ideology. Yet, in the meantime, the ideology is mutating itself according to a
strategy totally based upon the developments in the insurgency in Iraq, and
the enormous effect of it upon Arab Muslim youth. We should not ignore this
effect, which might even grow with the forthcoming open trial of Saddam
Hussein. The latter's image is also "mutating" into a more human and
sympathetic one, even by young supporters of Global Jihad in their Internet
forums. He is moving from being a tyrant "Pharaoh" to a symbol of an Arab and
Muslim fighter against the Americans. Who knows if in a year or two's time we
shall not witness an Islamic ruling against his trial or the anticipated
verdict? *Reuven Paz is founder and director of the Project for the Research
of Islamist Movements (PRISM) at the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center, the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, and a long time
researcher of Islam and Islamic movements.
NOTES
[i] Abdallah Azzam, "Al-Qa`idah al-Sulbah," Al-Jihad (Afghanistan) , No. 41
(April 1988), pp. 46-49.
[ii] Al-Ahali, June 28th 1995. [iii] Dr. Ajai Sahni, "The Iraq War and the
Deluge of Terror," Intelligence Review (SAIR) Weekly Assessments & Briefings,
Volume 1, No. 36, March 24, 2003.
[iv] Munasarah wa-Munasahah li-Abi Mus`ab al-Zarqawi min Abi Muhammad al-Maqdesi
fi sijnihi (Support and Advice to Zarqawi by Al-Maqdesi from within his
Prison). See on-line at:http://www.ansarnet.ws/vb/showthread.php?t=14593 (the
forum is currently closed).
Photo: Young Israeli soldiers bleeding to
death.
Photo: More Israeli casualties
and dead people on the hands of Palestinians...
Photo: 10 months old Israeli
baby was killed.
Photo: 6 months old Israeli
baby was killed by Palestinians.
Photo: Funeral of Rabbi
Lieberman,
who was gunned down by Palestinians.
______________________________________________________
Al-Qaeda Nuclear Threat: A Modest Proposal
By Rachel Neuwirth
This article is
satirical and relates to the current expulsion of Israeli Jews from their
homes by their own government. It is written in the manner of Jonathan
Swift’s famous satire, A Modest Proposal.
America could be
facing a potential catastrophe from nuclear weapons that may have already been
smuggled inside this country by al-Qaeda. Sleeper cells may already be
positioned inside as many as twenty major cities. The danger is real and
awareness is increasing. World Net Daily (www.wnd.com)
has reported on revelations contained in the upcoming book The al-Qaeda
Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse,
by former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams. Edited excerpts from a World Net
Daily
report of
July 18 follow:
Osama bin Laden is planning what he calls an "American
Hiroshima," the ultimate terrorist attack on U.S. cities, using nuclear
weapons already smuggled into the country across the Mexican border along with
thousands of sleeper agents. The series of attacks is designed to kill 4
million, destroy the economy, and fundamentally alter the course of history.
Al-Qaeda's prime targets for launching nuclear terrorist attacks are the nine
U.S. cities with the highest Jewish populations, according to captured leaders
and documents. The cities chosen as optimal targets are New York, Miami, Los
Angeles, Philadelphia,
Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston, and Washington, D.C. New York and
Washington top the preferred target list for al-Qaeda leadership.
Our own security officials have also told us repeatedly
that it is not a matter of “if” but rather of “when” the next major attack
will occur. An
update on this threat was published by World Net Daily on
8/18/05.
Many American lives could be at stake here,
and what is needed is bold thinking on how to avert such an attack, or to at
least reduce its likelihood. In that spirit, this article presents “A Modest
Proposal” which advocates a two-part response. Part I proposes to reduce
the attractiveness of the potential targets. Part II proposes to make
the targets additionally undesirable and to also reduce enemy hostility.
Part I. Nine large, American cities are prime targets because of their size,
importance, and their concentrations of Jews. If the presence of Jews
in these cities increases their appeal as targets then logically the
absence of Jews would decrease that appeal by a comparable amount. The
security of three hundred million Americans must not be kept at risk merely
for the sake of not inconveniencing Jews who comprise barely two percent of
our population. Because the potential danger is so immense and so imminent,
the relocation of American Jews must be expedited.
Removal of Jews should
not be too difficult. Jews want to be seen as loyal Americans. Most would
cooperate, if reluctantly and emotionally, in their removal as their patriotic
duty to increase the safety of their fellow Americans. Jews are accustomed to
relocating and have done so repeatedly from biblical times. In recent times,
nearly a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries and more than a
million Jews have also left the former Soviet Union. Even inside America,
Jews often move for purely personal reasons. Relocation is a familiar Jewish
experience. Then there is the question of propriety.
Is it proper to compel Jews to relocate--especially after they have
become so comfortable in this country? Fortunately this question has already
been answered. For security reasons, and for the greater good, none other
than Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is even now in the process of expelling eight
thousand Jews from their homes in Gaza and is using the Israeli army and
police to do it. And more than ten times that number of Jews are likely to
face expulsion from the West Bank later on. The number of Israeli Jews
targeted for expulsion in both Gaza and the West Bank is proportionally
equivalent to America relocating about five million American Jews. This
forced relocation has been ruled to be a perfectly legal action taken by the
Israeli government, and President Bush, who is considered to be a great friend
of Israel, supports it. Relocating American Jews
will be far easier than expelling Jews in Israel. American Jews tend toward
pacifism, are highly law-abiding and non-confrontational--except for the
highly vocal Jewish leftists who, in this case, would likely support Jewish
expulsion. Furthermore, the American Jewish leadership has already endorsed
the principle of forced expulsion of Jews in Israel as the legal right of that
government to act in the interests of security and the greater good.
Thus American Jews
cannot now object to being subjected to the same requirements in the interest
of U.S. national security. Necessary expertise in
Jewish relocation procedures can be borrowed from Israel. The Sharon
government knows how to recruit, screen, and train thousands of men and women
from the Jewish community to form police expulsion units and cope with the
related logistics and media management. As in Israel, these expulsion
police would be well paid, not be required to identify themselves to the
expellees, and the courts will go easy on any charges of police brutality. Any
manifestation of Jewish protest will be quickly put down. Protesters,
including teenagers, would be placed in administrative detention and held
without charges for up to six months. Unlike in Israel, there are no
Palestinian Arab equivalents in America to rain down rockets on the expulsion
process and requiring army units to protect the evacuation.
As in Israel, there
will be at most peaceful, completely non-violent protests, perhaps combined
with a little civil disobedience of the most harmless and easily suppressed
kind. Since most American Jews will peacefully board the busses and trains
carrying them to their new homes, whatever protests may occur will be
conducted by evangelical Christians--the most law-abiding segment of the
American population, who will easily be dissuaded from violence or seriously
disruptive behaviour by their ministers. We cannot deny that 1.3 billion
Muslims comprise a formidable world force that is in the ascendancy while Jews
are a tiny minority that is in decline, especially in America. America
has suffered politically from the general perception that the interests of
Israel and Jews are favoured over the interests of Muslims and Arabs.
This is an opportunity for American policy to become more even-handed and to
gain the respect of the Muslim world. As in Israel, U.S. Jews who voluntarily
sign up early for expulsion will receive extra benefits while those who object
or delay could face fines or even prison. The American Jewish leaders
must demonstrate their national loyalty by signing up early and encouraging
their followers to do likewise.
American Jews wield
influence far exceeding their numbers which is viewed as a provocation to many
in the Muslim world. The expulsion must include all Jews, including
elected officials and those of influence. We do not know how much time remains
before a possible attack is launched by al-Qaeda. Therefore, this evacuation
must proceed quickly in the interests of national security. Naturally, it
will be necessary to compile lists of Jews and Jewish leaders and Jewish
organizations must be required to furnish such information. Unaffiliated Jews
must also be identified and included on these lists. It will not be possible
to properly liQaedate all property and assets in a short time, so the
Jews will have to select whatever they can transport in limited-size vehicles
and forgo the rest. Their European forebears and Israeli cousins have
followed these procedures on numerous occasions in the past. As a result, few
American Jews will be unduly alarmed or angered by this element of the
American-Islamic peace and reconciliation process.
In the interests of national security and of fairness it should be a crime for
any non-Jew to harbor a Jew.
This procedure must be
executed thoroughly and without favouritism so that the Muslim world will see
that we Americans are sincere. Jewish institutions,
including hospitals (along with their Jewish patients), colleges, schools,
synagogues, museums, and the like must be emptied of Jewish personnel and
content and prepared for evacuation. Jewish expertise, or as some say
dominance, in the film industry could be put to good use in ensuring the
successful and smooth operation of the relocation program. For example, the
distinguished Jewish American filmmaker Steven Spielberg could produce and
direct a film showing the happy and successful adjustment of a sympathetically
portrayed American Jewish family to their new home community in rural Alaska.
The classic film made by a distinguished German Jewish director 62 years ago,
documenting the happy and prosperous Jewish community in the relocation center
of Thieresienstadt and filmed during the difficult period of Jewish relocation
in the Second World War, could serve Speilberg as a useful model. Spielberg
(or any number of other justly celebrated Jewish filmmakers) could also be
tasked to compile a film record of how Jews lived in America before their
relocation, which would serve as a nostalgic memento for the relocatees in
their new homes, as well as a useful educational tool for the whole
population. The film could be shown in schools across the country, as well as
in Jewish museums and Holocaust centers, in order to encourage ethnic and
racial tolerance and multiculturalism.
Jews would be relocated to relatively
uninhabited places, away from any potential target area. Their new homes
should be in currently under-populated areas like Nevada, Utah, Idaho,
Montana, North and South Dakota, and Alaska.The Jews should be assigned
specific areas that will be reserved for Jewish occupancy, in the same manner
as the reservations for Indian tribes.
Since Jews are
essentially a tribal group, they are sure to appreciate having tribal
homelands of their own, outside the strife-torn Middle East. New housing and
other facilities should be paid for largely by the Jewish community, in
exchange for the value of the land they would receive from the government.
Jews should be given the option of digging up their dead and transporting the
remains to the Jewish reservations. Abandoned graves would then be bulldozed.
Those few Jews who are unwilling to resettle on the reservations will be
encouraged to find new homes in other countries. Part II. This part is
designed to create an active disincentive for al-Qaeda to strike our
major cities. To further enhance American security,
the vacated homes and properties of America’s five million Jews should be
turned over to Muslim immigrants from Arab countries. They must promise to
show respect for the former Jewish homes they are being given and must not
dance on the roofs of their new homes in a show of celebration or victory.
Muslims should also acquire synagogues and other Jewish facilities but must
promise not to burn them down in celebration but to quietly convert them into
mosques. Al-Qaeda would then have to think twice before attacking cities with
significant Muslim populations and their newly acquired mosques. Osama Bin
Laden may feel grudging respect to America for having outsmarted him--and
doing it with style and class.The entire Muslim world would then have to
reconsider its anti-American animosity. We will have demonstrated that e are
reasonable and respectful toward our Muslim brothers and sisters. We will
have shown our willingness to be even-handed in redressing the old imbalance
where Jews, being but two percent of America, had wielded such
disproportionate influence in the culture, in the business sector, and on its
policies. Relocation of Jews would be a very small price to pay for the
prospect of avoiding a devastating attack which would consume Jewish lives as
well as those of other Americans. We could then open a new chapter in
Muslim-American relations and together strive for a more peaceful and just
world.
Bertram Cohen and John Landau
contributed to this column.
Islamists, Get Out
By Daniel Pipes
As the full implications of the London’s terrorism by
domestic jihadis sink in, Westerners speak out about the problem of radical
Islam with new clarity and boldness. The most profound development is the
sudden need of the British and others to assert what it means to be British,
Australian, or some other nationality. In the face of the Islamist challenge,
historic identities taken for granted must now be explained and codified. This
can be seen on a diurnal level, where Islamist assertion has provoked a new
European willingness in recent months to
stand up for historic customs – as seen by the banning of burqas in Italy,
requiring a German school boy to attend co-ed swimming classes, and making
male applicants for Irish citizenship renounce polygamy. When a ranking
Belgian politician cancelled lunch with an Iranian group after it demanded
that alcohol not be present, his spokesman helpfully explained that “You can’t
force the authorities of Belgium to drink water.” As shown by two statements
on the same day last week (Aug. 24), leading Western politicians are going
beyond these minor specifics to address the civilizational heart of the
matter.
David Cameron, the British shadow education secretary and one of the
Conservative party’s bright prospects, defined Britishness as “freedom
under the rule of law,” adding that this expression “explains almost
everything you need to know about our country, our institutions, our history,
our culture - even our economy.”
Peter Costello, the treasurer of Australia and regarded as heir apparent
to Prime Minister John Howard, asserts that “Australia expects its citizens to
abide by core beliefs – democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary,
independent liberty.” Cameron also spoke with a bluntness unique in four years
of politicians’ discourse since 9/11: “The driving force behind today’s
terrorist threat is Islamist fundamentalism. The struggle we are engaged in
is, at root, ideological. During the last century a strain of Islamist
thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazi-ism
and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence.”
Most striking are the growing calls to extrude Islamists.
Two politicians have advised foreign Islamists to stay
away.
Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, Quebec’s international relations minister,
retracted the welcome mat from those “who want to come to Quebec and who do
not respect women’s rights or who do not respect whatever rights may be in our
Civil Code.”
Bob Carr, premier of New South Wales, Australia (which includes Sydney),
wants would-be immigrants to be denied visas if they refuse to integrate: “I
don’t think they should be let in. Costello goes further, observing that
Australia “is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a
secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are
not your values, if you want a country which has Shari’a law or a theocratic
state, then Australia is not for you.” Islamists with dual citizenship, he
suggests, could be asked “to exercise that other citizenship,” i.e., leave
Australia. Likewise,
Brendan Nelson, Australia’s education minister, also on Aug. 24 urged
immigrants to “commit to the Australian constitution, Australian rule of law.”
If not, “they can basically clear off.”
Geert Wilders, head of his own small party in the Dutch parliament,
similarly called for the expulsion of non-citizen immigrants who refuse to
integrate.
But it was the British shadow defence minister,
Gerald Howarth, who went the furthest, suggesting in early August that all
British Islamists must go. “If they don’t like our way of life, there is a
simple remedy: go to another country, get out.” He directed this principle
even to Islamists born in Britain (such as three of the four London bombers):
“If you don’t give allegiance to this country, then leave.” These statements,
all dating from the past half year, prompt several observations. First,
where are the Americans? No major U.S. politician has spoken of making
American-based Islamists unwelcome. Who will be the first? Second, note the
consistent focus on the law and legal issues. This correctly picks up on the
fact that ultimately, the Islamist project concerns the application of Islamic
law, the Shari’a. And finally, these comments are likely to be leading
indicators of a broader campaign to restrict and remove Islamists – a move
that
comes none too soon.
|
TERRORISM
AND THE RIGHT TO EXIST
