Solsticewitch13's BOS

Daniel Greenfield article: Muslim Firsters and Israel Firsters

2012-02-01T12:34:00.003-05:00

Daniel Greenfield article: Muslim Firsters and Israel Firsters

Posted: 31 Jan 2012 07:56 PM PST

If you were to suggest in a public forum that just possibly Israel's failure to reach a peace agreement with a terrorist organization, run by kleptomaniacs and homicidal maniacs, which still continues to applaud the murder of Israeli children, might possibly be due to the terrorists and not because of Israel, then according to the consensus of the left, you are an Israel Firster.

The paradigm of the Israel Firster only works if you assume that the America First position is to support Islamic terrorists. Even if we were to dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism to the United States then a position sympathetic to the territorial claims of Islamic terrorists in Israel would still not be the America First position, it would be the Muslims First position.

The left which deploys names like Israel Firsters is certainly not calling for neutrality in the conflict, rather it would like us to side with the Muslim Brotherhood and the assorted Islamic terrorists scattered throughout the region. Arguably the United States has been doing this for some time already.

Obama stuck his finger in Prime Minister Netanyahu's chest, but bowed to the Saudi King. When he visited Turkey, he made no mention of the Turkish settlements in occupied Cyprus, but when Biden visited Israel, he threw a fit over a partial approval for a few houses in Jerusalem. The United States doesn't fund many terrorist groups, but the bulk of the funding that it allots to terrorists goes to terrorists operating in Israel and killing Israelis.

Last week the State Department put out a list of designated terrorist organization. That list includes the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. The Brigade has not only committed numerous atrocities against Israelis, it at one point threatened to launch terrorist attacks against America. The Brigade is the military arm of the Fatah group which controls the Palestinian Authority. The Authority is the beneficiary of an average of 600 million dollars a year in direct assistance, and indirectly through the UNRWA which has already received an initial 55 million dollars from the United States in 2012.

Terrorists who murder Israelis don't just indirectly benefit from American aid, that money is going to pay the salaries of convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons. Some of those terrorists received training and weapons from the United States. I would like to be able to say that this sort of thing is one of the innovations of the Hussein Administration, but it's an an artifact of two previous administrations.

This is usually how countries treat other countries that they are at war with. In this case it is an artifact, not of an Israel Firster policy, but of a Muslim Firster policy. There is no interpretation of Israel Firster that accommodates the United States arming and funding terrorists. But there is an extensive global policy of rewarding and appeasing Muslims.

Opponents of Israel often complain that they are being "silenced" in some intangible ways, but the United States government has certainly never criminalized criticism of Israel, however it continues to conduct discussions with the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, on ways to suppress and censor criticism of Islam. Nor has the Secretary of State suggested that critics of Israel should be subject to "peer pressure and shaming", which she has for critics of Islam.

American soldiers have been dying incessantly to protect Muslims for decades now. They died in Somalia to protect aid to Somali Muslims. They died in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait and protect the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina from Saddam Hussein. They died over Yugoslavia to build a state for the Muslim terrorists of the KLA. Thousands of American soldiers have died to protect Muslims from other Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the last year alone, the United States has helped overthrow secular governments to make way for Muslim ones. When the Libyan ruler refused to resign, Obama sent in NATO jets to bomb his forces into submission so that the Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group could take power.

While the United States abandoned Iranian students protesting against an Islamist regime, it overthrew governments in Egypt and Tunisia to make way for Islamist takeovers. The Saudis got to use tanks in Bahrain, but Gaddafi was hunted down and killed for a genocide that never happened.

What do you call all that but a Muslim Firster foreign policy?

In The Audacity of Hope, a book title taken from a sermon of his vilely Anti-Semitic former Black Muslim mentor, Obama wrote, "I will stand with the Muslims." And he has done it.

Obama has stood with the Muslims in Cote d'Ivorie, where armed force was used to illegally seat a Muslim ruler against the ruling of the country's supreme court. He has stood with the Muslims in Kenya, where his cousin and his Muslim backers forcibly wrote Sharia Law into the Constitution. He has stood with the genocidal Muslims in Indonesia, not the Christian Papuans whose land is occupied and whose representatives are persecuted.

He has stood with Muslims against Denmark and its freedom of speech. He has stood with Muslims against France. He has stood with Muslims against Israel. If slapping down traditional allies on behalf of Muslims is not a Muslim Firster foreign policy, then what is?

The American flag may be burned, the Koran may not. Cartoons depicting Jews as monsters can run, cartoons depicting Mohammed cannot. Six year olds must be strip searched in airports, but the people who actually are a flight risk cannot be singled out in any way.

In Cairo, at Al Azhar University, the home of Egyptian Islamism, Obama boasted that his administration has gone to court to "punish" those who would refuse to accede to the Hijab's oppression of women. We have two new Muslim diplomatic posts. NASA is no longer able to actually reach space, its new chief mission is outreach to the Muslim world. While America is piggybacking on the Russian space program, NASA has gotten a Muslim chief scientist in order to better focus on its core mission of pandering to Islam.

If any other group had received this level of favoritism, this degree of pandering at the expense of everyone else, the outrage would have been boundless. But we dare not say anything. Those who offend Muslims are held responsible for the murder of American soldiers by Muslims. In this perverse moral landscape, to speak out against the bigotry and hate preached by the Koran is to be responsible for the atrocities that the bigots will commit in outrage that anyone has spoken ill of their genocidal text.

Meanwhile the Muslim Firsters keep chanting Israel Firster at anyone who doesn't agree that Israel is the worst country on the planet. Anything that gets in the way of the Muslim Firster foreign policy program is denounced in the most ruthlessly bigoted language possible, and when those who use it are called on it, they claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to silence them.

This kind of obnoxious behavior has become routine. The consensus among Muslim Firsters is that Charles Freeman was a highly qualified candidate to head the National Intelligence Council, despite working at a front group for Saudi Arabia. In an interview, Freeman said that, "It is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people.” But no one is allowed to question Saudi policy or decide if the Saudi Muslim lobby and its countless affiliates should be deciding what is best for the American people.

Israeli policy is questioned non-stop. Hardly a week goes by without editorials in every newspaper complaining that Netanyahu hasn't spent enough time at the negotiating table with one half of an unelected Palestinian Authority government. When a bunch of lunatics held protests outside a girls school in a town in Israel that hardly anyone in the media had ever heard of before, there were a thousand news stories. When Saudi Arabia beheaded a woman for witchcraft, the story was quickly buried, along with her body. Unlike the Israeli school story, Hillary Clinton did not feel the need to comment on it. Not that the Saudis would listen. Masters don't pay attention to slaves.

The thirty-five Christians arrested in Saudi Arabia at a prayer service and then beaten and subjected to body cavity searches last month, are not an item for our foreign policy agenda. No matter how many American soldiers died, how many more were wounded and how many have gone on suffering from undiagonsed ailments in order to keep the House of Saud safe from Saddam. The thousands of Americans who died on September 11 because an opponent of the Saudi regime saw the presence of American forces in the holy land of Islam as an opportunity to declare a holy war against the United States are all part of the price we pay for the Muslim Firster agenda.

Carter helped replace a secular government in Iran with an Islamist terror state. The United States has been protecting the Gulf oil clans for most of the 20th century despite the covert war the domestic brutality of their slave states and the covert war they have been conducting against us. Now Obama has turned half of North Africa into an Islamist paradise. And the Muslim Firsters still aren't happy.

They want Israel and they want Europe on a platter. They want to eliminate freedom of speech and silence anyone who speaks out about the countless dead and the destruction of free nations that will follow if they get their way.

After decades of the Muslim Firster agenda, we are under siege. There is hardly a nation in the free world that isn't scrambling to study Israeli anti-terrorism techniques, because they are all becoming Israel. France has its own Intifada. Oslo is dangerous enough that the American embassy has to put out an advisory. London is swiftly becoming Londonistan. The end of the last states that might have been described as Muslim and secular is swiftly approaching. And still the Muslim Firsters haven't had enough, but maybe it's time that the rest of us have had enough of them.

If they want to condemn a Pro-Israel bias in American foreign policy, then let's take a long honest look at whom American foreign policy really helps and which group it puts first.

Brief Reviews from Winter 2012 MEQ

2012-02-01T12:34:00.002-05:00

Follow the Middle East Forum

Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area.

The Making of a Human Bomb
An Ethnography of Palestinian Resistance (The Culture and Practice of Violence)

by Nasser Abufarha
Durham: Duke University Press, 2009. 277 pp. $84.95 ($23.95, paper)

Reviewed by Anat Berko
Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya and George Washington University

Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3163/the-making-of-a-human-bomb

Send

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

The Making of a Human Bomb looks at suicide terrorism from the perspective of the perpetrator and the society from which the phenomenon emerges. The intersection of culture and violence is a significant marker of Palestinian society as evidenced by the brutal Fatah-Hamas rivalry, the long tradition of blood feuds, and "honor killings" of women; an analysis of that society would make for a compelling and valuable contribution to the literature. As a product of Palestinian society, Abufarha could have brought a unique viewpoint to the table with an ability to offer an insider's view of a group of people so often discussed but so little studied.

Such hopes are misplaced: Abufarha has wasted this potential by normalizing violence in Palestinian society and repeating tired tropes about colonialist victimization to rationalize acts of mayhem. Despite his cultural, religious, territorial, and social accessibility to the region of Jenin, home of many a suicide bomber, the genuine insight of an academic is absent from the book. Whatever ethnographic research is present, it is filtered through a deeply subjective and selective outlook, riddled with holes and resulting in a series of historical and scientific inaccuracies that conform to a political agenda and create problems with validity and reliability.

Thus he can write, "Killing celebrated by individuals, groups, and communities does not represent a psychological pathology, but rather a cultural expression." He refers to Israelis as "Zionists targets" or "immigrants" and to Israel as a "colonial" and "expansionist" state and portrays the Palestinian fellaheen (farmers) as fighting against "colonialist Israel." This, in turn, allows him to portray the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians as justified behavior: "Palestinian groups developed Palestinian martyrdom operations as a means of resisting state expansion and asserting Palestinian identity and rootedness."

It is unfortunate that the author's deep emotional involvement and identification with one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has caused him to abandon his role as a researcher of the Palestinian suicide attack phenomenon and instead present his research as a moral justification of this form of terrorism. Beyond the Israeli victims, it is the Palestinian children who are harmed by such socialization and indoctrination, preparing them to become shaheeds (martyrs), leading them and their society to a literal dead end.

Related Topics: Palestinians, Suicide terrorism, Terrorism | Winter 2012 MEQ

The Mobilization of Political Islam in Turkey

by Banu Eligür
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 317 pp. $85

Reviewed by Kemal Silay
Indiana University, Bloomington

Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3164/the-mobilization-of-political-islam-in-turkey

Send

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

In an era when an overwhelming majority of articles and books published on Islamism are apologetic in nature and often fall short in terms of academic and scholarly integrity, Eligür's study constitutes a shift in research design, data, analytical strength, and discursive qualities.

Eligür of Brandeis University's Crown Center for Middle East Studies utilizes a wide range of primary and secondary sources as well as interviews to write what is perhaps the most successful scholarly attempt to explain the rise of political Islam in Turkey.

The author argues that "grievance-based" cultural approaches are inherently flawed explanations for the Islamist mobilization in Turkey since the 1970s. Those who "regard political Islam as a protest movement against modernity and Western colonial domination" have failed in understanding the situation in Turkey. As Eligür argues, "Turkey was never subjected to Western colonial domination. The Turkish revolution, which introduced a secular state, was a successful struggle to forestall Western imperialism and domination." Eligür's theoretical approach combines a number of crucial themes in a powerful framework: social movements' mobilization, dynamics of organizations, and the use of political opportunity structures thereof.

It is in this triangle that she locates Turkish Islamism's success especially after the 1980 military coup. By eradicating the "Turkish leftist danger," the coup leaders invested in a "Turkish-Islam synthesis" and planted the seeds of radical and neo-liberal Islamism, a blend of neo-capitalism and soft Islamism, in Turkey.

The Mobilization of Political Islam in Turkey is a remarkable book, providing the best work on the rise and development of Islamism in Turkey, offering significant insights into the major political actors of the modern Turkish Islamist da'wa (proselytism), from Erbakan to Erdoğan.

Related Topics: Democracy and Islam, Turkey and Turks | Kemal Silay | Winter 2012 MEQ

The Prime Ministers
An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership

by Yehuda Avner
New Milford, Conn. and Jerusalem: The Toby Press, LLC 1, 2010. 715 pp. $29.95

Reviewed by Asaf Romirowsky
Middle East Forum

Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3165/the-prime-ministers

Send

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Former Israeli ambassador Avner offers a literary, distinctive, and colorful look into the inner sanctums of diplomacy and politics of the Jewish state. As speech writer and secretary to prime ministers Eshkol and Meir, adviser to prime ministers Rabin, Begin, and Peres, and ambassador to the court of St. James, Avner is uniquely positioned to bring to light the qualities and the temperaments of these leaders, so influential in laying the foundations of the state of Israel.

Most significantly, Avner shows through firsthand accounts that Israeli prime ministers on the left and the right worked diligently toward peace against seemingly insurmountable odds. His distinctive contribution is to disclose the brainstorming that took place behind closed doors before and after difficult decisions were made public.

The Prime Ministers illustrates how Israeli statesmen have dealt with and represented the Jewish state to the global community, highlighting the quandaries in which civil servants often find themselves. Israeli ambassadors to the United States, for example, are required to negotiate the political Beltway—as well as the American Jewish community at large—as representatives of the State of Israel, not as commanders or even policymakers. Yitzhak Rabin, for example, was revered as the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff and later the prime minister who dared to embark on the Oslo peace process. But although Rabin understood the need to make a case for Israel in the U.S. political system, as ambassador to the United States in 1968, he was not savvy enough to know what methods might actually backfire. In the eyes of polished diplomats like Abba Eban, Rabin did not seem suited for the role; Eban often complained to Begin and other members of the Israeli parliament about Rabin's vocal support for Richard Nixon, jumping into what Eban argued should be a non-issue in U.S.-Israeli relations. By 1992, when Rabin was elected prime minister for the second time, it was clear he had learned from the past. Managing to find just the right combination of toughness and flexibility, he charmed Washington and specifically then-president Bill Clinton, who considered him a seasoned diplomat and warrior.

Avner also offers valuable insight to those of his countrymen who would pursue a diplomatic career: "[I]t is not enough for an Israeli ambassador here to simply say 'I'm pursuing my country's best interests according to the book.' … An Israeli ambassador who is … unwilling to maneuver his way through the complex American political landscape to promote Israel's strategic interests would do well to pack his bags and go home."

This historical account gives the reader special insights into the internal, as well as personal, workings of the Jewish state and is of particular value for understanding the nature and complexity of the U.S.-Israeli alliance.

Related Topics: Israel & Zionism | Asaf Romirowsky | Winter 2012 MEQ To receive the full, printed version of the Middle East Quarterly, please see details about an affordable subscription. This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php

The Middle East Forum

2-01-12: Free Speech - For Some (Plus: White House Disregards Catholic Church's Objection...)

2012-02-01T12:33:00.001-05:00

When Did the War Start? Or Did It?

By Dr. Michael Ledeen

Serious thinking, and a serious strategy, must begin with the fact that the war between Iran and America (and Israel) is on. To repeat: the war is on. It's been on for three decades.

PLEASE DONATE TO FSM !

2012 Fund Raising Campaign

FamilySecurityMatters.org publishes over 50 Contributing Editors whose expertise and experience on various topics is both valuable and costly. FSM also publishes a wealth of information you can use to join the fight to keep our families and our nation safe and sovereign. To help us carry these and other operating expenses, we ask that you be as generous as you possibly can during our 2012 Fund Raising Campaign. We need your tax-deductible support now more than ever! Just go here and fill out the form. You'll be able to charge a tax-deductible donation on your credit card or to send us a check - and please remember, every little bit helps!

Read FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor J. Christian Adams' SHOCKING new book! Buy it here

* VIDEOS * TODAY'S HOT PICKS *

1. VIDEO: Atheists Lose Battle Over WW II Veterans' Jesus Statue Atop Montana Mountain
2. VIDEO: Anarchists, Commies & "Tent Monster!"- Fitting Last Day of Occupy DC
3. Before We Thank Iran's Tanker Fleet...
4. VIDEO: College admits to inflating SAT scores for rankings
5. VIDEO: Radio Host Discusses Islam in the Americas
6. VIDEO: Acura Super Bowl ad brings back Seinfeld, Soup Nazi
7. VIDEO: White House Disregards Catholic Church's Objection to Contraception Mandate... decision is to require that Catholic orgs provide insurance that covers contraceptions...When pressed by FOX what did the WH press secretary say?
8. VIDEO: Flying People in New York City ?
9. VIDEO: Study Says Women Better at Parking Autos Than Men

Free Speech - For Some

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

According to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Lt. Gen. William Boykin exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech is seen as a "threat."

Anarchy, the New Threat

Daniel Pipes

The scourge of the twentieth century was overly-powerful governments; could the looming problem of this century be too-weak governments?

Iran Welcomes Leader of Gaza Terror Group

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report

Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of terrorist group Hamas in Gaza, is on a tour of the Middle East. He was warmly welcomed when he arrived in the terror-funding state of Iran.

The Gordian Knot of Medicare

Frank Hill

Undoing the Gordian knot was a test that all failed to solve until Alexander the Great took his sword and sliced through it. Is it possible to cut through the complexities of Medicare?

Today's Hot Topics

We choose, you peruse.

General Boykin and the War for Muslim Outreach Redux

Diana West

General Boykin withdrew from giving an address at West Point, after a coalition led by Islamists, urged a boycott. His "crime" was to link religion to the War on Terror, 8 years ago.

Preempt Iran -- At All Costs!

Yoram Ettinger

In 2012 Israel must decide between launching a pre-emptive attack to eliminate the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or facing it. Facing it would also mean facing Hamas and Hizbollah.

Signing Global Warming's Certificate of Death

Alan Caruba

After manufactured worry, sixteen scientists from around the globe came together to sign a document that said there is no need to worry about global warming.

Quote of the Day - February 1, 2012

FSM: Quote of the Day

Ayn Rand, writing 58 years before the events of 9/11...

Click here to sign up for FSM's e-mail updates!

UANI Launches SWIFT Campaign

2012-02-01T12:32:00.002-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 1, 2012

Contact: Nathan Carleton, press@uani.com

Phone: (212) 554-3296

UANI Launches SWIFT Campaign

Calls on SWIFT to Terminate Its Relationships with Iran's Banks and Financial Institutions

New York, NY - On Wednesday, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) launched it SWIFT campaign, and publicly called on the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication ("SWIFT") to terminate its relationship with Iranian banks and financial institutions.

SWIFT is the global means by which financial institutions transfer money to each other. Nearly every financial institution in the world-including in Iran-utilizes a unique SWIFT-assigned Business Identifier Code ("BIC"), which permits it to exchange and remit funds with other SWIFT members.

On Monday January 30, based on research and information developed over the past weeks, UANI submitted a detailed legal explanation to SWIFT, international banking and regulatory officials, and U.S. lawmakers, showing how SWIFT is in violation of U.S. and EU sanctions by affording Iranian banks BICs and access to the SWIFT system.

UANI also noted that SWIFT's activities with Iran's Central Bank and other institutions violate SWIFT's own corporate rules stipulating that "its services should not be used to facilitate illegal activities."

In a letter to SWIFT Chairman of the Board of Directors Yawar Shah Belgium, delivered to SWIFT's headquarters in Belgium and the United States, UANI President, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, wrote:

... [T]he global SWIFT system is used by Iran to finance its nuclear weapons program, to finance terrorist activities and to provide the financial support necessary to brutally repress its own people. The SWIFT 2010 Annual Review states that in 2010 Iran's 19 SWIFT member banks and 25 connected institutions had sent 1.160 million messages and received 1.105 messages - a 0.7% increase in messages sent and received since 2009. ("SWIFT Annual Review 2010," April 2011). Including branches, departments and head offices, there are 675 SWIFT codes listed for these institutions in Iran. (The SWIFT Codes Website, "Iran," accessed 01/27/2012). Each is a conduit for financing individual activities and in total they comprise the sole systemic means for Iran to access the global banking system.

Absent access to SWIFT, the dictatorial regime of Iran would be severely impeded in financing these illegal and amoral activities. SWIFT's continued presence in Iran provides the essential electronic means for the Iranian regime to finance its activities. For each day that SWIFT knowingly continues to provide Iran access to the international financial system, SWIFT will be increasingly complicit in Iran's nefarious behavior. SWIFT must immediately end its activities with Iranian financial institutions, and deny Iranian financial institutions access to the SWIFT system.

The United States and the EU have enacted a series of sweeping sanctions against Iran, including against Iran's Central Bank. Yet, Iran's Central Bank continues to have access to the international financial system through SWIFT. Even a cursory review of the Central Bank's website reveals the Bank's SWIFT code for transactions as BMJIIRTH. (Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, "Contact," accessed 01/27/2012)

****

SWIFT should responsibly end all SWIFT access to all Iranian banks. As it stands, SWIFT is in violation of law if it has continued to provide SWIFT access to sanctioned designated banks. Please immediately cease and desist from providing SWIFT access to these entities.

SWIFT's role in the Iranian financial system violates various sanctions laws including U.S. law and EU law. SWIFT's omnipresence in the United States financial system clearly subjects it to U.S. law including sanctions and other financial restrictions on business in Iran.

****

SWIFT's own Corporate Rules prohibit its activities in Iran. Under Section 1.4.1(1) of SWIFT'S Corporate Rules entitled "Responsibilities", "[i]t is SWIFT policy that its services should not be used to facilitate illegal activities." ... By permitting Iranian sanction-designated financial institutions, including Iran's Central Bank, and/or non-designated Iranian financial institutions to access SWIFT clearly runs afoul of SWIFT's own rules. SWIFT must deny Iran's Central Bank and all Iranian financial institutions access to the SWIFT system.

UANI has requested a reply on or before February 6, 2012.

Click here to read UANI's full letter to SWIFT.

Click here to send a message to SWIFT.

###

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran should concern every American and be unacceptable to the community of nations. Since 1979 the Iranian regime, most recently under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leadership, has demonstrated increasingly threatening behavior and rhetoric toward the US and the West. Iran continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations in their attempts to monitor its nuclear activities. A number of Arab states have warned that Iran's development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to Middle East stability and could provoke a regional nuclear arms race. In short, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is a danger to world peace.

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.

The Objectives of United Against a Nuclear Iran

Inform the public about the nature of the Iranian regime, including its desire and intent to possess nuclear weapons, as well as Iran's role as a state sponsor of global terrorism, and a major violator of human rights at home and abroad;
Heighten awareness nationally and internationally about the danger that a nuclear armed Iran poses to the region and the world;
Mobilize public support, utilize media outreach, and persuade our elected leaders to voice a robust and united American opposition to a nuclear Iran;
Lay the groundwork for effective US policies in coordination with European and other allies;
Persuade the regime in Tehran to desist from its quest for nuclear weapons, while striving not to punish the Iranian people, and;
Promote efforts that focus on vigorous national and international, social, economic, political and diplomatic measures.

UANI is led by an advisory board of outstanding national figures representing all sectors of our country.

Forward email

American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran | 45 Rockefeller Plaza | New York | NY | 10111

Moderate Muslim Group Backs NYPD Against Onslaught From Islamist Group CAIR and its Liberal Media Enablers.

2012-02-01T12:31:00.004-05:00

Home | Articles | Blog | About | Donate

Moderate Muslim Group Backs NYPD Against Onslaught From Islamist Group CAIR and its Liberal Media Enablers.

by Marc J. Fink • Jan 29, 2012 at 10:18 pm

http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2012/01/moderate-muslim-group-backs-nypd-from-islamist-group-cair-liberal-media-enablers

Send

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) Defends the NYPD's Use of The Critically-Acclaimed Documentary The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America in Counterterrorism Training.

A firestorm manufactured by New York Times (all the news that fits its agenda), and stoked by the Islamist group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), has forced the New York City Police Department to remove The Third Jihad documentary – praised by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as "a wake up call for America, " and narrated by a devout Muslim who served as a medical officer in the US Navy – from its counterterrorism training. The removal was followed by obsequious apologies and pleas for forgiveness from the department and current Mayor Michael Bloomberg amid further demands by CAIR for re-training and resignations.

This is the modus operandi of CAIR and other Islamist groups. Incremental Jihad. Political rather than violent. News conferences not bombs. Today: Tie the hands of law enforcement, fire the chief of police, force obsequiousness to radical Islamist groups. Tomorrow: Replace our constitutional republic with a Sharia compliant Amerika. Our freedoms and way of life subservient to the dictates of Sharia, subject to the whims and threats of the loudest and most radical Islamist groups.

_{Third Jihad}_{features exclusive interviews with some of the nation's leading counterterrorism experts, including, from left to right, former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge and famed historian Bernard Lewis.}

"CAIR is the terrorist organization Hamas's representation in the United States," explains Claire Lopez, a former CIA officer. "It is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation/Hamas funding trial of 2008." Indeed, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad once told an enthusiastic crowd, "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." Not to be outdone, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper was quoted as saying, "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."

But CAIR does not represent all, or even most Muslim Americans. The moderate Muslim group American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) issued a statement backing the NYPD and Chief Kelly in their efforts to fight Islamist radicalization. According to their website:

AIFD's mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism).

Third Jihad narrator Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of AIFD issued the following statement:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy unequivocally supports the efforts of the New York Police Department and its Commissioner Raymond Kelly to fight the insidious ideology of militant Islamism. ... This week's attacks on the NYPD and now Chief Kelly are yet another example of the depths of deception that groups such as CAIR are willing to go in order to suppress any criticism of the organization. ...

The story that the New York Times ran this week is over a year old. ... when a new kernel of information was released, CAIR seized that opportunity to reignite the furor. The "shocking" evidence was that 1,500 NYPD officers saw a film that is readily available to the general public and probably already viewed by millions.

This effort by CAIR is a blatant attempt to punish the NYPD and Chief Kelly for doing their job and to strike fear in the heart of anyone that does legitimate work in exposing their lifeblood of Islamism. Political correctness has made mere claims of discrimination and racial bias irrefutable and removed the ability for Americans to have honest discourse on religious issues.

The Third Jihad is not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. If it were I would not have been a part of it. For me, it was an opportunity to speak with my co-religionists about the threat that exists to our children and our very way of life. It is a wake-up call for our community to accept our responsibility to fight against an ideology within our communities that seeks to strip us of our Constitutional freedoms.

Read AIFD's entire statement here. And give their website some hits here.

The Third Jihad explores the existence of radical Islam in America and the emerging risk that this "homegrown jihad" poses to national security, western liberties and the "American way of life." According to The Third Jihad website:

The film, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following statement: "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them."

In 72 minutes, the film reveals that radical Islamists driven by a religiously motivated rejection of western values, cultures and religion are engaging in a multifaceted strategy to overcome the western world. In contrast to the use of "violent jihad" and terror to instill fear in "non-believers," The Third Jihad introduces the concept of "cultural jihad" as a means to infiltrate and undermine our society from within.

The Third Jihad producers have issued a response to the New York Times articles and subsequent removal of the film from NYPD counterterrorism training.

... It is clear that senior members of the NYPD saw value in the film, as did employees of the Federal Homeland Security Department, who first gave the DVD of the film to the NYPD. The Third Jihad features exclusive interviews with some of the nation's leading counterterrorism experts including former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

The New York Times has published two news articles (first, second), as well as an editorial entitled "Hateful Film" in the past 48 hours. ... Those that have blasted the film are attempting to stifle an important debate about the internal state of the Muslim community in America, and whether politicized Islam and indoctrination pose tangible security threats. ...

According to the New York Times, nearly 1500 officers, "from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers" reportedly were shown the film during a period of between three months and a year. ... CAIR is taking credit for the "investigation" which led to the New York Times' coverage, with a press release demanding that the NYPD install Muslim-sensitive materials in their training curriculum to offset what they consider to be an 'Islamaphobic' film. ...

What CAIR and the New York Times failed to clearly address, is that The Third Jihad is narrated by a devout Muslim, who has a significant record of serving the United States of America, as a medical officer in the US Navy and as an attending physician to the US Congress. ...

The film's message urges the Muslim community to look within itself to root out the indoctrination that affects a minority of Muslims.

The documentary is founded on credible evidence presented by the FBI of a "Manifesto" published by radicals calling for the implementation of extremist ideology-both violent and politicized-within the United States.

It is no surprise that CAIR does not like the content of the film. CAIR is singled out in the film for its direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, open support for Hamas, and links to terror financing.

CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest ever terror-financing trial in US History. As a result of these designations, the FBI has formally ceased all ties with CAIR-as should the NYPD and New York Times.

The Third Jihad producers also take issue with several inaccuracies and omissions in the New York Times articles:

Several other inaccuracies appear in the article. For example, the New York Times notes that the film includes a doctored photo of the White House with an Islamic flag atop. But the photo is one of many pieces of documented footage from Islamist sources. Yet the New York Times implies that the filmmakers were the ones to manipulate the photo.

The New York Times also inaccurately quotes the film by stating: "'This is the true agenda of Islam in America,' a narrator intones." But the actual quote from the film is: "This document shows the true agenda of much of Muslim leadership here in America."

The article intentionally omits that this narrator is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim.

The rest of the New York Times' coverage focuses on character assassination. While CAIR and others label the film Islamophobic, it is ironic that the film's detractors continuously point out that the film's producer has ties to Jewish organizations. The article inaccurately claims that Raphael Shore simultaneously works for Aish HaTorah.

Read the entire response from the producers here.

Perhaps just as troubling as CAIR's actions are Islamism's liberal enablers in the "mainstream" media. Not only in their dishonest advocacy disguised as reporting that led to the documentary being pulled, but in the way they cover the ensuing "controversy" – and who they cover.

_{A rally organized by CAIR to demand the firing of NYPD Chief Kelly only drew about 20 protesters -- about one for every microphone on the podium. Notice the Al Jazeera microphone in the middle.}

A Google News search found 1,011 news articles covering CAIR's calls for the resignation of the NYPD's chief, Commissioner Kelly. This, despite the fact that a CAIR organized rally attracted only about 20 protestors in New York (see photo above). A similar Google News search for reaction from the American Islamic Forum for Democracy produced exactly three articles, one from the Sacramento Bee and others from the obscure OneNewsNow and PipeLineNews.

The media portrays the radical Islamist groups as representing all Muslim Americans, while ignoring their direct ties to terrorist groups and sometimes open desire to eventually replace the Constitution with Sharia law.

On the other hand, moderate Muslim groups supporting the Constitution and the separation of mosque and state are shunned and marginalized.

Call or write your local news outlets and let them know you'd like to hear more from AIFD and other moderate Muslim groups found here, under "Anti-Islamist Muslim Groups."

Follow Islamist Watch as we continue to analyze the "controversy" surrounding The Third Jihad in the days to come.

Marc J. Fink is Director of Islamist Watch.

Related Topics: Censorship, Demonstrations, Free Speech, Government, Islamic Law (Shari'a), Lawful Islamism, Lobby Groups, Moderates, Police / FBI This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.islamist-watch.org/list_subscribe.php

Islamist Watch

Eye on Iran: Iran Praises Nuclear Talks With Team From U.N.

2012-02-01T12:31:00.001-05:00

For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.

Top Stories

NYT: "Iran said Tuesday that a team of United Nations nuclear inspectors visiting since the weekend had concluded 'constructive and positive' talks with Iranian officials, with further discussions planned at an unspecified date... In a sign that the sanctions could tighten further, United Against Nuclear Iran, a New York-based advocacy group that has successfully promoted other economic penalties against Iran, said it had started a campaign to publicize Iran's dependence on the global financial telecommunication network that nearly every financial institution uses to conduct business. On Monday the group sent a letter to the network, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as Swift, warning it to end all relations with Iran's central bank and 'deny access to all Iranian banks.' The letter asserted that Iran's membership in the network already violated American and European financial sanctions as well as Swift's own rules. There was no immediate comment to the letter from either Iran or Swift, which is headquartered in Belgium. Mark D. Wallace, president of United Against Nuclear Iran, said in a telephone interview that the group might seek Congressional hearings on Iran's Swift membership, which he described as crucial to the country's economic survival. 'This campaign has the potential to force action,' Mr. Wallace said. 'In some ways it's a silver bullet. If the Iranians don't have access to Swift, they can't get access to revenue.'" http://t.uani.com/xklJMe

WashPost: "An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb. In congressional testimony Tuesday, U.S. intelligence officials indicated that Iran has crossed a threshold in its adversarial relationship with the United States. While Iran has long been linked to attacks on American targets overseas, U.S. officials said they see troubling significance in Tehran's alleged role in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year. U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence to indicate that Iran is actively plotting attacks on U.S. soil. But Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said the thwarted plot 'shows that some Iranian officials - probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.'" http://t.uani.com/x9UbnS

Reuters: "Iran is feeling the bite from economic sanctions imposed over its nuclear program, which is capable of producing a weapon although Iranian leaders have not yet decided to do so, top intelligence chiefs told Congress on Tuesday. 'The sanctions have been biting much, much more literally in recent weeks than they have until this time,' CIA Director David Petraeus said at a Senate intelligence committee hearing. 'What we have to see now is how does that play out, what is the level of popular discontent inside Iran, does that influence the strategic decision-making of the Supreme Leader and the regime, keeping in mind that the regime's paramount goal in all that they do is their regime survival,' he said. Iran's currency, the rial, has lost 'considerable value' and there have been 'runs on the bank' as Iranians try to dump domestic currency and acquire assets that will hold value better as inflation 'takes off,' Petraeus said." http://t.uani.com/yjkElv

Nuclear Program & Sanctions

Reuters: "Senior U.N. nuclear inspectors plan another trip to Iran soon after holding what both sides described as 'good' talks about suspicions that the Islamic Republic is seeking the means to develop atomic weapons. The talks represented rare direct dialogue in the protracted international stand-off over Iran's nuclear activity. Tension has worsened in recent weeks with the West pursuing a punitive embargo on Iranian oil and Tehran threatening retaliation. Led by the International Atomic Energy Agency's global head of inspections, the IAEA team returned on Wednesday from three days of talks in Iran to try to end three years of deadlock in efforts to resolve questions about Tehran's nuclear work." http://t.uani.com/wmOGfp

AP: "Visiting U.N. inspectors did not visit any of the country's nuclear sites, Iran's official news agency reported Tuesday, concentrating instead on talks with officials. IRNA quoted an unnamed Iranian official as saying the team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency conducted negotiations with Iranians and did not visit the sites where uranium is being enriched. He said the talks were held in a 'positive and constructive atmosphere.' The report did not elaborate. There was no comment from the U.N. team." http://t.uani.com/xMz9uz

Reuters: "President Barack Obama will soon get regular, albeit incomplete, reports on how oil markets are coping ahead of broader sanctions on Iran that could help him justify easing off sanctions to prevent a politically damaging jump in crude prices. Under the latest Iranian sanctions signed into law late last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration must begin issuing reports by Feb 29 and every two months after that on oil production and prices as the United States moves to squelch Iranian oil shipments. The law imposes sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank. It's designed to rein in Iran's nuclear program by targeting its ability to sell oil, the country's lifeblood. The administration has nervously moved ahead with sanctions as it negotiates with some of Iran's biggest customers to reduce their imports of its oil." http://t.uani.com/zVYgWv

WSJ: "Canada said it is expanding its sanctions against Iranian companies and individuals, part of an effort in North America and Europe to pressure Iran to return to negotiations over the its nuclear program. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada is sanctioning five more companies and three individuals, adding to a list that now contains 49 individuals and 339 entities. 'These sanctions cover the known leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and block virtually all financial transactions with Iran, including those with the central bank,' he said in a statement." http://t.uani.com/zfXgNL

Domestic Politics

Bloomberg: "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed cutting the government's budget by 5.6 percent for the coming Iranian year while more than doubling military spending, state media reported. Ahmadinejad presented a draft budget of 5,100 trillion rials ($450 billion) to parliament today for review, the state- run Mehr news agency reported. The plan for the Iranian fiscal year that begins March 20 includes the government or public budget as well as spending for state-owned companies of some 4,000 trillion rials, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said." http://t.uani.com/zARxCm

Foreign Affairs

NYT: "As antigovernment forces in Syria's violent uprising have increased the pressure on President Bashar al-Assad to step down, Iran, his main Middle East supporter, also finds itself under siege, undermining a once-powerful partnership and longtime American foe. It is an unusual position for Iran, and its vulnerability in Syria has not been lost on the United States, which has been imposing stiff economic sanctions on both countries. In the calculus of predicting the political outcomes of the Arab Spring upheavals, some American officials and political analysts see the possible downfall of Mr. Assad as an event that could further undermine Iran as its economy reels under the sanctions imposed to get Tehran to suspend its nuclear program." http://t.uani.com/yVxoX2

Opinion & Analysis

WSJ Editorial Board: "Remember that bizarre story from last fall about an Iranian agent based in Texas who allegedly sought to conspire with Mexican drug gangs to blow up Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. in a crowded Washington, D.C., restaurant? The Justice Department insisted the story was true. Yet the Administration's reaction was otherwise muted, and the press corps went out of its way to cast doubt on the story. The Iranians can't be that crazy? Well, yes, they can be, at least according to President Obama's top intelligence adviser. In testimony yesterday to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned that Iran's leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, 'have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States as a response to real or perceived actions that threaten the regime.' Translation: Not only is Iran prepared to use terrorism in retaliation for any military strikes against it, they're also prepared to get their retaliation in first. 'There is more to unfold here,' he said. 'They're trying to penetrate and engage in this hemisphere.' Mr. Clapper, a former Air Force general, is not given to flights of exaggeration. That should give his warnings some weight, especially among those who believe that, for all the aggressive rhetoric, Iranian leaders conduct foreign policy in a prudent and rational way and are amenable to negotiations. Mr. Clapper's testimony comes as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is warning that Iran is about a year away from having a nuclear bomb. So here's a question to those who oppose military strikes on Iran: If the regime is prepared to stage terrorist strikes in America when they don't have a bomb, what will they be capable of when they do have one?" http://t.uani.com/Aam5ay

Claudia Rosett in Forbes: "With sanctions currently the U.S. tool of choice for thwarting Iran's terror networks and nuclear ambitions, the good news is that U.S. lawmakers are crafting new measures to cast a wider net. Let's hope that this time they don't leave a hole big enough for an Iranian oil tanker to sail right through. Make that a fleet of oil tankers. Despite the many sanctions now targeting Iran's regime, and bedeviling Iran's national merchant fleet, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran's main tanker fleet has so far remained exempt. If the aim is to contain and pressure Iran's regime, this is no small omission. Iran's main tanker fleet is owned by a company called NITC, formerly the National Iranian Tanker Company. Headquartered in Tehran, NITC ranks as the world's fourth largest operator of very large crude carriers, according to a leading London-based shipping information service, Lloyd's List, which reports that last year NITC was responsible for transporting 53 million tons of crude oil. Currently, NITC's web site lists a fleet of 39 tankers, which it uses to carry Iranian oil, and also charters out on the international market. NITC serves Iran not only as a vehicle for moving petroleum, but for enjoying business access and networking opportunities. In its chartering activities, NITC says it aims, among other things, to 'build close relationships with reputable charters and shipbroking firms,' and call at 'a wide variety of global ports and terminals.' NITC describes itself on its web site as employing more than 3,000 staff, including 2,500 seafaring personnel, of whom about 85% are Iranian nationals. NITC tankers call freely at ports from Europe to the Far East. Within the past five weeks, for instance, an NITC tanker, the Sepid, has called at the Greek port of Piraeus; two more NITC tankers, the Saveh and the Sarvestan, have called at the Dutch port of Rotterdam, where NITC keeps an office... NITC officials have been protesting that it makes no sense for the U.S. to sanction them. They say that while NITC was once owned by Iran's state oil company, NITC was privatized 12 years ago and is 'not a state company,' as NITC's commercial director, Habibolah Seyedan told Reuters last week. He also said that NITC has no links to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. Since the U.S. blacklisted the IRGC in 2007 for its role in Iran's proliferation activities, both U.S. and European Union sanctions authorities have targeted a growing number of IRGC-related entities linked to Iran's terror and proliferation networks... Before U.S. lawmakers rush to thank NITC, however, they might want to ask just how many degrees of separation actually distance NITC and its officials from Iran's regime and the IRGC." http://t.uani.com/ydpCxD

Sadanand Dhume in WSJ: "How should India respond to U.S.-led efforts to halt Iran's suspected rogue nuclear weapons program? An India that uses its oil purchases and diplomatic clout to create breathing room for Iran risks scuppering the notion New Delhi has benefited from for more than a decade: that India's rise is beneficial to the West. By contrast, should India throw its weight behind a powerful anti-Iran coalition, it stands to gain by halting the further nuclearization of its neighborhood, blunting the spread of radical Islam and bolstering its credentials as a force for stability. You would think India would decisively choose the latter path, but it's unclear where it stands on this question as of now. On one hand, since 2005, New Delhi has voted against Tehran three times at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has declared that India opposes the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, and has also withdrawn from negotiations to build a gas pipeline linking India to Iran via Pakistan. At the same time, New Delhi shows little appetite for stepping up sanctions against the Islamic Republic, especially the recent round of U.S.-EU ones. On Sunday, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee declared that 'it is not possible for India to take any decision to reduce the imports from Iran drastically.'" http://t.uani.com/xXuw16

Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.

#1137 Pipes blogs: MEF does strategy; dangerous anarchy

2012-01-31T19:50:00.002-05:00

Daniel
Pipes

January 31, 2012

Homepage | Articles | Blog

You can follow Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum on their Facebook and Twitter pages.

Join Daniel Pipes on a Fact Finding Expedition to Israel (For full details click here)

The Middle East Forum: Strategy, not Advocacy

by Daniel Pipes
January 31, 2012

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/01/the-middle-east-forum-strategy-not-advocacy

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Given the many excellent organizations dealing with Middle Eastern and Islamic issues, what niches does the Middle East Forum's fill? We provide strategic counsel, as opposed to advocacy or apologetics. To understand what this means, look at the Arab-Israeli conflict, which attracts particularly intense attention and vehement views.

Advocates fill the news pages and airwaves with passionate statements of justification and condemnation. Their work involves morality: which of the combatants acts with justice, and which acts in evil ways? Those advocates who win this argument shape public opinion and that, in turn, influences or even determines government policies.

But morality and justice are not the only important debate; another one, more specialized, concerns strategy – not who is right or wrong, but how to win. This latter discussion focuses on an assessment of forces and offers ideas how to achieve one's goals. The strategist takes the goals for granted (i.e., a secure Israel) and focuses on achieving them.

Advocacy and strategy each have their role. The advocate speaks of right and wrong, the strategist deals with success and failure. Passion marks the former, ice runs in the latter's veins. The advocate would choke on presenting his adversary's viewpoint but the strategist routinely puts himself in his opponent's place (think of war games). For example, I have imagined myself in charge of the Islamist movement, figuring out what it should do so as to understand how best to stop it.

Like most research institutes, the Middle East Forum focuses primarily on strategic activities. This is, I believe, the best use of our having devoted years or even decades to the study of our topics. To defend our outlook, attack the views of our opponents, and convince the undecided are crucial tasks, but not ours. We focus on helping our side figure out how to win. Not being based in Washington, the Forum's work is directed primarily toward two audiences: (1) the public and (2) specialists who both share our outlook and seek information, analysis, and policy recommendations.

For example, when I discussed the media's biased coverage of Israel, I do so not to discredit it but to understand its logic and to suggest ways for those concerned with Israel's security and welfare to deal with it. Likewise, during the Gaza hostilities of 2008-09, I stayed away from justifying Israel's conduct or excoriating Hamas but instead criticized Israeli strategic ineptitude and offered an alternative approach.

Debates, responses, corrections, defenses, polemics, and apologetics have a crucial role; but the Forum is engaged in finding the path to victory. (January 31, 2012)

Related Topics: Daniel Pipes autobiographical, US policy

Anarchy, the New Threat

by Daniel Pipes
January 28, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/01/anarchy-the-new-threat

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

The scourge of the twentieth century was overly-powerful governments; could the looming problem of this century be too-weak governments?

The political scientist R. J. Rummel estimates, in his evocatively titled study, Death by Government (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1994) with revised numbers in 2005, that deaths at the hands of one's own government in the period 1900-87 amounted to 212 million persons, while deaths from warfare numbered 34 million. In other words, victims of their own government (what he calls democide) were in fact over six times greater than those killed in the century's wars.

The largest number of fatalities was 78 million killed by the Chinese Communists, then 62 million by the Soviet Communists, 21 million by the Nazis, 10 million by the Chinese nationalists, and 6 million by the Japanese militarists. Even this listing is incomplete; as Rummel puts it, "post-1987 democides by Iraq, Iran, Burundi, Serbia and Bosnian Serbs, Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia, the Khmer Rouge guerrillas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and others have not been included."

And while murderous regimes certainly continue to rule and massacre, there is a new danger looming – anarchy. Consider several cases in the Middle East in chronological order:

Afghanistan: Since the coup d'état that overthrew the king in 1973, Afghanistan has not had a central government that could effectively control the country.
Lebanon: Once called the "Switzerland of the Middle East," Lebanon has endured a mix of totalitarian rule by Syria and anarchy since the country's civil war began in 1975.
Somalia: The Siad Barre regime fell in 1991 and has lacked anything remotely resembling a central government since then. The country's anarchy has led to a massive piracy problem in the Indian Ocean that already in 2007 was called "frightening and unacceptable" and since has grown yet worse.
Palestinian Authority: Thanks to mismanagement and aggression, the Palestinian Authority has lost most of its authority since taking power in 1994. Half of its territory is under a hostile organization, Hamas.
Iraq: The U.S. government made the mistake of disbanding Iraq's army after the defeat of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the country has yet to tame the subsequent chaos.
Yemen: It's difficult to pinpoint a date when the country became anarchic, but the Houthi War of 2009 offers a reasonable starting point.
Libya: Since the uprising against Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi in early 2011, the country has not had a central power.

Syria is not yet anarchic but the regime has lost control of several towns (Zabadani, Saqba) and more could be on the way.

The same story holds in many countries of Africa, including Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Parts of Russia and Mexico suffer from anarchy. Piracy has grown to the point that it afflicts several parts of the world.

Because this pattern is so much at variance with the old problem of overweening central government, it tends not to be seen. But it is real and it needs to be recognized. (January 28, 2012)

Related Topics: Middle East patterns This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php
(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 1-2 times a week.)

Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles)
Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases)
at http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php

DanielPipes.org

Flights of fancy

2012-01-31T19:48:00.001-05:00

Visit our News page

January 31, 2012

Flights of fancy

We find it ironic that the author of the column below that recently appeared in the Washington Post is also the author of “Holy Ignorance.”

How else to explain how someone can be so blind to what is happening in countries like Egypt? Has he not read the polls taken in Egypt over the past few years, showing strong support for sharia law?

Does he really believe that the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist political parties, which won over 2/3 of the seats in Egypt’s parliamentary elections, were elected simply because they promised a better economy?

Does he really believe the Muslim Brotherhood would support the right of Muslims to convert to Islam?

There are those who see what they want to see, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Many of them are in our government, in the media, in academia. We, too, would be delighted to see a reformed Muslim Brotherhood, one that, according to the author below, is “middle class bourgeois.” One that has given up its aspirations for worldwide Islamist rule.

But we can’t afford to engage in such flights of fancy.

A new generation of political Islamists steps forward

By Olivier Roy, Published: January 20

Olivier Roy is a professor at the European University Institute in Florence and the author of “Holy Ignorance.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/muslim-brotherhood-other-islamists-have-changed-their-worldview/2012/01/10/gIQAZgjoEQ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

Everywhere, the Muslim Brotherhood is benefiting from a democratization it did not trigger. There is a political vacuum because the liberal vanguard that initiated the Arab Spring did not try, and did not want, to take power. This was a revolution without revolutionaries. Yet the Muslim Brothers are the only organized political force. They are rooted in society, and decades of opposition against authoritarian regimes gave them experience, legitimacy and respect. Their conservative agenda fits a conservative society, which may welcome democracy but did not turn liberal.

Under these circumstances, the ghost of a totalitarian Islamic state is raised, with the specter of imposing sharia and closing the short democratic parenthesis. But such an outcome is unlikely.

The Islamists have, in fact, changed: They are more middle-class “bourgeois,” and they benefited from the liberalization of local economies during the last decades of the 20th century, especially in countries with no oil rent. The Islamists have also drawn lessons from the failure of ideological regimes and from the success of Turkey’s AKP party. They are no longer advocating jihad and understand geostrategic constraints, such as the need to maintain peace, even a cold one, with Israel. Realism is the starting point of political wisdom.

The Islamists have been elected with a clear agenda: stability, good governance and a better economy. If they have been able to reach a larger constituency than the hard-core supporters of sharia, it is precisely because they can combine such a reformist agenda while talking about religion, values, identity and tradition. The Nahda party won the majority of the votes cast at the Tunisian consulate of San Francisco, although Tunisian expatriates in Silicon Valley are not known for their Islamic fundamentalism.

This mix of technocratic modernism and conservative values is their brand, and to turn their back on multipartism and legalism would alienate a large portion of their constituency, at a time when they have no means to confiscate power. They have neither military forces nor oil wealth to bypass the people: They have to negotiate and deliver. Their electorate wants stability and peace, not revolution.

They are stepping into a new political landscape: a democracy, although a fledgling and fragile one. The only way to maintain their legitimacy is through elections. Even if their pristine political culture is not democratic, they are formatted by the democratic landscape, much as the Roman Catholic Church ended up accepting democratic institutions. But it will take time.

Another important change, if we refer to the “revolutionary” period of the 1970s and 1980s, is that the Muslim Brothers do not monopolize Islam in the public sphere. In fact, the religious revival that has engulfed Arab societies led to a diversification and an individualization of the religious field. Religious state institutions such as Al Azhar, so recently discredited, are regaining autonomy after so recently being discredited. Al Azhar’s dean, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, openly spoke in favor of democracy and of separating religious institutions from the state. A new phenomenon is the decision of the Salafis, an ultraconservative Sunni sect, to establish political parties. On the one hand they will push for a more Islamic agenda, trying to outbid the Muslim Brothers on Islam, but this will force the Brotherhood to clarify its own position and to find a way to distance itself from the call for sharia.

To do that, the Muslim Brothers have to turn purely Islamic norms into more universal conservative values — such as limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol in a way that is closer to Utah’s rules than to Saudi laws and promoting “family values” instead of imposing sharia norms on women.

In the coming months the hot issue in Egypt, beyond the status of women, will be religious freedom. Not in the sense that Coptic Christians will have less freedom to practice — there were a lot of limitations under the so-called secular dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak — but in defining religious freedom as not merely a minority right but an individual human right, implying the right to convert from Islam to Christianity.

The issue is institutionalizing democracy, not promoting liberal policies. Democracy could take hold only if it is based in well-established values. Liberalism does not precede democracy; America’s Founding Fathers were not liberal. But once democracy is rooted in institutions and political culture, then the debate on freedom, censorship, social norms and individual rights could be managed through freedom of expression and changes of majorities in parliament. However, there will be no institutionalization of democracy without the Muslim Brothers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

Khashan in MEQ: "The Pragmatics of Lebanon's Politics"

2012-01-31T19:47:00.003-05:00

Follow the Middle East Forum

The Pragmatics of Lebanon's Politics

by Hilal Khashan
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2012 (view PDF)

http://www.meforum.org/3162/lebanon-pragmatic-politics

Send

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Lebanese society has had a remarkable ability to overcome deep-rooted sectarian and religious divides that could readily have imploded less problematic countries. This has been largely due to its pragmatic political system, which avoids acting upon polarizing issues on principle, opting instead for pragmatic loopholes. Given their confessional political system, Lebanese are conditioned to think pragmatically even when the issue at hand is divisive and does not lend itself to resolution. In Lebanon, pragmatism is a necessity and not an option as failure to accommodate other sects might ruin the country's delicate fabric.

Three vivid illustrations of this dynamic can be seen in the handling of the issues preoccupying Lebanese decision-makers these days: Hezbollah's continued militarization, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), and the Syrian connection.

Hezbollah's Militarization

Demands to disarm Hezbollah have grown since its 2006 war with Israel from Sunni as well as from some Shiite politicians only to be countered by other leaders in the patchwork politics that is Lebanon.

Most non-Shiite Lebanese find it difficult to accept Hezbollah's armament and have not missed an opportunity to express displeasure with the fact that, while the 1989 Ta'if agreement called for the demilitarization of all Lebanese militias, Hezbollah was exempted on the grounds that it was resisting Israel's presence in southern Lebanon. As much as they disapprove of Hezbollah's behavior, Lebanese find it politically correct to praise its "resistance." The proverb "kiss the hand you cannot bite" seems to fit the way many Lebanese view the militant Islamist group.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that Hezbollah's military buildup and its rivals' intensifying demand for its disarmament have been the most divisive issue since Israel's withdrawal from its security zone in south Lebanon in May 2000. This demand for disarmament gained considerable momentum after the July 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war as the eviction of Hezbollah from its bases south of the Litani River and the deployment of the Lebanese army in its place led critics to question the need for the group's continued militarization.

Thus, for example, the pro-Hariri member of parliament (MP) Ahmad Fatfat argued that Hezbollah's primary concern had shifted from confronting Israel to controlling Lebanon "and transforming it into a forward base on the Mediterranean for Iran."[1] His parliamentary peer Sami Jemayyil compared "Hezbollah's expansionist behavior in Lebanon" to that of the Zionists, while former Lebanese president Amin Jemayyil noted that "Hezbollah seems preoccupied these days with controlling the site of the Lebanese government in Beirut and the Special Tribunal's location in [the] Hague."[2] Addressing his supporters on the sixth anniversary of the March 14 coalition, former prime minister Saad Hariri criticized "the supremacy of [Hezbollah's] arms and the manner in which it is influencing the formation of the country's forthcoming cabinet [of Najib Miqati]."[3]

Even Nabih Berri, speaker of parliament and leader of the Shiite Amal movement—who showered Hezbollah with praise and defended its right to resist "the Israeli occupation" as "nonnegotiable"[4]—was paraphrased by a released Wikileaks cable as having privately said that "he supported Israeli military action against Hezbollah in 2006 as long as it did not backfire and create more public support for the party."[5]

It makes eminent sense for Berri to wish the demise of Hezbollah, whose rise to prominence among Lebanese Shiites came at Amal's expense. This does not seem to be the case with Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who has perfected the shadowy art of doublespeak, rejecting Hezbollah's use of arms for domestic purposes while refusing "to expose Lebanon to Israeli aggression."[6] Jumblatt won notoriety for continuously vacillating from one political camp to another. His ambivalent statement above suggests that he does not preclude the possibility of returning to the March 14 coalition should Hezbollah's fortunes wane.

But most surprising and perplexing was the change of heart of Bishara Boutros Rai since his appointment as Maronite patriarch in March 2011. In his previous capacity as archbishop of Byblos, he voiced deep concern over Hezbollah's arsenal.[7] Once appointed to the top religious post, however, he expressed understanding of the group's reluctance to disarm: "The international community has not pressured Israel to pull out of Lebanese territory. Hezbollah also wants to help armed Palestinians in Lebanon who want to be granted the right of return to their lands. … When this happens, we will tell Hezbollah to disarm."[8] Ibrahim Amin Said, head of Hezbollah's politburo, concurred: "The issue has nothing to do with the manner in which the resistance uses its arms as some would like to argue; the issue pertains to the justification of the very existence of the resistance, and whether Lebanon should have a defense force capable of deterring the Israeli enemy."[9]

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

The issue of the U.N. Special Tribunal is even more divisive than Hezbollah's militarization. While Hezbollah takes pride in its weapons, presented as a deterrent to Israel, its implication in the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri brings shame to the organization. It seems that Hezbollah is more concerned about the moral blow to its image and prestige attending an association with the assassination than the arrest of its indicted members and their surrender to the U.N. Special Tribunal. The tribunal for its part scaled down the scope of its investigation, choosing to indict individuals in Hezbollah rather than the organization itself.

Accommodation and pragmatism have been extended even to the pursuit of justice where a delicate balance was struck between law enforcement and public peace. At least in their public pronouncements, Hezbollah spokesmen were still dissatisfied with the tribunal, even in its reduced scope. In a press conference held by Muhammad Raad, head of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, he described the tribunal as a "creation that serves international interests at the expense of the will and interests of the Lebanese people and their constitutional institutions" and called upon "all free, honorable, and nationalist Lebanese, regardless of their affiliations and positions, to boycott the tribunal's requests."[10] Nabil Qawuq, deputy chair of Hezbollah's Executive Council, derided the indictment of Hezbollah personnel as "an effort by the U.S. to compensate for its political defeats in Lebanon and the rest of the region."[11] Hashim Safieddine, chair of the council, ridiculed the Special Tribunal as "a political and media farce totally divorced from the pursuit of justice."[12]

Despite the overwhelming evidence implicating Hezbollah in the assassination, Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and his allies have never ceased to plead the group's innocence. As soon as the tribunal indicted four Hezbollah members in the assassination, Nasrallah described them as honorable men who resisted Israel's occupation and, instead, laid the blame on the Jewish state, which had allegedly plotted the indictments.[13] When the tribunal revealed the names of these operatives shortly afterward and requested the Lebanese government to turn them in within thirty days to stand trial, Nasrallah responded disdainfully: "They cannot find them or arrest them in thirty days, or sixty days, or in a year, two years, thirty years, or three hundred years."[14] Nasrallah advised the leaders of the March 14 opposition not to expect the government of Prime Minister Najib Miqati to do in connection with the tribunal "what the government of his predecessor Saad Hariri couldn't do."[15]

For his part, Miqati emphasized Beirut's commitment to fulfill its international commitments, which included "paying its share of $32 million toward the cost of the STL operations,"[16] yet refused to "talk about solutions now, because I want the government efforts to succeed."[17] He also disregarded U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's concern about the Lebanese government's reaction to the deepening crisis in Syria, noting that he would not "endanger Lebanon by violating the rules of the international legitimacy."[18]

This did not escape Hezbollah's eye. Though repeatedly voicing his disapproval of financing the tribunal, Nasrallah and his colleagues were sympathetic to Miqati's predicament, claiming that the prime minister "must not be embarrassed by the reaction of the international community and his own constituency if he reneges on Lebanon's commitments."[19] They understand all too well that there is nothing they can do to stop the working of the tribunal. They can resent it and plead their innocence with their Shiite constituents—the main target audience of Hezbollah's rhetoric. As far as Hezbollah's leadership is concerned, what matters is how the Shiite community perceives them; the tribunal's activities are of far lesser concern as they seem to believe that its eventual impact will be minimal.

The Syrian Nexus

Lebanon's government finds itself in an unenviable position of having to accommodate Syrian interests and sensitivities, on the one hand, and the positions of its own divided communities vis-à-vis Syria, on the other. Ever since Lebanese independence, Damascus has been a constant political actor in its neighbor's affairs, forcing successive Lebanese governments to play a delicate game of appeasing everyone. Thus, for example the Lebanese government has recently stated that it cannot support a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria, but it will abide by international resolutions, irrespective of what it thought of them.[20]

For their part, the Syrians have never reconciled themselves to Lebanon's creation on what they perceive as part of their territory. They also resented Beirut's development during the French Mandate from a slumbering provincial city into a business, medical, and educational hub, and it did not take long for relations to sour after the French departed in 1946. In 1950, the Syrian regime unilaterally dissolved the bilateral customs union and instigated the practice of closing down passenger and trade routes at will. Since then, bilateral relations have been characterized by envy, suspicion, resentment, and hate. It took the entry of the Syrian army into Lebanon in 1976 to finally give the Damascus regime a sense of vindication. Damascus's hegemony in Lebanon lasted until 2005 when the Syrian army pulled out shortly after Hariri's assassination.

Given their intense involvement in Lebanese affairs, the Syrians could always count on Lebanese allies. Certainly, any government in Beirut, irrespective of its relations with Damascus, understands the inherent mindset of the regime, which views the Lebanese as unappreciative of the selfless sacrifices of the Syrians on their behalf. Because Syrian officials seem to believe that retribution follows ingratitude, their Lebanese counterparts have been especially careful to avoid incurring their wrath. This has been particularly the case since the beginning of the Syrian uprising in mid-March 2011. The simultaneous inception of the Syrian protests with the decision of the March 14 coalition to boycott the Miqati cabinet gave ammunition to Damascus's official claim that "the security of the two countries is inseparable."[21] The Bashar al-Assad regime immediately accused the Future Trend party of providing material support for anti-regime elements. The secretariat general of the March 14 coalition responded by issuing a denouncement of the Baath regime's "baseless accusations of intervention in Syrian affairs, including support for saboteur networks."[22]

There is no denying that many Lebanese, especially Sunni Muslims, have expressed jubilation about the Syrian uprising, criticizing the Miqati government's decision to refrain from providing relief for the thousands of refugees fleeing Syrian army reprisals. Tripoli MP Muhammad Kabbara urged the Lebanese people to take the side of the Syrian people: "I hurt because the brotherly Syrian people are subjected to a systematic massacre, and I am ashamed because we are letting them down. We are under history's watchful eye. We must take political, moral, and humanitarian action to lend support to the Syrian people."[23] As in most protest organizing in Arab countries, the mosques played a key role in galvanizing Lebanese support for the anti-Assad movement. One hundred Sunni clerics convened in a Tripoli mosque to "express solidarity with the glorious popular uprising in Syria and to condemn the brutality of the Assad regime against unarmed protesters." They took issue with the regime's "labeling of demonstrators as foreign lackeys."[24]

In response to a call by the militant Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party)[25] for a pro-rebel demonstration in downtown Beirut, Lebanon's Arab Youth Party (a Syrian intelligence creation with no active membership) organized a counter rally in support of Assad. Party head Nadim Shimali condemned the anti-Assad rally as a violation of the 1989 Ta'if agreement, which stipulated that Lebanon would not allow itself to provide a base for any force, state, or organization seeking to undermine Syria's security. He urged the Lebanese authorities to crack down on anti-Syrian activities, threatening that otherwise his party would be forced to take matters into its own hands.[26] "The security forces complied with Shimali's warning and ensured that no activity would take place in Beirut or Tripoli to support the Syrian protest movement," lamented a communiqué issued by Hizb al-Tahrir. "They threatened to prevent any show of support outside mosques. In contrast, the [Lebanese] authorities allowed a handful of the Syrian regime's gangsters to demonstrate."[27]

However, this complaint was not entirely true. The government tried to strike a middle-of-the-road approach to the Lebanese divide vis-à-vis the Syrian upheavals. Lebanon's open political system did not interfere with the free expression of opinion on the Syrian situation. The Phalange Party, for example, announced that its branches in northern Lebanon were providing humanitarian and social aid "to Syrian families seeking refuge there."[28] The Future Trend party and Islamist groups threw themselves into providing humanitarian aid to several thousand Syrian refugees despite protests by the Syrian government and Hezbollah on the grounds that the refugees included subversive elements. The Lebanese military simply pulled out from the border area and allowed the Syrian army to chase defectors while, at the same time, it did not attempt to prevent sympathetic Lebanese groups from providing them with shelter. The Beirut government did all within its power to minimize the damage to its relations with Damascus as a result of the strong support among most Lebanese for the Syrian uprising. Foreign Minister Adnan Mansur made it clear that Beirut would not vote in favor of a Security Council resolution condemning Damascus.[29] This position was hardly defensible or consistent given that Lebanon's ambassador to the U.N. had proposed that the Security Council implement a no-fly zone over Libya to protect its people from the excesses of the Qaddafi regime.

The spread of protests inside Syria coincided with the deterioration of the security situation in Lebanon, including several attacks against the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the south of the country. According to Fares Said, coordinator of the secretariat of the March 14 coalition, the surge of violence in Lebanon appears to be tied to statements from Damascus. Said was specifically alluding to the attacks on the French and Italian contingents in UNIFIL, the abduction of seven Estonians in the Bekaa Valley, and the Marun al-Ras incident where the Israelis opened fire on demonstrators who attempted to climb the border fence.[30] Indeed, Assad's cousin Rami Makhluf had warned that Israelis could not expect to live in peace while Syrians suffered from turmoil whereas Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem threatened that EU sanctions against Damascus were bound to have an adverse impact on Europe's security.[31]

Small wonder that the Assad regime exhibited anger at expressions of solidarity with the protesters, especially by the Lebanese armed forces and the Phalange. Phalange MP Nadim Jemayyil made a statement that particularly infuriated the Syrian regime: "We cannot but side with the Syrian people in their confrontation of the repressive and dictatorial regime. We are willing to open a new chapter with the Syrian people and join hands to build a new Middle East founded on freedom and democracy."[32] Assad's people expected nothing less than such statements as Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah asserted that Washington was punishing Damascus by promoting the Syrian protest movement "in order to settle historical scores with the country that has always stood on the side of the forces of opposition to Israeli and American occupation."[33]

President Assad seemed in no mood for advice, certainly not from mercurial Druze chief Jumblatt who exhorted him "to think differently and recognize his people's legitimate demands in order to prevent Syria from slipping into chaos." Speaking carefully to avoid triggering a defensive reaction, Jumblatt explained that "the best advice he could give to the Syrian president had to be motivated by truthfulness, and not flattery."[34] When the Druze leader would not cease his repeated calls on Assad to reform, the Syrian authorities finally informed him that he was unwelcome in Damascus.[35] For Assad, his late father's brutally repressive practices of the 1970s and 1980s appeared fully appropriate in the second decade of the twenty-first century. He may have believed that his Tunisian and Egyptian counterparts fell too soon because they did not use sufficient force to suppress the opposition. Among his many repressive measures, Assad instructed his Beirut ambassador Ali Abdulkarim to chase and apprehend Syrian enemies of the regime in Lebanon. Indeed, Abdulkarim was singled out for U.S. and EU sanctions for his role in abducting opposition members in collusion with Lebanese authorities.[36]

The Lebanese government clamped down on Syrian opposition in Lebanon because of heavy pressure by the Assad regime to do so. Yet it showed leniency in dealing with the anti-Assad Lebanese protesters. Members of the Syrian opposition in Lebanon are not part of the country's political process and can be readily controlled. Dealing with the Lebanese groups and sects, by contrast, is a different matter altogether as they have a veto power and can bring the country's political system to a standstill.

Rational Polemics

Lebanon is not a failed state. Though its self-steering capability is grossly wanting, it is perfectly capable of making waves. Its political system may be akin to a person paralyzed below the waist but with functioning arms and intact vocal abilities. The creation of Greater Lebanon may not have been an entirely happy historical accident, yet it appears to be quite capable of dealing with its disabilities. It cannot make its own sovereign decisions, but it can almost always modify them to fit the exigencies of its unique political formula. For some countries, controversy can be politically debilitating; in Lebanon, it is a means of survival.

Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

[1] An-Nahar (Beirut), Mar. 14, 2011.
[2] Ibid., Sept. 2, 2011.
[3] Al-Liwa (Beirut), Mar. 14, 2011.
[4] As-Safir (Beirut), Sept. 3, 2011.
[5] "No One Likes Them," Now Lebanon (Beirut), Sept. 15, 2011.
[6] Al-Hayat (London), Mar. 28, 2011.
[7] Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (Beirut), Feb. 9, 2010.
[8] As-Safir, Sept. 9, 2011.
[9] Al-Manar TV (Beirut), Mar. 21, 2011.
[10] An-Nahar, Mar. 5, 2011.
[11] Al-Jarida (Beirut), Mar. 6, 2011.
[12] An-Nahar, May 15, 2011.
[13] BBC World News, July 3, 2011.
[14] Ibid., July 29, 2011.
[15] As-Safir, July 4, 2011.
[16] As-Siyasa (Kuwait), Sept. 6, 2011.
[17] The Daily Star (Beirut), Sept. 12, 2011.
[18] An-Nahar, Sept. 3, 2011.
[19] Ukaz (Riyadh), Sept. 7, 2011.
[20] Ar-Rai (Kuwait), Oct. 4, 2011.
[21] Al-Jarida, May 28, 2011.
[22] An-Nahar, Apr. 21, 2011.
[23] Ibid., May 17, 2011.
[24] Al-Akhbar (Cairo), May 9, 2011.
[25] Committed to the reintroduction of the worldwide caliphate, this party rejects the existing order in all Arab and Islamic states and advocates its violent overthrow.
[26] The Daily Star, June 4, 2011.
[27] An-Nahar, June 4, 2011.
[28] Al-Anwar, May 27, 2011.
[29] As-Siyasa, Sept. 18, 2011.
[30] An-Nahar, May 29, 2011.
[31] Ibid.; al-Akhbar, Apr. 11, 2011.
[32] Al-Liwa, May 31, 2011.
[33] An-Nahar, May 9, 2011.
[34] Ibid., May 24, 2011.
[35] Al-Anba (Fallujah), Sept. 24, 2011.
[36] Ukaz, Sept. 7, 2011.

Related Topics: Lebanon | Hilal Khashan | Winter 2012 MEQ To receive the full, printed version of the Middle East Quarterly, please see details about an affordable subscription. This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php

The Middle East Forum

Solsticewitch13's BOS

Daniel Greenfield article: Muslim Firsters and Israel Firsters

Brief Reviews from Winter 2012 MEQ

The Making of a Human Bomb An Ethnography of Palestinian Resistance (The Culture and Practice of Violence)

The Mobilization of Political Islam in Turkey

The Prime Ministers An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership

2-01-12: Free Speech - For Some (Plus: White House Disregards Catholic Church's Objection...)

By Dr. Michael Ledeen

Serious thinking, and a serious strategy, must begin with the fact that the war between Iran and America (and Israel) is on. To repeat: the war is on. It's been on for three decades.

Read FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor J. Christian Adams' SHOCKING new book! Buy it here

UANI Launches SWIFT Campaign

Moderate Muslim Group Backs NYPD Against Onslaught From Islamist Group CAIR and its Liberal Media Enablers.

Moderate Muslim Group Backs NYPD Against Onslaught From Islamist Group CAIR and its Liberal Media Enablers.

Eye on Iran: Iran Praises Nuclear Talks With Team From U.N.

#1137 Pipes blogs: MEF does strategy; dangerous anarchy

Daniel Pipes

The Middle East Forum: Strategy, not Advocacy

Anarchy, the New Threat

Flights of fancy

Khashan in MEQ: "The Pragmatics of Lebanon's Politics"

The Pragmatics of Lebanon's Politics

Hezbollah's Militarization

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

The Syrian Nexus

Rational Polemics

The Making of a Human Bomb
An Ethnography of Palestinian Resistance (The Culture and Practice of Violence)

The Prime Ministers
An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership

Daniel
Pipes