The recent events in Beirut pose a simple, fundamental question: Who rules in Lebanon?

The answer proposed by Hizbullah last week is that the government of Fuad Saniora and Saad Hariri is to be permitted to hold the formal reins of administration - on condition that they well understand the inherent limits of their position. Most important, any attempt to interfere with the Iranian-created and Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored military infrastructure in the country will result in a swift, disproportionate and bloody response.

Hizbullah and its backers have made clear that if the choice is between civil war and accepting limitations on the autonomy of their military infrastructure, they will choose the former. At the same time, their actions in Beirut last week made clear that as long as this point is accepted by the March 14 government, they will permit a return to the former stalemate.

Recall the sequence of events: Lebanon has been locked in a standoff between the pro-US March 14 Movement and the pro-Iran and pro-Syria opposition ever since the latter launched a campaign to achieve veto power over government decisions, in the months following the war of 2006.

The Saniora government refused to bow to the opposition’s demands. The result has been ongoing political tension punctuated by periodic flare-ups, such as that of January 2007, which have brought the country to the brink of civil war.

The latest tension emerged from a Hizbullah-sponsored series of labor union protests.

But the key event precipitating Hizbullah’s military takeover of West Beirut was the decision by the government to act against Hizbullah’s independent military infrastructure through two bold moves: First, the government sought to dismiss the security chief at Rafik Hariri International Airport, Wafiq Choukair, who is known to be close to Hizbullah.

This move came after prominent March 14 leader and Druse strongman Walid Jumblatt revealed that Hizbullah had installed surveillance cameras at the airport’s Runway 17. The runway overlooks the hangars containing private jets, an air force base, and the VIP visitors building. Jumblatt further argued that Iranian flights to Beirut should be stopped, as they could be carrying equipment for Hizbullah, and called for the Iranian ambassador to be expelled.

In a second, related move, the government launched a judicial investigation into the Iranian-built independent telecommunications network maintained by Hizbullah. This network is thought to extend from Beirut across the south of the country, and into the Bekaa.

For Hizbullah, these actions by the government clearly trespassed beyond a red line: namely, the tacit acceptance by the Saniora government that the means by which Hizbullah and its backers conduct their activities in Lebanon are off-limits to the organs of the Lebanese state.

The response was swift and furious. Hizbullah gunmen poured onto the streets of West Beirut and engaged the untrained pro-government Sunnis who sought to oppose them. Eleven people were killed and 30 were wounded in the subsequent fighting, which ended with the surrender or flight of the pro-government elements.

Hizbullah simultaneously carried out a series of acts designed to humiliate the government and to demonstrate its ineffectiveness. Hizbullah men blocked the roads to and from the airport, cutting Lebanon off from the outside world, forced the pro-government Al-Mustaqbal TV station and other pro-government news outlets off the air, and burned the offices of the Al-Mustaqbal newspaper. The headquarters of Saniora and Saad Hariri was besieged. Following this demonstration of strength, Hizbullah expressed its willingness to hand all captured areas over to the Lebanese army.

The message was clear. The events of the past days are an attempt by the pro-Iranian regional alliance to guard the perimeters of its main asset in Lebanon - namely, the well financed and trained Hizbullah military infrastructure. Iran wishes to maintain this structure, but not to seize formal power in Lebanon. Rather, it is an instrument to be activated against Israel, at the appropriate moment. In the meantime, Teheran and Hizbullah are content to leave the Saniora government to continue the administration of Lebanon’s internal affairs, on condition it understands its limits.

The first question now is whether the Saniora government is prepared to accept this situation. (The original dispute over the dismissal of Choukair and the closing of the telecommunications network remains unresolved.) The second question is whether, if it is not, March 14 possesses the will and the tools to mount an effective opposition to the Hizbullah state within a state.

Hizbullah’s latest action brings the movement closer to openly pitting Lebanon’s Shi’ites against its Druse, Christian and Sunni communities. The opposition’s Christian component - the Free Patriotic Movement of Gen. Michel Aoun - appears largely an irrelevance in the developing dynamic. Instead, the allies that matter to Hizbullah now are the Shi’ite Amal movement and the small pro-Syrian and Palestinian militias that have mobilized to support the opposition in the past days.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have expressed support for the Saniora government. The Sunni mufti of Lebanon has harshly condemned Hizbullah’s actions. But it appears that Hizbullah feels strong enough to contemplate such a situation, and to dismiss the possibility of the coalition of communities backing the government mounting an effective response. The coming weeks will show if Hizbullah’s confidence in this regard was misplaced.

As a child, my mother took me to the Radio City Music Hall to see the dazzling, long-limbed Rockettes dance. For decades, the Music Hall symbolized glitzy entertainment, New York style. Radio City was also where I went when I was interviewed on NBC and when I dined at the Big Band-era Rainbow Room, a 65th floor precursor to and survivor of the World Trade Center’s Windows on the World. The Rainbow Room also has windows that look out onto the immediate world.

On Wednesday evening, May 7th, Jews around the world celebrated the miraculous 60th anniversary of the birth of Israel as a modern state. In New York City, an historic extravaganza took place at Radio City Music Hall. An attempt to Palestinianize this Art Deco palace also took place. It failed, it did not interrupt the considerable joy within but still, the Haters are everywhere, there is no event they do not picket.

Wherever one turns, one finds the same monotonous anti-Israeli, anti-American, and pro-Palestinian propaganda. It has invaded our air waves, our campuses, and the entire global internet. Complex realities and wrenching truths have been reduced to lying, paranoid hate speech which wraps itself in the righteous garments of “oppression” and “liberation.” On the march, its face is raging and hateful.

In Israel, its Arab citizens attended a mass rally and march to mark the 60th anniversary of “the Naqba” (Catastrophe). According to Ynet, Violence flared up when the Palestinian organizers failed to control their own demonstrators who repeatedly clashed with Israeli police and civilians. Five Israeli police were injured. A group of peaceful, young Israeli members who belong to the volunteer group,”If You Will,” raised an Israeli flag at a picnic–in their own country, as they celebrated their Independence. The Arab demonstrators demanded that they lower the flag. Arguments broke out. Violence ensued.

My colleague, the journalist Fern Sidman, called me from Radio City Music Hall. She sounded upset, anything but jubilant.

“A well organized bus-load of 75 pro-Palestinians with an excellent sound system and all the usual banners and posters are here. There are only a handful of Jews, maybe ten to fifteen, and mainly from Stand With Us, who are standing up for Israel.”

“Calm down,” I said. “After all, the UJA clearly commands the high ground. They’ve booked the Music Hall. They, their talent, their guests, are the insiders. Everyone else is outside, they’re outsiders, trying to spoil the event, hoping to get some air-time.”

Still, Fern’s distress got to me. That–and something else. In the past, I admit it, I have spoken for and marched with some of the very pro-PLO protestors who were there. I did not do so against Israel or for “Palestine,” but for women’s rights. (The left really knows how to infiltrate indigenous movements). I always thought they were harmless enough, but slightly nutty. They said they were “Maoists.” Since they seemed sane enough, I thought that perhaps one of them might be a CIA or FBI agent. Otherwise, I could not understand their relentless cheerfulness, incessant drive, and dark conspiracy theories.

Fern described them as “a vitriolic cadre of anti-Israel protestors” who “boisterously excoriated” both Israel and the United States for their “oppression” of the Palestinian people. An organization called “Palestinian Action–Union Square East” sponsored the protest along with members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, an anachronistic Maoist organization. The 75 demonstrators, organized and led by Mary Lou (McKinley) Greenberg, chanted such slogans as “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” and “Not a Nickel, Not a Dime, No more Money for Israel’s Crimes. ” They simultaneously drew parallels between the plight of the Palestinian people and the “racist” verdicts in the Sean Bell case in which three New York City detectives (two African-American and one Caucasian), were exonerated in the tragic, senseless shooting.

“We are calling for the absolute right of return of the Palestinian people to their homeland”, said Myka Abramson, 23, a protestor representing the Palestinian cause. Abramson, who identified herself as a “Jewish feminist,” added that, “a two state solution to the Middle East conflict is not acceptable. We are rallying our forces to demand a one state solution, a secular democracy in which the Palestinians are masters of their own fate.”

She did not address the reality that Hamas would not accept a secular democratic state. Oh, is this little one lost and she is not alone; so many others are lost right along with her.

None of the protestors addressed the issue of incessant rocket attacks launched against southern Israel by Hamas in Gaza, but instead, rather mindlessly castigated the IDF for committing “genocide” against Palestinians living in Gaza.

A male demonstrator who was selling copies of the Revolutionary Communist Party newspaper, formerly titled “The Revolutionary Worker, ” chanted, “from Harlem to Palestine to Haiti we call for a revolutionary struggle for freedom for all oppressed peoples and we call for an end to the Israeli apartheid regime.”

Fern bought a copy of this rag for $1.00. It displayed ancient photos of Iranian activists protesting the Shah in the late 1970s but not of the brave Iranian activists who routinely oppose the mullahs in the twenty-first century. It also presented China as a positive force for good–and did not note their recent brutalities in Tibet and elsewhere.

The Palestinian contingent was also joined by 15 members of the notoriously anti-Zionist Chareidi movement, “Neturei Karta” whose members held signs calling for the “Peaceful Dismantlement of Israel. ” They also claimed that “Jews in Exile are Forbidden to Have Their Own State”. They failed to mention that they are on Amadinejad’s payroll. Are these guys allowed out without a psychiatrist-on-board?

Although greatly outnumbered by the anti-Israel protestors, the members of Stand With Us proudly hoisted an Israeli flag and held signs saying, “Stop the Hamas Terror” and “End the Hamas Bloody Occupation of Gaza”.

An African-American woman named Coretta James joined the members of Stand With Us to express her unwavering support for Israel . “Israel is the only viable democracy in the Middle East and a loyal ally of the United States”, she said, adding that, “As a member of Christians United For Israel, I am here today to tell the world that Israel has every right to exist as a clearly identifiable Jewish state. Every nation of the world that has risen up to attack the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has eventually become extinct and so too, these demonstrators who dare attack God’s chosen people will also eventually disappear. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish nation is extolled in the Bible and those who curse the Jewish people and Israel will be cursed and conversely those who bless the Jewish people and the Land of Israel will be blessed by God. That is why I am here today.”

Sister James does not sound like she attends the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Church.

Another pro-Israel demonstrator said, “In many ways, it is purely illogical that Israel should still be in existence. After five major wars and unceasing terrorism, the continued existence of tiny Israel, outnumbered by adversarial forces much mightier than herself is nothing short of a Divine miracle of mammoth proportions.” He added, “I feel and I fear that the times ahead will not portend well for Israel, as a Jewish State. The entire world is turning against Israel and she is becoming more isolated and reviled. As the global influence of radical Islamists continues to dramatically escalate, our only hope lies with our return to the God that saved our ancestors.”

Another Isaiah in our midst.

But most of all, Radio City Music Hall and the UJA hosted thousands of pro-Israel supporters . The energy was very high. One friend tells me that “people stood on their seats, translated from Hebrew for their partners, laughed, applauded, almost danced in the aisles. Radio City Music Hall may not have seen anything like this before.”

Of course, there were serious speeches by Governor Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg, Ambassador Gillerman, who said that “in some ways, Israel faces greater threats today than ever before.” The actress Natalie Portman was the M.C. (I am told that when she left the stage, some members of the audience became distraught). Many Israeli stars appeared including David Broza, Idan Raichel, Rami Kleinstein, Habanot Nechama and Yael Naim. Also appearing on the bill were top American performer and Hasidic reggae phenomenon Matisyahu, and “Late Show With David Letterman” bandleader Paul Shaffer, who performed a comic skit. The event also included a moving tribute to Israel’s fallen soldiers and victims of terror as part of Israel’s Memorial Day.

I wish I could have been there. Next year I will be. But, I remember the block parties in Brooklyn when World War Two ended and I remember the thrilling moments of Israel’s perilous birth: Listening to the radio-vote at the United Nations, reading about the 1948 fighting and victories. I will never forget those moments, or that year. They will last me a lifetime.

As Jews around the world celebrated the 60th anniversary of the birth of Israel as a modern state, the annual Yom Ha’Atzmaout (Israeli Independence Day) festivities in New York took place amidst a backdrop of controversy and protest outside of Radio City Music Hall on Wednesday evening May 7th.

At a gala, star studded musical event sponsored by the UJA-Federation, thousands of supporters of Israel filed into the landmark edifice to hear a historic mix of all star talent including Israeli stars David Broza, Idan Raichel, Rami Kleinstein, Habanot Nechama and Yael Naim. Also appearing on the bill were top American performer and Hasidic reggae phenomenon Matisyahu, recent MacArthur Genius Award winner John Zorn and “Late Show With David Letterman” band-leader Paul Shaffer. The event also included a moving tribute to Israel’s fallen soldiers and victims of terror as part of Israel’s Memorial Day.

Outside the hall, a vitriolic cadre of anti-Israel protesters staged a boisterous demonstration; excoriating both Israel and the United States for their ostensible “oppression” of the Palestinian people. An organization called “Palestinian Action - Union Square East” sponsored the protest along with members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, an anachronistic Maoist organization who saw its heyday back in the 1960s as an agitating force behind the Vietnam war protest movement. The 75 demonstrators expressed their opprobrium for the Jewish State by chanting such slogans as “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” and “Not a Nickel, Not a Dime, No more Money for Israel’s Crimes” while drawing parallels of the plight of the Palestinian people to the “racist” verdicts in the Sean Bell case in which several New York City detectives were exonerated of the shooting in April 25th.

“We are calling for the absolute right of return of the Palestinian people to their homeland”, said Myka Abramson, 23, a protestor representing the Palestinian cause. Abramson, who identified herself as Jewish added that, “a two state solution to the Middle East conflict is not acceptable. We are rallying our forces to demand a one state solution, a secular democracy in which the Palestinians are masters of their own fate.” None of the protestors addressed the issue of incessant rocket attacks launched against southern Israel by Hamas in Gaza, but rather chided the IDF for committing “genocide” against Palestinians living in Gaza. Another demonstrator who was selling copies of the Revolutionary Communist Party newspaper, formerly titled “The Revolutionary Worker” said, “from Harlem to Palestine to Haiti we call for a revolutionary struggle for freedom for all oppressed peoples and we call for an end to the Israeli apartheid regime.”

The Palestinian contingent was also joined by 15 members of the notoriously anti-Zionist Chareidi movement, “Neturei Karta” whose members held signs calling for the “Peaceful Dismantlement of Israel” and claimed that “Jews in Exile are Forbidden to Have Their Own State”.

As the anti-Israel and patently anti-Semitic protesters spewed forth their vituperative railing and overt canards against Israel and the United States, directly across the street, members of “Stand With Us” a pro-Israel campus organization gathered. “Stand With Us” was established to counter the vociferous anti-Israel propaganda that has become a permanent part of and endemic to the American university campus scene.

Although greatly outnumbered by the anti-Israel protesters, the members of Stand With Us proudly hoisted an Israeli flag and held signs saying, “Stop the Hamas Terror” and “End the Hamas Bloody Occupation of Gaza”.

An African-American woman named Coretta James joined the members of Stand With Us to express her unwavering support for Israel, “Israel is the only viable democracy in the Middle East and a loyal ally of the United States”, she said, adding that, “As a member of Christians United For Israel, I am here today to tell the world that Israel has every right to exist as a clearly identifiable Jewish state. Every nation of the world that has risen up to attack the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has eventually become extinct and so too, these demonstrators who dare attack G-d’s chosen people and their claim to their G-d given land will also eventually disappear. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish nation is extolled in the Bible and those who curse the Jewish people and Israel will be cursed and conversely those who bless the Jewish people and the Land of Israel will be blessed by G-d. That is why I am here today.”

Another pro-Israel demonstrator said, “the fact that Israel is celebrating its 60th year since its formation is testimony to the fact that the G-d of Israel continually provides protection and succor to His people. In many ways, it is purely illogical that Israel should still be in existence. After five major wars and unceasing terrorism, the continued existence of tiny Israel, outnumbered by adversarial forces much mightier than herself is nothing short of a Divine miracle of mammoth proportions.” He added, “I feel and I fear that the times ahead will not portend well for Israel, as a Jewish State. The entire world is turning against Israel and she is becoming more isolated and reviled. As the global influence of radical Islamists continues to dramatically escalate, our only hope lies with our return to the G-d that saved our ancestors, to the G-d that will save us, if only we will beseech Him.”

Two religiously-identified new states emerged from the shards of the British empire in the aftermath of World War II. Israel, of course, was one; the other was Pakistan.

They make an interesting, if infrequently-compared pair. Pakistan’s experience with widespread poverty, near-constant internal turmoil, and external tensions, culminating in its current status as near-rogue state, suggests the perils that Israel avoided, with its stable, liberal political culture, dynamic economy, cutting-edge high-tech sector, lively culture, and impressive social cohesion.

But for all its achievements, the Jewish state lives under a curse that Pakistan and most other polities never face: the threat of elimination. Its remarkable progress over the decades has not liberated it from a multi-pronged peril that includes nearly every means imaginable: weapons of mass destruction, conventional military attack, terrorism, internal subversion, economic blockade, demographic assault, and ideological undermining. No other contemporary state faces such an array of threats; indeed, probably none in history ever has.

The enemies of Israel divide into two main camps: the Left and the Muslims, with the far Right a minor third element. The Left includes a rabid edge (International ANSWER, Noam Chomsky) and a more polite centre (United Nations General Assembly, Canada’s Liberal Party, the mainstream media, mainline churches, school textbooks). In the final analysis, however, the Left serves less as a force in its own right than as an auxiliary for the primary anti-Zionist actor, which is the Muslim population. This latter, in turn, can be divided into three distinct groupings.

First come the foreign states: Five armed forces that invaded Israel on its independence in May 1948, and then neighboring armies, air forces, and navies fought in the wars of 1956, 1967, 1970, and 1973. While the conventional threat has somewhat receded, Egypt’s U.S.-financed arms build-up presents one danger and the threats from weapons of mass destruction (especially from Iran but also from Syria and potentially from many other states) present an even greater one.

Second come the external Palestinians, those living outside Israel. Sidelined by governments from 1948 until 1967, Yasir Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization got their opportunity with the defeat of three states’ armed forces in the Six-Day War. Subsequent developments, such as the 1982 Lebanon war and the 1993 Oslo accords, confirmed the centrality of external Palestinians. Today, they drive the conflict, through violence (terrorism, missiles from Gaza) and even more importantly by driving world opinion against Israel via a public relations effort that resonates widely among Muslims and the Left.

Third come the Muslim citizens of Israel, the sleepers in the equation. In 1949, they numbered merely 111,000, or 9 percent of Israel’s population but by 2005, they had multiplied ten-fold, to 1,141,000, and to 16 percent of the population. They benefited from Israel’s open ways to evolve from a docile and ineffective community into a assertive one that increasingly rejects the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, with potentially profound consequences for that the future identity of that state.

If this long list of perils makes Israel different from all other Western countries, forcing it to protect itself on a daily basis from the ranks of its many foes, its predicament renders Israel oddly similar to other Middle Eastern countries, which likewise face a threat of elimination.

Kuwait, conquered by Iraq, actually disappeared from the face of the earth between August 1990 and February 1991; were it not for an American-led coalition, it would quite certainly never been resurrected. Lebanon has been effectively under Syrian control since 1976 and, should developments warrant formal annexation, Damascus could at will officially incorporate it. Bahrain is occasionally claimed by Tehran to be a part of Iran, most recently in July 2007, when an associate of Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, Iran’s supreme leader, claimed that “Bahrain is part of Iran’s soil,” and insisted that “The principal demand of the Bahraini people today is to return this province … to its mother, Islamic Iran.” Jordan’s existence as an independent state has always been precarious, in part because it is still seen as a colonial artifice of Winston Churchill, in part because several states (Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and the Palestinians see it as fair prey.

That Israel finds itself in this company has several implications. It puts Israel’s existential dilemma into perspective: If no country risks elimination outside of the Middle East, this is a nearly routine problem within the region, suggesting that Israel’s unsettled status will not be resolved any time soon. This pattern also highlights the Middle East’s uniquely cruel, unstable, and fatal political life; the region ranks, clearly, as the world’s worst neighborhood. Israel is the child with glasses trying to succeed at school while living in a gang-infested part of town.

The Middle East’s deep and wide political sickness points to the error of seeing the Arab-Israeli conflict as the motor force behind its problems. More sensible is to see Israel’s plight as the result of the region’s toxic politics. Blaming the Middle East’s autocracy, radicalism, and violence on Israel is like blaming the diligent school child for the gangs. Conversely, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict means only solving that conflict, not fixing the region.

If all the members of this imperiled quintet worry about extinction, Israel’s troubles are the most complex. Israel having survived countless threats to its existence over the past six decades, and it having done so with its honor intact, offers a reason for its population to celebrate. But the rejoicing cannot last long, for it’s right back to the barricades to defend against the next threat.

*National Post (Toronto)
May 6, 2008
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5552
Cross-posted with permission

I can’t remember a time when Israel was not central to my imagination both as a model for heroism and as a transcendent, miraculous, reality. From childhood on, Zionism was an ever-evolving example of political, theological, historical, and personal liberation.

I was born in 1940 and grew up in an Orthodox family in Borough Park. In 1946, I started learning Hebrew. And, in 1948, I “rebelled.” I joined Hashomer Ha’Tzair, a left-wing socialist Zionist youth group. Within a few years, I joined Ain Harod, a group to the left of Hashomer. In the early 1950s, I packed machine gun parts for Israel. Both Hashomer and Ain Harod shared a vision of Jews and Arabs living together in the Holy Land. This utopian, agrarian vision, this defiant form of idealism, got me embroiled in dangerous adventures in the Islamic world but in Israel too.

In 1972, after having wrestled with anti-Semitism on the left and among feminists, I traveled to Israel for a long overdue, first-time visit. I was newly famous–and I needed to go “home,” live anonymously, without having to give a speech or an interview. I instantly loved the land. I reveled in the beaches and cafes of Tel Aviv, the mountain-down-to-the-sea views of Haifa, the mystical desert of the Negev, the hot coral colors of Eilat, the radiantly golden Jerusalem.

At first glance, “everyone” (bus drivers, prime ministers, police officers, soldiers, farmers, physicians) were Jewish. Jews seemed to occupy all the niches. Certainly, I saw Christians and Muslims too, (I also saw Arab Jews); what I mean is that, in Israel, Jews had crashed through all the occupational restrictions of exile and this consoled and uplifted me. It also struck me as funny. Oh, how I did not want to return to America! My dear friend, Molly Oren, who worked at the Weizmann Institute, persuaded me to leave the night before I was due to teach my university classes.

On this fateful trip, I met a Jewish-Israeli Prince. He was born after 1948, and he was a descendent of the Bal Shem Tov. He was innocent and beautiful and had no idea that I was a firebrand feminist. He followed me back to America.

Reader: I married him. He became an American citizen (perhaps my gift to him)–but we also had a wonderful son together (perhaps his gift to me). He did not want to live in Israel and so I never made aliya. He remained here and we divorced when our son was two years old.

I have often joked that my Zionism is a miracle because it both pre-dated and has survived even marriage to an Israeli!

Israel-related memories include: Housing and feeding some young Israelis who were pressed into government service in New York City during the 1973 Yom Kippur war; delivering feminist speeches in Tel Aviv and Haifa that galvanized what became the Israeli feminist movement; trying to get American celebrities and progressives to sign letters protesting the United Nations Zionism=Racism resolutions; choosing and accompanying journalists to Israel in 1974-1975 in the hope that their views of Israel might be somewhat tempered by reality; working with the nascent Israeli feminist movement–standing in Haifa with Israeli feminists and envisioning a future shelter for battered women and a rape crisis center where indeed, one now stands; working with Palestinian feminist for “peace.”

In addition: Walking with the late Meir Levin for hours in Netanya as he described the cruel reactions to his view that the Anne Frank story had been “hijacked” by Jews who wished to de-Judaize her story (he was obsessed, but he was also right); working with the Israeli delegation (Tamar Eshel, Mina Ben Tzvi, Yael Etzmon, Nitza Libai, and my own guest, Shula Aloni) at the United Nations conference in Copenhagen in 1980; flying to Israel immediately thereafter and meeting with David Kimche in the Foreign Office; trying to explain what anti-Semitism is and does to uncomprehending Israelis; being interviewed for Yediot Aharonot by the poet, Rachel Chalfi, on this very subject. We became close friends thereafter.

I remember davenning at the Kotel (Western Wall) with the women who did so for the first time in 1988; co-leading a delegation of American Jewish women who donated a Torah to the women of Jerusalem which became the basis for our entering the lawsuit on behalf of Jewish women’s right to pray at the Kotel.

In 2000, with the advent of the Intifada, I became an advocate for Israel and have been documenting Israel’s demonization by fairly lethal propaganda ever since. I have lost nearly all of my politically correct friends and allies, including other Jews and feminists, because I do not view Zionism as a form of racism; indeed, I view anti-Zionism as a form of racism and as the new anti-Semitism.

Once one is deemed a “traitor” to an ideology by ideological loyalists, funny things begin to happen to you. Your body of work gets “disappeared,” it is no longer mentioned or remembered where most appropriate. You yourself no longer get invited to events nor are you allowed to speak at such events. If you attend anyway–backs are either turned, or greetings grudgingly growled. When videographers have been hired to document the collective memories at Memorial Services for beloved, departed friends, you are not allowed to speak; this has already happened to me twice. In a third instance, I was slated to speak last, after four hours of speeches had already taken place and after many of the assembled had already left.

I am talking about Memorial Services for dear and long-time friends who also happened to be feminist pioneers.

I stand by my support of Israel with pride. My superlative education about how intolerant ideologues can be continues unabated.

While I know that Israel is far from perfect: Many of its leaders are arrogant and deluded and have not pursued justice on behalf of women or on behalf of other vulnerable citizens, I also see that Israel, alone among nations, is existentially endangered.

I understand more than ever how a Holocaust can happen. I hope and pray that God continues to watch over tiny Israel and that humanity refuses to collaborate with radical evil and chooses instead to resist it in heroic and principled ways.

Israel: Happy Sixtieth Birthday!

On April 29, answering a question on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Sen. Hillary Clinton warned that if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, “we would be able to totally obliterate them.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama chided Clinton. “It’s language reflective of George Bush. …This kind of language is not helpful,” Obama told Tim Russert.

If peace and stability are Obama’s goals, one only needs to read the Iranian newspapers to see that he is dead wrong. On Sunday, the economic daily Donya-e Eqtesad declared the most recent diplomatic initiative - a package of incentives offered by the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany - to be a validation of Iranian defiance. Then, the next day, Kayhan, the daily newspaper that is the mouthpiece of the Supreme Leader, ridiculed international diplomats’ offers of incentives to Iran if it stops its nuclear enrichment, chiding them “for mistaking Iran today with Iran four years ago” and noting that “Iran’s bargaining position has strengthened considerably” since it began to accelerate its enrichment.

Obama must confront reality: While everyone wishes for diplomacy’s success, it is Iran’s nuclear advance, not American “saber-rattling,” that is the single greatest danger to international peace and security.

The civilian nature of Iran’s nuclear program is fiction. First, there is original sin: Iran experimented with warhead design until 2003. It spent millions to conceal its enrichment capability. It rests on a sea of oil and gas, giving it almost limitless generating capability for a fraction of its nuclear investment. Most damning, Iran does not possess the uranium resources to power its reactors beyond 2023.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry officials - basically out-of-the-loop minders for Western diplomats and journalists - deny military ambitions. But those closer to Iran’s leadership tell a very different story. On Dec. 14, 2001, then-President Hashemi Rafsanjani raised the possibility that, because Iran has the size to withstand a nuclear response, a nuclear first strike on Israel might be worthwhile.

On May 29, 2005, Hojjat ol-Islam Gholam Reza Hasani, the Supreme Leader’s representative in West Azerbaijan, declared possession of nuclear weapons to be one of Iran’s top goals. “An atom bomb …must be produced as well,” he said. While University of Michigan Prof. Juan Cole has made acottage industry of denying that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wished to wipe Israel off the face of the map, the president’s official translation affirmed his genocidal intent, as did the missiles paraded through Tehran with banners calling for Israel’s demise.

The next U.S. President will confront a very different Iran from that faced by George Bush. That Obama - while not taking military options off the table entirely - seems bent on relying primarily on inspections and negotiations shows ignorance and inexperience.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspects only Iran’s declared facilities. It does so once a month. But if Iran has installed 6,000 centrifuges as Ahmadinejad has claimed, the Islamic Republic could produce a bomb’s worth of highly enriched uranium in a matter of weeks.

If Iran goes nuclear, no amount of diplomacy will put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. And while most Iranians are peaceful, they do not control the country’s nuclear program; the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards - the most ideological and reactionary faction within the Islamic Republic - do.

And so, in the face of a saber-rattling Iran, the next U.S. President will have just two main policy options: containment and deterrence. Both are military strategies. Containment requires alliances with regional states, forward deployment and, yes, permanent bases. Deterrence requires all Iranians to understand the collective responsibility that accompanies any use of nuclear weapons.

Clarifying red lines and consequences is not warmongering; it is responsible diplomacy.

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.

*New York Daily News
May 7, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1889
Cross-posted with permission

Lately, we hear much from supporters of detained ex-University of South Florida computer engineering professor Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to (was convicted of) the Federal felony violation of providing assistance and support to members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist organization. Al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months prison time for his crime. He was also ordered to be deported from the United States at the completion of his criminal incarceration.

During his incarceration, prosecutors in northern Virginia have sought to have Al-Arian testify before a Federal grand jury investigating an Islamic charity that was linked to a Tampa-based PIJ front think-tank run by Al-Arian and several of his cronies. To date, Al-Arian has refused to testify before the Virginia grand jury and has been held in civil contempt. Al-Arian and his attorneys claim he should not be required to testify because his Tampa plea agreement with the Government carried a non-cooperation clause. The Government claims his plea agreement did not extend to grand jury proceedings where he might be subpoenaed and granted immunity from further prosecution, as is the case in the Virginia inquiry. So far, two Federal appellate Courts, the 4th Circuit and the 11th Circuit, have agreed with the Government’s position.

The Government appears to be currently deciding if it wants to go forward with further contempt proceedings against Al-Arian or to simply move on his removal…as in deportation. Actual physical deportation of a felony convicted terrorist-linked stateless Palestinian is no easy task for the U.S. Government. This became evident with Al-Arian’s cohort Fawaz Damra, a former Cleveland Imam convicted of naturalization fraud in 2004 based on his lying about his Al-Arian-linked support for the PIJ and other radical Islamic organizations. Damra was eventually deported to the Palestinian territories, but not without significant obstacles. Al-Arian’s PIJ-linked brother-in-law Mazzen Al-Najjar was also deported, though not criminally convicted, several years ago after a lengthy legal battle that similarly became a public cause against so-called, but highly misrepresented and misunderstood, “secret evidence” in immigration proceedings. If and when the Government moves to deport Al-Arian, it should be understood that effort will have required substantial and difficult work on the part of several agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the State Department.

Al-Arian reportedly just ended a hunger strike protesting his lengthy detention in the contempt proceedings. His supporters, seemingly spearheaded by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), claim he is being “persecuted” by the Government because of his political beliefs and his support for the plight of the oppressed Palestinian people and because Al-Arian, of course, is Palestinian himself. They claim Al-Arian is no more than a vocal advocate for Palestinian justice pursued by overzealous Government agents and prosecutors. They claim Al-Arian pleaded guilty only to finally end the long case against him, to see freedom with his family and move on with his life. They claim the Government should simply deport Al-Arian and let him reunite with his family members, most of whom have reportedly moved back to the Middle East.

Al-Arian’s supporters ignore the close financial, operational and personnel relationships he and his Tampa PIJ front organization shared with the Virginia charity being investigated; relationships that included at least $50,000 in transactions and the “exchange” of a PIJ-linked operative via immigration fraud (clearly, those Federal prosecutors in Virginia have solid reason to seek Al-Arian’s testimony). Those supporters ignore the multiple independent judicial rulings, including those two separate appellate court rulings, that go against Al-Arian…Sami has indeed had his many days in court. Those supporters are right about one thing…Al-Arian was vocal. As the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has documented, Al-Arian provided ample examples of his Hitlerian speech abilities during various conferences in the late 1980s and early 1990s when he and his cohorts were seeking support for the Jihad movement, a movement that murdered hundreds of innocent people including Americans. You can see these speeches and more about Al-Arian here, here, here, here and here.

Sami Al-Arian will likely continue to be a hero and martyr to his die-hard supporters, and that may say something about some of them. An objective review of the facts in the Al-Arian case reveals he is anything but that.

*Counterterrorism Blog
May 6, 2008
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/
a_reminder_about_sami_alarian.php
Cross-posted with permission

In Saudi Arabia, you can get killed just for suggesting that religions besides Islam be respected. From the McClatchy-Tribune News Service:

… A few weeks ago, one of the nation’s most senior religious authorities directed that two reporters for a mainstream Saudi newspaper be executed for publishing stories suggesting that religions other than Islam are worthy of respect. …

Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a 75-year-old sheik, issued the fatwa calling for the journalists’ death. …

“It’s disgraceful that articles containing this kind of apostasy should be published in some papers in Saudi Arabia,” he wrote last month. If the reporters do not repent, they “should be killed.”

Barrak is not just some cranky old miscreant. He is a member of the Saudi legislature, appointed by the king. Barrak spent a long career in senior positions at a respected government-funded university.

Soon after, 20 other senior Saudi clerics stood up to endorse enthusiastically Barrak’s fatwa. Later, about 100 human-rights advocates from across the region condemned the edict, calling it “intellectual terrorism.” That had little visible impact in Riyadh.

But a striking feature of this episode is that the Saudi government has not said or done anything about it — probably because King Abdullah realizes that many and perhaps most members of Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment agree with Barrak. After all, two weeks after he issued that fatwa, the legislature soundly defeated a proposal, favored by the Arab League, to adopt a law promoting respect for other religions. The vote was 77 to 33. …

When I lived in Cairo in the 1970s, I conducted a little experiment: What, using only Arabic-language sources, could I learn about Jews, Judaism, Jewish history, Jewish culture, and the like? The paucity of resources stunned me; basically, the best way to learn about these subjects was to read between the lines of antisemitic tracts.

It is therefore with delight that I read today that the American Jewish Committee, under the directorship of Yehudit Barsky, has launched a new website, Asl Al-Yahud (”origins of the Jews”), that deals in Arabic with these subjects, with an emphasis on the history of Jews in Arabic-speaking lands. As a press release explains,

The website offers information about Jewish lifecycle events, holidays and religious practice. The website also contains a timeline of Jewish history, audio and graphic components, and a special section for users to submit questions. An Asl Al-Yahud staff member will answer the questions, in Arabic, allowing users to comfortably interact in their native tongue. The content was created originally in Arabic by Ephraim Gabbai, a descendent of the Iraqi Jewish community. The site is visually authentic to Middle Eastern design and highlights cultural practices shared by Muslims and Jews from Arabic-speaking nations around the globe.

Comment: (1) There is much curiosity among Muslims about Jews and I expect this website will have a sizeable readership. (2) The website needs much more content to achieve its potential; the “History” tab, for example, contains a mere three paragraphs.

*danielpipes.org
April 10, 2008
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/04/
learning-in-arabic-about-jews-and-judaism.html
Cross-posted with permission

In an article from the AP entitled, “Despite peace, Belfast walls are growing in size and number,” walls are called “peace line[s],” and the statement is made, “for dozens of front-line communities of Belfast, fences still make the best neighbors.” Hmmm…

Israel defends herself and is labeled an “apartheid state:”

Since construction of the [West Bank] fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively, after erection of the fence.

The United Methodist Church has decided that Israel is not the root of all evil:

“Anti-Israel Divestment seems to have died within the United Methodist Church. Good Riddance!” - UM Action Executive Director Mark Tooley

Several sweeping divestment proposals aimed against Israel have been defeated in committee at the General Conference of the United Methodist Church. They now appear to be dead. The proposals, which exclusively faulted Israel for strife in the Middle East, would have moved the church to divest itself of investments in companies that did business with Israel. …

As Barack Obama’s candidacy comes under increasing scrutiny, his account of his religious upbringing deserves careful attention for what it tells us about the candidate’s integrity.

Obama asserted in December, “I’ve always been a Christian,” and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. “The only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country [Kenya]. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” In February, he claimed: “I have never been a Muslim. … other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for 4 years when I was a child [Indonesia, 1967-71] I have very little connection to the Islamic religion.”

“Always” and “never” leave little room for equivocation. But many biographical facts, culled mainly from the American press, suggest that, when growing up, the Democratic candidate for president both saw himself and was seen as a Muslim.

Obama’s Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936–1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Only Muslim children are named “Hussein”.

Obama’s Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times: “My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.” An Indonesian publication, the Banjarmasin Post reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that “All the relatives of Barry’s father were very devout Muslims.”

Barack Obama’s Catholic school in Jakarta.

The public school: Paul Watson of the Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he “was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended.” Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that “Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim.” Although Siddiqui cautions that “With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people’s shifting memories,” he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama’s being registered as a Muslim.

Barack Obama’s public school in Jakarta.

Mosque attendance: Obama’s half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque “for big communal events.” Watson learned from childhood friends that “Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque.” Barker found that “Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers.” One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama “was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong” (a garment associated with Muslims).

Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he “didn’t practice [Islam],” implicitly acknowledging a Muslim identity. Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as “previously quite religious in Islam.”

Obama’s having been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.

*FrontPageMagazine.com
April 29, 2008
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544
Cross-posted with permission

Try as he may, Barack Obama has not separated himself from his controversial pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, whom he calls an “uncle.” Obama has been too weak and indecisive in chiding Wright; he also has waited too long to censure his “uncle.” Obama’s claims that he didn’t know about Wright’s offensive beliefs are ridiculous. Obama has been attending Wright’s church for 20 years. All I can conclude is that: 1) Obama agrees with Wright’s beliefs, 2) Obama doesn’t object to Wright’s beliefs, and/or 3) it was politically expedient for Obama to keep quiet about Wright only until recently, when the public found out what has been going on. After digesting Rev. Wright’s latest offensive outburst, it seems that the pastor actually supports the notion of “separate but equal” (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896), which is confusing and ludicrous, as it goes against the basic tenets of the whole civil rights movement. Here’s Wright from his speech to the NAACP on Sunday:

… Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. …

African and African-American children have a different way of learning. …

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different way of learning. Those same children who have difficulty reading from an object and who are labeled EMH, DMH and ADD. Those children can say every word from every song on every hip hop radio station half of who’s words the average adult here tonight cannot understand. …

Wright goes on and on about how “different” black children are from white children, but proposes absolutely no “solution” to this supposed “difference,” except for saying, “We can make the change if we try. We will make a change if we try. A change is going to come.”

What change? Is he saying that all black children are capable of is climbing up the classroom walls or “say[ing] every word from every song on every hip hop radio station?” What is he proposing, separate teachers and classrooms for black and white children?

That’s just condescending and racist towards his own people. The Wall Street Journal sums Wright’s “beliefs” up:

… Mr. Wright proudly propounded the racist contention that blacks have inherently different “learning styles,” correctly citing as authority for this view Janice Hale of Wayne State University. Pursuing a Ph.D. by logging long hours in the dusty stacks of a library, Mr. Wright announced, is “white.” Blacks, by contrast, cannot sit still in class or learn from quiet study, and they have difficulty learning from “objects” — books, for example — but instead learn from “subjects,” such as rap lyrics on the radio. These differences are neurological, according to Ms. Hale and Mr. Wright: Whites use what Mr. Wright referred to as the “left-wing, logical and analytical” side of their brains, whereas blacks use their “right brain,” which is “creative and intuitive.” When he was of school age in Philadelphia following the Supreme Court’s 1954 desegregation decision, Mr. Wright said, his white teachers “freaked out because the black children did not stay in their place, over there, behind the desk.” Instead, the students “climbed up all over [the teachers], because they learned from a ’subject,’ not an ‘object.’ ” How one learns from a teacher as “subject” by climbing on her, as opposed to learning from her as “object” — by listening to her words — is a mystery. …

So, Mr. Obama, do you believe this garbage?

Whatever the Israelis offer, Syria won’t give up its alliance with Iran, which allows it to punch above its weight in the region.

With attention in the Middle East focusing on the US congressional hearings regarding a possible Syrian nuclear programme, the Syrian newspaper al-Watan made a surprising announcement last Wednesday. According to the newspaper, Israel, via Turkish channels, had in the previous 24 hours expressed its willingness to exchange the entirety of the Golan Heights area for peace with Syria.

The same day, Syrian expatriate affairs minister Buthaina Shaaban confirmed the information in an interview with al-Jazeera. Israeli spokespeople neither confirmed nor denied the reports. Senior officials said only that both Israel and Syria understood the "price" of an agreement. Could the latest diplomatic feints herald a renewed peace process between Israel and Syria? Almost certainly not. Here’s why.

The Turkish channel of communication is a reality. The Israeli and Syrian governments send regular messages to one another. And Israel’s statement in response to Shaaban’s remarks is indicative of the Olmert government’s willingness in principle for compromise on the Golan.

But with regard to Israel’s position - the international and domestic contexts need to be borne in mind. Internationally, the Israeli defence establishment is known to have been opposed to the US decision to make public aspects of the intelligence behind Israel’s bombing of a suspected nuclear facility in eastern Syria on September 6 2007. Part of this opposition related to the issue of revealing of sources. But a large part derived from the Israeli desire to avoid placing the Syrian leadership in a humiliating position from which it would feel obligated to retaliate for the attack.

From the Israeli point of view, the attack itself was sufficient to convey the desired deterrent message to Syria. The regime of Bashar al-Assad is regarded by the Israeli defence establishment as a weak and brittle entity. Apart from a general desire to avoid open conflict, Israel also has no desire to place Assad’s regime in jeopardy - since whatever would replace it in the event of its falling would almost certainly be worse. Israel has no desire to see the Assad family franchise to its north replaced by a hungry, newly-minted Sunni Islamist government. Hence, the sudden dangling of the possibility of talks may be seen as a face-saving device for Assad, provided partially by Israel.

Domestically, Israeli opposition to concessions to Syria remains widespread and reaches to the highest levels of the current government. This will continue to be the case for as long as Syria remains part of the Iran-led alliance in the region. Both the president, Shimon Peres, and deputy prime minister Shaul Mofaz have asserted in recent days that if giving up the Golan Heights to Syria means in essence ceding it to Iran, then no deal is possible.

This then leads to the key question. Could Israeli concessions to Syria prove a sufficient prize to lure Damascus away from its 25-year alliance with the mullahs in Tehran? Answering this requires taking a closer look at the Syrian regime’s interests in the region.

Syria lacks the size of Egypt and the resources of Saudi Arabia. But it has been able to project power and influence in the region because of its willingness to support radicalism, act as a disruptive force and thus create a situation in which it cannot be ignored. Thus, Damascus backs a host of Palestinian groups opposed to a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Israel - including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP-GC and others. Syria offered significant support to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. And most importantly, Damascus maintains influence in Lebanon - following its ignominious departure in 2005 - via its relationship with the pro-Iranian Shia militia, Hizbullah.

The ability to foment chaos and project influence in Lebanon is key for the Assad regime. The expulsion from that country was a personal humiliation for the young president, and its loss is exacting an economic cost on Damascus. Furthermore, the regime seeks to prevent at all costs the commencement of the work of the tribunal into the killing of former prime minister, Rafik al-Hariri. Its chosen method for doing this is the fomenting of instability in Lebanon and the instrument it chooses to use is Hizbullah.

The mainstream Arab states - most importantly Egypt and Saudi Arabia - are frightened by the growth of Iranian influence across the region. They are furious with Syria for its backing of non-Arab Iran. But only by backing the radical power in the region can Syria maintain its powerful role as mischief-maker. No Iran means no more fomenting radicalism, no more reaping the benefits of having to be bought off, no more pro-Iranian militias to help out in Lebanon, no return to Lebanon, and the nightmarish possibility of seeing major regime figures collared for the killing of Hariri. It is a near certainty that the regime will prefer to maintain all of these - with the additional mobilising charge of the "occupied Golan" into the bargain - rather than give it all up and become a minor, status quo power.

In other words, Syria is too deeply committed, on too many levels, to its alliance with Iran to consider abandoning it for the Golan and the Arab mainstream. Syria’s conflict with Israel can’t be separated out from Damascus’s larger regional concerns. Hence, with all due respect to the Turkish mediators, we are faced here with another manifestation of that well-known Middle Eastern phenomenon: much ado about nothing.

The legal case against the AKP is an affirmation of democracy rather than an assault upon it. Democracy rests upon the rule of law and constitutionalism. Neither plurality support nor a majority in parliament should place any politician or party above the law.

The AKP deserves credit for the economic growth that has occurred under its stewardship and for supporting Turkey’s accession into the European Union. There is no doubt that the AKP has revolutionized Turkish politics. In the 2002 election, it trounced the more established parties by out-campaigning them. The AKP has earned its reputation for serving its constituents.

Popularity and democracy are not synonymous, though. Turkish constitutionalism separates religion from party politics in order to preserve democracy. Prime Minister Erdoğan has abused this separation. He has eroded the distinction between religious and public education, sought to retire forcibly several thousand secular judges who questioned his party’s interpretations of the constitution, and then moved to replace those judges with AKP apparatchiks. He also has instituted an interview process — controlled by party loyalists — designed to evaluate government technocrats on the basis of religiosity rather than merit. Turkish Air employees have even been quizzed on their belief in the Koran.

No party or prime minister in Turkey’s history has been so hostile to the press. Erdoğan has sued dozens of journalists and editors. In a strategy borrowed from Iran, he has confiscated newspapers — such as Sabah, the national daily — which he deemed too critical or independent, and transferred their control to political allies. Journalists such as Vatan’s Can Ataklı and Reha Muhtar, television commentator Nihat Genç, Sky Turk’s Serdar Akinan, and Kanal Türk’s Tuncay Özkan are now under fire either for their own criticism or, in the case of the television announcers, for their guests’ criticism of the ruling party.

Erdoğan has treated courts, both international and domestic, with disdain. After the European Court of Human Rights decided against permitting headscarves in Turkish universities, he declared that “only ulama [Islamic religious scholars] could” issue such a judgment. In several instances, Erdoğan has refused to uphold the Supreme Court’s decisions when it ruled against the AKP’s confiscation of political opponents’ property. In a moment reminiscent of Henry II, a follower gunned down a justice after the prime minister launched a fusillade against the Court.

Both AKP supporters and Western officials unfamiliar with the AKP’s record paint the Court’s actions as undemocratic. AKP supporters argue that the party represents democracy, and they seek to equate any opposition — be it secular, nationalist, or judicial — as fascist. This is unfair. Ultra-nationalists who do not abide by the law find themselves in court, just as the AKP now does. The military has stayed on the sideline, as it should. Declaring its support for the constitution in a written statement is not a coup.

Turkey is not alone in holding politicians legally accountable. In April 2000, the European Parliament suspended French demagogue Jean-Marie Le Pen; soon afterward, Austrian politician Jörg Haider also faced sanction. The global community does not allow Hamas’s popularity among the Palestinians to absolve it of responsibilities under international law.

True democracy requires respect for the judicial process. Let Erdoğan have his day in court. We should respect the results as a sign that Turkey’s democracy has matured.

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.

*The American
April 30, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1888
Cross-posted with permission

Egyptian President Husni Mubarak is 80. After over a quarter-century in office he is ready for more. But how much longer will his rule–or regime–continue?

And under him, Egypt has not done so badly, or has it?

Well that depends. He has kept Egypt stable and out of war, no mean feat, and even delivered a bit of economic development, though recently there have been bread riots. But there has been no big improvement.

One is reminded of the old Egyptian joke where the president’s chauffer explains the difference among his last three bosses. Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952-1970) always turned left; Anwar al-Sadat (1970-1981) always turned right. Mubarak ordered: signal left, signal right, then park.

Has Egypt been parked for the last 27 years? In some respects, yes. Being parked is better than getting run down by a speeding auto, though not better than making steady progress. Rights have been limited and suppression periodic. Yet this falls well short of the police states ruling in Syria and, formerly, Iraq. Corruption is astronomical.

I can’t talk about the ambiguity of Mubarak’s regime without thinking of that great old Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler song, first recorded by Cab Calloway’s orchestra in 1931. It begins: "I don’t want you, But I hate to lose you, You’ve got me in between the devil and the deep blue sea."

For his own people, Israel, and the United States (or the West in general), Mubarak’s government is most unsatisfactory in very many ways. Egyptians face mismanagement and limits on freedom. Israel has a peace but a cold one. The United States and the West gets nominal cooperation from Cairo coupled with the government’s lavish use of anti-Americanism, radical Arab nationalism, and even Islamist rhetoric to keep the masses mobilized on its side.

Still, what’s the alternative: violent instability or a radical Islamist revolution? Or is there a realistic hope of something better, of a moderate democratic state? Here, good intentions or wishful thinking should never be given precedent over realistic appraisal.

In assessing a political situation, one should always remember politics is the art of the possible. Egypt is a country with "too many" people and not enough resources. There are no easy solutions.

"I ought to cross you off my list, But when you come knocking at my door,

Fate seems to give my heart a twist, And I come running back for more," sang Calloway.

After all, that heart-twisting fate involves things like Hamas’s takeover, Iraq’s internal war, Hizballah’s aggression, and Iran’s expansionism plus nuclear weapons’ drive. We are used to thinking of Egypt as the most important of all Arab countries, and that’s still true relatively speaking though far less than a decade or two or three ago.

By the force of realpolitik, the foreigners conclude about Mubarak’s regime (Calloway again): "I should hate you, But I guess I love you, You’ve got me in between the devil and the deep blue sea."

Thus, the West and Israel keep hoping. Maybe Egypt will restrain Hamas in the Gaza Strip and give vigorous backing to a serious peace process. Or possibly Cairo will lead a moderate Arab coalition against the forces of the Iran-Syria led HISH (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizballah alliance. A Muslim government official recently told me he calls them, the Addams family). After all, these actions are in Egypt’s own interests, aren’t they?

Egypt’s interests, though, are in playing both sides simultaneously to the greatest extent possible. An Egyptian diplomat actually told me not long ago that he had advised Israeli Arabs to pretend to be good citizens and demand to join the army so they could better subvert the country. State-owned Egyptian newspapers blame all the terrorism in Iraq on American conspiracies.

Meanwhile, though, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to top-quality tailors to design its sheep’s’ clothing so that it can better wolf down Egypt. Credulous, or ill-intentioned, Westerners are all-too-willing to accept that the country’s Islamist brothers are really moderates. It’s easy to do that, just ignore their program and everything they say in Arabic. Just because they don’t like the competition–al-Qaida or Iran–doesn’t make them moderates.

There is a decent, moderate, democratic-minded opposition. But it is far too weak and poorly organized. Even the main "reformist" group has now been taken over by the Brotherhood. Who would you bet on in a showdown? No contest.

So what comes next? Gamal Mubarak, the president’s 45-year-old son, who is deputy secretary-general of the ruling National Democratic Party? Perhaps some ex-general turned provincial governor or another official?

In social terms, the country is becoming increasingly "Islamic" according to the more restrictive standards demanded by Islamists. Does that mean a political swing as well? Not necessarily but the danger bears close watching. Egypt is famous for muddling through. That’s the most likely outcome but nobody should be too complacent in assuming that’s the way things have to be.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth about Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

---

The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150 Israel
Email: info AT gloriacenter.org Phone: +972-9-960-2736 Fax: +972-9-960-2736
© 2008 All rights reserved.

Those arguing for an increase in the number of H-1B visas (ostensibly temporary visas for ’specialty occupations,’ many of them in the computer industry) claim that continued U.S. leadership in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics hinges on our ability to import the world’s best engineers and scientists. But this new data analysis shows that the vast majority of H-1B workers — including those at most major tech firms — are not the innovators industry portrays them to be.

The new report, entitled ‘H-1Bs: Still Not the Best and the Brightest,’ is authored by Dr. Norman Matloff, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, and is online at

http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back508.html

The analysis is based on the simple fact that in a market economy, if workers are indeed outstanding talents, they will be paid accordingly. This can be determined by computing the ratio of the foreign worker’s salary to the prevailing wage figure stated by the employer (this report calls that ratio the ‘Talent Measure’ or TM). A TM value of 1.0 means that the worker is merely average, not of outstanding talent. The findings:

# The median TM value over all foreign workers studied was just a hair over 1.0.

# The median TM value was also essentially 1.0 in each of the tech professions studied.

# Median TM was near 1.0 for almost all prominent tech firms that were analyzed.

# Contrary to the constant hyperbole in the press that ‘Johnnie can’t do math’ in comparison with kids in Asia, TM values for workers from Western European countries tend to be much higher than those of their Asian counterparts.

# Most foreign workers work at or near entry level, described by the Department of Labor in terms akin to apprenticeship. This counters the industry’s claim that they hire the workers as key innovators.

Joseph Farah is irate. And rightly so.

The highly respected founder, editor, and CEO of WorldNetDaily was blatantly slandered last week by CAIR’s communication director, and terrorist supporter, Ibrahim Hooper.

The Daily News had a column that referred to a new book from WND Books called “Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out.”

Looking for a quote from a Muslim about the book, the columnists at the Daily News went to CAIR, specifically; Ibrahim Hooper:

“This book is put out by WND Publishing (sic), which promotes hate every day on its extremist anti-Muslim hate site. The editor is a guy who suggested air-dropping pig’s blood over Afghanistan.”

What Hooper has done here is exactly how Farah, in an editorial, describes it:

“Hooper put a target on my back … He also uttered a false and defamatory statement about me that has yet to be corrected by the Daily News, has yet to be withdrawn by Hooper and will undoubtedly be recycled in other venues.”

Over one week later, and only after Farah’s editorial, CAIR sent this pathetic “explanation” to Farah from it’s legal counsel Nadhira F. Al-Khalili:

“In the interest of accuracy, … Mr. Hooper was referring to a WorldNetDaily column, presumably approved by you as editor of the website, which advocated telling Afghans that the U.S. has ‘enlisted Afghani (sic) moles to contaminate their water supplies with pig’s blood.”

Mr. Farah is justifiably not satisfied. He told Al-Khalili:

“Your client has an obligation to apologize for those comments and seek correction at the point of publication.”

In one area there was some progress. The attorney for the Daily News has told Mr. Farah that they will publish a correction in the near future. The “explanation” given by CAIR’s Al-Khalili, however, is nothing but a middle-fingered salute straight back at Mr. Farah. It is absurd.

Consider that Ibrahim Hooper is a top officer of America’s number one Muslim Brotherhood-created terror-front group: CAIR.

Why would Hooper spew such an outrageous distortion of truth? Because he undoubtedly feels that nobody will call him on it, or even investigate the fact that he fabricated a lie against Farah simply because WND is considered by many in the mainstream media as “right wing” and “pro-Israel” and that CAIR “advocates” for “oppressed” Muslims in America. Although Hooper got his legal servant to offer an excuse, this event should be far from over.

Mr. Hooper knows exactly what he’s doing. He may think he’s untouchable.

Picture Mr. Hooper clapping his claws like a little school-girl when his slanderous quote got published.

Of course Hooper knows WND is a news source that actually practices “journalism” and has the integrity to carefully source all the facts they present in a story, unlike the Daily News, who couldn’t be bothered to check on Hooper’s claim concerning Farah.

Could it be that Hooper was throwing mud at Farah in the hopes that it would stick, to offset actual damning expressions from CAIR officials?

Here are some true quotes from Hooper and other CAIR officers. These quotes are actually sourced, factual, and at all times, objectionable.

Ibrahim Hooper:

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future… But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”

Omar Ahmad:

“Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

“Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide … They kill themselves for Islam.”

“Politics is a completion of War.”

Nihad Awad:

“I am in support of the Hamas movement.”

“Address people according to their minds. When I speak with the American, I speak with someone who doesn’t know anything.”

Ahmed Bedier:

“Catholic priests pose more of a terrorism threat by having sex with young altar boys than those who flew planes into the World Trade Center.”

Ahmad Al-Akhras:

“Americans in general might be more supportive of targeted attacks on civilians as part of the war on terror, than U.S. Muslims.”

Mr. Farah asks in “Farah v. CAIR”: “What should I do?”

Anti-CAIR feels that Joseph Farah and WND have always been extremely fair and accurate when they have published stories and investigative reports about CAIR. WND has always taken great pains to be truthful and source their material. We also feel that WND, in its quest to actually practice journalism and fairness, comes off as soft and non-threatening to the likes of Hooper.

Since when have “just the facts” worried an Islamist like Hooper and CAIR?

CAIR may think they have nothing to fear from WND. After all, anything WND prints about CAIR is creatively refuted by CAIR and gobbled up by the mainstream media as “CAIR Myths” and just another attack by an “extremist anti-Muslim hate site.”

WND is a variety-type news source. They are complete in their coverage of daily national/world events and only deal with an issue about CAIR when it’s newsworthy — like when another CAIR official is indicted, or when CAIR is exposed eagerly supporting a terrorist.

And why should CAIR ever fear the mainstream media? When the New York Times or Washington Post write about CAIR, their “reporters” refuse to present the actual facts about CAIR because they don’t want to “get down in the weeds” about CAIR, or because Muslims are “oppressed” in this country. Why should CAIR worry about WND or Joseph Farah?

What should you do, Mr. Farah?

Anti-CAIR suggests: “Cry Havoc, And Let Slip The Dogs Of War”

Links:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6
Link 7
Link 8
Link 9
Link 10
Link 11
Link 12
Link 13
Link 14
Link 15

Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org

Book review by Seth J. Frantzman*

Flunking History

Among many Israeli academics and Western revisionists, it has become fashionable to examine Israel’s war of independence from an Arab perspective in which Jews were the aggressors and Arabs the victims.[1] This trend began in 1989 with works by Ben-Gurion University professor Benny Morris[2] and Oxford University professor Avi Shlaim,[3] and developed further with the writings of the late Hebrew University anthropologist Baruch Kimmerling,[4] Neve Gordon[5] at Ben-Gurion University, and Meron Benvenisti,[6] a political scientist who served as deputy mayor of Jerusalem between 1971 and 1978.

Many of these so-called New Historians and their fellow travelers may have embraced the notion of reverse victimization in order to rationalize the unexpected survival of Israel in the 1948 and 1967 wars. They present every massacre of Jews as an understandable response to a Jewish offense, for example portraying both the April 13, 1948 Mount Scopus convoy massacre and the May 15, 1948 murders of fifty Jews who had surrendered to the Arab Legion at Gush Etzion as an Arab reprisal for the April 9-11, 1948 Irgun attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin.[7]

Pappé’s Polemics

Ilan Pappé has now seized on what the New Historians started and brought it to new heights by promoting revisionist arguments that place exclusive blame on early Zionists for victimizing Arabs and destroying opportunities for peace and reconciliation. Indeed, it has become the strategy by which Pappé has salvaged his turbulent career: He left Haifa University in 2007 after the exposure of his research errors undercut his master’s thesis and his endorsement of the British boycott of Israeli universities prompted the president of the university to call for his resignation.[8] From his new position at the University of Exeter, he has promoted his 2006 book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,[9] which argues that even prior to Israel’s independence, Zionist officials plotted to expel Arabs from Palestine.

Pappé’s thesis is that Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, working with the Zionist leadership in Palestine, made special preparations for ethnic cleansing known as Plan D. This plan envisioned the conquest by the Haganah—the Mandate-era precursor to the Israeli army—of areas occupied by Arabs but allotted by the United Nations to the Jewish state.

Pappé’s evidence for a Zionist plan to cleanse Palestine of its Arab population derives from his interpretations of the Haganah archives and the Israel State Archives files. Among the evidence Pappé finds damning are Haganah intelligence surveys of Arab villages, including information on the number of armed men, the mukhtars (village or neighborhood headmen), and any anti-Zionist activities.[10] Pappé uses the presence of such lists to suggest parallels between Jewish suffering during the Holocaust and Palestinian Arab suffering as a result of Israel’s creation.[11]

Pappé also argues that Jewish forces, whether Haganah, Irgun, or the Lehi group, which sought to evict the British from Palestine, attacked Arab villages prior to the May 15, 1948 Israeli declaration of independence. He writes:

On a cold Wednesday afternoon, 10 March 1948, a group of eleven men, veteran Zionist leaders together with young military Jewish officers, put the final touches to a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That same evening, military orders were dispatched to the units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from vast areas of the country … When it was over, more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people, had been uprooted.[12]

This passage, characteristic of so much of Pappé’s book, is a cynical exercise in manipulating evidence to fit an implausible thesis. Yigal Yadin, the chief of operations of the Haganah, adopted Plan D on March 10, 1948, as part of preparations for the onset of open warfare between Arabs and Jews in Palestine that the Arabs themselves were promising would follow a declaration of statehood. Morris described it as “a blueprint for securing the emergent Jewish state and the blocs of settlements outside the state’s territory against the expected [Arab] invasion on or after 15 May,”[13] but recognized that “Plan D was not a political blueprint for the expulsion of Palestine’s Arabs.”[14]

Pappé does not agree and says that new material from Israeli military archives, a reassessment of older material, and Palestinian oral history suggest that the plan was far more nefarious.[15] But Pappé, in this example as in many others, is blinded by his need to fit events into a preferred narrative, and what little new evidence he includes does not persuade when considered in the context of historical events—a context that Pappé rigorously obscures.

The Importance of Context

Pappé would have his readers believe that in the years before the Israeli declaration of statehood, the Arabs living in Mandatory Palestine were lacking in the hostility to Jews that made Jewish war-planning necessary. To take just one time period, between the U.N. General Assembly vote to partition Palestine on November 29, 1947, and Israeli independence almost six months later, Arab irregulars killed 1,256 Jews in Palestine[16]—almost all of whom were civilians. Pappé might be onto something if Plan D had been drafted in the absence of Arab violence against Jews, or if the Arab states surrounding Palestine were not so serious about answering the declaration of a Jewish state with a war of annihilation. But inconveniently for Pappé, those were the realities of the time—realities that undermine the thesis of his book.