WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

April 26, 2003

attn: Peaceniks

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.[more]
Kofi Annan to go

Amin Gemayel Tipped as Next U.N. Chief with Rumsfeld's Backing,

Zogby opines
This would be an excellent choice for a variety of reasons. Gemayel, a Maronite Christian Arab, is pro-America, and not a anti-semite, and I urge anyone to tell me the last U.N. Secretary General (UNSG) that fit that description. Also, it would show the Arabs that we're not anti-Arab, and if they reject him on religious grounds, it will expose them for the racist bigots that they are. Another reason for making Gemayel the new UNSG would be that much needed financial reforms could finally be implemented and corruption could be reduced along with the bloated and ineffective bureaucracy. Kofi Annan has been a failure, and he needs to go. Gemayel, it seems to me, would be a perfect choice to replace him. And, Rumsfeld seems to agree.

Why Israel is so Important

The remaining 600,000 Jews in France (largest Jewish population in the EU) are fleeing as quickly as they can to the last Jewish refuge on earth, Israel.

There would be appx. 96 million Jews in the world today without the Holocaust, there are 12.6 million instead.

Jews are a shrinking population, an endangered human species and Israel is their only worldwide sanctuary to seek refuge from the continuous anti-semitism of 2,000 years the world over (A Overview of 2000 Years of Jewish Persecution).

That is why Israel, a safe and secure Israel free of arab terrorism, is so important.

There is a great book by John Loftus titled: The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.

John Loftus is the Irishman, former federal prosecutor, and pursuer of sami al-arian, suing the Saudis for the September 11th victim's families for 1 trillion dollars.

The SHRINKING State of Israel

Pick Your Illusion

That is Martin Sherman's kind offer in Saturday's JPOST

"The image of a new false prophet is rising above the wreckage of shattered hopes and abandoned dreams that litter the desolate political landscape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This latest illusion comes in shape of Abu Mazen.

For the fanatical adherents of peace (or rather, of withdrawal), the newly elected Palestinian PM is the last gleam of hope for resuscitating the embers of their Oslowian vision (or rather, fantasy).

However, the chances of this seductive apparition providing the yearned for tranquility are slim. There are sound reasons for this starkly pessimistic prognosis. For there are only two alternatives regarding the nature of any prospective solution for the violent conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: Either (a) the solution is person-specific, with its success depending on the character of the incumbent Palestinian leader; or (b) it is not person-specific, with it success depending on more profound processes in Palestinian society, its nature and its structure."

It is for the fine analysis of these two alternatives that you should turn now to the Jerusalem Post, even if you are convinced you heard enough of the funny Map for a while.

Christian Church Builds Replica of Western Wall

    SAN ANTONIO, April 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A replica of the Western Wall, recognized as the most holy site in the Jewish faith, has been constructed in San Antonio, Texas, as phase III of the Israeli International Cultural Complex, paying tribute to Israel and the Jewish people. The replica was constructed with genuine Jerusalem stone imported from Israel and is located on the grounds of New Life Christian Center located at 6610 Hwy 90 West, San Antonio, Texas 78227.

Israel's Strategy after the Iraq War

The Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs,(JCPA) lays it all out. I have just extracted a few sentances. Be sure to read it all.
The ultimate goal (of the Iraq War) is the Middle East, the Arab world, and the Muslim world. Iraq will be the first step in this direction; winning the war against terrorism means structurally changing the entire area.

Removing the threat of an eastern coalition (Iraq and Syria) alters the entire Israeli position regarding a war from the east. With the Iraqi threat removed, Israel could conceivably adopt a more lenient stance regarding future deployment of forces in the Jordan Valley.

Though Syria will maintain its capability, its situation necessarily changes when the country east of Syria is no longer likely to be in any future coalition with Syria. Thus, another consequence of the war will be the indirect reduction of the Syrian threat.

Israel's coerced adoption of the road map would severely compromise its achievements to date in its war against terrorism, enabling Arafat and the Palestinians to emerge as the big winners of the war in Iraq. American agreement to replace President Bush's June speech with the road map would reward the Palestinians prior to their having fought and eradicated terror. This would constitute a grave error, for it is only now that we can finally discern the fruits of the Israeli achievements in its war against terror. Besides the victory over terrorism, Israel's main objective is to make the Arab states understand that they will achieve nothing from Israel through terror.

The road map rejects terror as a tool for political gain, and promises to reward the Palestinians if they succeed in halting it. A forced adoption of the road map means regression, broadcasting to the Arabs that terror will be rewarded. As such, it is a historical and moral travesty.

Israel's efforts over the last two and a half years of war have planted the first seeds of change in Palestinian consciousness. Adoption of the road map could reverse all these gains, and Israel could find itself back in a situation in which the Palestinians are convinced that force is their ultimate tool.

Israel's second post-war challenge is to convince the United States not to stop after Iraq. Otherwise, here in the Middle East the Hizballah will continue to flourish, the Iranians will retain their missiles and their weapons of mass destruction, and Syria will remain as the capital of terrorism.

A democratic Iraqi island of peace in an ocean of hostile forces such as Iran, Syria, and the Hizballah will not ensure America's triumph. Success in Iraq alone is inadequate to ensure victory against terror and success in creating a New Middle East.

America must pressure Syria into withdrawing its support for Hizballah and then crushing it.

The second long-range threat to Israel is from non-conventional missiles from Syria and Iran. Israel will have to do whatever is required in order to protect itself from Syrian and Iranian military capabilities.

Down To The Wire
SEVEN hours before a midnight deadline, on April 23rd, Yasser Arafat and his prime minister-designate, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) agreed a new Palestinian government. The next morning a Palestinian suicide bomber struck, killing one person at a railway station in Kafr Saba in northern Israel, thus demonstrating the most lethal kind of opposition the new order will face. Mr Abbas has vowed to end the bombings and other facets of the “armed intifada”.

Forming a government was hard enough. After a rancorous struggle, the two aged Palestinian leaders were eventually steered to shore by Omar Sulieman, Egypt’s intelligence chief. He persuaded Mr Arafat to accept a compromise he had spent two weeks resisting. Mr Abbas will be interior minister as well as prime minister, and the former security chief in Gaza, Muhammad Dahlan, will become minister for security affairs, responsible for policing in the Palestinian areas.

Mr Arafat had wanted to keep the former incumbent, Hani al-Hasan, in the job. He sees Mr Dahlan, once a favoured son, as a Brutus, conspiring with Israel and America to unseat him from within. But his persistence not only angered the Americans (who have long written him off) but also strained his relations with the European Union and Russia, which issued stiff warnings to approve Mr Abbas and his preferred government without delay.

Why did Mr Arafat make such a fuss? “Relevance,” says a long-time aide. “He knows that Israel and America believe that nothing can be done with him. He has just shown that nothing can move in the Palestinian leadership without him.” Not only that, but Mr Arafat also scored some domestic points. He rallied his Fatah movement behind him, exploiting the discontent many felt over Mr Abbas’s new government. It was widely seen as short on fresh talent and long on the prime minister’s cronies, even including some people accused of corruption. But all shades of Fatah expressed relief when the battle was over.

The new government is supposed to trigger publication of the so-called road map, the latest diplomatic plan for ending the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Under its initial commitments, the Palestinian Authority must act to curb violence. In parallel, Israel is under instructions to withdraw from Palestinian cities, and freeze its construction of Jewish settlements.

Unimpressed by the power play in Ramallah, Palestinians are waiting to see if any of this actually happens. So too are Mr Abbas and Mr Dahlan. Whatever the seriousness of their commitment to act against Hamas and the other radical militias, few Palestinians believe that they will be able to do so unless Israel relaxes, and ultimately ends, the occupation.
Islam and the Challenge of Democracy

For some great weekend reading, download The Boston Review article with the following topics:
Islam and the Challenge of Democracy Khaled About El Fadl

Practice and Theory John L. Esposito
Change from Within Nader A. Hashemi
The Best Hope Noah Feldman
Democracy and Conflict Jeremy Waldron
The Priority of Politics M.A. Muqtedar Khan
The Importance of Context A. Kevin Reinhart
Questioning Liberalism, Too Saba Mahmood
Too Far from Tradition Mohammad H. Fadel
Popular Support First Bernard Haykel
Islam Isn’t the Problem William B. Quandt
Khaled Abou El Fadl Replies
The title link provides links to each indiviudal article

for Ted. Sometimes a lefty can be right

Salon Magazine: Paul Berman Interview

All comments in Bold are those of Ted
April 10, 2003 | When the Iraq war began, Salon talked to Paul Berman, author of "Terror and Liberalism" and a liberal intellectual who favored the military intervention to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, even though he didn't entirely trust the methods and motivations of the Bush administration. In that interview, Berman said that the American left should reconsider some of its traditional arguments against the war and instead march in support of overthrowing the fascist dictatorship -- one he compared to Nazism. Now that Baghdad is largely under the control of the U.S. military, and at least some Iraqis are dancing in the streets, many liberals and those on the antiwar left wonder where to go from here. [...] The American Left is not monolithic. Many are just plain anti-American

What we on the left should do is press for a genuine liberal revolution in Iraq, which is to say press our own government to do more, press our institutions to get involved. There are two gigantic left-wing impulses that have been at odds here and we have to choose which is more relevant -- anti-imperialism and anti-fascism. What I hope is that everyone recognizes that we're in an anti-fascist moment. We should make sure the fascism of Iraq is really and truly overthrown. And so if in our anti-imperialist ardor we end up pressing the U.S. to do less in that region, to pull out quicker, to turn over power quicker to whatever colonel will ask for it, that would be a mistake. Anti-imperialism and anti-fascism. Great way to put it. Pierre Elliot Trudeau used to talk about the pendulam in world affairs swinging back and forth between extremes. He saw his role in modulating the extremes. If there was too much fascism, it must be guarded against or even fought. When it swings to the opposite extreme, it too must be fought. But to suggest that fascism and imperialism are two different things I think is untenable. Many on the Left think America is both fascist and imperialist. Certainly Japan and Germany both were.

But do you support Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress as the Bush administration does? There are indications that the Iraqi people will not accept leaders who have not been a part of the country for so many years.

We have no idea. The truth is that the Iraqis have no idea. It would be foolish to imagine that they do or could. They've had no political parties. They've had no way to express or even form opinions. No one inside the country has been able to put themselves forward as an opposition leader or even as a dissident. They're starting at zero. I'm sure it will be a long while before they're in a position to have legitimate political parties and leaders. It will be a long while before they can conduct normal business without killing each other. ...

They're in much worse shape than much of Eastern Europe, which came out of Communism with alternate leaders. And worse shape than Germany, which had been under Hitler for only 12 years and which did have some old, well-established parties that could come in from exile or back from the camps and play a role.

We ought to remember that Germany was not set up as a full democracy for a long time. In some ways, Germany was not a full democracy until 1989. The first thing the U.S. and the allies did was to ban the Nazi Party, which was the principal party of Germany. The allies did a lot and took control of all the German institutions and began to reshape them. All that took a long while. The European Recovery Act of 1948 was a big deal.

We ought to remember that in terms of the left -- in regard to the European Recovery Act and the Marshall Plan -- the American left split. Some people opposed all that -- the people who had been associated with Henry Wallace, who was the [Ralph] Nader of his day, and people who were on the Communist Party side of things. But the socialist democrats and the liberal left was for all that. And we ought to be able to look at that split and realize some were wrong. We want more engagement from the U.S.

More engagement from the U.S. than the United Nations?

Obviously, security -- the military -- will remain in American and British hands and that's as it should be. The U.N. has a dismal record on all that. But I think bringing in the U.N. and France and Germany is a good idea. And it will add to the legitimacy of the effort and add to its success because France and Germany have a lot of capabilities. It would be completely stupid for the petty rancor between Bush, Chirac and Schröder to continue to do damage, because it does damage to Iraq. For me this is over the top. To characterize the fallout of the opposition of France as "petty rancour" is to not recognize that France has shown itself the enemy of the US in attempting to maximalize its own influence at the expense of the US. America must recognize that France is not an ally or friend. As for the UN he obviously thinks it is a force for good so he hasn't learnt anything from the past. France would work against American interests in ensuring that it has influence and would be disruptive. Just because they have "capabilities" is not reason enough.

How do you feel about sending possibly more American soldiers over there?

I feel perfectly fine about it. I wish there were American soldiers in Afghanistan too.

But at what point does it become an occupation?

You mean, how does it become its opposite? It's true that it can turn into its opposite. We ought to keep an eye on Halliburton and the Bechtel Corp. and the other American pirates whose interests are not those of the U.S. or those of Iraq. That's a danger. Somehow the U.S. was able to avoid that in Germany in the 1940s. His Leftist credentials are apparent when he worries about American Corporations making too much money but has nothing to say to French companies that violated the sanctions to their benfit and to the detriment of Iraqis. Besides, one man's liberation is another's occupation. Its not one or the other. The first priority is to stablize the situation. Is this occupation or liberation? He worries too much about method and not enough about results. Its the end goal that's important and must not be lost sight of regarless what you call the process.

There's been some talk too that Americans won't tolerate a Shiite regime, representing the Iraqi majority, because they're afraid that regime would ally itself with Iran. Is that possible?

For the moment it's inconceivable that any new government will be formed in Iraq, and the Iraqis are not in a position to do anything for themselves. Of course, if we walk away, power in Iraq might fall into the hands of the Baath Party and Iraq's neighbors. That's one of the reasons why it's going to take a while to form an Iraqi government. One of the goals should be to encourage liberal development in Iran, next door. The dictatorship of the extremist mullahs in Iran is very dangerous. Now he is on my page.

Do you think we should invade Iran?

No. But I do think there is an Iranian liberal movement, a real dissident movement, and we should look on those people as our comrades and allies and help and encourage them.

So to get back to the left, what's the big issue here?

The big issue is to make sure that the efforts on behalf of Iraqi liberalism and a new Iraqi society will be ambitious enough, well-funded enough and include enough of the institutions of American life. We can't count on Bush to do it right. He's had a pathetic record on all this. He's not been helped by people on the left, which has only worsened the problem. Essentialy he is saying that Iraq should be more liberal than the US under Bush. He obviously doesn't like some of the laws being passed to fight terror. Considering the caulron that Iraq is, more of Bush will be necessary not less.

What kind of American institutions are you talking about?

American universities have established relations with universities in Eastern Europe. [George] Soros helped found a central European university. I think that this kind of thing in connection to Iraq and the Middle East is a good idea. In the last portion of my book, I try to point to a few ways in which people could do something. Never mind what Bush is doing. Let's define our own policy to do more, not less, on behalf of liberal revolution.

Instead, people tend to say, "Oh, I don't trust the Bush administration, therefore we should do nothing at all." But really the nature of American society is such that there are a lot of things people can do whether or not the government is doing it for them.

Immediately after the defeat of the Nazis, the U.S. State Department and the Army were running things in the American sectors of Germany and wanted nothing to do with the German unions and the German democratic left. But the American unions sent in their own people to support the German social democrats and the unions. And that was a really important thing to do.

Do you have faith in Bush?

Well, I guess the Bush administration turns out to be pretty efficient militarily, which is good. But I don't have faith in them and never have. I don't have faith that they have a commitment to a liberal notion of freedom and a just society. I think they need to be pushed on that. The American left should get involved, in that we ask ourselves why the American follow-through in Afghanistan has been inadequate. One of the answers has got to be that there's been no pressure on the Bush administration. "The liberal notion of freedom and a just society". There is implicit in this a certain belief in the moral superiority of the Left. They cannot acept that the Conservative notion of inddividual rights and responsibility is more moral than the idea of collective rights. I can't do this discussion justice in two lines. Suffice to say that Conservatives think they have something to say about the meaning of "freedom and a just society".

Nobody's marching in the streets [for the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan]. Instead, the pressure on the Bush administration from the antiwar left has been to get out as quickly as possible. And the Democratic Party isn't making speeches demanding more engagement.

Oh, you know, when we talk about pressure from the left I don't even think about the Democratic Party.

Right, neither do I. My impression is that the Democrats have been caught between the antiwar left on the one hand and the Bush administration on the other and have not been able to define a sharply marked position of their own.

Right. And as far as the marching for sustained liberal engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm skeptical that Bush would pay attention to that.

The recent antiwar marches have been huge and sometimes really disruptive. When they see hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets they know they could get in the situation that faced LBJ and Nixon.

DEBKA: and the winner is....Arafat

Real Arafat- Abu Mazen Power Struggle Is Just Beginning – Terror Will Go on

Only one man is smiling in the group photo of Yasser Arafat, incoming Palestinian reform prime minister Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian intelligence chief Osman Suleiman, who brokered an accord on the makeup of the new government. That man is Arafat. The rest were grim.

In the current round of the Ramallah power struggle, Abu Mazen with massive international backing may have forced Arafat to accept former Gazan security chief Mohammed Dahlan as internal security minister, but in the process he has fallen back on home ground and Arafat has come up smiling. Uneasy over Dahlan’s empowerment, the Fatah leadership and Palestinian institutions which first granted majority backing to Abu Mazen’s premiership has reverted to support of Arafat. This gives him the power to have every policy decision by the first Palestinian prime minister (who also holds interior) and his internal security minister overturned by a majority vote. Palestinians sources told DEBKAfile that next week, when Abu Mazen puts his cabinet to the vote at the Palestinian Legislative Council, pro-Arafat lawmakers may prove this point by forcing separate votes of confidence for every minister and rejecting them all one by one, thus stripping Abu Mazen of his cabinet.

To further limit Abu Mazen’s powers, Arafat sold his last-minute concession in exchange for an Egyptian guarantee of his personal authority as Palestinian president. Since he views the presidency as an executive function on the French model, he will not only curtail the new prime minister’s powers but, when the time is right – say, in a couple of months - sack him together with Dahlan. That threat will hang constantly over both their heads.

A binding though unwritten Palestinian law is the West Bank’s traditional refusal to accept a Gazan in authority. This goes for all the local factions, including the Fatah of which Arafat and Abu Mazen are founding fathers. West Bankers are further upset by discovering Dahlan’s plan to appoint his henchman Bashir Nafa to head the resuscitated Palestinian preventive security services (set up under the 1993 Oslo accords and non-functioning since Arafat launched his “Intifada”). West Bankers say that he is not only unqualified for the job and a Gazan but also a “shady” character.

In any case, it is inconceivable that terrorist bodies subject to Arafat, the Tanzim, the al Aqsa Martyrs (Suicides) Brigades and Palestinian intelligence, will defer to the authority of Abu Mazen, Dahlan and their government. The Hamas, Jihad Islami and Damascus-based terrorist organizations will certainly have no time for the “reformists”.

It is therefore hard to understand the rejoicing in so many places over the Arafat-Abu Mazen “accord”, especially in Europe. France appears to be consoling itself for being confronted with payback time by Washington for opposing America’s Iraq War. Israeli circles closely aligned with the European Union echo their pleasure. Egypt, increasingly pushed to the sidelines of inter-Arab politics in the past year, can boast of the compromise pulled off by its intelligence chief, although Omar Suleiman does not have enough fingers to count the number of times he has been two-timed by Arafat.

The timing too is in Arafat’s favor. He will win the approval of the Palestinian street by standing against a Palestinian government headed by a man tipped by the “conquerors of Iraq”.

While most accounts separate the jockeying for top Palestinian position from the relentless Palestinian campaign of terror against Israelis, it is worth mentioning that both emanate from the same address: Arafat’s government compound in Ramallah. This campaign, often running to 50-60 alerts per day, ties Israeli military forces down in constant counter-terror operations in Palestinian areas and keeps security forces on high alert month after month. But, whenever peacemakers come on the scene, the two manifestations are removed to separate spheres. This device often fostered the illusion of approaching peace in the past, such as the 2000 negotiations at the Camp David and 2001 Taba talks, both of which attempted to engage Arafat and both signaled fresh spirals of Palestinian mass murder.

This time too, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources reveal that while engaged in his one-upmanship game with Abu Mazen, Arafat sent a generous sum of money to the Nablus Al Aqsa Suicide Brigades branch with instructions to step up their suicide campaign inside Israel, either directly or through the suicide killers available from the Hamas and Jihad Islami.

Those sources have heard of new plan hatched in Ramallah for the approaching summer: to send boats loaded with explosives zooming out of the sea to explode among the bathers crowding Israel’s Mediterranean beaches. It is therefore clear that even if the Palestinian institutions confirm Abu Mazen next week as first Palestinian prime minister with Dahlan as his minister of internal security, the hopes pinned in their power to curb terror, purge corruption and institute authentic reforms in the Palestinian administration are pipedreams. Once Abu Mazen is installed and the road map to Palestinian statehood three years hence is released, President Arafat in his capacity of Palestinian President will carry on exactly as he has the last four decades. He has no intention of abandoning the wholesale confrontation he launched in September and neither Abu Mazen nor Mohammed Dahlan will have the power to stop him.

Next Steps in Iraq

Daniel Pipes, interviewed, discusses the clash of Muslim civilizations
BUCHANAN: All right, folks, there's something like, maybe one to two million Shiites in Karbala now, and their demonstrations are very militant and increasingly anti-American. It raises questions. "The Washington Post" today said the United States seemed ill-prepared for the strength of the Shia movement and also its politicization, and also that Iran may be moving agents into southern Iraq. Here to discuss all this and the roadmap to Middle East peace is Daniel Pipes, who's is the director of the Middle East Forum, and he's the book on—wrote a book called "Militant Islam...

PRESS: Reaches America.

BUCHANAN: ... Reaches America". It's not yet in America politically right now, Daniel Pipes, but let me ask you this. You have seen these demonstrations, these religious in Karbala and increasingly they seem to be anti-American. Many of their leaders seem to be anti-American. First, do you anticipate an effort to set up an Islamic republic in Iraq or in southern Iraq, and, secondly, if that effort is made, should the United States, if necessary, resist it with military force?

DANIEL PIPES, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: Well, first, yes. The Iranian regime, which is faltering ideologically, is losing support domestically. I call it the Brezhnevite era in Iran. It's a strong state, but a hollow state because fewer and fewer people believed in the ideology.

Suddenly, they have this opportunity next door. There's a substantial population of similar-minded—or similarly—similar people of similar religion who are very interested in what they have to offer, and it has, as you just accurately described, real potential in Iraq of the sort that it doesn't in Iran.

What should the United States do? Well, that's a tough question. My feeling is that we should not stay there long. That we should, as much as possible, hand over power to an Iraqi strongman. I think the record shows that it takes time to go from the totalitarianism of Saddam Hussein to democracy, and we can't be there for 10, 20 years. It has to be someone indigenous who is strong...


PIPES: ... and who can make this transition.

BUCHANAN: That makes a lot of sense to me, quite frankly, but the president has indicated we're going to have democracy and it's going to be sort of one man, one vote. They're going to decide.

PIPES: Right.

BUCHANAN: Clearly the majority in the south is Shia. It is increasingly militant. Again, what does the United States do if they choose a leader, an ayatollah of some kind in there? Do we just get out and just say we did our best, we got rid of the weapons, Saddam is gone, now we have to live with this the way we live with Iran.

PIPES: Oh I hope not. I mean, I hope we do try something else. But, you're right, that the present U.S. idea is to go forward with democracy as quickly as possible. I'm wondering if that is necessarily the thing we have to do. We might want to hold off a bit, go slower. You know, it takes time. You need institutions. You need mentalities. You need customs. Democracy just doesn't happen instantly.

PRESS: Daniel, Bill Press here. Let me ask you about the war overall because in this country we see—most people see the war in Iraq as a very successful war of liberation. How is it seen to people you talk to in the Arab world, the same way?

PIPES: Well no, Bill. There is deep suspicion of the United States. There is fundamentally a very poor understanding of what the United States is and what it aspires to, and there's a widespread conviction that the United States is in Iraq either for the oil or in some fashion on Israel's behalf. But very little willingness to see the United States as a party that goes in, fix things, and leaves, which, of course, is our record. We have a very, very good record.

PRESS: Now, if the president tried to forestall any—a lot of criticism in the Arab world very early on by saying that Islam is a peaceful religion. A headline in "The Washington Post" this morning caught my attention. "Scholar criticizes Bush's characterization of Islam"—it happens to be you where you say that the president was wrong, should not have characterized Islam as a peaceful religion. Are you saying that Islam, like Franklin Graham said, maybe is an evil or a violent religion?

PIPES: Well first of all, I did several times with the producers try and establish that I would not discuss this on this program.

PRESS: It's in "The Washington Post" this morning. That's why I asked you about it.

PIPES: It is, indeed, but I did say I didn't want to discuss it, but let me just clarify, no, I'm not saying Islam is evil. If you look a sentence further in that article, it says I never talk about Islam is this or Islam is that. It's like saying United States is this or Americans are that. It's too big. You can't just characterize it in a single word.

BUCHANAN: All right, let me get specific here. The United States appears to have stopped the pressure on Syria. Colin Powell is going to go there, and we're going to turn the pressure instead on Sharon and try to get a roadmap for peace, which he is resisting, and the president apparently is behind this. Was that a mistake, "A", and, "B", I guess the final question from me, do you agree with Professor Huntington about the clash of civilizations being inevitable, or can we avoid that great conflict?

PIPES: These are a lot of different issues. On the clash of civilizations, no, I do not agree with it. I believe that the great issue that confronts us today is how Muslims are going to interpret their religion. Are they going to interpret it as Osama bin Laden does? Are they going to interpret it in a moderate, modern and good neighborly way? I think it is ultimately a debate among Muslims.


PIPES: I think the United States and the outside world more generally has a role to play in helping the side it wishes to win, but ultimately it is among Muslims, and I am very much advocating that we work with moderate Muslims. My single summary sentence is that militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution...
Defanging of Arafat Begins
The end of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat's autocratic reign has begun. The 74-year-old leader is not crippled, but pressure from the United States, Europe and Egypt forced him to blink in the 10-day showdown with Prime Minister-designate Mahmoud Abbas, who was bucking Arafat's resistance to appointing reformers to the new Cabinet — particularly an Arafat critic who is likely to crack down on suicide bombers.

Sadly, this does not mark a sea change for the Middle East. Arafat still has considerable control over the security forces and support among the population. Many Palestinians will see Abbas as the choice of Israel and the United States, and the moderate has done little to create his own following. Still, the agreement will increase pressure on the Palestinian Authority to stop terrorism and increase the Bush administration's determination to move ahead with its peace initiative "road map."

The standoff between Arafat and Abbas centered on whether Abbas would retain his position as head of the Interior Ministry as well as be prime minister and whether he would be able to install Arafat critic Mohammed Dahlan as head of security. Dahlan, a moderate, previously acted to suppress militants as security chief in the Gaza Strip.

Having lost the stare-down, Arafat now has even more to lose: If Dahlan gets tough on Palestinian radicals, including Hamas-sponsored suicide bombers, and if Abbas is able to negotiate an agreement with the Israelis, Arafat will be deprived of the glory of creating an official Palestinian state.

The peace plan being promoted by the U.S., United Nations, European Union and Russia envisions an independent Palestinian state in three years. Already Israeli officials and Washington hawks are insisting that the plan be revised. Israel is loath to promise to dismantle any settlements in exchange for the end to Palestinian violence that is called for in the plan. But President Bush has rightly resisted changing the road map. This steadfastness will strengthen Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's hand in May when he visits Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria to push the plan.

Neither Powell's visit nor Abbas' deal with Arafat will bring peace overnight. But however untidy, Abbas' victory has eroded Arafat's ability to obstruct the peace process.
The truth about jihad

An expert in these matters discusses who can and who can not have a "right" to declare jihad. Seems many non-eligibles getting into the declaring jihad game.
[...]One more important point: The person who declares jihad must enjoy a large measure of recognition as the "a'alam al-ulema" (The Most Learned of Theologians), at least within his immediate community. And he must be in a position to personally take the lead, to risk his own life and the lives of those near to him (aqruba-ihum), in the enterprise. It is not possible to tell the Iraqis, or the Palestinians, "Go, kill and get killed so that we can applaud from a safe distance!"

The gentlemen whose jihad declarations we have discussed lack such qualifications. Bin Laden is an adventurer on the loose. Fadhlallah, a politician rather than a theologian, does not enjoy consensus even among Lebanese Shiites. Tantawi, an employee of the Egyptian government, lacks the independence required of theologians. As for Saddam, Al-Sahhaf and Uday, now fugitives, their jihad consisted of running to the nearest hole in which to hide.

The non-Muslim world, especially in the West, must beware: The conditions that must be present and the rules that must be applied before jihad is declared are so complex that one can hardly imagine a situation in which they would be applicable today.

The vast majority of Muslims ignored the numerous calls for jihad coming from individuals who have no right to do so. Those who declared jihad in support of Saddam must be treated as politicians, not religious leaders, and treated as any other politician anywhere. They use the term "jihad" as many in the West use the term "crusade," for example as "a crusade against genetically modified food" and so on.

Next time you hear someone declaring jihad on behalf of Muslims, you can be sure that he is a politician using a sound bite for good effect -- not a theologian expressing a serious Islamic position.[more]

Celebrate Israel at 55

One of the most exciting, inspiring events of 2003—“The Spirit of Israel” -- will take place in the form of a gala evening saluting Israel on the occasion of its 55th anniversary. This will take place on Monday, May 19, at the MCI Center in Washington, D.C.

Super-star Jerry Seinfeld, living legend Tony Bennett, Grammy Award winner Norah Jones, actor-comedian Ben Stein and Israeli singing sensation Achinoam Nini (Noa) will headline the event, joined by other top entertainment figures.

Tickets for this private event for Jewish and Christian friends of Israel are now on sale at Ticketmaster with ticket prices ranging from $36 (for students with valid ID’s) up to $1000. We very much look forward to seeing our friends and supporters at this memorable gathering…a place where every friend of Israel will undoubtedly want to be.

Now is the time to join this history-in-the-making.  I urge you to make plans to be at the MCI Center on May 19th, and encourage others to join us.

Please contact:
The Israel Forever Foundation
Jeanne Ellinport
(202) 462-8990 phone
(202) 462-8995 fax

Ruder Finn Israel
Myra Clark-Siegel
Cell: +972-54-676948

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein President and Founder, Ralph Reed, Co-Chairman International Fellowship of Christians and Jews

Stand for Israel

Democratic presidential contender says US should target Syria, Hizbullah

A Democrat, no less
Democratic presidential contender Bob Graham said on Thursday that Syria should force Lebanon's Hizbullah to close what he described as "terrorist training camps" on its territory or face unspecified U.S. retaliation.

[...] Citing U.S. intelligence reports, Graham called Hizbullah "the A-Team of international terrorism" and said it had "a significant number" of operatives in the United States awaiting orders to act.

Graham said at a Council on Foreign Relations forum that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did not eliminate the training camps then Washington should consult with allies who helped wage the war in Afghanistan "and decide the next step."

This will surprise you

Editorial: ‘It’s All Israel’s Fault!’

This editorial appeared in Arab News, the Middle East's leading English Daily newspaper.
As the dust settles over Iraq and the cacophony of excited voices on our television screens dies down, the Arab world has begun to stir from the confusion into which the swift fall of Baghdad had thrown it, to take a good look at itself and take stock.

The political repercussions, as ever in the Arab world, are not easy to ascertain, but the fallout for the media is all too evident. To put it bluntly: A great many journalists and media outlets have been left with egg on their face. From accepting the wild claims of Iraqi minister of information Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, to wildly predicting a jihad among the Iraqi people, very little the Arab media speculated on had, when push came to shove, anything to do with reality.

But good may come from bad, as people often say. The main subject now is as much the appalling coverage of Iraq — and by implication the serious shortcomings of the Arab media in general — as Iraq’s future after “liberation”. Does the Arab media have a future in its present form? What is certain is that the confidence of Arab readers, and the millions who tune into Arab satellite channels, has been severely undermined.

During the war, everyone in the Arab world agreed that US news networks such as Fox TV and CNN had dangerously — and not infrequently ridiculously — confused patriotism with reportage; and they were right. After the war, however, most Arabs have come to recognize that they were throwing stones while sitting in glass houses.

In the Arab media, it wasn’t so much a question of confusing patriotism with reportage as confusing news with wishful thinking. In a word, what was lacking was objectivity and critical self-analysis.

This, of course, is nothing new. For decades it has been difficult to find anything in the opinion pages of the Arabic language press that did not concern Israel. Every problem faced by Arab societies was blamed, in however obscure or far-fetched a way, on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. The issue served as a sort of lowest common denominator, satisfying many journalists who were not equipped to write about anything else as well as many of those who rule the Arab world and who would prefer Israel — rather than their own shortcomings — to be the subject of heated discussion in the “Arab street.”

It is one of the many ironies of the US-led attack in Iraq that Crown Prince Abdullah’s historic “peace with reform” initiative was marginalized, with the “pact for reforming the Arab world” being postponed for discussion by the Arab League.

In fact, in the wake of the sudden disappearance of Saddam and his Baathist regime, the political and media vacuum in the Arab world is wider than ever, and it is now that Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace with reform program would not only fill the void that gapes in the center of the Arab world, but also fill it with something tangible and workable.

The days when the Arab world could just scream “Israel”, as if that one word were sufficient answer to every question about every problem that came its way — as though saying that one word could deflect all further inquiry — are over. The time for peaceful coexistence, internal reflection and healthy, progressive thinking has come.
Mind blowing.

Support Daniel Pipes Nomination

Andrew L Jaffee has a good post on his site WMD (War to Mobilize Democracy) in which he supports the nomination and urges action with all relevant addresses. Check it out. Lend support.

April 25, 2003

Religion of Peace

This was published in the Australian Jewish News by myself this week.

We are told that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorists are using and abusing the religion to justify their heinous acts.

Given that the religion does have a sanction against those they see as blasphemous - the fatwa, or religious decree - why have we not seen a fatwa issued against Bin Laden and every other terrorist group stating that it is acting in Islam's name?

If an author who is non-violent, Salman Rushdie, could have a sentence of death imposed on him, how much more deserving of such a sentence should those who take others' lives be?
With tripe like this what hope is there?

The link takes you to a long article in Ha'Aretz, wide ranging in scope. If an Israeli newspaper can print this garbage, then what hope is there for the survival of the State?
Has Syria been let off the hook?

Victor Davis Hanson aruing that Time is on our Side included one paragraph on Syria in his otherwise fine review of the aftermath.
Somewhere amid all of this hysteria, we were told in one 24-news cycle that we were ready to "invade" Syria. Yet — no matter how odious the Syrian dictatorship — there is little likelihood the United States will use force to liberate Lebanon, expel its terrorists, publicly hunt down refugee Iraqi Baathists inside Damascus, or topple the regime.
I found this very disturbing because I didn't want it to be true. After the flurry of attacks on Syria, then nothing, except for a visit to Damascus that Powell has announced.

What is going on here. I thought the intention was to clean out Lebanon. There is a big story here.

Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit

Zogby has the whole story.

The purpose of the conference is
*To oppose rewarding murderous Palestinian terrorism with statehood--mocking our own war on terror and ultimately encouraging renewed Arab aggression against an Israel made invitingly vulnerable.

*To expose how President Bush's stated policy of June 24, 2002 specifying essential pre-conditions for support of Palestinian statehood has been seriously undermined, eroding America's credibility and debasing our enduring national interest.

*To lay bare the inherent absurdity of our State Department promoting a Road Map to Arab-Israeli "Peace" from a Quartet whose other three members--Russia, the E.U. (France and Germany) and the U.N.--repeatedly disparage U.S. interests and are demonstrably hostile to Israel.

*To document the responsibility of Iran, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic terrorism.

*To combat media ignorance and bias in Middle East coverage and virulent Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic agitation on campus....

*To solidify and chart future strategy for the emerging alliance of Jewish and Christian Zionists.

Sponsored by Zionist House, Boston, with the National Unity Coalition for Israel
Who could argue with that. Sounds like a great idea. Check out all the organizations that are participating.

Not so fast

James Bennet, writing in the NY Times in an article entilted Mid East Next for Bush takes a realistic view of the situation. I am impressed because its not the usual pro peace stuff.
[...] On the Israeli side, Mr. Sharon so dominates political life that he may have the capacity to achieve a deal. But his willingness to make what he calls "painful concessions" is untested. Mr. Sharon's worldview was shaped by decades of fighting first for Israel's creation and then its survival, and he is not inclined to gamble for a peace deal with what he considers matters of security, despite the defeat of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein.

Once, his advisers pointed to the proximity of Iraq's tanks to argue for Israel's need for "strategic depth" — the thickening of its borders achieved by West Bank settlements. Now they say that there is no telling whether Iraq may eventually revert to its old ways.

Mr. Sharon wants significant changes in a new peace plan, known as the road map, which foresees recognition of Israel throughout the region and an independent state of Palestine in 2005. His advisers predict that Mr. Bush will not put serious pressure on him to abide by its terms, including immediate removal of settlement outposts built in the last two years.

One adviser to Mr. Sharon called the talk of an American push for the peace plan a "show" for the benefit of Britain, and another one said, "I don't think this is going to lead to a major confrontation — or any confrontation — with the United States."

Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Sharon's finance minister and an avowed opponent of a Palestinian state, told an Israeli newspaper this week that Israel could overcome any American pressure. (This is further evidence that Netanyahu has bought into Sharon's strategy of "yes, but..". How else to explainn the quiet and the confidence of the Israeli Right.)

"Pressure is expected, but we can and must resist it," Mr. Netanyahu told the newspaper, Yediot Ahronot. "It is in our power to affect American policy towards Israel and towards the Palestinians."

Still, there are signs of new American involvement. In pursuit of the peace plan, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is expected to return here early next month for the first time in more than a year, since the administration abandoned a drive for peace in the face of continuing violence.

Regardless of the plan's details, it may compel the adversaries, who are exhausted by the violence here, to sit down and talk peace with each other for the first time in more than two years.

But Israeli and Palestinian officials and analysts, as well as foreign diplomats involved in the peace process, say that Mr. Bush has yet to show much enthusiasm for the diplomatic and political struggle necessary to achieve an agreement. It is a struggle in which the only certainty is the occurrence of setbacks.

[...] Bush administration officials have repeatedly emphasized that while they will help, the Palestinians and Israelis must make peace themselves. (This is key. Negotiated solution and not an imposed solution.)

Mr. Sharon's advisers say he envisions a Palestinian state far different from the one outlined in the road map or sought by Mr. Abbas. He believes a provisional state should endure for 10 or more years, rather than the 2 years specified in the plan.

He is said to believe that only after years of peaceful coexistence will Israelis and Palestinians have the confidence to come to enduring terms on precise borders. Mr. Sharon sees a final Palestinian state as holding less than half the West Bank, with no presence in Jerusalem, no military and no control of its own airspace. This may be posturing before negotiations, but his allies say they doubt it.

Referring to the peace plan's timetable, one adviser said, "A state by the end of 2005 — I don't think that's conceivable."
For once, I believe what they say. Sharon proposes to offer far less than Barak did. It will be interesting to see if he gets there.

Arafat and Abu Mazem

Contrary to Headlines, It´s Arafat Who Beat Abu Mazen published by Arutz 7

Real Arafat- Abu Mazen Power Struggle Is Just Beginning – Terror Will Go on published by DebkaFile

Abu Against Abu by URI AVNERY published by Counterpunch.

There seems to be agreement all the way around except for those who will not see. And I was worried about the Road Map. Nothing will come of it except other than a two state solution.
Brandeis Appoints Chair in Israel Studies

Brandeis University (Waltham, MA) has recently named Professor Ilan Troen (Brandeis class of '63; Professor of Modern History at Ben Gurion University) to the Stoll Professor in Israel Studies, the first endowed teaching position of its kind in the United States.

In an interview with the Waltham News Tribune Professor Troen had the following to say about Mid-East studies on college campuses (and the importance of Israel Studies):

As he balances spending one semester in the United States and the rest of the year in Israel, Troen straddles both worlds and seems uniquely qualified to teach both undergraduate and graduate students about Israel in America.

He hopes to address the dearth of instruction on Israel since "...the country is so often misunderstood either through ignorance or malicious intent. Without examining the country in the university, many encounter the complexities of the country only through media sound bites and short articles in the newspapers...universities must do more."

Discussing Israel, never mind lecturing on it, is often a challenge because the opinions of those involved come under scrutiny.

Troen is well aware of the challenge, and has clearly stated, "I am a Zionist and have decided to build my life (in Israel). I can also be critical of my society. Nevertheless, it is criticism within an appreciation for the positive and the commitment to work for improvement. This is particularly important in assessing Israel...since (there are) those within and outside the country who view the country's history as but a litany of misdeeds and the Zionist enterprise as illegitimate.

"There are those, for example, who do not believe a Jewish state can also be a democratic one. I think such issues and critiques ought to be brought forward directly and dispassionately even as my own position is unequivocal and clear."

In addition to the lack of Israel studies chairs in American universities, Troen said, "A strong representation of Israel is very rare in centers for Middle Eastern studies, which are often hostile to Israel." He hopes that one day, there will be even more specialists at Brandeis. [more]

Professor Troen is a remarkable man, who has authored/edited over 10 books! He's also the editor of the journal "Israel Studies". II believe that his comments regarding the (false) perception of Israel on many campuses is sadly true. However, with instructors such as Professor Troen, hopefully the tide will begin to turn (in Israel's favor)
The Expulsion That Never Was

Just before the U.S. attacked Iraq, there was a good deal of chatter about how Israel would use that "opportunity" for ethnic cleansing Martin Kramer addresses this non-issue that so-called Mideast academic experts babbled about.
Among the predictions about the war that didn't pan out, there is one that hasn't been subjected to post-war ridicule, but that very much deserves it. This is the December letter, signed by over 1,000 academics, predicting and warning against Israel's possible "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians in the "fog of war." The letter ended with this recommendation: "We urge our government to communicate clearly to the government of Israel that the expulsion of people according to race, religion or nationality would constitute crimes against humanity and will not be tolerated."

The United States made no such communication to the Israeli government, yet lo and behold, no expulsion took place. In the "fog of war," the Palestinian street demonstrated wildly for Saddam, Palestinian politicians jockeyed for position, and Israel prepared with gas masks and duct tape, like a proper ally/client of the United States. All of this was completely forseeable by anyone with an iota of expertise, experience, and common sense. It was not foreseen by many of America's leading Middle East "experts," who put their names to this ridiculous letter, and who in fact seem to have initiated it.

One of the original signatories was Zachary Lockman, professor of Middle Eastern studies and history at New York University. Lockman justified the letter in this way:
People [in the Israeli government] have been calling for expulsion for years, but the Israeli government, including Sharon, realizes that it would not be acceptable under normal circumstances. But in middle of a war in Iraq, especially if they attack Israel, there would be panic and one can imagine all sorts of horrible scenarios. The public could countenance this, or the U.S. could turn a blind eye.
My comment back in December: "Let me not put too fine a point on it: anyone signing this letter, effectively condemning Israel in advance for something it has no intention of doing, is either an ignoramus or a propagandist." Now that we are after the fact, it's a point worth reiterating.

I sorted out the Middle East "experts" among the signatories and listed them back in December, so I won't waste space here. But let me just list the original signatories (eight of fifteen) who are professors of Middle Eastern studies:
Joel Beinin, Stanford
Beshara Doumani, UC Berkeley
Zachary Lockman, New York University
Timothy Mitchell, New York University
Gabi Piterberg, UC Los Angeles
Glenn E. Robinson, Naval Postgraduate School
Ted Swedenburg, University of Arkansas
Judith Tucker, Georgetown University

"The sky is falling! Let us tell the king."
And among the "additional signatories," special mention should be made of Laurie Brand, University of Southern California, who is president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA).

These people have (once again) brought shame on their discipline. Those among them who claim special expertise on Israel and its policies have discredited themselves as interpreters and teachers of that country's politics and society. And they are now collectively in the moral position of owing apologies to the Israeli people and the Israeli government—of Ariel Sharon. I suggest they make them at the next MESA conference.
Galei Tzahal (Israeli Military Radio) Transcript of an excerpt from Open line with the Chief of Staff

(Is this an Intifada or what?)

On Passover Eve, April 16, 2003 at 08:00, the program Open Line with the Chief of Staff was broadcasted, during which Lt.-General Moshe Yaalon spoke with soldiers and commanders about current events. The Chief of Staff addressed questions by the programs presenter, Dalik Vilenitz, about the activists from a human rights organization (ISM) in the Palestinian territories:

Dalik Vilenitz: One of the conclusions from the whole course of the intifada, and were seeing it now in the war in Iraq, is the question of the IDFs image. The IDF is currently facing problems, one of which is the overseas volunteers. Im talking about the ISM organization, whose people are in the territories, on the combat line. Some of them have been injured, which has led to strong shock-waves throughout the world. How is the IDF coping with this matter?

Chief of Staff: First of all, you said intifada. Intifada, this is the Palestinian story. I claim that this isnt an intifada, because an intifada is a peoples uprising, while here what we have experienced since September 2000 is a proactive attack and a strategic decision by the current Palestinian decision-maker, who took a decision to embark on a terror assault against us. And this is connected to that organization, ISM, an organization with volunteer activists from all over the world, who prepare their peace activists, and they came here after accepting the Palestinian story. Ostensibly, as they see it, we are the aggressors and they are the victims. In factual terms, the ones who started this aggression are the Palestinians. Thos who initiated the incidents in Rafiah, in a place where unfortunately two of those activists were wounded, were the Palestinians. An American woman activist was killed there by an IDF bulldozer which did not see her and a British activist was wounded in the head, apparently by our forces, although we are unable to authenticate this conclusively, who entered an area where a terrorist was standing and firing at our forces. One of our snipers fired towards the terrorist who was shooting at him, in an area where we have responsibility under all the Israeli-Egyptian agreements. There are incessant terror operations there, stemming from the Palestinian terror organizations need to smuggle weaponry from Egypt into the Palestinian-held area, and they now find it hard because of our operations there.

And all of a sudden these activists appear in the area. On the face of it, they are protecting the Palestinians from us. First of all, they create the negative image we have, because it certainly strengthens the Palestinian story, which according to my understanding is fabricated in this context. And as a result of this, they also impede the operations of our forces. As for the bulldozer story, the bulldozer was being used in an operation intended to flatten the ground so the terrorists would not be able to approach the axis of our action on the Israel-Egypt border. It did not see the activist, who was standing in a dead zone in terms of vision, and she was killed.

Their spokesperson says about this that the bulldozer was supposed to destroy a house and that she was protecting the house "a lie". Their spokesperson reported that the bulldozer drove back and forth over the body, we saw the body, regrettably she was killed, and no such thing happened. We also encountered an incident in Jenin some time ago, during operations to arrest an armed terrorist, and he was in the office of that organization.

I have just given an order to remove the organization's activists from the area, firstly for their own benefit - they are endangering their own lives in a superfluous way - but are also creating provocations that injure our freedom of action on the ground. And so its advisable that they get out of the area.

Officials Increase Warnings to Muslim Fundamentalists

The chickens, it seems, have come home to roost
Surprised by the strong showing of a fundamentalist party in elections for a council representing France's five million Muslims, France has increased warnings to Islamic fundamentalists.

This past week, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who personally pressed for the creation of the council, threatened to expel any Muslim leaders who preach extremism.

"Imams who spread views that run counter to (French) republican values will be expelled," said Sarkozy in an interview on Europe 1 radio. Sarkozy has been under criticism by refugee associations for expelling illegal aliens.

On Saturday, the interior minister re-ignited a simmering debate over Islamic headscarves by reminding a meeting of French Islamic organizations that photos of women on official identification papers must show them bareheaded.

Muslims attending the annual congress of the Union of Islamic Organizations (UOIF) in Le Bourget booed and whistled at the minister.

The UOIF, which is said to be based on the militant Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, came in second place this month in the newly formed French Council of the Muslim Cult that will be the official representation of Western Europe's largest Muslim population to the French government.

Sarkozy defended his initiatives to help create the council by saying Islam in France had become an underground religion of "basements and garages." Increasingly, second- and third-generation French-born youth of North African parents are becoming more devout and adding to the number of practicing Muslims.

The new council will be the intermediary with the French government for the building of new mosques and even religious schools. Sarkozy said he would make sure the council would not spread radical views nor try to create Islamic law in France.

"Islamic law will not be applied anywhere because it is not the law of the French Republic," said Sarkozy.

Under an agreement previously negotiated, Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the Paris Mosque and representative of a moderate, secular-oriented Algerian-backed party, will be the president of the council.

Boubakeur will lead the body even though his party finished in third place in this month's elections.

The National Federation of the Muslims of France, a Moroccan-dominated party, won the majority of seats.

Objections to Headscarf Comment

Sarkozy's reference last weekend to existing legislation requiring all persons to be bareheaded on identification photographs was seen as a provocation by many French Muslims.

In an interview in the Le Parisien newspaper on Sunday, Sarkozy said he expected to be booed when he made his statement.

"But this won't make me pull back," he said. The minister said that even Catholic nuns must be bareheaded in photos, so there should be no exception for Muslim women.

The UOIF said it would abide by government law, but officials have expressed displeasure at the rule. At Saturday's meeting, a former secretary general of the organization compared the French law requiring women to be bareheaded for identification photos to the mandatory wearing of a yellow Star of David by Jews during the Holocaust.

This week, the minister of education announced that he would propose new legislation next year reaffirming the secularity of schools, where there have been numerous incidents over the years of Muslim students wearing headscarves being barred from classes.

French law allows the wearing of small, unostentatious religious symbols that are not arrogantly displayed and leaves decisions on the matter up to the heads of individual schools.

In announcing his proposal for a new law on secularism, Education Minister Luc Ferry said the public powers have to reaffirm "very firmly" the French republic's principles of secularism "in the face of this rise in communitarianism, racism and anti-Semitism.
Powell says unless terrorism ends it will be almost impossible to go ahead with Mideast peacemaking

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a telecast to the Arab world, said Thursday that terrorism must end if peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians is to have a chance of succeeding.

"Let's be very open and candid." Powell told the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. "Unless terrorism and violence stops, then it's almost impossible to get going on any process toward peace."

In a separate interview with al-Arabiya, a television station based in Dubai, Powell notified Israel and the Palestinians that he did not want to debate terms of a peacemaking road map with them when he holds talks in the Middle East, probably early next month.

"I don't want to spend a great deal of time arguing about the details of the road map," Powell said. "I want to see both sides, in a spirit of cooperation, in a spirit of peace, with the earnest desire to move forward, to start performing."

The road map was prepared by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. It calls for creating a Palestinian state, by 2005, on land now held by Israel.

The plan calls for an end to all violence and a full Jewish settlement freeze in the West Bank and Gaza. It also demands that all settlements built after 2001 be dismantled.

The road map is due to be announced officially after a Cabinet selected by Mahmoud Abbas, the designated Palestinian prime minister, is approved by the Palestinian Parliament.

Powell said he had been in touch with Israeli authorities and found "they are ready and anxious to participate in moving forward with Mr. Abu Mazen," as Abbas also is known.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has stressed terror attacks on Israel must end before he would approve negotiations with the Palestinians.

Powell said he hoped Abbas and Mohammed Dahlan, the designated security chief, "will work hard to end the violence, end the terrorism."

That, Powell said, "will create conditions that will allow us to go forward."

As for Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader the Bush administration is trying to sidestep, Powell said: "Mr. Arafat still occupies a position within the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people, and I can't remove that, and I wouldn't even try to."

But, at the same time, Powell said, "We do not believe that Mr. Arafat has shown the kind of leadership that is needed to take us through this crisis."
Abbas, Arafat end Palestinian Cabinet standoff

22 news items (linksprovided) and this summary:

A Palestinian suicide bomber killed a guard in a rush-hour attack at an Israeli train station Thursday, a day after the incoming Palestinian prime minister formed a cabinet that clears the way for a new U.S. peace plan. (5) Israel will invite Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Mahmoud Abbas to Jerusalem to discuss restarting the peace process once a new Palestinian Cabinet is in place, an Israeli official said Thursday. (14) Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and his designated prime minister agreed yesterday on a new Cabinet, breaking an impasse that had threatened to derail a U.S.-backed peace initiative. (11) The installation of a new Palestinian government clears the way for the quick publication of the Mideast "road map" peace plan, which the Palestinians say will soon require Israeli concessions and lead to a Palestinian state by 2005. (19) Arafat and his prime minister-designate , Mahmoud Abbas, ended their bitter deadlock over the composition of a new Cabinet on Wednesday, clearing the way for a new Mideast peace initiative backed by Washington. (15) The bombing drove home the challenge facing the designated Palestinian prime minister , Mahmoud Abbas, who will be expected to rein in militants as part of a new peace initiative. (2)

Appeasement: Deja vu

So far, events associated with the RoachMap have followed the traditional trajectory: appeasement (Sharon's list of steps "to assist" Abu Mazen) followed by increased terrorism (today, April 24, 2003, the media report another homicide bombing). No surprise. How far back does this tradition of appeasement in the face of violence go? Appeasement, as a central plank of British policy for the Middle East, was already entrenched in the early 1920's. To illustrate this point I am quoting below from pp. 432-437 of Sir Martin Gilbert’s biography of Winston Churchill:

Gilbert, Martin. Churchill - A Life. London: Heinemann, 1991.

In early 1921, Churchill was planning a policy conference on the Middle East, which was eventually to be known in history books as the Cairo Conference of March, 1921. Prior to the conference, Churchill met French PM Alexandre Millerand in Paris. Gilbert writes:

'I pointed out the absolute need from both British and French points of view,' Churchill reported to Lloyd George, 'of appeasing Arab sentiment and arriving at good arrangements with them. Otherwise we should certainly be forced by expense of the garrisons to evacuate the territories which each country had gained in war.'

Millerand warned Churchill that one cause of disturbance in the Arab world was Zionism, which had been much encouraged by Balfour's wartime declaration in favour of a Jewish National Home in Palestine...
At midnight on March 23 [1921] Churchill left Cairo by train for Jerusalem. During a brief stop at Gaza early the following morning he was greeted by a vast Arab crowd crying 'Cheers for the Minister', 'Cheers for Great Britain' and, with even greater enthusiasm, 'Down with the Jews' and 'Cut their throats'...

On the day after Churchill's arrival in Jerusalem [March 26, 1921], there were Arab riots in Haifa demanding an end to any further Jewish immigration. When the police opened fire to disperse the mob a thirteen-year-old Christian Arab boy and a Muslim Arab woman were killed...
Churchill's hopes of economy in Palestine were not to be fulfilled. Continuing Arab protests about Jewish immigration led at the beginning of May [1921] to riots in Jaffa, in which thirty Jews and ten Arabs were killed. Samuel's [The British High Commissioner to Palestine] response was to call a temporary bait to Jewish immigration. Churchill supported the High Commissioner's decision, instructing him to announce 'that until immigrants now in the country are absorbed, immigration will not he reopened'...

Hoping to appease Arab hostility, however, Samuel decided not to collect the fines which had been levied on the Arab rioters...

...And so it went on for almost 30 years, with the British appeasing and the Arabs becoming progressively emboldened.

Interestingly, Churchill actually uses the word “appeasement” to describe his policy; that, of course, was 17 years before the term acquired the Munich notoriety.

Another interesting point concerning this quotation is that Churchill is regarded by some to be Zionism’s loyal friend; when I read that Blair too is considered by some to be Israel’s friend, the experience of “deja vu” becomes very strong indeed. Blair’s 2003 RoachMap is Churchill’s 1922 White Paper, and both are designed to sabotage the Jewish National Home.

And don’t miss the reference to French hostility to the Zionist project: Blame the Jews is an old French tradition.

The most essential point, however, goes back to the RoachMap. On the one hand, one should not be surprised if the British government continues the 80-year old policy of appeasing Arabs. On the other hand, one should remember the consequences of this appeasement: all the British efforts notwithstanding, the British government harvested nothing but Arab hostility. With this historical hindsight, why should Israel follow the path of appeasement and accept the RoachMap?

April 24, 2003

Caving already?

In today's Ha'Aretz post-dated April 25:
Israel won't undertake extensive response to Kfar Sava attack

Israel will not undertake an extensive response to the Kfar Sava suicide bombing, security officials decided Thursday night in meeting a convened by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.
Is Sharon's Israel back to the days of Barak and Peres?

Aziz Surrender
Iraq's former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is believed to have turned himself in to U.S. authorities, ABCNEWS has learned. Aziz was one of Saddam Hussein's longest-serving officials.
The Day of Reckoning

Uri Dan in an article entitled The Inevitable March to Bagdad in JPost provides a reckoning for all America's past mistakes leading up to the necessity to attack Iraq.

Here's the first example of many. Its a great piece to read and keep.
The American president who made the gravest mistake in the Middle East since World War II was Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter. In the name of human rights Carter applied pressure to the Shah of Iran and caused the collapse of his regime for the sake of another one that trampled human rights, headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The CIA at that time rejected the proposals made by Israelis to eliminate Khomeini while he was still in exile in France, where the French government naturally supported him.
And this
When president Ronald Reagan came into office he began his own campaign of errors, in order to try and correct Carter's historical mistake. When Saddam Hussein, who had just begun his regime of evil in Baghdad, went to war against the regime of the Ayatollahs, the Reagan administration gave him aid. I well recall the meetings between US Ambassador Samuel Lewis and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon in 1981, when Sharon protested against the secret US arms shipments to Iraq. Sharon explained that Saddam was a dangerous enemy, and the weapons supplied to him by the US were liable to reach the Palestinian terrorist organizations.
And this
Casper Weinberger was even less forgiving to Sharon when he succeeded, as Defense Minister, in expelling Yasser Arafat and his ten thousand terrorists from Beirut in August 1982. I was present at various meetings between Sharon, Weinberger and other senior American officials, in Israel, in the Pentagon, and in Beirut. I obtained the impression that they couldn't forgive Sharon, Begin, and Israel for succeeding, for the first time in history, in besieging an Arab capital, Beirut, in order to expel the largest terrorist organization in the world, the PLO. Sharon explained, till his throat was hoarse, that it was essential to continue and uproot the Moslem terror in Western Beirut, that was supported by Iran and Syria, in order to free the Middle East and not just Israel from this threat. I heard the replies of Weinberger and I saw his face expressing unconcealed hostility to Sharon and to Israel. MORE
Don't miss any of it.

The Baghdad Deal
By Pepe Escobar

Do you paranoia? Pepe Escobar of Asia Times does, and he does it well,especially if it involves Baghdad which he seems to intimatly know.

What is in this particular story for us? The pivotal paragraph in the very evolved intrigue which should help answer this question is the following:

"Iraqi sheiks confirm that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - who enjoys excellent relations with the Bush family - had been working tirelessly for months for a political solution to the Iraqi crisis. If Saddam is in Mecca!(emphasis added), the architect would surely have been Prince Abdullah. His rationale always was to prevent by any means a long, bloody guerrilla war in Iraq which would turn the whole Middle East into a volcano. The Bush administration rationale was to grab a chance to engineer an allegedly quick post-Saddam stabilization process and so create a shortcut to the much-talked-about but yet-unpublicized roadmap supposed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

Asia Times should definitly be added to any reading list on the matter at hand..

The New Arafat-Abu Mazen Cabinet

A Roadblock to Middle East Peace Dore Gold
Despite the formation of a new cabinet, Yasser Arafat remains the head of the Palestinian Authority, with powers over finances, security, and future negotiations.

Pro-Arafat forces dominate the new cabinet. Some 12-14 ministers are expected to be old Arafat appointees, while only 4-6 ministers will owe their loyalty to Abu Mazen.

Despite Abu Mazen's control of the Preventive Security Organization, Arafat still commands other, larger security organizations.

Arafat refused to accept Abu Mazen's demand that the armed factions of Fatah, like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, be dismantled.

A diplomatic breakthrough in peace-making remains unlikely, especially with Yasser Arafat still in power and pulling the strings of government. MORE
“Great talent, no wisdom”

Hollywood celebs who raised their voice against the liberation of Iraq have received extra publicity in recent days. The reason for the publicity stems from the fact that two web sites ( and, provided a name list of the "useful idiots", and, as reported by SCSN, the people who ran the sites were subject to death threats (what else would one expect from anti-war pacifists?).

Remarking on the astuteness of the artists in question, Daniel Prager put the celebs' propaganda in a broader perspective; the article is entitled "Much talent, little wisdom" and was posted on April 22 on World Net Daily. Observes Prager:
As a rule, over the last few centuries, artists have been more likely to be morally confused than members of almost any other profession (except academia).
We should no more expect a great actor or composer or painter to be a great human being than we should expect a great lawyer, truck driver, businessman or athlete to be a great human being. Art rarely makes a person wiser or kinder, whether the person is a connoisseur of art or the creator of it.
Richard Wagner, for example, was one of the world's greatest composers and a racist anti-Semite. Neither Beethoven nor Mozart was known to be a particularly decent human being. Herbert von Karajan, one of the most celebrated conductors of the 20th century, served as Kapellmeister under Adolf Hitler and never apologized for his support of the Nazis. The great African-American singer Paul Robeson passionately supported Joseph Stalin until the day that mass murderer died.
So the next time you see "artists for" or "artists against" some cause, without reading any further, you can pretty much bet your mortgage that whatever it is they are for or against, they are morally wrong. While God may have granted artists little wisdom, He apparently did not skimp on hubris
In the context of the Hollywood de facto supporters of Saddam, it would be appropriate to mention the mother of all "artists against...", namely, Leni Riefenstahl. Her biography can be found in numerous web sites such as those of and the BBC (the Biased Broadcasting Corporation).

Born in 1902, Riefenstahl became a dancer, then an actress and finally a film director, just as Adolph Hitler was making his way to power. She proceeded to produce some of the most effective propaganda pieces for Hitler, two of the best known pieces being Triumph of the Will and Olympia (the latter concerning the 1936 Olympics). The BBC site notes:

Riefenstahl went on to prove herself a documentary-maker of genius. Her film of the 1934 Nazi Party Nuremberg Rally, Triumph of the Will, was more than simply a record of the event.

From the opening shots of Hitler's plane arriving through the clouds, its shadow flitting across the roofs of the ancient city, it sets out - in Hitler's own words - to glorify the power and beauty of the Third Reich.
In 1938 she went to America to promote Olympia. The tour coincided with the infamous Kristallnacht of violence against the Jews, when an estimated 20,000 were carted off to concentration camps and scores were murdered.

Too blinkered in her admiration of Hitler to realise the truth, Riefenstahl denounced the reports of violence as lies, and returned to Germany.
To paraphrase Prager, “great talent, zero moral fiber”.

Epilogue. Those who still believe that we live in a just world would be interested to know that this Nazi sympathizer and supporter succeeded in reviving her film career after WW II, and though she was injured in two serious accidents (a car crash and a helicopter crash), she is still around at the age of 101.

Suicide Blast in Israeli Town Kills One

What does this piece in The New York Times tell us about the timing of the suicide bomber and the "new" PA appointments to move along the peace process
A Palestinian suicide bomber made an attack early today outside an Israeli train station, killing himself and another person and injuring at least 13 others, the police said. The bombing, the first fatal one in nearly a month, came just hours after Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, agreed on a compromise cabinet for the governing Palestinian Authority.

Their actions, under international pressure, broke a 10-day stalemate that has delayed the introduction of a new Middle East peace plan.

But initial reports from Palestinians were that the bomber came not from Hamas or the Islamic Jihad, but from an extremist group connected to the Fatah faction founded by Mr. Arafat and Mr. Abbas, emphasizing the obstacles to any new effort peace.

In their bargaining on Wednesday, Mr. Arafat forced Mr. Abbas to promote a few of his longtime allies. But he allowed the inclusion of Muhammad Dahlan, a security official favored by the United States and Israel as willing to crack down on Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.
"This is the essence of power sharing, of partnership," said Nabil Shaath, who was designated as foreign minister, in announcing the agreement.

But it seemed a lopsided partnership, one that favored Mr. Arafat, at least for now.

Mr. Arafat scored more on style than substance. The compromise list of 24 ministers differed by only a few members from the one Mr. Abbas compiled 10 days ago, and it included some reformers he had previously left out, along with allies of Mr. Arafat he had tried to demote. Some associates of Mr. Abbas argued that he wound up looking tough, for having held on to Mr. Dahlan.

But by ostentatiously yielding to foreign demands, Mr. Arafat sharpened Mr. Abbas's image among Palestinians as the candidate of outside interests. Some reform-minded Palestinian officials said that Mr. Abbas had emerged from the fight looking so weak that they might have preferred no resolution, and Mr. Arafat naming a new prime minister instead.

"He was outmaneuvered easily," one of these officials said of Mr. Abbas, who is known as Abu Mazen.

By forcing Mr. Abbas to rework his cabinet list and stretching the fight out almost until the legal deadline of midnight tonight, Mr. Arafat also reminded the world, at whatever cost to Palestinian governance and hopes for peace, that he had not yet become irrelevant, as Israel declared him to be in December 2001.

"All that's proved in the last two or three weeks is that Yasir Arafat is simply there, and his presence is very much felt," said Maher Masri, the reform-minded minister of trade, economy and industry. [...]

Mr. Abbas composed his initial list in secrecy and remained secluded through the talks. He refused to speak to reporters as he left Wednesday, with Mr. Arafat maintaining his firm grip on his hand.

"You lost your chance for me to talk," was all Mr. Abbas said, as he gestured at a scrum of wildly shoving journalists and climbed into a black Mercedes sedan.

Later, Mr. Abbas released a statement in English, suggesting that the ministerial choices were his alone. "I am very pleased that my cabinet has received the support of President Arafat," he said. "The agreement on the cabinet marks a victory for the Palestinian people as it demonstrates our commitment to democracy, even as we live under Israeli occupation." Mr. Abbas founded the mainstream Fatah movement with Mr. Arafat but for 40 years has remained in the shadow of his friend and rival. He has almost no popular following. Palestinian analysts said he would quickly generate some enthusiasm if he achieves tangible benefits for Palestinians, like an easing of Israeli checkpoints and other restrictions.

Leaders of Hamas pounced on the role of foreigners to question the legitimacy of the new government. "The appointment of the prime minister was based on foreign interference," said Mahmoud Zahar of Hamas. "The forming of this new government is also based on foreign interference." That was why, he said, "the Palestinian street is shocked." Rising leaders of Fatah - who brought down a previous Arafat government in September and pushed through legislation last month to create a strong prime minister - were also disappointed.

"What happened was a stumble and not an achievement," said Qadoura Fares, a legislator from Fatah, ascribing the failure to Mr. Abbas and Mr. Arafat. "We built hopes on Abu Mazen of creating serious change. The change was not substantial, not what we were looking for." Several crucial details about the new government were left vague today: first among them, who would arbitrate future disputes between the president and prime minister. "God Almighty," replied Mr. Shaath, grinning and rolling his eyes skyward, when asked who would decide.

Further, the appointment of Mr. Dahlan did not clarify the question of who is ultimately in charge of security. Mr. Abbas has kept for himself the Interior portfolio, which oversees most security matters. Mr. Dahlan is to hold the title of state minister for security affairs.

Islamic Radicals On Campus

Part two of the Front Page piece is here posted by G. Goldwater. If you missed part one, you can find it at the link above

"If it goes to families of those who have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't see anything wrong with that," argued Al-Talib publisher Mohammad Mertaban after the foundations had been disbanded. "I don't understand how people can label Palestinians terrorists."

Feel free to provide a punchline to that last comment.

-A recent Al-Talib editorial, "Then They Came For Us," reflected the MSA�fs growing affiliation with the political Left when it lamented,

"First, it was the indigenous Americans. They were forced off their own land in an unimaginable genocide, their way of life altered forever. Then came the turn of the African Americans.
Forced into slavery, they became part of an enduring cycle of social oppression, which continues to this day.
The Japanese became the target of choice during World War II. Their internment was merely another log in the burning fire of racial discrimination practiced by the government.
As thousands of Muslims sit behind bars without due process, we come to the painful realization that now, it�fs the Muslims�f turn�cThe reality of today is that Big Brother, cloaked as Uncle Sam, is watching, whether we like it or not."

-UCLA is by no means the only American campus rife with MSA rabble-rousing. Take UC Berkeley, the Saudi royal family�fs favorite university. As far back as 1995, the UC Berkeley MSA sponsored a rally in support of the terrorist organization Hamas.
During the event, students carried a sign depicting an Israeli flag with a swastika through the middle and pledged to serve as future suicide bombers.
A Jewish observer was subsequently spit on by one of the demonstrators.

-Earlier this April, federal agents raided the homes of some of Arizona State University�fs leading MSA members, including the chapter�fs president and vice-president, under suspicion of the group�fs terrorist links.

Although the agents didn�ft find any weapons, they did confiscate computers and several floppy disks.

The raid included agents from the F.B.I and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as well immigration authorities, all acting on solid leads.

But Atlaf Husain, MSA national president, was beside himself, saying the students "were humiliated by being handcuffed outside their apartment for 45 minutes, and then by being questioned separately."

-Ohio State University's MSA produces and distributes MSA-NEWS, which has included news releases from groups such as the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, which is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, and the Islamic Salvation Front, an Islamist political party banned in Algeria. According to a December 20, 2001 Associated Press story,

"During last year�fs Ramadan fast, MSA-NEWS urged campus groups to purchase a videotape called "The Martyrs of Bosnia" and show it to Muslim-only gatherings. The video was sold by London-based Azzam Productions, which featured articles on its Web site like
"Taliban: Allah's Blessing on Afghanistan," and solicited funds there for the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan.
The site, and a related German site, were shut down by the British and German governments as part of their Sept. 11 response."

-In the December 6, 2002 issue of the Yale Herald, Saqqib Bhatti, who identifies himself with the Yale MSA, wrote,

"More often than not, the mainstream American media define the Palestinian struggle as inherently terroristic�cThere is an increasing tendency among Zionists to claim that Muslims and Arabs are rarely subject to the kind of discrimination and harassment from which it now believes itself to be suffering�c.Zionism is itself a racist ideology."

-The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor hosted the Second National Student Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement in October, 2002. The MSA was one of the main organizers of this event, which called for divestment from Israel and featured Palestinian Islamic Jihad mastermind Sami Al-Arian, the now-incarcerated ex-University of South Florida professor mentioned earlier in this article, as a speaker.

-The MSA has even managed to find trouble in some of the more serene areas of the Untied States. Last summer, the FBI began investigating charitable donations by the MSA at the University of Idaho and at Washington State University for links to international terrorism. The omni-present Holy Land Foundation was mentioned as part of the investigation.

Created and funded by the Saudis but bred in the vast expanse of North America, the MSA has engaged in every form of anti-Western behavior imaginable.

Whether marching side-by-side with communists in protest of the U.S. government, supporting convicted murderers, preaching "Death to Israel", funding terrorist activities or worshiping at the feet of Osama bin Laden, the MSA National and its many campus chapters pose an imminent threat not only to the schools they inhabit, but the United States in general.

With the war on terrorism escalating at home and abroad, one can only hope that this volatile organization is exposed for what it truly is?the sworn enemy of the United States, conducting a jihad right here in our own backyard.