Posted tagged ‘Jihad’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

‘Abbas In Interview: Six Million Refugees Want To Return,

December 7, 2014

‘Abbas In Interview:

via ‘Abbas In Interview: Six Million Refugees Want To Return, And I Am One Of Them; Hamas And The MB Are Liars; Hillary Clinton Phoned Me And Asked Me To Persuade President Mubarak To Step Down.

 

On November 30, 2014, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud ‘Abbas gave an interview to the Egyptian daily Akhbar Al-Yawm, in which he addressed the stalemate in the negotiations with Israel and the Palestinian alternatives to the negotiations, including appealing to the UN, stopping the PA’s security coordination with Israel and transferring responsibility for the Palestinian Authority to Israel.

In the interview, ‘Abbas reiterated that he did not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because this contradicted the Palestinian interests by harming Israeli Arabs and preventing the return of the Palestinian refugees. He said that there were six million Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes, and he was one of them, and that creative solutions had to be found for the refugee problem, because “we cannot close the door to those who wish to return.”

Also in the interview, ‘Abbas harshly criticized Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood (MB), calling them “a gang of liars.” He said that Hamas was responsible for the outbreak of the fighting in Gaza in July 2014 and for the destruction of Gaza, because it had lied and refused to take responsibility for the killing of the three Israeli teens. He also condemned Hamas for rejecting the Egyptian ceasefire initiative, and said that, on the last day of the war, Hamas begged for a ceasefire with no reservations or conditions. In addition, ‘Abbas accused Hamas of not being committed to the Palestinian reconciliation and of acting against Fatah members in order to thwart the reconciliation.

‘Abbas did not spare criticism of the U.S. administration, slamming it for its policy towards Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). According to him, in a conversation with President Obama, he told the president that there was no such thing as “moderate MB members” and that the MB was the mother of all terrorist organizations, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. He recounted that, when the January 25 revolution broke out in Egypt, then-State Secretary Hillary Clinton surprised him by asking him to convince then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to step down.

The following are translated excerpts from ‘Abbas’ statements in the interview:[1]


‘Abbas in the Al-Akhbar interview room (image: Al-Akhbar, Egypt, November 30, 2014)

Netanyahu Demanded Israeli Presence In The Jordan Valley For Another 40 Years, So I Left His Home

Mahmoud ‘Abbas said: “Working with Israel is very difficult, if not impossible. We are conducting mutual relations with people who don’t believe in peace. You ask for peace, and they do not want it… Netanyahu said to me: I want [Israel to be responsible for] security on the Jordanian border for 40 years. I pretended to have misheard him, and asked: How many?! He said: 40 years. I bid him farewell and said, Let’s shake hands [in farewell]. I left his home and said to him, This is occupation. I haven’t seen him since…

“In principle, I do not oppose 1:1 land swaps. Take territory of known value, and give territory of the same value, so that the West Bank remains the same [size]. I negotiated with Olmert, who said: Let us swap land, and you will receive 20 extra kilometers in addition to the West Bank… but we did not [manage] to reach an agreement and he left[office, i.e. was voted out]… There is a basic condition for land swaps – Israel must recognize the June 4, 1967 border at a 1:1 ratio. For example, it is inappropriate for them to receive land in Jerusalem and give me [land] in the Negev [in exchange].”

We Will Live Alongside Israel In Peace And Security Only After We Receive Our Rights; I Will Not Take A Single Israeli Arab Into The Palestinian State

“Netanyahu once told me that it was an ‘idea from hell,’ from his perspective, for him to give me the Triangle and everything in it. [The Triangle] was occupied in 1949 and at that time it had 38,000 residents. Today, it probably has about 400,000 residents. I said: I will not take anyone. Forget it, because honestly, I will not allow, or force, any Arab to relinquish his Israeli citizenship. You might be surprised, but this is important. As far as I’m concerned, this is sacred. For example, in the fourth round of the release of our Palestinian prisoners, 15 of the 30 are 1948 Arabs [Israeli Arabs]. They told me: Take them to the West Bank and they will relinquish their citizenship. I told them: This is impossible. They should return to their homes and retain their citizenship. As far as I’m concerned, Arabs remaining citizens of Israel is a sacred matter…

“I don’t want to destroy Israel and do not call for its destruction. We want to live with it in security and peace, but only after I receive my rights and you receive yours… In effect, we are approached by very concerned people who say: Why aren’t you talking to Israel and Netanyahu? And I respond: I am ready to do it tomorrow morning. Bring him [here], I am ready. [But] he left and never returned.”

Chances Are Small That I Will Succeed In Actualizing My Plan At The Security Council

“We want a state in the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, and we want to [set] a date to end the occupation. That is all we want. If Israel agrees to this now, we will go to negotiations. [But] they use deception and excel at media fraud. They claim that I am going to the Security Council in order to obtain a state, but all the [Security] Council does is give me a certificate; it doesn’t give me territory. I will take the certificate and then go negotiate with them in order to realize it…

“Now the General Assembly has decided that the PA territory is occupied territory, [so] now we are like any occupied country that is subject to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Therefore, we intend to participate in the conference of signatory countries in Geneva next month [a conference that is to take place in December 2014 and deal with the situation in the West Bank] in order to implement this resolution.

“We decided in Arab League meetings that, beginning [December] 1, we would appeal to the Security Council. Anyone who wants to join us in this plan is welcome. The U.S., Europe, and France have a plan. Anyone who has a plan is welcome. [However,] chances that I can actualize my plan are small, because of two obstacles: The first is that nine countries must agree to it in order for the proposal to be brought to a vote in the Security Council. The second is that, even if we obtain the agreement of nine countries, we expect an American veto. The U.S. will not allow it…

“The Americans have always pressured, and will continue to pressure, to prevent us [Palestinians] from addressing the Security Council. Even though we are small and simple people, and need the entire world, including the U.S., we say: No! [to dropping our UN bid]. This has happened several times. When we addressed the General Assembly, they [the U.S.] fought us for three whole months, and even when we joined 20 international institutions, they [still] fought us, but that doesn’t matter. It is more important that when we feel the need to say no, we say no.

We Have Not Benefitted From The Security Coordination With Israel, And I Want To End It

“If we cannot get what we want, there are other steps [we can take]. The first step is joining many international organizations, such as the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. There are 520 international organizations, and [joining them] will surely bother everyone. If there is an appeal to the ICC, and a Palestinian files a lawsuit against an Israeli, they [the Israelis] get scared, because they are wanted and cannot travel.”

“This step won’t do much good, but we have two other steps: The first is ending all security coordination between us and them [i.e. Israel]. Currently, there is security coordination, and the comrades in Hamas see this as something they can accuse us about, but they themselves coordinated [with Israel] in 2012 during the era of [Egyptian president Mohammad] Mursi. We have been committed to this security coordination since the Oslo Accords. Now, when there is nothing between us, there is no problem to end the coordination, and there will be no ties, no security, and no talks with anyone.

“The last step, which bothers many of us since it is not understood – and which also bothers the Arabs but bothers the U.S. and Israel even more – is saying to Netanyahu: You are an occupation state, please take responsibility for the occupation. Many comrades tell me: Authority is an achievement. But I am not giving away authority. I am merely saying that I have no authority and that I have nothing. My job is just to pay [salaries]. I panhandle in order to pay clerks, and the health and education sectors, while the occupier has it all. I cannot continue like this. Take all this authority, and if you don’t, let us talk of the peace that the world has approved – that is, a border between two countries and Jerusalem as our capital. The other details, such as refugees, security, and more, can be discussed later…

“We have not benefited from the security coordination, and I want to end it. I am working to defend my people and spare them from harm. In the past, Netanyahu backed down when I spoke of ending the security coordination.

“Even [General Security Services director] Yoram Cohen told Netanyahu that I am the partner and that I do not incite against Israel, either explicitly or implicitly. This is because we sat down with members of Israel’s security forces and spoke honestly with them, and they felt that we were reliable in our demeanor and words and that we aspire to peace. They were convinced by our ideas, presented them to the prime minister, and told him we were honest…”

We Will Not Recognize A Jewish State So As Not To Damage The Right Of Return Or Harm Israeli Arabs

“We cannot recognize a Jewish state. We will stand against this enterprise, not out of obstinacy, but because it contradicts our interests. The first to suffer from this law would be the 1.5 million Arabs who would be no longer belong to Israel, due to their religion. The first to protest this law were the Druze…

“There is another reason. [Israel] will not allow the return of refugees. There are six million refugees who wish to return, and by the way, I am one of them. We need to find creative solutions because we cannot close the door to those who wish to return. Israel aspires to a Jewish state, and ISIS aspires to an Islamic state, and here we are, suspended between Jewish extremism and Islamic extremism. [ISIS leader]Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi will have an excuse to establish an Islamic state after the Jewish state law is approved. This is another matter from which we and everyone else suffer…”

I Explained To Obama That There Was No Such Thing As Moderate MB Members; Clinton Asked Me To Persuade Mubarak To Step Down

“In my recent visits to the U.S. and South Africa, I clarified to everyone that Egypt had saved us and the entire region from the terrorism in the region… In my recent meeting with Obama, he asked me about the situation in Egypt, and I explained to him that the process of democratization [there] was about to be completed. He asked me about the Brothers [i.e., the MB], and I explained to him that there was no such thing as Brothers there. Obama clarified, ‘The moderate Brothers,’ and I explained to him that the moderate Brothers are only in the U.S., but that they [i.e., the MB] were the ones who had created all the extremist organizations in the region, including ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. All these terror organizations emerged from the belly of the MB. They will not return to [power in] Egypt again.”

“From the outset, I never believed in the Arab Spring. One day, before the January 25 revolution, I was with then-president Hosni Mubarak, and when the events of January 25 began,[then-]U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton phoned me and asked me to phone president Mubarak and persuade him to step down. I asked, What do I have to do with the Egyptian matter?… We are facing chaos, the rise of the MB, or both.

“Mursi did not understand the Palestinian problem. His understanding of the subject was like my understanding of Japanese. He wanted to exploit it to actualize the interests of the MB. If you remember the Giora Eiland plan, he wanted to turn the Sinai territories into the Palestinian state, [and Mursi agreed to this plan].[2] [But] we will not agree to accept an inch of land from Egypt and will not agree that a Palestinian should leave his land…[Moreover,] Mursi wanted to establish a Gaza consulate in Egypt to deepen the internal Palestinian schism…”

‘Abbas also warned, “If the current situation continues as it is now, ISIS will also emerge in the West Bank. As for the Gaza Strip – the entire MB is ISIS.”

The Tunnels Must Be Completely Destroyed; 1,800 Men In Gaza Have Gotten Rich From Them

‘Abbas added: “I cannot ask Egypt to stop its military operation in the region [i.e., in Sinai], and we are aware of the nature of Egypt’s national activity. We have no problem with the transfer of aid to Gaza via the [Rafah border] crossing, but I emphasize the need to destroy the tunnels once and for all. This has been my view for nine years, and I have asked Egypt many times to close the tunnels. In Gaza, 1,800 residents have become millionaires by utilizing the tunnels for their own interests. Likewise, they utilize the tunnels to act against Egypt by smuggling weapons and drugs, and [they also harm Egypt] by operating an industry of counterfeiting money and forging documents. The destruction of the tunnels is the answer that will put an end to these phenomena. I have many times proposed ideas for destroying the tunnels, for example, to flood them with water 30 meters deep – as deep as the tunnels. This should be done after destroying the homes with tunnel openings in them, and punishing the owners of those homes. No country in the world tolerates the problem of the tunnels except for Egypt and Palestine…”

The MB And Hamas Are Liars; Hamas Begged For A Ceasefire In Gaza

“We must recognize that the Hamas movement is part of the MB. This is explicitly declared by all, and Hamas receives instructions from the office of the MB’s global general guide… We agreed [with Hamas] that we would establish the National Accord government, but that it would not include a single member of the Hamas movement. This government was sworn in on June 2,.[2014], and exactly ten days later, on June 12, they kidnapped the three settlers [near] Hebron. I tried to avoid creating a crisis. I spoke with [Hamas political bureau head] Khaled Mash’al and asked him whether Hamas had anything to do with the kidnapping of the settlers, and he said: We have nothing to do with it. I wanted him to confirm it again, and he swore by Allah that they had nothing to do with it. I told him: I believe you. That was in Doha.

“Then the war in Gaza broke out, and I visited Qatar and Turkey to consult [with them] about the Egyptian initiative. I had a meeting with the Emir of Qatar, and I asked him [to hold a meeting] attended by the Hamas leadership and by members of the movement who were in Qatar. Before this meeting [was held], Hamas member Salah Al-‘Arouri officially declared from Istanbul that it was Hamas that had kidnapped the three settlers and killed them, in order to promote Hamas’s attempt to mobilize the Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Then I asked Mash’al again about those involved in the affair, and he said that Al-‘Arouri had spoken for himself, not for Hamas.

“I want to say here that no one lies more than them [Hamas] and the MB. I am not against Islam, but I am against the MB. I am a good Muslim – I fast, I pray, and I read the Koran – while they are a bunch of liars…

“Because of Hamas’s lie, this regrettable Gaza war broke out. I phoned the Egyptian president and asked him to submit a proposal to stop the war. I clarified that [such] an initiative would save the Palestinian people, and that it was the entire Palestinian people that was asking him to do this, not Hamas. [I explained this because] I sensed from his words that he wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Hamas. President Al-Sisi met my request, and the Egyptian initiative was proposed. They [had to] propose it for 51 days, because of Hamas’s obstinacy, and during this time the land [Gaza] was completely destroyed. On the last day [f the war], Hamas members begged me to declare a ceasefire with no reservations or conditions, after many had already been killed and wounded and Gaza was in ruins.”

“During the 50-day war, everyone spoke out against me, first of all Fatah. I told them that I am not willing to destroy the West Bank and Ramallah. Hamas, for example, killed three [Israelis], and it wanted an intifada, and I did not respond… At the end of the war, my men told me: You were right. Had we acted like them [i.e., like Hamas], the [entire] land would have been ruined…”

Hamas Is Always Thwarting The Palestinian Reconciliation; New Elections Must Be Held

“I wondered why Hamas did not accept the reconciliation from the outset, instead of [allowing]the destruction that was caused in the Strip. The same thing happened when they blew up the homes of the Fatah leaders in Gaza recently [on November 7], but claimed that they were not involved in this and that they were investigating the incident. They are liars. All the extremist factions declared that they were not responsible for this; even ISIS released an official announcement denying any connection to these bombings in Gaza. There is no one else[who could have done it]but them [Hamas]. Despite this, we diligently implement the reconciliation because we pursue unity of the land and the holding of elections. If they win, I will welcome them as I did in 2006 [when they won the elections]…

“Despite everything we do to bring our positions closer to their positions, they do things that thwart the reconciliation efforts. The latest of these was the cancellation of the rally commemorating the 10th anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death, because they feared that a million Palestinians in Gaza who support us would  go out [into the streets] – like they did two years ago when 1.2 million turned out to commemorate the founding of Fatah…

“They [Hamas] concluded with Robert Serry, the UN  emissary for rebuilding Gaza, that we [the Palestinian Authority] as a state would be at the border and the crossings in order to receive aid and construction materials, under UN oversight, so that we could transfer them to whoever needs them. But they backed out of the agreement, and again difficulties were created for rebuilding Gaza. Despite this, we are transferring aid in a variety of ways…

“I ask Hamas: Go to the polls again. The results will be[either] your continued control of Gaza, or the people not reelecting you. But they [Hamas] believe in one-off elections…”

 

Endnotes:

 

 

[1] Akhbar Al-Yawm (Egypt), November 30, 2014.

[2] In the preface to the interview, it was stated that, according to ‘Abbas, Mursi had promised him in 2012 to meet Israel’s demand to give Gaza 1,600 square kilometers of Sinai’s territory, in return for Israel stopping the fighting in Gaza, and that the idea of giving the Palestinians territory in Sinai was part of a plan known in Israel as the Giora  Eiland plan.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Abbas Shuts the Door to Negotiations with Israel

December 7, 2014

Abbas Shuts the Door to Negotiations with Israel

Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi,

December 4, 2014

via Abbas Shuts the Door to Negotiations with Israel.

 

Institute for Contemporary Affairs
Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 14, No. 39       December 4, 2014

  • On Nov. 29, the Arab League approved a political action plan by PA President Mahmoud Abbas aimed at imposing the establishment of a Palestinian state without any political compromise on the Palestinians’ part. Jordan, currently the only Arab member of the UN Security Council, will submit a resolution to the Council along the lines of Abbas’ plan in the coming days.
  • The plan involves internationalizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by having the Security Council fix a date for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with east Jerusalem as its capital.
  • Abbas, who claimed there was no longer an Israeli partner for a political settlement, said his plan includes having the “state of Palestine” join international conventions and organizations, particularly the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and requesting the UN to provide protection to the Palestinian people.
  • Abbas’ political plan shuts the door to any possibility of reaching a political settlement through negotiations with Israel. The conditions he has presented for resuming negotiations impose terms on Israel with no reciprocity from the Palestinians in the context of a political compromise.
  • Abbas is trying to exert pressure on the U.S., the international community, and Israel simultaneously. Abbas hopes to goad the international community into forcing Israel to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines without a peace agreement being signed.
  • The Palestinian Authority is determined, even at the price of a run-in with the U.S. and Israel, to advance a unilateral political process that is aimed against Israel. The rioting and terror in Jerusalem and the West Bank, which are being encouraged by the Palestinian Authority, serve as a form of pressure on Israel and are also aimed at spurring the international community’s intervention.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas - The Palestinian Authority Presses Its Unilateral Process against Israel

On November 29, 2014, the Arab Peace Initiative Committee of the Arab League Council approved a political-action plan submitted by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), “president of the state of Palestine,” which aims to “bring an end to the Israeli occupation of lands of the state of Palestine.”1 An announcement published at the end of the meeting held in Cairo said the issue had been transferred to the Arab League Council appropriate action.2  A diplomatic official told the Al Arabiya network that Jordan, currently the only Arab member of the UN Security Council, will submit in the coming days a proposal for a resolution along the lines of Abbas’ plan.3

The political plan Abbas presented was detailed in a speech he gave to the Arab League Council.4 The plan involves internationalizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by submitting a proposal for a resolution to the Security Council, whereby the Security Council would fix a date for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with east Jerusalem as its capital.

In his speech Abbas, who claimed there was no longer an Israeli partner for a political settlement, set forth the other components of his plan. They include: the “state of Palestine” joining international conventions and organizations, particularly the International Criminal Court in The Hague and a conference of states parties to the Geneva conventions, where one of the resolutions would be to declare the conventions applicable to the state of Palestine;” requesting the United Nations to provide protection to the Palestinian people; and a diplomatic effort to convince additional states to recognize the “state of Palestine.”

Abbas’ political plan shuts the door to any possibility of reaching a political settlement through negotiations with Israel. Whereas Abbas conveys to the world at large that he remains committed to the path of negotiations, the conditions he has presented for resuming them entail imposing terms on Israel with no reciprocity from the Palestinians in the context of a political compromise.

Abbas says Palestinian conditions for renewing the talks include: ending construction in the settlements, freeing the fourth group of Palestinian prisoners (terrorists who are Israeli citizens and are serving prison sentences), withdrawing IDF forces from parts of Area A in the West Bank that are supposed to be under the Palestinian Authority’s full security control, and Israeli agreement to negotiate with the Palestinians on making the 1967 lines the border between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.

Abbas’ Pressure Tactics Include Violence

Abbas is trying to exert pressure on the United States, the international community, and Israel simultaneously. He told the Arab League Council that he sees no need to wait for the results of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempt to bridge the Israeli and Palestinian positions, and that, if the United States vetoes the resolution in the Security Council, he would then reassess relations with Israel, end security cooperation with it (which is aimed at preventing terror), and transfer control of the “state of Palestine” to Israel, which he called “the occupying state.” By means of that scenario – which could foster political and security chaos leading to an Israeli-Palestinian confrontation (a third intifada) that would have a regional and international impact – Abbas hopes to goad the international community into forcing Israel to fulfill the Palestinian condition of recognizing a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, without a peace agreement being signed.

Thus the Palestinian Authority is determined, even at the price of a run-in with the United States and Israel, to advance a unilateral political process that is aimed against Israel and has the full support of the Arab League. The rioting and terror in Jerusalem and the West Bank, which are being encouraged by the Palestinian Authority, serve this political process as a form of pressure on Israel and also are aimed at spurring the international community’s intervention. Abbas not only has not condemned the wave of Palestinian anti-Israeli terror but, in traditional fashion, his speeches have reiterated the formula of “praise to the pure martyrs, freedom to the heroic prisoners, and rapid recovery to the heroic wounded.” What this adds up to is backing for every Palestinian who takes part in the struggle against Israel, including terrorist murderers.

The unilateral Palestinian political process marks the launching of an all-out political campaign against Israel accompanied by terror that could develop into an armed intifada. In relation to the international community Abbas has a supreme interest in maintaining the tenuous unity agreement with Hamas, since it indicates that the Palestinian Authority exercises rule (actually only apparent) over Gaza as well. Hamas, the real and unquestioned ruler of Gaza, is extending a rope to Abbas because it sees him as a means, in the international sphere, of attaining the “liberation” of the West Bank, which Hamas wants to take over in a similar way that it drove Fatah from Gaza in the summer of 2007. Hence, for the time being, Hamas is not likely to initiate hostilities with Israel from Gaza, and most of the terror effort will be directed at the West Bank and, from it, at Israel, while continuing to rehabilitate and build up terror infrastructures and military capabilities in Gaza.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

10 Ways the Mafia and Islam Are Similar

December 5, 2014

10 Ways the Mafia and Islam Are Similar

And an explanation for the reason why.

December 5, 2014 – 9:00 am

by Raymond Ibrahi

via PJ Lifestyle » 10 Ways the Mafia and Islam Are Similar.

Earlier this year on HBO’s Real Time, host Bill Maher declared that Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Maher was likely referring to Islam’s “blasphemy” laws, which ban on pain of death any “insult” — as found in a statement, a picture, a book — to Islam and especially to its prophet Muhammad.

While Maher has been criticized for his “Islamophobic” assertion, he and others may be surprised to learn that the similarities between Islam and an organized crime syndicate such as the mafia far exceed punishing those who say, draw, or write “the wrong thing.” In what follows, we will examine a number of these similarities.

We will begin by looking at the relationship between Allah, his messenger Muhammad, and the Muslims, and note several parallels with the relationship between the godfather, his underboss, and the mafia.

Next, we will examine the clannish nature of the mafia and compare it to Islam’s tribalism, especially in the context of the Islamic doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity.” For example, in both Islam and the mafia, members who wish to break away, to “apostatize,” are killed.

We will consider how the mafia and Islam have both historically profited from the “protection” racket: Islam has demanded jizya from non-Muslims under its authority/territory, and the mafia has demanded pizzo from people that fall under its jurisdiction.

Finally, we will consider what accounts for these many similarities between Islam and the mafia, including from a historical perspective.

1. Allah and Muhammad/Godfather and Underboss

The padrino of larger mafia organizations and families — literally the “godfather” or “boss of bosses” — has absolute control over his subordinates and is often greatly feared by them for his ruthlessness. He has an “underboss,” a right-hand man who issues his orders and enforces his will. The godfather himself is often inaccessible; mafia members need to go through the underboss or other high-ranking associates.

Compare this with the relationship between Allah and his “messenger” Muhammad (in Arabic, Muhammad is most commonly referred to as al-rasul, “the messenger”). Unlike the Judeo-Christian God — a personal God, a Father, that according to Christ is to be communed with directly (Matt 6:9) — Islam’s god Allah is unreachable, unknowable, untouchable. His orders are revealed by his messenger, Muhammad. The Judeo-Christian God calls on the faithful to “come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18); Allah says “Do not ask questions about things that, if made known to you, would only pain you” (Koran 5:101). Just follow orders.

2. A “Piece of the Action”

The godfather and his underboss always get a percentage of all spoils acquired by their subordinates. Allah and Muhammad do as well: Koran 8:41 informs Muslims that “one-fifth of all war-booty you acquire goes to Allah and the messenger,” followed by Muhammad’s family, and finally the needy.

3. Assassinations

The godfather, through his underboss, regularly sends men to assassinate those deemed enemies of the family. So did Allah and his messenger.

One example: A non-Muslim poet, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, insulted Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered — on condition that to get close enough to assassinate Ka‘b he be allowed to lie to the poet.

Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that the poet took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim, and when Ka‘b’s guard was down they slaughtered the poet. The poet’s head was brought to Muhammad, accompanied by triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar.”

4. Circumstance is Everything

While the mafia adheres to a general code of conduct, the godfather issues more fluid orders according to circumstances. This is reminiscent of the entire “revelation” of the Koran, where later verses/commands contradict earlier verses/commands depending on circumstances. This is known in Islamic jurisprudence as al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh, or the doctrine of abrogation.

Whereas Allah supposedly told the prophet that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256), once the messenger grew strong enough, Allah issued new revelations calling for all-out war/jihad until Islam became supreme (Koran 8:39, 9:5, 9:29, etc.). While other religions and scriptures may have contradictions, only Islam rationalizes them through “abrogation.” Islam gives prominence to later verses, which are seen as the “latest” decision of the deity.

5. Clan Loyalty

Loyalty is fundamental in the mafia. Following elaborate rituals of blood oaths, mafia members are expected to maintain absolute loyalty to the family on pain of death. Similarly, mafia members are expected always to be available for the family — “even if your wife is about to give birth,” as one of the mafia’s “ten commandments” puts it — and to defend the godfather and his honor even if it costs their lives.

Compare this to the widespread violence and upheavals that occur when Allah or his prophet is offended by non-Muslim “infidels” blaspheming them, as Bill Maher referenced. Islam’s “Loyalty and Enmity” doctrine (al-wala’ wa’l bara’) — which calls on Muslims to be loyal to one another even if they dislike each other — is especially illustrative. Koran 9:71 declares that “the believing [Muslim] men and believing [Muslim] women are allies of one another” (see also 8:72-75). According to Muhammad, “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him. … All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor,” precisely the three things mafia members respect among each other.

U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan’s “worst nightmare” was to be deployed to fight fellow Muslims.

6. Death to Traitors

Once a fledging mafia member takes the oath of loyalty, including the Omertà code of silence and secrecy, trying to leave the “family” is seen as a betrayal and punishable by death. Any family member, great or small, is given authority to kill the traitor, the “turncoat.”

To be born to a Muslim father immediately makes the newborn a Muslim — there are no oaths to be taken, much less any choice in the matter. And, according to Islamic law, if born Muslims at any point in their lives choose to leave Islam, they are deemed “apostates” – traitors — and punished, including by death. Any zealous Muslim, not just the authorities, is justified in killing the apostate. Muslim families that kill apostate children are rarely, if ever, prosecuted.

In the words of Muhammad: “Whoever leaves his Islamic faith, kill him.”

7. Distrust and Dislike of “Outsiders”

Aside from loyalty to the family, mafia members are also expected not to befriend or freely associate with “outsiders,” who by nature are not to be trusted, as they are not of the “family,” unless such a “friendship” helps advance the family’s position.

Similarly, the second half of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity — the enmity (al-bara’) — calls on Muslims to maintain distance from and bear enmity for all non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them.” According to the mainstream Islamic exegesis of al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community.” That is, an apostate, an enemy.

Similar scriptures include Koran 4:89, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22. The latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims: “Even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.” Koran 60:1 declares: “O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy [non-believers] for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth [i.e., while they deny Islam]?” And Koran 4:144 declares: “O you who believe! Do not take the infidels as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah [“godfather”] a clear case against yourselves?”

8. Deception and Dissimulation

As mentioned, close relations to non-mafia individuals that prove advantageous to the family (for example, collaboration with a “crooked cop”) are permissible — as long as the mafia keeps a safe distance, keeping the outsider at arm’s length.

Compare this to Koran 3:28, which commands “believers not to take infidels for friends and allies instead of believers … unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” According to the standard Koran commentary of Tabari, “taking precautions” means: ”If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [but know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.”

After interpreting Koran 3:28 as meaning that Muslims may “protect” themselves “through outward show” when under non-Muslim authority, Ibn Kathir, perhaps Islam’s most celebrated exegete, quotes Islam’s prophet as saying: “Truly, we smile to the faces of some people, while our hearts curse them.”

Similarly, a few years ago, Sheikh Muhammad Hassan — a leading Salafi cleric in Egypt –asserted on live television that while Muslims should never smile to the faces of non-Muslims, they should smile, however insincerely, if so doing helps empower Islam.

The idea of hating “outsiders” is apparently so ingrained in Islam that another leading Salafi cleric, Dr. Yasser al-Burhami, insists that while Muslim men may marry Christian and Jewish women, they must hate them in their heart — and show them that they hate them in the hopes that they convert to the “family” of Islam.

(For more on the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity,” including references to the exegetical sources quoted above, see al-Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman Zawahiri’s comprehensive treatise by that name in The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 63-115.)

9. “An Offer You Can’t Refuse”

Although the novel-turned-movie The Godfather is fictitious, it captures much of the mafia’s modus operandi. Consider, for example, that most famous of lines — “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse” — spoken by the Godfather to one of his “godsons,” an aspiring actor and singer. After being turned down by a studio director for a role that he desperately wanted, the godson turned to his Godfather for aid.

As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that the offer that can’t be refused consists of nothing less than violence and death threats: after the Godfather’s messenger to the director asking that the actor be given the role is again rejected, the director awakens the next morning to find the bloodied and decapitated head of his favorite stallion in bed with him. The godson subsequently gets the movie role.

Throughout the context of the entire Godfather trilogy (which captures well the mafia’s approach to business) making someone “an offer they can’t refuse” means “do as I say or suffer the consequences,” possibly death.

Compare this to Islam’s threefold choice. On Muhammad’s orders, whenever Muslims conquer a territory in the name of Islam, its non-Muslim inhabitants are given three choices: 1) convert to Islam, 2) keep your religious identity but pay tribute (jizya, see below) and live as an “outsider,” a subjugated dhimmi, or 3) execution.

Throughout history, converting to Islam has been an “offer” that countless non-Muslims could not refuse. In fact, this “offer” is responsible for transforming much of the Middle East and North Africa, which were Christian-majority in the 7th century when the jihad burst forth from Arabia into the “Muslim world.”

This offer is still alive and well today. For example, several older and disabled Christians who were not able to join the exodus out of Islamic State-controlled territories opted to convert to Islam rather than die. Like the mafia, Islam’s offer to conquered non-Muslims (“outsiders”) is basically “join our ‘family,’ help us and we will help you; refuse and we hurt you.”

10. The “Protection” Racket

Once the mafia takes over a territory, one of the primary ways it profits is by collecting “protection money” from its inhabitants. While the protection racket has several aspects, one in particular is akin to an Islamic practice: coercing people in the mafia’s territory to pay money for “protection,” ostensibly against outside elements. In fact, the protection bought is from the mafia itself — that is, extortion money, or “pizzo.” Potential “clients” who refuse to pay for the mafia’s “protection” often have their property vandalized and are routinely threatened and harassed.

Compare the collection of pizzo with the Islamic concept of jizya: The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”

In the hadith, Muhammad regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya from non-Muslims: “If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something. According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”

Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. As one medieval jurist succinctly puts it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya” (Crucified Again, p. 22).

Just as the mafia rationalizes its collection of “protection money” by portraying it as money that buys mafia protection against “outsiders” when the money/tribute serves only to protect the client from the mafia itself, so too do Islam’s apologists portray the collection of jizya as money meant to buy Muslim protection from outsiders. In fact, the money/jizya buys protection from Muslims themselves.

“Mafia”: What’s In a Word?

What accounts for the similarities between Islam and the mafia? One clue is found in the word “mafia,” which means “hostility to the law, boldness.” It is derived from the Arabic word mahya, which means “bragging, boasting, bravado, and swaggering.”

This etymology is a reminder that Sicily, birthplace of the mafia, was under Arab/Islamic domination for over 200 years. Aside from a borrowed etymology, could some of the mafia’s modus operandi also have been borrowed from Islam? Isolated on their island, could native Sicilians have co-opted the techniques of social controls that they had lived under and learned from their former overlords, albeit without an Islamic veneer?

The mafia is not the only historical example of a non-Muslim criminal organization to be influenced by Islam. The Thuggees — whence we get the word “thug” — were a brotherhood of allied bandits and assassins who waylaid and savagely murdered travelers in India, often by first feigning friendship. Along with assassinating his opponents, including through treachery, Muhammad also personally engaged in banditry, ransacking the caravans of enemy tribes.  Although the Thuggees were later associated with the Hindu cult of Kali, the original Thuggees were all Muslim. As late as the 19th century, a large number of Thuggees captured and convicted by the British were Muslim.

When Bill Maher recently proclaimed that Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book,” he was just scratching the surface of the similarities between the mafia and Islam.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Op-Ed: Obama Empowers Enemies and Imperils Friends

December 4, 2014

Op-Ed: Obama Empowers Enemies and Imperils Friends, Israel National News, Matthew M. Hausman, December 2, 2014

The panel concluded that the United States and Israel have similar security concerns and identical interests in preserving cultural and political values common to both their societies.  Accordingly, they find the administration’s policies in the region counterproductive and dangerous.

Clearly, Israel cannot place her trust in the Obama administration, but she can still draw strength and inspiration from Yehoshua, whose words have resonated for thousands of years and will continue to do so long after this president leaves office.

*********************

Even after the recent war in Gaza – and in spite of the dangers posed by ISIS and other Islamist forces – many American Jews still do not fully comprehend the risk to Israel and the West of a rejectionist ideology that promotes jihad and genocide.  But the threat is real and arises from a doctrine that demands total submission from the vanquished.  In failing to recognize the scope of the threat, western progressives – Jews and Gentiles alike – view the world as they believe it should be, not the way it actually is.  The reality, however, is that liberal ideals are irrelevant in regions where politics have no existence independent of religion and religion is unforgivingly totalitarian.

This failure is as much political as intellectual.  Moreover, it engenders complacency with the foreign policy of an administration that has not only failed to respond adequately to the Islamist threat, but whose actions have bolstered fundamentalism across the Mideast and undercut the interests of Israel – America’s only stable and dependable ally in the region.

These points were articulated at a security panel conference entitled, “Israel and the US: The Fight to Save Western Civilization from Global Jihad,” which took place in Massachusetts recently.  The program featured retired Generals Jerry Boykin and Tom McInerney, former CIA Station Chief Gary Berntsen, and retired Lt. Colonel (and former congressman) Allen West.  The program focused on the need to recognize the threat of jihadist extremism, as well as the myriad foreign policy failures that have helped destabilize the Mideast.

Secular progressives have become unwitting foils for Islamist radicalism by their failure to acknowledge its supremacist aspirations and their perception of Muslims as a vulnerable minority despite a global population of approximately 1.6 billion.  This view is a little ironic considering the progressive tendency to disparage Jewish national claims and values and to condemn any perceived Christian intrusion into American politics, but nevertheless to discourage speech that criticizes Islam or mentions any Muslim involvement in terrorism.

Secular progressives often support anti-blasphemy laws and are quick to label as racists those who criticize Muslims on political grounds, although Islam is a religion and is not defined by race or ethnicity.  Moreover, while they often rationalize Islamist extremism as an indigenous voice of protest against western chauvinism, its ubiquity is the result of conquest,colonialism, and the subjugation of “infidel” minorities.  It is the height of cognitive dissonance when feminists, gay rights activists and other social progressives express support for religious extremists who persecute and kill based on gender, sexuality, and dissenting religious belief or political opinion, but condemn Israel – the only country in the Mideast where minorities have equal rights and protections under the law.

Over the last six years, the administration has sought rapprochement with the Islamic world through a series of questionable policies.  Domestically, it has discouraged official use of terms such as “Islamic terrorism,” instead referring to terror incidents involving Muslims as criminal acts, workplace violence or violent extremism.  On the foreign stage, it enabled the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, provided funding in areas governed by Hamas despite that organization’s stated goals of jihad and genocide, and failed to honor strategic commitments to Israel during the Gaza war.

Perhaps most troubling, the administration has used the pretense of negotiations to allow Iran to continue its quest for nuclear weapons – to the consternation not only of Israel, but of Saudi Arabia and all Sunni states in the region.  Though it rationalizes that Iran should be permitted to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, critics point out that 55 percent of Iran’s domestic energy comes from natural gas, 42 percent from oil and two percent from hydroelectricity, such that it has no apparent consumer need for nuclear power. Its true intentions are reflected in the statements of its leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who recently tweeted that Israel “… has no cure but to be annihilated.”

Whether promoting Islamists, enabling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or chastising the way Israel defended herself in Gaza, the administration has pursued policies that have empowered America’s enemies and imperiled its allies.  Furthermore, by drawing meaningless redlines that it refuses to enforce and unilaterally disarming in Europe, it has signaled to the world that it is no longer willing to defend its own interests or those of its allies, but instead will stand aside while Russia, China and other geopolitical rivals assert themselves within traditional U.S. spheres of influence.

Speaking to a packed house at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, Generals Boykin and McInerney, Colonel West, and Agent Berntsen discussed the weakening of American strength and prestige under the current administration, and how this has enhanced Islamist resolve, endangered the safety of Israel, and compromised American interests around the globe.

They spoke with inside knowledge of the U.S. military and intelligence establishments and with a deep and abiding respect for Israel.  General Boykin, a 36-year veteran and the first commander of Delta Force, related how he was in Jerusalem last summer when Hamas kidnapped and murdered three yeshiva boys, and how the outrage it spawned illustrated the inevitability of a military response.  According to Boykin, who has spent considerable time in Israel and lived with the Golani Brigade, the kidnapping was the tipping point in a string of events, including rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and the construction of terror tunnels, which necessitated decisive counteraction.

In the panel’s view, Operation Protective Edge was essential, not only to stop rocket attacks and destroy terror tunnels, but because of the existential implications of radical Islam.  These implications are reinforced by various charters calling for the destruction of Israel and Hamas’s explicit goal of exterminating the Jews, by ISIS’s goal of establishing a caliphate throughout the Mideast, and by Iran’s repeated pledges to blow Israel off the map. Despite political differences between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram, and doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shiite terror states, they all represent the same threat to Israel and the West.

Boykin sees a clear thread connecting past actions against the United States, such as the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, with the kidnappings and beheadings of westerners today.  Unfortunately, Americans often have a limited frame of reference, particularly in a political climate that shuts down any critical discussion of these issues as “Islamophobic.”  The problem is exacerbated by an administration that appeases enemies and alienates allies and by political elements in the military that lack the resolve to implement appropriate corrective strategies.  In Boykin’s view, the latter problem is related to the exodus of young officers from all service branches in response to cuts in military spending and concomitant reductions in personnel.

The military is being cut back at a time when Islamist extremism is ascending, as demonstrated by the gruesome success of ISIS.  Political and military leaders willfully ignore the ramifications of jihadi radicalism and the need to confront it from a position of strength.  Despite recent acts of terror committed on North American soil, including beheadings and murders by lone-wolf perpetrators and the attack on Canada’s Parliament, the administration refuses to concede any terrorist links.  Indeed, while Canadian Prime Minister Harper proclaimed that the Parliament attack was an act of terror, President Obama would not draw the same conclusion.

In contrast, Israel knows how high the stakes are because they challenge her very existence.  “Israel has nowhere to go,” Boykin said, and thus cannot afford to be ignorant about the nature of an existential threat grounded in ideology, not geography.

General McInerney, a former U.S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff and Vice Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in Europe, agrees that the battle against Islamists is ideological.  “We have to understand the threat we face [and that] Radical Islam is as dangerous an ideology as Nazism and Communism.”  According to McInerney, Islamism is not a response to western provocations, but derives from Muslim scriptural sources.  Likewise, the jihadist impulse does not arise from economic privation, class struggle or geographic dispossession as western progressives often preach.  Rather, it comes from deeply held religious convictions that must be understood if they are to be confronted effectively.

In order for this to happen, though, control of the dialogue has to be taken back from those who censor the use of language deemed offensive to extremists and who employ moral equivalency to justify radicalism.  In addition, the dialogue should be purged of intentionally misleading buzzwords that have become commonplace, including such terms as: “occupation,” which refers to the entire State of Israel; “historical Palestine,” which legitimizes a country that never existed; and “proportionality,” which is used to criticize defensive actions taken by Israel, but not the acts of those who attack her citizens and use civilians as shields.

Accusations that Israel’s military responses are disproportionate are particularly galling, especially considering how she routinely sacrifices her strategic advantage by warning civilians of impending strikes ahead of time and by providing aid to those caught in the crossfire.  The unprecedented humanity displayed by Israel during wartime should debunk the ongoing critique of the proportionality of her response in Gaza and her supposed failure to protect civilians.  Such statements bespeak ignorance, bad faith or complicity in advancing anti-Israel propaganda.

According to General McInerney, the term “proportionality” is simply a euphemism for “not enough Israelis killed” and should be given no credence. Nevertheless, White House and State Department voices seem more vested in chiding Israel for civilian casualties than in blaming Hamas for starting the conflict and using noncombatants as human shields.  The treatment of Hamas as a legitimate political entity defies history, logic and common sense.

The Obama administration’s apparent affinity for Islamists has not garnered it support from the Islamic world, and military reductions on its watch have fostered an image of international weakness.  By unilaterally disarming in Europe, where the U.S. currently maintains almost no tanks or mechanized divisions, General McInerney believes the administration has eroded the deterrent effect of American military strength.

And by treating Iran, perhaps the largest state sponsor of global terrorism, as a rational partner for constructive engagement, the administration increases the risk of a regional arms race as the Sunni states may be forced to seek parity.  The threat of a nuclear Iran cannot be minimized, the panel said, noting that it would take only a few nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.  To claim that a nuclear Iran could ever be trusted is to ignore the radical ideology that has driven its quest for nuclear weapons since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and its dogmatic fixation on destroying Israel.  It also ignores an Iranian worldview in which the United States remains the “Great Satan.”

The panel’s perspective on the spread of Islamism is buttressed by the long view of many in the intelligence community, but the administration seems to ignore any observations and analyses that do not jibe with the partisan and politicized assumptions underlying its foreign policy.  This is all the more disturbing in light of reports during the ISIS fiasco claiming that President Obama does not read all intelligence memos that cross his desk.

The intelligence angle was addressed by Gary Berntsen, a career CIA officer, former station chief and former counter-terrorism director.  A fluent Farsi speaker, Berntsen directed counterterrorism deployments in response to the bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa and the attacks on 9/11, and is familiar with the evolution of both Hezbollah and ISIS.  Whereas Mr. Obama claimed to have been surprised by the rise of ISIS, Berntsen said that U.S. intelligence has been tracking the faction from which it grew for years; and that despite the president’s attempt to blame the intelligence community for failing to identify the threat, the administration has been fully briefed about the capabilities and resources of ISIS on an ongoing basis.

Moreover, in evaluating the evolution of ISIS, the intelligence community had a model for comparison in Hezbollah.  According to Berntsen, there were parallels to the growth of Hezbollah, which together with Islamic Jihad serves as the operational wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Hezbollah maintains a standing army, finances its operations through unsavory enterprises and billions in funding from Iran, and serves as a conduit for Iranian-exported terrorism, Berntsen noted.  Moreover, it has insinuated itself in Lebanon, where it persecutes non-Muslims and threatens Israel.

ISIS followed a similar trajectory on its way to amassing a fighting force of some 30,000 men and a large arsenal of sophisticated weaponry.  Initially supported by a number of Sunni states, ISIS has become self-sustaining by reaping profits from banks and oil production facilities it has seized and by stockpiling weapons and hardware taken from routed opponents across Syria and Iraq.

Though ISIS is certainly a menace that must not be ignored, the United States cannot afford to lose sight of Iran’s influence throughout the region.  Without minimizing the ISIS threat, Berntsen believes that “Iran is the major confrontation state” and that American interests are ill-served by the obsession with concluding a nuclear deal.  The administration appears to believe it can encourage a shift in Iranian loyalty and seems prepared to sacrifice its relationships with Sunni allies, such as Saudi Arabia, in order to do so.  Given that Iran’s official views regarding the United States have not changed, and that it continues to call for the annihilation of Israel, the initiative to flip its allegiance seems grounded in fantasy.

The panel concluded that the United States and Israel have similar security concerns and identical interests in preserving cultural and political values common to both their societies.  Accordingly, they find the administration’s policies in the region counterproductive and dangerous.

These observations are especially poignant in light of recent events, including continuing criticisms of Israel by the administration and State Department over the Gaza war.  Official malice against Israel seemed incontrovertible after General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently lauded Israel for taking unprecedented steps to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza and stated that the U.S. military would adopt similar strategies for fighting in civilian areas.  The State Department responded by distancing itself from Dempsey’s remarks and denying that they reflected the government’s position.

Then there were the recent comments from an unnamed White House source who used expletives to describe Benyamin Netanyahu and called him cowardly for failing to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, although the Obama administration discouraged the strike and reportedly leaked sensitive information (regarding strikes on similar sites in Syria) to prevent Israel from acting.  When these comments are juxtaposed against the administration’s failure to contain ISIS and the domestic loss of confidence in Mr. Obama’s ability to protect and defend, the foreign policy landscape looks very bleak indeed.

The American Jewish community needs to wake up and acknowledge the administration’s abandonment of Israel.  Though some Jewish Democrats still contend that Obama “has Israel’s back,” his order blocking shipments of Hellfire missiles and other military equipment to Israel during the Gaza war shows the fallacy of such claims.   Furthermore, his preoccupation with reaching a nuclear deal with Iran – a rogue regime that has repeatedly vowed to obliterate the Jewish State – should give pause to all who profess support for his administration’s intentions regarding Israel.

The message delivered by the esteemed panel in Massachusetts was that American and Israeli interests are identical when it comes to dealing with global jihad, and that the failure to support Israel will only embolden those who seek to take the fight directly to the United States.  The proof on the ground becomes more apparent with each foreign policy gaffe, and seems to be denied only by those who choose to ignore it or who continue to promote the administration’s regional agenda out of blind partisan allegiance.

The opening remarks of Colonel West, who moderated the panel discussion with wit and insight, actually set the tone for its conclusion.  “America is at a critical crossroads in our global standing,” he said.  “And this is clearly apparent in the Mideast [where] we’re facing a vile existential threat in ISIS.”  The increase in Hamas’s destructive power, the evolution of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and the empowerment of extremists across North Africa have coincided with the administration’s conduct in pivoting U.S. policy away from its traditional interests in the Mideast and undercutting the American-Israeli relationship.

Nevertheless, Colonel West believes the American people’s bond with Israel cannot be broken by the policies of a hostile administration.  Regarding Israel’s future, he referred to the Book of Yehoshua, which says:  “Be strong and courageous; be not afraid, nor be dismayed; for the Lord your G-d is with you wherever you go.” (Joshua, 1:9.).

Clearly, Israel cannot place her trust in the Obama administration, but she can still draw strength and inspiration from Yehoshua, whose words have resonated for thousands of years and will continue to do so long after this president leaves office.

Categories: Ideology, Iran, Islam, Israel, Jihad
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Abbas: PA to halt security coordination with Israel if peace talks aren’t revived

November 29, 2014

Abbas: PA to halt security coordination with Israel if peace talks aren’t revived

via Abbas: PA to halt security coordination with Israel if peace talks aren’t revived.

 

All indications are that US mediation efforts to revive peace talks have failed,” says Abbas.

Talestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas ( abu mazen ).. (photo credit:REUTERS) o

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday threatened to halt security coordination with Israel unless the peace talks are revived.

“We are no longer able to live with the status quo,” Abbas said in a speech before an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo.

He also reiterated the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

“We recognize the State of Israel, but we won’t recognize a Jewish state at all,” Abbas stressed.

The meeting was held to discuss the latest developments surrounding the Palestinian issue in light of Abbas’s plan to seek a UN Security Council resolution that sets a timeline for Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.

Abbas is hoping to win the Arab ministers’ support for his plan in wake of US pressure to refrain from presenting it to the Security Council.

Abbas has said in the past that he intends to present the plan to the Security Council by the end of this month.

“The situation in the West Bank is dangerous and can’t continue as it is,” Abbas said in his speech. “The most dangerous thing facing the Palestinian cause at this time is the continuation of the status quo.”

He said that Israel knows very well that there would be no Palestinian state without the Gaza Strip. Israel, he charged, is continuing with its policy of creating facts on the ground by building settlements on Palestinian territories.

“Israel does not know where its borders are and is refusing to define them,” Abbas said. “We will present an Arab plan to the Security Council calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state. All indications are that US mediation efforts to revive the peace talks have failed.”

He said that the PA had asked US Secretary of State John Kerry to work together to draft the resolution that would be presented to the Security Council. The PA also asked Kerry to put pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction, Abbas added.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Israel Amb. Prosor addresses UNGA debate on the Question of Palestine

November 29, 2014

Amb. Prosor addresses UNGA debate on the Question of Palestine”

​Mr. President,I stand before the world as a proud representative of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I stand tall before you knowing that truth and morality are on my side.  And yet, I stand here knowing that today in this Assembly, truth will be turned on its head and morality cast aside.The fact of the matter is that when members of the international community speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a fog descends to cloud all logic and moral clarity.  The result isn’t realpolitik, its surrealpolitik.

The world’s unrelenting focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an injustice to tens of millions of victims of tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East. As we speak, Yazidis, Bahai, Kurds, Christians and Muslims are being executed and expelled by radical extremists at a rate of 1,000 people per month.

How many resolutions did you pass last week to address this crisis?  And how many special sessions did you call for? The answer is zero. What does this say about international concern for human life?  Not much, but it speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the international community.

I stand before you to speak the truth.  Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, less than half a percent are truly free – and they are all citizens of Israel.

Israeli Arabs are some of the most educated Arabs in the world. They are our leading physicians and surgeons, they are elected to our parliament, and they serve as judges on our Supreme Court.  Millions of men and women in the Middle East would welcome these opportunities and freedoms.

Nonetheless, nation after nation, will stand at this podium today and criticize Israel – the small island of democracy in a region plagued by tyranny and oppression.

Mr. President,

Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state.  It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state.

Sixty seven years ago this week, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Simple. The Jews said yes.  The Arabs said no. But they didn’t just say no.  Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon launched a war of annihilation against our newborn state.

This is the historical truth that the Arabs are trying to distort. The Arabs’ historic mistake continues to be felt – in lives lost in war, lives lost to terrorism, and lives scarred by the Arab’s narrow political interests.

According to the United Nations, about 700,000 Palestinians were displaced in the war initiated by the Arabs themselves.  At the same time, some 850,000 Jews were forced to flee from Arab countries.

Why is it, that 67 years later, the displacement of the Jews has been completely forgotten by this institution while the displacement of the Palestinians is the subject of an annual debate?

The difference is that Israel did its utmost to integrate the Jewish refugees into society. The Arabs did just the opposite.

The worst oppression of the Palestinian people takes place in Arab nations.  In most of the Arab world, Palestinians are denied citizenship and are aggressively discriminated against.  They are barred from owning land and prevented from entering certain professions.

And yet none – not one – of these crimes are mentioned in the resolutions before you.

If you were truly concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people there would be one, just one, resolution to address the thousands of Palestinians killed in Syria.  And if you were so truly concerned about the Palestinians there would be at least one resolution to denounce the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanese refugee camps.

But there isn’t.  The reason is that today’s debate is not about speaking for peace or speaking for the Palestinian people – it is about speaking against Israel.  It is nothing but a hate and bashing festival against Israel.

Mr. President,

The European nations claim to stand for Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité – freedom, equality, and brotherhood – but nothing could be farther from the truth.

I often hear European leaders proclaim that Israel has the right to exist in secure borders.   That’s very nice.  But I have to say – it makes about as much sense as me standing here and proclaiming Sweden’s right to exist in secure borders.

When it comes to matters of security, Israel learned the hard way that we cannot rely on others – certainly not Europe.

In 1973, on Yom Kippur – the holiest day on the Jewish calendar – the surrounding Arab nations launched an attack against Israel. In the hours before the war began, Golda Meir, our Prime Minister then, made the difficult decision not to launch a preemptive strike.   The Israeli Government understood that if we launched a preemptive strike, we would lose the support of the international community.

As the Arab armies advanced on every front, the situation in Israel grew dire. Our casualty count was growing and we were running dangerously low on weapons and ammunition.  In this, our hour of need, President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, agreed to send Galaxy planes loaded with tanks and ammunition to resupply our troops.  The only problem was that the Galaxy planes needed to refuel on route to Israel.

The Arab States were closing in and our very existence was threatened – and yet, Europe was not even willing to let the planes refuel.  The U.S. stepped in once again and negotiated that the planes be allowed to refuel in the Azores.

The government and people of Israel will never forget that when our very existence was at stake, only one country came to our aid – the United States of America.

Israel is tired of hollow promises from European leaders.  The Jewish people have a long memory.  We will never ever forget that you failed us in the 1940s.  You failed us in 1973.  And you are failing us again today.

Every European parliament that voted to prematurely and unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state is giving the Palestinians exactly what they want – statehood without peace.  By handing them a state on a silver platter, you are rewarding unilateral actions and taking away any incentive for the Palestinians to negotiate or compromise or renounce violence.  You are sending the message that the Palestinian Authority can sit in a government with terrorists and incite violence against Israel without paying any price.

The first E.U. member to officially recognize a Palestinian state was Sweden. One has to wonder why the Swedish Government was so anxious to take this step.  When it comes to other conflicts in our region, the Swedish Government calls for direct negotiations between the parties – but for the Palestinians, surprise, surprise, they roll out the red carpet.

State Secretary Söder may think she is here to celebrate her government’s so-called historic recognition, when in reality it’s nothing more than an historic mistake.

The Swedish Government may host the Nobel Prize ceremony, but there is nothing noble about their cynical political campaign to appease the Arabs in order to get a seat on the Security Council.  Nations on the Security Council should have sense, sensitivity, and sensibility.  Well, the Swedish Government has shown no sense, no sensitivity and no sensibility.  Just nonsense.

Israel learned the hard way that listening to the international community can bring about devastating consequences.  In 2005, we unilaterally dismantled every settlement and removed every citizen from the Gaza Strip. Did this bring us any closer to peace?  Not at all. It paved the way for Iran to send its terrorist proxies to establish a terror stronghold on our doorstep.

I can assure you that we won’t make the same mistake again.  When it comes to our security, we cannot and will not rely on others – Israel must be able to defend itself by itself.

Mr. President,

The State of Israel is the land of our forefathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  It is the land where Moses led the Jewish people, where David built his palace, where Solomon built the Jewish Temple, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace.

For thousands of years, Jews have lived continuously in the land of Israel.  We endured through the rise and fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman Empires.  And we endured through thousands of years of persecution, expulsions and crusades.  The bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land is unbreakable.

Nothing can change one simple truth – Israel is our home and Jerusalem is our eternal capital.

At the same time, we recognize that Jerusalem has special meaning for other faiths.  Under Israeli sovereignty, all people – and I will repeat that, all people – regardless of religion and nationality can visit the city’s holy sites.  And we intend to keep it this way.  The only ones trying to change the status quo on the Temple Mount are Palestinian leaders.

President Abbas is telling his people that Jews are contaminating the Temple Mount.  He has called for days of rage and urged Palestinians to prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount using (quote) “all means” necessary.  These words are as irresponsible as they are unacceptable.

You don’t have to be Catholic to visit the Vatican, you don’t have to be Jewish to visit the Western Wall, but some Palestinians would like to see the day when only Muslims can visit the Temple Mount.

You, the international community, are lending a hand to extremists and fanatics. You, who preach tolerance and religious freedom, should be ashamed.  Israel will never let this happen.  We will make sure that the holy places remain open to all people of all faiths for all time.

Mr. President,

No one wants peace more than Israel.  No one needs to explain the importance of peace to parents who have sent their child to defend our homeland.  No one knows the stakes of success or failure better than we Israelis do. The people of Israel have shed too many tears and buried too many sons and daughters.

We are ready for peace, but we are not naïve. Israel’s security is paramount. Only a strong and secure Israel can achieve a comprehensive peace.

The past month should make it clear to anyone that Israel has immediate and pressing security needs. In recent weeks, Palestinian terrorists have shot and stabbed our citizens and twice driven their cars into crowds of pedestrians.  Just a few days ago, terrorists armed with axes and a gun savagely attacked Jewish worshipers during morning prayers.  We have reached the point when Israelis can’t even find sanctuary from terrorism in the sanctuary of a synagogue.

These attacks didn’t emerge out of a vacuum.  They are the results of years of indoctrination and incitement.  A Jewish proverb teaches: “The instruments of both death and life are in the power of the tongue.”

As a Jew and as an Israeli, I know with utter certainly that when our enemies say they want to attack us, they mean it.

Hamas’s genocidal charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews worldwide.  For years, Hamas and other terrorist groups have sent suicide bombers into our cities, launched rockets into our towns, and sent terrorists to kidnap and murder our citizens.

And what about the Palestinian Authority?  It is leading a systemic campaign of incitement.  In schools, children are being taught that ‘Palestine’ will stretch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.  In mosques, religious leaders are spreading vicious libels accusing Jews of destroying Muslim holy sites.  In sports stadiums, teams are named after terrorists.  And in newspapers, cartoons urge Palestinians to commit terror attacks against Israelis.

Children in most of the world grow up watching cartoons of Mickey Mouse singing and dancing.  Palestinian children also grow up watching Mickey Mouse, but on Palestinians national television, a twisted figure dressed as Mickey Mouse dances in an explosive belt and chants “Death to America and death to the Jews.”

I challenge you to stand up here today and do something constructive for a change.  Publically denounce the violence, denounce the incitement, and denounce the culture of hate.

Most people believe that at its core, the conflict is a battle between Jews and Arabs or Israelis and Palestinians.  They are wrong.  The battle that we are witnessing is a battle between those who sanctify life and those who celebrate death.

Following the savage attack in a Jerusalem synagogue, celebrations erupted in Palestinian towns and villages.  People were dancing in the street and distributing candy.  Young men posed with axes, loudspeakers at mosques called out congratulations, and the terrorists were hailed as “martyrs” and “heroes.”

This isn’t the first time that we saw the Palestinians celebrate the murder of innocent civilians.  We saw them rejoice after every terrorist attack on Israeli civilians and they even took to the streets to celebrate the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center right here in New York City.

Imagine the type of state this society would produce.  Does the Middle East really need another terror-ocracy?  Some members of the international community are aiding and abetting its creation.

Mr. President,

As we came into the United Nations, we passed the flags of all 193 member States. If you take the time to count, you will discover that there are 15 flags with a crescent and 25 flags with a cross.  And then there is one flag with a Jewish Star of David.  Amidst all the nations of the world there is one state – just one small nation state for the Jewish people.

And for some people, that is one too many.

As I stand before you today I am reminded of all the years when Jewish people paid for the world’s ignorance and indifference in blood.  Those days are no more.

We will never apologize for being a free and independent people in our sovereign state. And we will never apologize for defending ourselves.

To the nations that continue to allow prejudice to prevail over truth, I say “J’accuse.”

I accuse you of hypocrisy. I accuse you of duplicity.

I accuse you of lending legitimacy to those who seek to destroy our State.

I accuse you of speaking about Israel’s right of self-defense in theory, but denying it in practice.

And I accuse you of demanding concessions from Israel, but asking nothing of the Palestinians.

In the face of these offenses, the verdict is clear.  You are not for peace and you are not for the Palestinian people.  You are simply against Israel.

Members of the international community have a choice to make.

You can recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, or permit the Palestinian leadership to deny our history without consequence.

You can publically proclaim that the so-called “claim of return” is a non-starter, or you can allow this claim to remain the major obstacle to any peace agreement.

You can work to end Palestinian incitement, or stand by as hatred and extremism take root for generations to come.

You can prematurely recognize a Palestinian state, or you can encourage the Palestinian Authority to break its pact with Hamas and return to direct negotiations.

The choice is yours. You can continue to steer the Palestinians off course or pave the way to real and lasting peace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

A important link

http://embassies.gov.il/un/statements/Pages/Question-of-Palestine-Debate.aspx

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Peace With Islam in Our Time ??

November 27, 2014

Peace With Islam in Our Time ??

November 27, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

via Peace With Islam in Our Time | FrontPage Magazine.

 

Read and LEARN.

 


Abdallah Bulgasem Zehaf-Bibeau, the crackhead turned Jihadist spawned by the mating of a Canadian immigration official and a Libyan Muslim Jihadist, just wanted peace.

He told a co-worker, “There can’t be world peace until there’s only Muslims.” Then he tried to usher in peace, the Islamic way, by opening fire near the Canadian parliament.

Meanwhile in Israel a reporter interviewing Arab Muslim settlers in Jerusalem found that they too wanted peace. On their terms.

“Yes we want peace,” one of them said, “but peace means no Jews.”

When negotiating peace with other cultures it’s a good idea to make sure that the words you are using mean the same thing. Most Muslims and Westerners want peace. But to Westerners peace means co-existence. To Muslims, peace means the end of your existence.

Ideas carry heavy cultural baggage. Peace in the West summons up images of Armistice Day, of the Christmas Truce of WW1 in which French, German and English soldiers could share meals and play soccer together. It carries with it the subversive idea that both sides realize the war isn’t worth fighting.

Such a subversive idea has no place in Islam. The Jihad is at the heart of Islam. To question the holy war is to also question the faith. When war is religion then peace through setting aside war is heresy.

The Western idea of peace is a wholly alien one to Islam. In Islam, peace does not come from men transcending their differences, but from destroying men who think and live differently. That is the function of the religious police of our allied “moderate Muslim” countries who seek out the practice of other religions and other ways of living in places like Saudi Arabia and suppress their practitioners.

Islamic peace does not come from diversity, from accepting the existence of other nations, religions and peoples, but from unity through Islam and eliminating as many differences as possible. If Islam is the source of peace, then all that which is “not Islam” is the cause of war.

Kill the Jews. Kill the Christians. Then there will be peace.

The Islamic idea of peace was aptly expressed by Zehaf-Bibeau and our anonymous Jerusalem Jihadist. It is not based on a recognition of the humanity of one’s fellow man, but on a rejection of their humanity.

As Mohammed curtly put it in missives to the leaders of non-Muslim countries in the region, “Aslim, Taslam.” Convert to Islam and you’ll have peace. The same message has been dispatched by Muslim leaders today to popes and presidents. It’s a message of peace on the only terms that Islam allows.

Islam is the religion of peace. For there to be peace, Islam must be supreme. Within the Islamic worldview, conflict is caused by the existence of dissent. The only way to achieve peace is by forcing the submission of every human being to the correct strain of Islam. “Moderates” may agree to let Jews and Christians live as inferior second-class citizens if they submit to Muslims. “Extremists” will skip straight to raping and beheading them. And once that ugly business is done, there will be peace.

Or there will be peace once the “moderates” and “extremists” have finished killing each other, once the Sunnis and Shiites have finished beheading each other, and once every single Muslim has finished slaughtering every other Muslim who in any way dissents from his understanding of Islam.

That’s the brand of peace we’re seeing in Iraq and Syria today. Or the peace process between Israel and the Arab Muslims who were rebranded as “Palestinians” because it made them seem like a local flavor.

Islam rejects the idea that mutual empathy should transcend conflict. Instead it believes that war should transcend humanity. Or as the Koran puts it, “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.”

The Western tradition is biased toward the peace of co-existence. It applies the logic of armistice toward all areas of life leading to the championing of multiculturalism and immigration. Its siren song is John Lennon’s Imagine with its call for an end to borders, nations, religions and property. Its ideal of peace comes from the end of structure and separation between people.

The Islamic idea of peace however affirms a structure and separation based on the Koran. It believes that there will be peace when everyone is forced to live within the strictures of Islam. And therefore there can be no genuine peace with non-Muslims who do not submit to Islam.

These two incompatible notions of peace continue to collide. Imagine if French soldiers had clambered out to sing and play soccer only to be gunned down by German soldiers who had a fundamentally different idea of peace. This was actually how WW2 was shaped as the victorious side played by outdated rules while Nazi Germany, Japan and the USSR shifted to a thoroughly totalitarian mentality.

Munich was a disaster because Hitler was not the Kaiser. The other side was no longer willing to play by any rules, even in diplomatic negotiations, or to accept anything short of total victory. The Allies were forced to match their enemies in a ruthless war that saw entire cities destroyed.

The Nazis and Communists were the products of years of indoctrination that taught them to see opponents as less than human and peace as being obtainable only through their destruction. Japan, which had a longer history of dehumanizing outsiders, proved to be an even tougher nut to crack.

Islam has a history of over a thousand years of continuously dehumanizing non-Muslims and identifying peace and their enslavement as one and the same. It is impossible to live in peace with Muslims who think that there can be no peace as long as non-Muslims continue to live independent lives.

In the Muslim worldview, war happens because non-Muslims exist. War is caused by the infidel, the disbeliever and the Muslim hypocrite who does not truly commit to the practice of Islam. The Jihad purifies the world of non-Muslims; it eradicates the “moderate” Muslims who have been compromised by Western culture. It is a war of extermination against the un-Islamic.

When Westerners propose peace, Muslims reject them as hypocrites for speaking of peace, but refusing to accept the only religion that can bring peace. They feel no obligation to honor any peace agreements since peace can only come from Islam and the Western rejection of Islam proves our deceitfulness and bad intentions. This dynamic is inherent in the Koran and the entire history of Islam.

Islam does not obtain peace through peace, but through war. It seeks a world without conflict by killing anyone who might disagree with its totalitarian ideology.

Proposing the peace of co-existence to an ideology to which peace means its own supremacy is a foolish and deranged act.  Our outreach to the Muslim world does not lack for a common language, but for common ideas. Both sides may speak of peace, but for one side peace really means war.

Languages are not only made up of words, but of values. It is not enough to bring a dictionary to a negotiation if the two parties are reading from different moral and ethical traditions. Just because we translate “Salaam” as peace and agree that we both want peace does not mean that we have the same idea of what peace is.

The West sees peace as living side by side with Muslims. Muslims see peace as the end of the West.

*

Don’t miss Daniel Greenfield on this week’s Glazov Gang discussing Obama’s Fantasies about Un-Islamic Jihad:

 

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

ISIS Will Take Over The Most Dangerous Muslim Nation On Earth, Take Its Nukes.

November 25, 2014

ISIS Will Take Over The Most Dangerous Muslim Nation On Earth, Take Its Nukes, And Commit The Bloodiest Massacre Of Christians

By Shoebat Foundation on November 24, 2014

via ISIS Will Take Over The Most Dangerous Muslim Nation On Earth, Take Its Nukes, And Commit The Bloodiest Massacre Of Christians We Will See – Walid Shoebat.

 

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)

ISIS now has camped in Pakistan and all across Pakistan, the black standard of the Islamic State has been popping up all over from urban slums to Taliban strongholds, the ISIS logo and name have appeared in graffiti, posters and pamphlets and a cluster of militant commanders in Pakistan declared their allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph of the Islamic State as ISIS presence there increases by the day. But the one trillion dollar question is will the world leaders secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of ISIS? It doesn’t look like it and the prospects of ISIS gaining nuclear bombs are very likely as the news from Pakistan reveals.

To ensure that no nuclear weapons falls into the hands of ISIS, there is only one option, that the US takes control of Pakistan’s nukes and disarms Pakistan. But is this scenario even feasible? Hardly.

The problem in the West is that its comparing the ISIS problem with its previous predecessor Al-Qaeda so the western news consumers are not paying as much attention to how fast the Islamic State is moving and it’s not wasting time like al-Qaida did before and its moving in lightening speed.


 140804068ISIS-ajakan264434b2e2b1d9c2aa84a0cb273e4df55f712a3c

 

ISIS is moving quick. And now there is even more. The Pakistani media reported recently that a group of 10 commanders from ISIS are currently in Baluchistan to seek allegiance of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Baloch freedom movement. This happened just a few weeks after a group of TTP under Maulana Fazlullah, voiced support for the terror group and swore allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It was not only Maulana Fazlullah who teamed up with ISIS, another local group called Jamaatul Ahrar, also declared its support for ISIS. Jamaatul Ahrar’s leader, Ehsanullah Ehsan, was quoted by Reuters as saying: “We respect them. If they ask us for help, we will look into it and decide.” According to the Daily Mail, the spokesperson of TTP and six senior figures have declared loyalty to ISIS.

The presence of ISIS was also confirmed by the Pakistani government. The presence of ISIS in Pakistan and allegiance of TTP groups is truly a disturbing news and is likely to have serious consequences for a country that is already in turmoil due to incompetent governance, economic crises and political tension. However, this is not the sole reason behind ISIS desire to start operations in Pakistan. There are multiple encouraging points that brought ISIS to the country that is already in turmoil. Large parts of Pakistan, Baluchistan and FATA are at the age of bifurcations. ISIS support to the freedom fighters of Baluchistan and jihadis of FATA will accelerate the freeing process of these provinces which will eventually become basis for ISIS in the region.

“The message they’re trying to convey is they are brutal to their enemies, and they are righteous in their cause,” says Karl Kaltenthaler, an expert on the rise of Islamic extremism and professor at the University of Akron. “If you mess with them, you’re going to pay a high price, and they will stop at nothing to achieve the triumph of their vision for Islam.”

And to top it all, just in the last two months, Shoebat.com reported all across the Muslim world, ISIS has magnetized a litany of major terrorist organizations to give the Bay’at (allegiance) and join under ISIS such as Jund al-Khilafah (Soldiers of the Caliphate, In North Africa), Ansar al-Shariah (Libya), Taliban (Pakistan), The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (Pakistan’s North Waziristan), Al-Tawhid ​Battalion (Pakistan, Afghanistan), Al-Nusra (Lebanon), Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen), Ansar al-Tawhid in the Land of Hind (India), Anṣār Bayt al-Maqdis (Sinai) and Jund al-Khilafah (Egypt).

And if you think the situation in Iraq and Syria is bad think again, 98% of Pakistanis support Jihad and they have no problems with all the blood and gore of ISIS. Shoebat.com interviewed Farrukh Seif who is on the ground in Pakistan and had some very interesting observations about the seriousness of the situation:

The Nuclear Danger

Pakistan has some unprotected nuclear weapons and ISIS certainly has its eyes on that and beyond any doubt it will strive to reach those weapons.While the global leaders certainly understand that there is an extreme threat to global security if the risk that ISIS could get a hold of nuclear weapons, yet all world leaders especially Americans do is hold several international conferences on addressing the issue. ISIS is much stronger than Al-Qaeda and was able to hold some sort of chemical weapons in Iraq which they used against the Kurds.

 

nasr-missile-test

The way one can predict the outcome of things is to study the track record, if chaos happened in a corrupt nation with such an abysmal record, the rule is, that chances of worse repetitions are not far off, its not as if Pakistan, the most corrupt and most Islamist nation in the world is immune from smuggling the capability, among all the nuclear states Pakistan is the only country that leaked and transferred nuclear technology to the countries that are still under UN and US sanctions. It is also the only nuclear state that shelters and protect terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Haqani Network and now the infamous ISIS. The Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, leaked nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Abdul Qadeer Khan not only accepted the full responsibility for transferring sensitive technology to mentioned states but he also revealed in 2004, that the former military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, the top authority in Pakistan himself was involved neck-deep in nuclear proliferation.

465127033_v2

ISIS will strive for acquiring nuclear weapons in Pakistan and will get it, its only a matter of time. Assuming even if ISIS don’t fight for it, there are elements in Pakistan that may sell either nuclear technology or nuclear weapons to ISIS. If ISIS obtains nuclear weapons in Pakistan a new chapter of terrorism will emerge, and ISIS will turn into an invincible force. This time the world will have to deal with nuclear terrorism in Pakistan which will be fueled by drug money from Afghanistan and ISIS oil money from Iraq and will certainly have severe consequence not only for Pakistan but for the whole world.

Pakistan not only sheltered the worlds most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, but also protected him for several years inside its military town, Abbottabad while for years it denied it had anything to do with Al-Qaeda while its leader was in close proximity of the main military basis. And if Pakistan also protects Ayman Al Zawahiri, Jalal din Haqani, Mullah Omer and many others whats to stop it from protecting Caliph Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi? Pakistan unlike any other nation in the world has thousands of radical madrassas (Muslim religious schools) that can easily produce as many warriors for ISIS as they want and has the major bulk of radical mullahs (preachers) that can easily justify ISIS’s mission and activities in Pakistan to produce and supply as many suicide bombers as needed and the killing machine will catapult into apocalyptic scenario.

beheading

Pakistan’s military establishment is the most terrorist friendly entity in the world and considers terrorist groups as strategic assets for proxy wars in India and Afghanistan. Currently the ongoing sectarian violence in Pakistan’s Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces offer greater opportunities for ISIS to operate in Pakistan.

There is little time left and the situation for Christians in Pakistan will be dire for Rescue Christians to move as fast as possible to rescue enslaved Christians. One can imagine when ISIS rules regions in north Pakistan, Christian persecution will be unlike anything we have ever seen.

PLEASE HELP US HELP PAKISTANI CHRISTIANS

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama: ISIS Beheadings ‘Represent No Faith, Least of All the Muslim Faith’

November 17, 2014

Obama: ISIS Beheadings ‘Represent No Faith, Least of All the Muslim Faith’

by 17 Nov 2014, 5:39 AM PDT

via Obama: ISIS Beheadings ‘Represent No Faith, Least of All the Muslim Faith’.

 

Returning from his trip to Asia, President Obama issued a statement reacting to the beheading of U.S. aid worker Peter Kassig by Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) terrorists.

Kassig, a convert to Islam, took the name Abdul-Rahman and was captured and held hostage by members of ISIS a year ago.

“ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own,” Obama wrote. “Today we grieve together, yet we also recall that the indomitable spirit of goodness and perseverance that burned so brightly in Abdul-Rahman Kassig, and which binds humanity together, ultimately is the light that will prevail over the darkness of ISIL.”

Obama called the action “an act of pure evil by a terrorist group that the world rightly associates with inhumanity.”

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

Statement by the President on the Death of Abdul-Rahman Kassig
Today we offer our prayers and condolences to the parents and family of Abdul-Rahman Kassig, also known to us as Peter.  We cannot begin to imagine their anguish at this painful time.
Abdul-Rahman was taken from us in an act of pure evil by a terrorist group that the world rightly associates with inhumanity.  Like Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff before him, his life and deeds stand in stark contrast to everything that ISIL represents.  While ISIL revels in the slaughter of innocents, including Muslims, and is bent only on sowing death and destruction, Abdul-Rahman was a humanitarian who worked to save the lives of Syrians injured and dispossessed by the Syrian conflict.  While ISIL exploits the tragedy in Syria to advance their own selfish aims, Abdul-Rahman was so moved by the anguish and suffering of Syrian civilians that he traveled to Lebanon to work in a hospital treating refugees.  Later, he established an aid group, SERA, to provide assistance to Syrian refugees and displaced persons in Lebanon and Syria.  These were the selfless acts of an individual who cared deeply about the plight of the Syrian people.

ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own.  Today we grieve together, yet we also recall that the indomitable spirit of goodness and perseverance that burned so brightly in Abdul-Rahman Kassig, and which binds humanity together, ultimately is the light that will prevail over the darkness of ISIL.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

A Dead Caliph vs. the Hydra of Jihad

November 17, 2014

A Dead Caliph vs. the Hydra of Jihad

By Raymond Ibrahim on November 13, 2014

via A Dead Caliph vs. the Hydra of Jihad | Raymond Ibrahim.

 

Is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-styled “caliph” of the Islamic State, injured or dead, as some in the media are eagerly speculating?

Better question: does it really matter?

For almost a decade now, every time an Islamic jihadi leader is killed, the Western mainstream media exult, portraying the death as a major blow to the jihad.  And, for almost a decade now, I have responded by posting an article that I first wrote in 2006 for Victor Davis Hanson’s website, Private Papers.

Although I changed the names of the jihadi leaders killed to suit the occasion—first Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi, then Abu Laith al-Libi, then Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayub al-Misri, and finally Osama bin Laden—my conclusion has remained the same:

The West’s plight vis-à-vis radical Islam is therefore akin to Hercules’ epic encounter with the multi-headed Hydra-monster.  Every time the mythical strongman lopped off one of the monster’s heads, two new ones grew in its place.  To slay the beast once and for all, Hercules learned to cauterize the stumps with fire, thereby preventing any more heads from sprouting out.

Similarly while the West continues to lop off monster heads like figurehead Zarqawi [or bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, etc.] it is imperative to treat the malady — radical Islam—in order to ultimately prevail.  Victory can only come when the violent ideologies of radical Islam are cauterized with fire.

But alas, the Hydra-monster is myth, while radical Islam is stark reality.

Eight years later, this “stark reality” has manifested itself into a head-chopping, infidel-crucifying, mass-murdering, female-enslaving Islamic State.

And yet, in the previous years, proclamations of “victory” were habitually made by media and politicians whenever a top jihadi was killed.

Recall all the exultation that took place in 2006 after al-Zarqawi—the forefather of the Islamic State, or “Al-Qaeda Second Generation”—was killed.   Then, almost every major politician, including President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, gave some sort of victory speech.  The New York Times called his death a “major watershed in the war.”

Similarly, in 2008, after Abu Laith al-Libi was killed, Congressman Peter Hoekstra issued a statement saying that his death “clearly will have an impact on the radical jihadist movement.”

More myopic triumphalism was in the air after Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayub al-Masri were killed in 2010 during a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation.  Then, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden said the “deaths are potentially devastating blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq [the original name of the Islamic State],” adding “This operation is evidence in my view, that the future of Iraq will not be shaped by those who would seek to destroy that country”—an assertion that has now proven woefully wrong.

Similarly, U.S. commander Gen. Raymond Odierno asserted that “The death of these terrorists is potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency,” adding that it would be “very difficult” for the al Qaeda network to replace the two men.

And who could forget all the media triumphalism, if not hysteria, surrounding the 2011 death of Osama bin Laden?  Then, CNN security analyst Peter Bergen declared that “Killing bin Laden is the end of the war on terror. We can just sort of announce that right now.” Insisting that the “iconic nature of bin Laden’s persona” cannot be replaced, Bergen further suggested that “It’s time to move on.”

Another CNN analyst, Fareed Zakaria, assured us that “this is a huge, devastating blow to al-Qaeda, which had already been crippled by the Arab Spring. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is the end of al-Qaeda in any meaningful sense of the word.”

In retrospect, surely all these assertions and assurances have proven to be immensely puerile—even for mainstream media “analysts.”

To recap, for years, U.S. leadership and its media mouthpiece so misled Americans about the status of al-Qaeda (code name for the amorphous jihad)—thus directly contributing to the rise of the Islamic State: we were repeatedly told that al-Qaeda was suffering “devastating blows”; that the killing of individual jihadis were “major watersheds in the war”; that “the end of the war on terror” occurred in 2011, when bin Laden died (“it’s time to move on,” counseled Peter Bergen); and “that the future of Iraq will not be shaped by those who would seek to destroy that country,” according to Biden.

Yet, lo and behold: an Islamic State, a caliphate engaged in the worst atrocities of the 21st century, has been born—despite the deaths of Zarqawi, bin Laden, et. al.

When it comes to the significance of the killing of this or that jihadi leader, the best prediction I have ever read—a prediction that has proven too true—comes not from U.S. politicians, “experts,” or media.  It comes from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Asked in a 2005 interview about the status of bin Laden and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, he confidently replied:

Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.182, emphasis added).

And there it is: jihad “transcends time” and is not personified by this or that leader—something our myopic leaders and experts, who apparently can’t see beyond their noses, will never comprehend (and how can they, when Barack Obama has banned knowledge of Islam from U.S. intelligence?).

Jihadi leaders, ideologues, emirs, sultans, caliphs, even the prophet of Islam himself, have come and gone for nearly 1,400 years—but the jihad rages on.  It’s time Western leaders began to respond to the jihad and not just its individual practitioners.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »