Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom #204, July 13, 2007

Proposed Palestinian State – US Asset or Liability?

1. THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED PALESTINIAN STATE, AND ITS IMPACT ON REGIONAL STABILITY, TERRORISM AND AMERICAN INTERESTS AND VALUES are attested by the raging Palestinian civil war and by the track record of the Palestinian Authority (PA) since 1993 and the PLO/Fatah since 1964 and1959: hate education, homicide bombing, systematic violent violation of commitments, inter-Arab treachery, corruption and oppression of Palestinians in general and the Christian community of Bethlehem in particular.

2. THE BROADER THE PA/PLO/HAMAS INDEPENDENCE, THE MORE INTENSE IS INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. PLO independence was upgraded in 1993, transformed into the semi-sovereign PA; the most intense wave of anti-US terrorism has been conducted since 1993 (1^st Twin Tower), culminating on 9/11. The 1993 establishment of the PA – by Palestinian terrorists from Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia – has adrenalized international terrorism. It has been perceived as a reward to the role-model of international terrorism, the PLO. The 1968-70 and 1970-1982 PLO autonomy in Jordan and in Lebanon provided training and inspiration to multitude of terror organizations in the Mideast, Far East, West Europe, Central and Latin America.

3. ROLE-MODEL OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. Modern-day hijacking was introduced by the PLO in the late ‘60s, and then was emulated by other terror organizations. Since 1994, the PA has become the largest terrorist base in the world, a test site for “virulent hate-education as a manufacturing line of terrorists.” It is an incubator for modern-day terrorism, such as homicide bombing and car bombing, which have been exported to Iraq, Afghanistan, England and other arenas.

4. OUTPOST FOR ANTI-WESTERN REGIMES. The PA, PLO and Hamas have been allies of Bin-Laden, Saddam, post-Shah Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea as well as Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela, as evident by official Palestinian education, media and clergy systems. For example, on Sept. 11, 2001, Abu Mazen’s daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida stated, “ANTI-US HOMICIDE BOMBERS ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH…Today’s homicide bombers are the noble successors of the homicide bombers, who taught the US Marines a rough lesson [300 Americans murdered in 1983]." Palestinians fought US forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The ideological mentors of the PLO and Hamas were the allies of the Nazis and the Communist regimes of the USSR and East Europe.

5. DEATH SENTENCE TO THE PRO-WESTERN REGIMES. A Palestinian state would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime, whose population and territory is 65% and 75% Palestinian, would export terrorism against the relatively pro-US regimes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain and would provide an eastern Mediterranean platform to Iran, Russia and China.

6. LEOPARDS DON’T CHANGE SPOTS, ONLY TACTICS. The 1993-2007 profile of the PA is consistent with precedents. In 1950, Arafat and Abu Mazen fled Egypt due to subversion. In 1966, they fled Syria after murdering a number of Syrian intelligence officers. In 1970, they were expelled from Jordan following a foiled coup against King Hussein. In 1975 they tried to topple Lebanon’s government, triggering a multi-year civil war and Syrian occupation. In 1990 (while Bush/Baker brutalized Israel!), the PLO spearheaded Saddam’s rape of Kuwait, which hosted Fatah since the 1950s. Therefore, Arab regimes prohibit PLO to bear arms on their soil, while pro-Palestinian Arab rhetoric has been matched by anti-Palestinian Arab action and by minimal financial Arab aid.

7. THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE HAS NOT IGNITED ARAB-ISRAELI WARS. For instance, the 1948/9 War was fought by the Arab countries at the expense of the Palestinians, hence the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza following that war. Neither the 1982 Israel-PLO war in Lebanon, nor the 1987-92 1^st Intifadah, nor the 2000-2006 2^nd Intifadah ignited Arab-Israeli wars.

8. THE CLASSIC OXYMORON. The proposed Palestinian State and US national security interests constitute a classic case of oxymoron! A Palestinian State would exacerbate problems and paralyze solutions.

One on One: The tyranny of the weak

---

Ruthie Blum, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 11, 2007

---

'We have to understand the origin of the terms we throw around," says Joel Fishman, a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) and adjunct fellow at the University of Calgary's Center for Military and Strategic Studies.

One such phrase, says Fishman - the author of a 2003 paper titled: "Ten Years Since Oslo: The PLO's 'People's War' Strategy and Israel's Inadequate Response" - is "two-state solution." Another is "peace camp." The former, he says, was adopted by the PLO in the early 1970s, after Yasser Arafat went to North Vietnam to consult with political officers on how to combat his international reputation as a terrorist. The latter was a Soviet term invented during the Cold War to make a distinction between the "good" socialists and "evil" capitalists.

What such catch-phrases have in common, explains Fishman, 64, is their use as political tools to achieve military aims - something that has characterized many asymmetrical battlefields. Using the Vietnam War as an example of a weaker power's political victory over a stronger one, he shows the way in which the Palestinians have used it as a model for their own struggle against Israel. "The Vietnamese did not really win that war on the ground," Fishman points out. "They won it in the United States," with the help of the American Left.

In an hour-long interview in his Jerusalem apartment, Fishman - who made aliya in 1972 from Brookline, Massachusetts - describes the way in which Hamas is using the Vietnamese model. "You begin with foot soldiers armed with a bag of rice and a rifle and are prepared to endure any hardship for the cause," he says, describing Vietcong strategy. "But ultimately the idea is to get as many and as sophisticated weapons as possible, preferably by taking them from the enemy, and to build a regular army."

It is no coincidence, he asserts, that Hamas this week announced that it is doing just that.

How have the current events in Gaza affected the Palestinian narrative?

They have made it difficult for the Palestinians to define the situation to their advantage - in a way that portrays them as victims and Israel as their oppressor. The case of kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston, for example, is one they can't blame on the Jews.

Actually, as was reported in these pages on Sunday, Hamas leader in Syria Khaled Mashaal wrote an op-ed in The Guardian in which he blamed Israel for it.

Well, this shows a real lack of introspection and imagination. But there's a greater issue here, one that goes beyond the fast-breaking news. The Muslim Brotherhood has transformed Gaza into an armed and fortified enclave, from which it can stage new acts of aggression. Indeed, Hamas has no plans to accept Israel's existence. Fatah controls Judea and Samaria, but Fatah control is not assured because of its poor handling of civil administration and the corruption of its leadership. The Palestinian leadership is still embodied by Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]. Whether he emphasizes it or not, his main objection to Israel is existential, as was the case with his predecessor, Yasser Arafat.

We may ask whether the Palestinians, be they Fatah or Hamas, represent a partner for Israel or a lethal threat. Another basic question is whether the Palestinians actually want to build a viable state. They may not, because the moment they have a state with defined boundaries, their war against Israel will effectively be over. Whatever the answer, the events in Gaza represent a dangerous development.

Still, Abu Mazen's declared objective, like that of Israel and the international community, is a "two-state solution" - Palestine alongside Israel.

It's quite a victory for our adversaries that we have adopted their terminology. At the beginning of the 1970s, a delegation of Palestinians, among them Arafat and his second-in-command, Salah Khalaf, also known as Abu Iyad, went to consult the North Vietnamese political officers. Seeing how successfully North Vietnam was standing up to the United States in the war, while garnering sympathy and support even from the American public, the Palestinians - in crisis because they were universally viewed as terrorists - sought out their advice. In response, the Vietnamese counseled them to work for their goals in phases, which would conceal their real purpose, permit strategic deception and give the appearance of moderation.

So the PLO leadership adopted the term "two-state solution" from the North Vietnamese. For the uninitiated, it sounded moderate enough and implied a type of compromise, but for those who knew better, the "two-state solution" represented a way-station on the road to ultimate victory. The real meaning of this term - and its real intent - was the model of North Vietnam which ultimately swallowed up South Vietnam. This is why it makes me shiver to hear Israeli leaders call for a "two-state solution."

What role, if any, did the Soviet Union play in this?

The Soviet Union mainly provided arms and political support. But the North Vietnamese had borrowed from and improved on the strategy of [Chinese Communist Party chairman] Mao Zedong - from what he called "prolonged conflict," where a weaker force can take on a stronger one, through a "people's war."

This model is still followed by others, and now has different names. Some people call it "fourth-generation warfare" or simply "asymmetrical warfare."

This happens when a weaker power tries to take on a larger and stronger one by fighting it both politically and then militarily over an open-ended time frame. Militarily, it might engage in guerrilla warfare. But politically, the weaker side tries to deprive its enemy of legitimacy and claim it for itself. It is noteworthy that Fatah translated the writings of General Giap into Arabic, as well as those of Mao and Che Guevara.

How does the weaker side deprive its enemy of legitimacy?

Through international bodies, such as the United Nations, it seeks to remove the legal legitimacy of an enemy. By exploiting the elite "leadership" of a society, it endeavors to change policy and public opinion. For this purpose, it enlists the witting or unwitting support of newspaper editors, authors, professors, clergymen, politicians and opinion makers, and front organizations, such as NGOs. This is a way of going after an enemy's political legitimacy. During the 1930s, Willi Muenzenberg, a protégé of Lenin and an absolute propaganda genius, perfected this method.

Doesn't guerrilla warfare - the killing of innocent civilians through suicide bombings, for example - do damage to political warfare? If you're trying to delegitimize the enemy, wouldn't it seem to be counterproductive simultaneously to commit mass murder? How do the two go together?

Very easily. You just redefine "universal justice" to mean "justice for the Palestinian people" exclusively. Universal justice is originally a Jewish concept according to which justice and equality before the law apply to all people, not only Jews. What the Palestinians have done - certainly in the political sphere - is to transform the ideal of "justice for the Palestinian people" into the supreme virtue, and it follows simply that in the pursuit of this objective the end justifies the means. The problem - one that's particularly dangerous - is that a good number of well-intentioned people are prepared to suspend their critical judgement and go along with this proposition. Many church leaders, for example, are willing to look the other way when it comes to any question of Palestinian justice.

Another example of this assault on the universality of law and morality is the flawed distinction made between "good terror" and "bad terror."

After 9/11, it generally became accepted that terror against the West had to be fought, but this applied to "everybody except the Jews." Terror against Israel remained part of the legitimate struggle of the Palestinians.

Is Hamas consciously imitating the Chinese or Vietnamese model?

It appears that there are similarities.

Is Israel following a similar pattern to that of the US during the Vietnam War?

The Israeli elites may be deluding themselves with wishful thinking, but the public has been able to grasp the situation and stand up to the reality. The public has demonstrated a remarkable resilience. One French philosopher observed that the mark of a good democracy is when the people are better than their leaders. According to this logic, [he laughs] Israel is a great democracy.

Is asymmetrical warfare a function of asymmetrical political systems? When a despot is at war with a democracy, he is both in complete control and has no compunction about lying, whereas a democracy relies on an electorate and moral values that prevent it from engaging in similar countertactics.

Of course there are differences between a democracy and despotic regime when at war. Although a democracy begins at a disadvantage, its great strength lies in the mobilization of its citizens and society.

We should also look at the situation from a different perspective. From ancient times, Jewish history offers many examples of "the few against the many." We've always had to fight asymmetrical warfare, and we still do. The truth is that our enemies succeeded in inverting reality and framed us as Goliath. In every sense, modern Israel is the real David.

Which brings us back to the Vietnamese model.

Yes, the Vietnamese general, Vo Nguyen Giap, succeeded in exploiting the American news media and the weakness of an open society in order to get his message across. Although the Americans fought against the Vietcong with considerable success, the Vietnamese enlisted the American Left to portray the situation otherwise, as was the case with the Tet offensive. They strove to undermine support for the war within America. The Vietnamese did not really win that war on the ground; they won it in the United States. In his book, The White House Years, Henry Kissinger describes telling [Soviet ambassador to the US] Anatoly Dobrynin that the Vietnam War had been transformed into a domestic issue. By means of political warfare, the North Vietnamese broke the will of the American public to persevere, and came very near to destabilizing the government.

Is the same thing happening in Israel?

Yes. Our enemies have tried the same technique against Israel in order to destroy the national consensus. For example, the real purpose of the Geneva peace initiative was to undermine support for the Israeli government. In fact, Fatah official Hatem Abdel Kader told The Jerusalem Post ["Fatah scares off would-be Geneva signers," Dec. 1, 2003] that the main goal of the Geneva Accord was to create a schism inside Israel and undermine the Sharon government. He said: "Our aim was to create divisions inside Israel and block the growth of the right wing in Israel."

I wouldn't be surprised if the 2003 pilots' and commandos' letters [stating a refusal to serve, due to conscientious objection] had been similarly inspired. [Prime minister Ariel Sharon's adviser] Dov Weisglass said this kind of domestic strife played a part in Sharon's considering the disengagement from Gaza. He was willing to pay a price to deflect the Left.

Can you put the Vietnam model into the context of what is happening today in Gaza?

Gaza is an armed enclave. Whether Fatah or Hamas - the Palestinians have a space where they can stockpile arms and wage war, like the Vietcong. The Oslo Accords gave them this advantage as a free gift. Gaza would be the first step in a strategy of guerrilla warfare against Israel on three fronts - one from Hizbullah in the north, one from Judea and Samaria in the east, and one from Gaza in the south.

Returning to the North Vietnamese model - especially under General Giap - the important thing is to acquire modern heavy weapons. You begin with foot soldiers armed with a bag of rice and a rifle and are prepared to endure any hardship for the cause. But ultimately the idea is to get as many and as sophisticated weapons as possible, preferably by taking them from the enemy, and to build a regular army. It was not coincidental that Hamas announced this week that it is building a regular army.

That's Hamas you're talking about. In the meantime, the West is providing Fatah with weapons.

I predict that those weapons will also end up in Hamas's hands, and ultimately they will be used against Israel. This brings to mind a quote of Chairman Mao. In 1948 roughly, when much of Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist army was defecting to the Communist Chinese forces, he said something to the effect that "the great armories of the world are all sending their weapons directly to me."

This is what is happening in Gaza, but Hamas is the beneficiary.

What if the weapons didn't end up in Hamas's hands? Wouldn't they also end up being used against Israel?

The chances of their being used against Israel are considerable, and the chances of their being used against Hamas are slim. If we recall the late Yitzhak Rabin's original idea of giving arms to the Palestinian Authority, we see the mistake it was. Defending the idea in November 1993, Rabin said that these arms were to be used by the Palestinian police in their vigilant fight against Hamas. He declared that they would never be used against Israel, but if they were, the Oslo Accords would be annulled, and the IDF would retake all the places it had given up. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know the outcome of this policy which the late prime minister defended with such brave words. The problem is that today the Americans again want to supply more weapons to Fatah in hopes that it will use them against Hamas. Here is a case where we can learn from history.

Yet everyone, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the international community, distinguishes between Fatah and Hamas, saying that Fatah should be supported and strengthened.

That comes from a mindset that is very popular in the US of
"cultivating the moderates" or seeking a "win-win situation."
Kissinger pointed out that the idea of helping the moderates dates from World War II. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's adviser, Harry Hopkins, argued that Stalin was a moderate and therefore had to be helped.

[British MP and Celsius 7/7 author] Michael Gove and [German researcher] Matthias Kuentzel both attribute the weakness of the West to its lack of understanding of ideology as a driving force, particularly in the case of Iran. Generally, Westerners prefer to ignore the ideological dimension and focus on pragmatic problem-solving. They seek the "root causes" of terrorism, as if they were material. This mindset prevents one from understanding the enemy. For example, it fails to take into account the public declarations of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad such as: "The Zionist regime must disappear from the scene of existence," which is a literal translation from Farsi. Indeed, the essential weakness of Israel and the rest of the West is that we tend to think that every dispute can be settled through some kind of deal.

Another type of faulty reasoning is the assumption that our adversaries are decent people just like you and me. Neville Chamberlain, who had once been the mayor of Birmingham before becoming prime minister of the UK, assumed that Hitler's main objective was to to improve the well-being of the German worker. He thought that he understood this man. And he reasoned that if England gave him what he demanded and the issues of contention could be removed, Hitler would return to the work of building autobahns, spreading employment and raising his people's standard of living.

This approach is called "cognitive egocentrism." It happens when you believe that everybody else is as reasonable as you are. For example, [US Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice once said that every Palestinian mother wanted to see her children going to university. Now, this might be true of Americans, but it's not necessarily the aspiration of every Palestinian mother. I happen to believe that more and more Palestinian mothers would really like to see their children go on to higher education. But Rice's statement in the context of what was going on shows that she doesn't get it.

Rice is an American diplomat. But what about the Israeli decision-makers? They say similar things.

Look, one cannot always know if they really mean what they say, or if they are saying certain things in order to please others. One thing is clear: Political correctness is a form of linguistic totalitarianism that leads to Orwellian "slavery." When there are certain things you're not allowed to say, it means in most cases that there are certain things you're not allowed to think.

Give an example of things one is not allowed to say or think.

It took a long time before one could call the Oslo Accords a failure. Nor could one say that Arabs were propagating anti-Semitism. What happened during the Oslo era and still persists is a type of a disconnect in our reasoning process. It was generally assumed that if we could cut a deal, we would have real peace and there would be no further need for Israel to project its message. That's why in May 1993 Shimon Peres, when he became foreign minister, shut down the information department of the Foreign Ministry. He confidently proclaimed, "If you have a good policy, you don't need public relations, and if you have a bad policy, public relations will not help."

We still must come to terms with the hopes associated with Oslo and our present reality.

Speaking of PR, most of the world has acknowledged that Hamas is a terrorist organization. If Hamas completely takes over the PA, how will it be able to delegitimize Israel and establish itself as the David to Israel's Goliath?

We will have to wait and see, but probably it will follow the model of Hizbullah during the Second War in Lebanon, which was to take total control of the media message. And although Hamas will not enjoy the same widespread support as Fatah among the "chattering classes" in the US and Europe, there will always be some who will give it comfort.

Bringing this back to the Vietnam model, what can countries like the US and Israel do to counteract the infiltration of the enemy's message into their societies?

Our inclination has been to assume that the greatest threat to the state emanates from the far Right and to ignore the dangers from the Left. A Berkeley sociologist, William Patterson, explained that political identification is functionally defined by behavior. Describing the American radicals of the 1960s, he observed: "They are defined not by whether they pay dues to a party, but by their actions, their vocabulary, their way of thinking."

It follows that, within the Israeli context, how people define themselves is tremendously significant. We may ask, "What exactly do people mean when they say that they belong to the so-called 'peace camp'?"

This is a Communist term with a clear meaning. Lenin, in his late writings, formulated the "two-camp doctrine," which divided the world into the Bolshevik and capitalist camps. He named one camp the "counterrevolutionary imperialist West," and the other, "the revolutionary and nationalist East."

As early as 1919, Stalin adopted the doctrine.

This doctrine acquired new life in September 1947, with the proclamation of the Cominform [Information Bureau of Communist Parties] at the Polish town of Sklarska Poremba. There, Stalin's ideologist, Andrei A. Zhdanov, declared that "the 'peace camp,' representing the community of socialist states, was threatened by 'aggressive American capitalism.'"

According to Sovietologist Robert C. Tucker, the "two-camp theory dichotomized the globe into two 'worlds' called the 'Soviet camp of peace, socialism and democracy' and the 'American camp of capitalism, imperialism and war.'"

Thus, if you belonged to the "peace camp," your loyalty would be to Soviet Russia, no matter where you lived. You would be the dots of light in a world of democracy and darkness, but your real loyalty would be to the Soviet Union.

So, today, in Israel, when one says that he or she is a member of the peace camp, one is actually stating that he is a member of the vanguard of the people's struggle for justice for the Palestinians, or to build a "state of all of its citizens," but not necessarily the sovereign State of Israel. If one takes this to its logical conclusion, these goals cannot be attained without regime change. This is a serious matter. We must learn exactly what these people mean, particularly when they use such terminology. It is the responsibility of citizens of good faith - and particularly of the security services - to prevent those who are working in the service of the enemy from getting their way.

Right On! America, stay the course in Iraq
Michael Freund, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 10, 2007

Has the United States lost the will to fight? Just when it appears that the tide might be turning against al-Qaida in Iraq, a growing chorus of US senators and congressmen are calling on President George W. Bush to carry out a rapid withdrawal of American military forces.

It has only been a month since Bush's military "surge" reached its full capacity, but that hasn't stopped the weak knees of the critics from growing ever more wobbly.

And though various media accounts now indicate that the injection of additional US troops already has Osama bin-Laden's Iraqi disciples on the run, the impatience of some shortsighted politicians in Washington threatens to hand the terrorists the devastating victory which they failed to achieve on the battlefield.

Indeed, if you listen carefully, you can almost hear the sounds of laughter bursting forth in Teheran, Damascus and other terror capitals in the Middle East.

The leaders of the jihadist movement are surely preparing to break out the non-alcoholic equivalent of champagne as they toast what seems like an impending American reversal.

But before the decision-makers in Washington hastily embrace retreat, they might want to take a step back and consider just how detrimental, demoralizing and even destructive withdrawal can be.

FOR PROOF, they need only look to Israel's recent experience in this regard.

Twice in the past seven years the Jewish state has turned tail and fled, pulling its forces out of Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. Tired of fighting a determined foe, successive Israeli governments decided to throw in the towel and hope for the best.

In both instances, Israel's retreat was carried out in a rapid and precipitous manner, with little thought given to the day after. The result, of course, was nothing short of disastrous.

The extremists of Hizbullah and Hamas drew strength from Israel's respective pullouts, pointing to them as tangible proof that violence and bloodshed not only pay, but pay quite handsomely.

After years of promising to outlast the vaunted Israeli military machine, Hamas and Hizbullah did just that, seizing on Israel's loss of resolve and riding a newfound wave of popularity in their wake.

The terrorist groups benefited politically, organizationally and militarily, capitalizing on Israel's move by winning new adherents to their cause and consolidating their power.

Consequently, Hamas is now in control of Gaza, and Hizbullah is running a virtual state within a state in Lebanon.

Domestically, Israelis lost a great deal of faith in the military and in its ability to get the job done when necessary. For a country under siege, nothing could be more perilous.

So instead of leaving the problem behind, pulling out has only energized Israel's foes, weakened the country and its resolve, and brought the threat posed by the terrorists still closer to home.

There is no reason to think that an American withdrawal from Iraq would prove any different.

JUST ASK Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's number two. In a videotape issued last week, he once again reaffirmed that his organization views Iraq as the central battleground in its confrontation with the West.

Calling on Muslims worldwide to support the anti-American insurgency, al-Zawahiri pointed to the US's loss of resolve as a reason to celebrate. "Rejoice, for victory is near," he said, "the herds of crusaders have begun to split up and their sole concern has become searching for a way out."

In this respect, proponents of a rapid US withdrawal are simply playing into the enemy's hands. By broadcasting vacillation and weakness, they are undermining America's efforts far more effectively than any tape al-Zawahiri could ever release.

Sure, Iraq does not border America. But it doesn't have to. Short of another 9/11-style attack, there is nothing that would do more to invigorate the bad guys than to see the US in retreat.

The chaos that would ensue, not only in Iraq but throughout the region, would inevitably bring about cataclysmic results for all concerned.

As Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said at a news conference in Baghdad on Monday, "The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country or maybe to regional wars." These are possibilities which cannot, and must not, be taken lightly.

THE FACT IS that what happens in Iraq matters. Not just in Baghdad, but in Teheran, Pyongyang and in Gaza City too. A weakened America means a strengthened foe, one even more determined to press forward with attacking Israel and the West.

As Israel's experiences with withdrawal over the past decade have made clear, retreat in the face of terror is simply not an option, and one can only hope that this lesson will not be lost on the powers that be in Washington.

For in the tinderbox that is the Middle East, an American pullout from Iraq might just be the spark that will lead to an even greater conflagration.

THE 'QUIT IRAQ' CAUCUS:

By RALPH PETERS

July 11, 2007 -- EVEN as our troops make serious progress against al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and other extremists, Congress - including Republican members - is sending the terrorists a message: "Don't lose heart, we'll save you!"

Iraq's a mess. Got it. The Bush administration has made so many mistakes I stopped counting a year ago. But we've finally got a general in Baghdad - Dave Petraeus - who's doing things right. Iraqi politicians are still disgracing themselves, but our troops are killing America's enemies - with the help of our former enemies.

Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is suffering a humiliating defeat, as fellow Sunni Muslims turn against the fanatics and help them find the martyrdom they advertise. Yet for purely political reasons - next year's elections - cowards on Capitol Hill are spurning the courage of our troops on the ground.

The frantic political gamesmanship in Congress would nauseate a ghoul. Pols desperate for any cover and concealment they can get have dragged the Iraq Study Group plan from the grave.

Masterminded by former Secretary of State Jim "Have Your Hugged Your Saudi Prince Today?" Baker, the report is a blueprint for a return to yesteryear's dictator-smooching policy (which helped create al Qaeda - thanks, Jimbo!).

That Baker report reminds me of cheap horror films where the zombies just keep coming back - except that zombies retain a measure of integrity.

But if Republicans are rushing to desert our troops and spit on the graves of heroes, the Democratic Party at least has been consistent - they've supported our enemies from the start, undercutting our troops and refusing to explain in detail what happens if we flee Iraq.

So I'll tell you what happens: massacres. And while I have nothing against Shia militiamen and Sunni insurgents killing each other 24/7, the overwhelming number of victims will be innocent women, children and the elderly.

Bosnia? That was just rough-necking at recess compared to what Islamist fanatics and ethnic beasts will do. Given that Senate Majority Misleader Harry Reid and Commissar of the House Nancy Pelosi won't tell us what they foresee af- ter we quit, let me lay it out:

* After suffering a strategic defeat, al-Qaeda-in-Iraq comes back from the dead (those zombies again . . .) and gets to declare a strategic victory over the Great Satan.

* Iran establishes hegemony over Iraq's southern oil fields and menaces the other Persian Gulf producers. (Sorry, Comrade Gore, even that Toyota Prius needs some gasoline . . . )

* Our troops will have died in vain. Of course, that doesn't really matter to much of anyone in Washington, Democrat or Republican. So we'll just write off those young Americans stupid enough to join the military when they could've ducked out the way most members of Congress did.

* A slaughter of the innocents - so many dead, the bodies will never be counted.

But I hope somebody tries to count the dead after our Congress kills them. As for those on the left who sanctimoniously set out rows of shabby combat boots to "teach" the rest of us the cost of war, I fully expect them to put out displays of women's slippers and children's shoes to show the world how many innocents died when they "brought our troops home now." (Note to the demonstrators - better start bulk-ordering those slippers and booties now.)

I hate the long-mismanaged mess in Iraq. I wish there were a sensible, decent way to get out that wouldn't undercut our security and produce massive innocent casualties. But there isn't. Not now. And, like it or not, we have a moral responsibility as well as practical interests in refusing to surrender to the butchers in Iraq.

This has been the Bush-Cheney War. But it will only be fair to call the carnage after we run away the "Reid-Pelosi Massacres."

Saudi Arabia – Evil Kingdom.

theaustralian.news.com.au

WASHINGTON: The US House of Representatives has voted to deny all aid (largely symbolic - $2.5million in 2005) to Saudi Arabia. Similar measures on aid to Saudi Arabia have been passed by the House before, but bypassed by President George W. Bush, using a loophole that had allowed the administration to waive these bans by invoking requirements of 'the war on terror':

1. Hamas received more than 50 per cent of its financing from Saudi Arabia, and last month alone, the Saudi Government planned to send $300million to the Islamist group.

2. The Saudi government of undermining US military efforts by making "no official move" to stop about 3000 Saudi nationals fighting US troops in Iraq.

3. Sheik Saleh al-Liuhaidan, head of the Saudi Arabian judiciary, had approved the transfer of money and men to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (former head of al-Qa'ida in Iraq).

4. Up to 61per cent of suicide bombers in Iraq were of Saudi Arabian descent.

5. Saudi clerics continued to preach hate towards the US, Israel and their allies, while the Government cracked down against those calling for democratic reforms.

6. More than 40 Saudis are fighting with Fatah al-Islam terrorist group against Lebanese army in Palestinian camp near Tripoli

The US should not be rewarding Saudi Arabia for "their record of broken promises and disturbing terrorist ties" said congresswoman Shelley Berkley. (War in Iraq can be considered as a diversion of public opinion from real culprit and facilitator of international Islamic terrorism - Saudi Arabia, the country, which made the family of US president Bush rich! – There were 15 out of 19 hijackers during 9/11 attack on United States, who were citizens of Saudi Arabia!)

Look at England-our Friends: give your enemy an inch and they take a mile plus your heart!

__________________________________________________________________------------------

'ISLAMOPHOBIA' IDIOCY

By AMIR TAHERI

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/islamophobia_idiocy_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm

July 3, 2007 -- LONDON

THE car-bomb/suicide-terror operations in London and Glasgow should have provided a fresh opportunity for reminding everyone, especially Muslims in Britain, that terrorism in the name of Islam still poses a major threat to public peace and safety . Yet this is not what is happening.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam - but, at the same time, keeps inviting "Muslim community leaders" to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim "leaders" rather than Buddhist monks?

Brown hasn't deemed fit to tell it like it is: that Muslims in Britain, indeed all over the world, must come out and condemn terrorism in unambiguous terms.

Instead, we are hearing that the attacks may have been prompted by "Muslim bitterness" about Salman Rushdie's knighting, the latest addition to the Islamist litany of woes. Some "moderate community leaders," like a certain Baroness Uddin, drop hints that Muslims have "foreign-policy issues" that might make them unhappy. The barely coded message: Unless Britain reshapes its foreign policy to please al Qaeda, it must expect to be attacked.

The most that "the moderate community leaders" concede is a "yes, but" position: Yes, it is not quite right to blow up innocent people - but, then again, we must understand how anger at the policies of the government of those same innocent people might prompt some Muslim youths to want to slaughter everyone.

Worse still, Ken Livingstone, London's quixotic leftist mayor, has shifted the blame from the terrorists to the British at large, who are supposedly tempted by "Islamophobia."

Thus, Livingstone works his way into a logical impasse: Do we dislike them because they want to kill us, or do they want to kill us because we dislike them? He implies that the main blame must lie with the British government and its U.S. allies, especially President Bush, who has declared war on terror rather than seeking to cuddle it.

But can one accuse Britain of "Islamophobia"? The answer is an emphatic no.

Britain and a few other Western democracies are the only places on earth where Muslims of all persuasions can practice their faith in full freedom. A thick directory of Muslim institutions in Britain lists more than 300 different sects - most of them banned and persecuted in every Muslim country on earth.

A Shiite Muslim can't build a mosque in Cairo; his Sunni brother can't have a mosque of his own in Tehran. Editions of the Koran printed in Egypt or Saudi Arabia are seized as contraband in Iran; Egypt and most other Muslim nations in turn ban the import of Korans printed in Iran. The works of a majority of Muslim writers and philosophers are banned in most Muslim countries.

In Britain, all mosques are allowed; no Muslim author or philosopher is banned. More importantly, rival Muslim sects do not massacre each other, as is the case in half a dozen Muslim-majority countries.

The only time that the British media practice self-censorship is when an item might be seen as remotely anti-Islamic. Every British publisher has turned down at least one book proposal for fear of hurting Muslim feelings. " Taking Muslim sensibilities into account" is also the reason given for the cancellation of some art exhibitions and the selection of works on display in others.

Even the most rabid anti-West and pro-terror Islamist clerics are granted visas to come to the United Kingdom and spread their message of hatred (at times, as guests of Mayor Livingstone and his friends). Hamas and Hezbollah are strongly present in Britain; the Islamic Liberation Party, banned in all Muslim countries, has its headquarters in London.

Pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah militants are featured on British TV almost every evening. The Islamic Republic of Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, maintains a "personal office" in London with twice as many personnel as Iran's official embassy .

The latest "Islamophobia" charges come as Prime Minister Brown has appointed two Muslims to his ministerial team, the first in U.K. history.

The terrorists who tried to kill people in London and Glasgow are the same ones killing people in Baghdad and Karachi. They are the same who killed tens of thousands of Egyptians and perhaps as many as a quarter-million Algerians over the decades. They are motivated not by any religious grievance but by an insatiable appetite for political power. They want to seize control of societies, break them into submission and impose on every individual a mad tyranny of terror in the name of God.

If Islam is the religion of peace, then the real Islamphobes are those who planted the car bombs in London and Glasgow - not the poor Brits who are censoring themselves and curbing their hard-won freedoms in order not to offend "the Muslim community."

______________

The Terror Hunt By Michael Jacobson Wall Street Journal Europe July 9, 2007

The thwarted bomb attacks in London and Glasgow showed that Europe has become one of the most important battlegrounds in the global terror war. Not that further proof was needed, after the 2004 Madrid attacks, the 2005 London subway and bus bombings, and failed or disrupted plots in the U.K. and Germany last year.

In 2006 alone, European countries -- including Spain, Italy, Denmark, France, the Czech Republic and the U.K. -- arrested 260 Islamist terrorist suspects. In addition to those charged with plotting attacks, others were apprehended for terrorist financing, recruiting, facilitation, and for spreading propaganda.

While the threat is serious, the Europeans' ability to fight it is uneven. Some countries, such as France, Spain and Britain, have strong intelligence and law enforcement capabilities to address this menace. Unfortunately, that's not the case across the board. Many European countries are less cognizant of the danger -- still regarding it as primarily an American problem -- and lack the capacity to deal with terrorist threats. Of the 27 EU states, probably fewer than 10 have taken a real interest in counterterrorism.

The Terror Hunt By Michael Jacobson Wall Street Journal Europe July 9, 2007

The thwarted bomb attacks in London and Glasgow showed that Europe has become one of the most important battlegrounds in the global terror war. Not that further proof was needed, after the 2004 Madrid attacks, the 2005 London subway and bus bombings, and failed or disrupted plots in the U.K. and Germany last year.

In 2006 alone, European countries -- including Spain, Italy, Denmark, France, the Czech Republic and the U.K. -- arrested 260 Islamist terrorist suspects. In addition to those charged with plotting attacks, others were apprehended for terrorist financing, recruiting, facilitation, and for spreading propaganda.

While the threat is serious, the Europeans' ability to fight it is uneven. Some countries, such as France, Spain and Britain, have strong intelligence and law enforcement capabilities to address this menace. Unfortunately, that's not the case across the board. Many European countries are less cognizant of the danger -- still regarding it as primarily an American problem -- and lack the capacity to deal with terrorist threats. Of the 27 EU states, probably fewer than 10 have taken a real interest in counterterrorism.

Cooperation and coordination on counterterrorism remains problematic. Intelligence agencies are often reluctant to share information with their EU counterparts because of concerns about protecting sources. French terrorism investigator Jean-Louis Bruguiare has complained that information sharing in Europe is often laborious, when action is required "in real time."

Intelligence cooperation is particularly critical considering that many terrorist cells are not based in one specific European country, but scattered across the continent. For example, the six individuals convicted in 2005 of plotting to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Paris had set up cells in several countries including France, Belgium and the Netherlands. When France decided to disrupt the cell, French authorities had to secure the cooperation of law enforcement counterparts in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. Ultimately, in addition to the convictions in France, other cell members were prosecuted in the Netherlands and Belgium.

The internal information sharing problems are particularly troublesome given the ease of movement and travel across the EU. With few internal borders, once an individual has made it into one member country, he or she can travel freely to most others in the Union. Consequently, Europe's counterterrorism efforts are, to some extent, only as good as its weakest link.

To address these deficiencies, Europeans can start by giving the EU a greater role in counterterrorism. While the EU has gradually assumed some additional power in counterterrorism efforts since the September 11 attacks, intelligence and police work remain almost entirely the purview of the member states. Member states have been reluctant to cede authority in criminal justice matters, including counterterrorism, to the EU, citing concerns about national sovereignty.

But with increased powers, the EU could press laggard countries to improve their domestic counterterrorism capabilities and to ensure that they are adequately focused on the threat. In fact, there are many instances where countries welcome pressure from the EU, as it allows them to take actions that their populations might otherwise oppose. The Spanish government has pressed for the creation of terrorism information sharing mechanisms at the EU level. But Spain's ultimate goal -- which might otherwise be too controversial to implement at home -- is apparently to improve information sharing between its domestic intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The EU could do worse than revisit former German Interior Minister Otto Schily's proposal for a European-wide network of agencies that would facilitate information sharing in real time between national intelligence and police services. Having an EU body, as Mr. Schily suggested, would be an important step forward. While the EU's Europol was ostensibly designed to improve police cooperation and coordination, it only has "non-operational" responsibilities and deals with the terrorist threat at a far more general level.

Skeptical European countries should take a look at the record so far of the European Arrest Warrant, which has largely resolved the frequent extradition battles between member states. Under the warrant, extradition requests from fellow EU countries are generally granted with minimal review, and member states can no longer refuse to extradite someone merely because the matter is not a crime in their country. Since it came into force in 2004, the average time it has taken to execute an arrest warrant across Europe has fallen from an estimated nine months to 43 days. Establishing a more unified European approach in other aspects of criminal justice and counterterrorism could have similarly successful results.

While many critics are dismissive of the EU's role in national security, the reality is that it is the governmental body best positioned to address this problem. Regardless of the effectiveness of any individual country, counterterrorism cannot succeed without assistance and coordination from all European member states. Given the serious terrorist threat facing Europe and the equally serious deficiencies, the Europeans need to move quickly and aggressively to bolster their counterterrorism capabilities.

Mr. Jacobson is a senior fellow in the Stein program in terrorism, intelligence and policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior advisor at the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

View this article on our website at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1074

The Terror Hunt By Michael Jacobson Wall Street Journal Europe July 9, 2007

The thwarted bomb attacks in London and Glasgow showed that Europe has become one of the most important battlegrounds in the global terror war. Not that further proof was needed, after the 2004 Madrid attacks, the 2005 London subway and bus bombings, and failed or disrupted plots in the U.K. and Germany last year.

In 2006 alone, European countries -- including Spain, Italy, Denmark, France, the Czech Republic and the U.K. -- arrested 260 Islamist terrorist suspects. In addition to those charged with plotting attacks, others were apprehended for terrorist financing, recruiting, facilitation, and for spreading propaganda.

While the threat is serious, the Europeans' ability to fight it is uneven. Some countries, such as France, Spain and Britain, have strong intelligence and law enforcement capabilities to address this menace. Unfortunately, that's not the case across the board. Many European countries are less cognizant of the danger -- still regarding it as primarily an American problem -- and lack the capacity to deal with terrorist threats. Of the 27 EU states, probably fewer than 10 have taken a real interest in counterterrorism.

Cooperation and coordination on counterterrorism remains problematic. Intelligence agencies are often reluctant to share information with their EU counterparts because of concerns about protecting sources. French terrorism investigator Jean-Louis Bruguiare has complained that information sharing in Europe is often laborious, when action is required "in real time."

Intelligence cooperation is particularly critical considering that many terrorist cells are not based in one specific European country, but scattered across the continent. For example, the six individuals convicted in 2005 of plotting to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Paris had set up cells in several countries including France, Belgium and the Netherlands. When France decided to disrupt the cell, French authorities had to secure the cooperation of law enforcement counterparts in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. Ultimately, in addition to the convictions in France, other cell members were prosecuted in the Netherlands and Belgium.

The internal information sharing problems are particularly troublesome given the ease of movement and travel across the EU. With few internal borders, once an individual has made it into one member country, he or she can travel freely to most others in the Union. Consequently, Europe's counterterrorism efforts are, to some extent, only as good as its weakest link.

To address these deficiencies, Europeans can start by giving the EU a greater role in counterterrorism. While the EU has gradually assumed some additional power in counterterrorism efforts since the September 11 attacks, intelligence and police work remain almost entirely the purview of the member states. Member states have been reluctant to cede authority in criminal justice matters, including counterterrorism, to the EU, citing concerns about national sovereignty.

But with increased powers, the EU could press laggard countries to improve their domestic counterterrorism capabilities and to ensure that they are adequately focused on the threat. In fact, there are many instances where countries welcome pressure from the EU, as it allows them to take actions that their populations might otherwise oppose. The Spanish government has pressed for the creation of terrorism information sharing mechanisms at the EU level. But Spain's ultimate goal -- which might otherwise be too controversial to implement at home -- is apparently to improve information sharing between its domestic intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The EU could do worse than revisit former German Interior Minister Otto Schily's proposal for a European-wide network of agencies that would facilitate information sharing in real time between national intelligence and police services. Having an EU body, as Mr. Schily suggested, would be an important step forward. While the EU's Europol was ostensibly designed to improve police cooperation and coordination, it only has "non-operational" responsibilities and deals with the terrorist threat at a far more general level.

Skeptical European countries should take a look at the record so far of the European Arrest Warrant, which has largely resolved the frequent extradition battles between member states. Under the warrant, extradition requests from fellow EU countries are generally granted with minimal review, and member states can no longer refuse to extradite someone merely because the matter is not a crime in their country. Since it came into force in 2004, the average time it has taken to execute an arrest warrant across Europe has fallen from an estimated nine months to 43 days. Establishing a more unified European approach in other aspects of criminal justice and counterterrorism could have similarly successful results.

While many critics are dismissive of the EU's role in national security, the reality is that it is the governmental body best positioned to address this problem. Regardless of the effectiveness of any individual country, counterterrorism cannot succeed without assistance and coordination from all European member states. Given the serious terrorist threat facing Europe and the equally serious deficiencies, the Europeans need to move quickly and aggressively to bolster their counterterrorism capabilities.

Mr. Jacobson is a senior fellow in the Stein program in terrorism, intelligence and policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior advisor at the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

View this article on our website at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1074

Britain Will Release al-Qaeda Sheik As Payment For BBC Reporter

The great empire has folded. They have negotiated with terrorists and approved a prisoner swap. How long before the next Brit is kidnapped? This from Aaron Klein for WND:

JAFFA, Israel - In exchange for the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, Britain told the Hamas terror group through mediators it would free from jail an extremist sheik accused of serving as al-Qaida's spiritual adviser in Europe, Palestinian sources involved in the negotiations claimed to WND.

The sheik, Abu Qatada, is accused among other things of advising 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and attempted shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Qatada's sermons were found among the possessions of 9/11 operational leader Mohammed Atta.

A major league player in the world of terror for a reporter. Not for a soldier and not for a kidnapped tourist but for a man who voluntarily went to Gaza knowing full well the risks that entailed.

The Palestinian sources involved in the Johnston negotiations claimed the British government pledged through a third-party mediator to release Abu Qatada after six months so the release wouldn't appear connected to Johnston's freedom.

Qatada has been detained in Britain as a terror suspect but was not tried or sentenced.

How naïve!! Does the Brit government think that if they hoodwink the public then all is well? The terrorists know you paid the ransom. They will come knocking again very soon. You never pay ransom only once.

The sources admitted the Army of Islam had no way of ensuring the British government follow through with its purported commitment to release Qatada, but they said Dugmash (the kidnappers) threatened to kidnap more British nationals in Gaza if Qatada is not freed.

They will kidnap any Brit they can. It has nothing to do with Qatada anymore. Britain has folded and there will be a heavy price to pay.

Who exactly is Qatada?

Abu Qatada entered the UK in 1993 with a forged United Arab Emirates passport after fleeing Jordan, where he faced accusations of inciting terrorist acts. He reportedly delivered sermons calling for the downfall of the U.S. and Britain. In the mid-1990s, Qatada was said to have held meetings with an MI5 officer at which he suggested his willingness to co-operate to help prevent Islamist terrorism in the UK. The meetings were later outlined in an official governmental commission regarding Qatada. Qatada was accused by German authorities of plotting an attack on a central market, and he was sentenced in absentia in 2000 to life imprisonment in Jordan for his alleged involvement in a plot to bomb tourists there attending millennium celebrations.

Qatada is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria, the U.S., Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Jordan.

Nineteen videotapes featuring Qatada's sermons were found among the possessions of 9/11 ringleader Atta. A Paris-based terror cell accused of plotting to blow up the U.S. embassy in France in 2001 reportedly was headed by a follower of Qatada.

A British immigration appeals commission report stated it concluded Qatada was a "key UK figure" in al-Qaida related terror.

This monster will soon be free courtesy of Her Majesty's Government.

Exploding the Myths of Islamic Terrorism
By Ken Connor
Sunday, July 8, 2007


Though the bombs failed to detonate, this week's attacks in London have exploded persistent myths about Islamic terrorism. These myths—perpetuated by the politically correct, the unreasonably optimistic, and the willfully ignorant—have crippled the West's ability to adequately confront the Islamic threat. Unless the West finally wakes up and faces reality, our chance for long-term survival is questionable. Hopefully the bombs of London will be our wakeup call.

The first myth to go up in smoke after this week's failed attempts at terror is that radical Islamic theology is the result of poverty and illiteracy. Some commentators would have us believe that terrorism would cease if all Muslim children were educated and affluent, and therefore, America's foreign policy should focus on economic aid and education. It is increasingly clear, however, that many of the men behind the London bombings were physicians. Highly educated with well-paying jobs in a prosperous nation, these men certainly do not fit the profile so often painted of Islamic terrorists. One thing is clear: it is not poverty or ignorance that drives Muslims to terrorism. Even those who are highly educated and trained to "cure" were willing to kill in the name of Allah.


Saudi police graduates swear upon the Quran to protect the country, the king and Islam, in Riyadh June 26, 2007. The graduates will work at Saudi border posts and airports, where Saudi authorities are trying to control drug trafficking and arms smuggling. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji (SAUDI ARABIA)
Related Media:
Feeling vs. Faith: An Episcopal Muslim?
Medved's show used for distortions and unfair reporting against Islam?
VIDEO: Romney: On Radical Islam
Warnings of Islam from the people who know
VIDEO: Thompson: Combating Terror
VIDEO: Red Mosque Seige Continues

A second myth, which has dominated the thinking of some fellow conservatives, is that democracy is the surefire antidote to terrorism. They maintain that if Muslims lived in freedom and were able to elect their leaders in a democratic way, then our terrorist enemies would lose their desire to kill innocents. President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, "The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat." It now seems clear, however, that even those who enjoy freedom and democracy can be won over by radical theology. The medical professionals implicated in this week's attacks were living miles away from tyranny and were enjoying all of the benefits of modern Western Democracy. But, it was not enough to blunt their impulse to inflict terror. Their interpretation of Islam inspired them to bomb the very nation which offered them freedom. We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that once men and women live in democracy, then terrorism will cease. It is not that simple.

Third, many would have us believe that terrorism is caused solely by Western foreign policy, especially the Iraq War. In the wake of this week's attempted bombings, however, a remarkable article appeared in London's Daily Mail which provides valuable insight into the minds of radical Muslims. According to the article, written by a former fanatic, Hassan Butt, British Muslim terrorist groups "laugh in celebration" when pundits say that the sole cause of terrorism is our foreign policy. According to Butt, although Western foreign policy did anger him, "what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice" (emphasis added).

These terrorists are not just retaliating against unpopular policies overseas. Even if every last Westerner left the Middle East, these radicals would still pursue their worldwide Islamic State. Their goal stems from a particular understanding of Islam that has won adherents around the world. These Muslims believe that it is God's will for them to conquer the whole world, by violence if necessary. In light of the violence they have perpetrated, can there be any doubt that ideas have consequences? It is past time to confront the violent ideas of many Muslims.

One of the most obvious differences between Islam and Western Christianity is the relationship between politics and religion. Mohammad, in addition to being a religious leader, was a military commander and political ruler. From the beginning, there has been little distinction between religion and politics in the Muslim world. For Islamic radicals, the differences between evangelizing and conquering are inconsequential, because politics and religion go hand-in-hand. This is in obvious contrast with the example of Jesus Christ, who pursued no worldly political ambitions and who even surrendered himself into the hands of political leaders to be crucified. As Christ continually reminded his disciples, his kingdom was not of this world. He did not offer his disciples a political agenda. Though the Christian faithful have always seen it as their duty to pursue justice in the political arena, it has also been recognized that, ultimately, the Church and the state are two separate entities.

If Islam is true, and if Mohammad has truly brought to the world a perfect legal code, then we should gladly convert and submit to Islamic law. If, on the other hand, the Christian faith of our forefathers is true, then we should resist Islam and share with Muslims the Good News of the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. Christianity and Islam posit competing truth claims. Unlike Mohammad, Christ adjured his followers to love their enemies—not kill them. For decades now, many in the West have preferred to think that truth does not matter. Many have also deluded themselves into thinking that salvation comes through wealth and education, or democracy and freedom. Therefore, even as our government confronts the military threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism, the Church—the Body of Christ—must confront Islam's violent ideas with the peace of the Gospel. The Church would do well to reclaim and proclaim the true treasure of the Western world, the Christian faith. Neither wealth nor democracy will be enough to change the hearts of radical Muslims. The Gospel of Christ, however, is more than sufficient.

Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case.

Eldad is behind "HATIKVAH" a new movement in Israel

Atara Beck - Jul 01, 2007
Jewish Tribune


JERUSALEM-TORONTO – Many observers are looking at Knesset member Arieh Eldad as a symbol of hope for the beleaguered Jewish state that has had its share of corrupt leaders. In fact, the Israeli politician is heading a new national movement called Hatikvah, which means, literally, the hope. Eldad is a world-renowned medical doctor. He was surgeon general of the medical corps and the head of plastic surgery at Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem when the second intifada broke out in 2000.

"There were about 3,000 casualties in two years, mostly burns, among other injuries, from suicide bombers," he said in a phone interview from Jerusalem. "I realized that preventive medicine is the most effective way to practice. Prevention is so much more efficient. In terror, preventive medicine doesn't lie within the hospital walls, but in the field of politics. We can prevent this terrible wave of terror. And the only way is by preventing the creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River – the famous two-state solution that is actually a suicidal plan."

"Every piece of land given away is interpreted as just another stage towards the goal of elimination of the state of Israel," he continued. "We can see that from Gaza. 'It will turn into Hamastan' were the exact words that we, in the orange camp, used. [The colour orange was the symbol of the active protestors against the disengagement in Gaza.] So I decided to leave the ivory tower of academia."
Is Hatikvah another new party?

"Not exactly," he said. "It's a new movement. The National Union in Israel, with which I can be a part of and have no ideological conflict, consists mostly of religious people.Knesset members, eight wear kippot. I'm the ninth. The nationalist camp (known as the right) is so much larger, but people will not vote for a religious party because they want them to reflect other issues as well. I really want to create a gate for the secular right to join this camp. Now they feel they must vote for Likud. Some voted for [Avigdor] Lieberman [head of Yisrael Beitenu], mistakenly taking him for being right wing, but he's ready to establish a Palestinian state. He joined Kadima, and since the meeting at Sharm el-sheikh he's part of those agreeing to transfer $350 million to the Palestinian Authority to strengthen [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas. Releasing 200 prisoners just as a gesture.

"I really feel we need a party in the nationalist camp that will represent the non-religious who were Likud before Likud went for the withdrawal from Gaza. A lot of them feel they can't vote Likud now because they saw the destruction of the Gush Katif towns."

Does Eldad believe the atmosphere is ripe for yet another party? Are there enough citizens fed up with what's available now?

"Certainly, there are enough people," he said. "What's still to be seen is whether they'll choose me as their leader. I think that during the last few elections, the majority voted for a leader, not a plan. They voted for whom they identified as a strong leader. The majority who voted for Sharon initially wasn't for the disengagement. Although he was a strong leader, he took them to places where they didn't want to go."

Should people in the Diaspora do anything to help?

"Various levels of activity would be welcome from North America," Eldad answered.

"First, there can be a level of activity in the US to try to influence the administration. Second, financial support. Foreign citizens can't contribute to a party, but they can support a campaign firmly against a Palestinian state. People can contribute money to strengthen those positions. They can't advocate for a party, but they can advocate for the rejection of an independent Palestinian state. That rules out Likud, among others.

"There's, for example, American Friends for a Strong Israel (AFSI), Professors for a Strong Israel and others. Support for such a campaign could be promoted in Israeli papers, buying time on television and radio, billboards, etc."

What can be done about the danger of post-Zionism?

"We can do very little about the post-Zionists," he said. "But they're a very, very thin layer of Israeli society and they receive proportionally more publicity in media. The majority of the people of Israel are Zionists – not post- Zionists, not anti-Zionists, not at all. They need a strong voice. Every week I publish an article in Ma'ariv [Israeli daily] and people stop me to thank me. The louder we can talk to the people, the more they'll realize they're in the majority. Only a small percentage of the population reads my article, but we can buy louder space – in colour – to attract attention. These things work. People aren't buying Coca Cola only because it tastes good. It's well advertised."

Don't most people still believe in the theory of two states, Israel and Palestine?

"A two-state solution is no longer a valid option. I think that more and more people are realizing that. Land for peace was very popular before the 2005 disengagement and the war in Lebanon. Now less than 20 per cent of Israelis – and that includes 20 per cent Arabs among them – support any further withdrawal. They don't trust the Arab leaders anymore. That's left only for the politicians to pretend they have a plan, a hope. They're not courageous enough to say they have nothing. So they're repeating the same slogans.

"I think Bush needs the old plan because he has nothing else. He needs a photo op at Sharm-el Sheikh. I don't see any real plans on the horizon. But politicians who say there are no plans on the horizon won't be elected in the US and maybe not in Israel either. So they're trapped into repeating the same old plans, even though they know [PA leader] Abu Mazen is irrelevant. Even if he were strong, one would have to examine very carefully what he demands as a final settlement, which would practically mean the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. He's against terrorism only because he sees it doesn't do them any good. But he wants all of Palestine, just like Hamas."

What about the threat from Iran?

"Iran is in a race to produce nuclear arms, not only to eliminate Israel, but towards the production of 40-50 nuclear bombs. Within two to three years it will have enough uranium to produce 50 bombs.

"They're working on a ballistic missile plan. These missiles already cover all of Israel and parts of Europe, but they want a longer range to retaliate against any attack that would punish them for attacking Israel. They won't be stopped by any political or financial pressure. Israel's policy is a tragic mistake. When they say it's not an Israeli problem but the entire world's, it's a terrible mistake.

If it's everybody's problem, it's no one's problem. If the American president would want to attack Iran, he can't get approval, because of the mess in Iraq. "But Israel should say that Iran is precisely Israel's problem and before Iran strikes any European country, it will strike Israel. We can't afford to let this happen. We have to make it clear to the whole world that we have to strike first.

And if we figure out that our conventional plan isn't enough, we'll have to use any means we can. The idea is to contain the conflict within the framework of a conventional conflict before they have the nuclear power, which could result in a nuclear world war. The world would be much better off if Israel finishes the conflict with conventional weapons."