Panetta, Obama’s Sec’y of Defense, Attacks Israel
With Vicious/Ugly Lies and Demands
Leon Panetta, President Obama’s Secretary of Defense, attacked Israel with vicious and ugly lies and absurd demands on Friday, December 2, 2011. In response to a question from Mr. Ken Pollack, who asked, “what steps should Israel take now?,” Panetta answered, “Just get (Israel) to the damn table, just get to the table.”
ZOA President Morton A. Klein said, “But, this promotes the damnable lie that Israel refuses to negotiate – when, in fact, Israel has been pleading and begging Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to negotiate for the last two plus years, to no avail. In fact, only yesterday the Palestinian Authority repeated its opposition to holding direct peace talks with Israel. It’s the Palestinians who not only refuse to come to the ‘damn table,’ they openly circumvent negotiations by going to the UN to unilaterally have a Palestinian state declared, violating their signed Oslo agreements with Israel which states that no unilateral steps of that nature is permitted without Israel’s approval.
“The PA refuses to negotiate even though Prime Minister Netanyahu has openly supported the establishment of a negotiated Palestinian state and even though Prime Minister Netanyahu offered and fulfilled a one-sided 10-month freeze on Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria, while the PA continued to build there.
“Why has Panetta not told the truth about the PA refusing to negotiate while lying that Israel is refusing to negotiate when in fact Israel is pleading to negotiate. And why has Panetta said nothing about the real obstacles to peace. This includes the PA refusing to end incitement to hatred and violence against Israel in their schools, media, speeches and sermons; glorifying Jew-killing terrorists by naming schools, streets, and sports teams after them; glorifying Jew-killing terrorists by holding day-long commemorative ceremonies when they die; refusing to arrest terrorists; and refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
Panetta also said, “It’s in Israel’s interest to strengthen it (the Palestinian Authority)…now is the time for Israel to take bold action…it will involve risks.”
ZOA’s Klein responds: “Panetta acts as though the PA’s not being strong enough is an issue, ignoring the fact that they’ve formed an alliance with Hamas and have received billions of dollars in aid form the USA and Europe – not to mention receiving regular training of its armed forces by the US military. And why is Panetta talking about Israel needing to take bold action. Israel has done so! It has already given the Palestinian Authority all of Gaza, almost half of Judea & Samaria (West Bank), offered 98% of Judea & Samaria, parts of Jerusalem and statehood in return for peace only to be met with rejection, terrorism, murder and missiles. Israel has taken huge risks – yet Panetta punishes Israel by demanding more – while asking nothing of the Palestinians.
“The ZOA is now questioning whether the U.S. can still call itself an ally of Israel, when it’s repeatedly acting as the Palestinian Authority’s and the Islamists’lawyer.”
Panetta also said, “Israel needs to take risks…and has a responsibility to pursue our shared goals to build regional support for Israel and the U.S. security objectives…Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability – countless like Turkey and Egypt…This is an important time to be able to develop and restore those key relationships in this critical area…If Israel’s gestures are rebuked, the world will see these rebukes for what they are, that is exactly why Israel should pursue them.”
ZOA’s Klein responds, “Again Panetta only asks Israel to take more risks while the PA has done nothing to show any interest in peace which Panetta ignores. He ignores the fact that the Palestinian Authority’s Abbas in his recent UN speech referred to Israel’s 63-year old occupation, meaning all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians; he ignores the fact that a May 16, 2011 New York Times op-ed by Abbas states that even after the Palestinian Authority achieves a state, the Palestinian Authority attacks against Israel will continue in the UN, human rights bodies, and the International Court of Justice; he ignores the fact every Palestinian Authority map in its government, schools, and media shall shows all of Israel as Palestine. He then asks Israel to build regional support – ignoring the fact that Egypt and Turkey themselves have moved away from Israel and the U.S. by becoming Jew-hating extremist Islamist governments. Where is Panetta’s condemnation of Egypt and Turkey and demands on Egypt and Turkey? Panetta falsely claims Egypt and Turkey want regional stability when all their actions indicate otherwise! Contrary to Panetta’s claims the world has already seen Israel make extraordinary concrete gestures to the Palestinian Authority and the Arab world and Lebanon and Turkey - Israel only came away with increased danger and isolation. The world has given Israel no credit for its bold gestures and only condemned Israel more and isolated Israel more, and demanded more of Israel. Mr. Panetta, that includes the Obama administration.”
“The Obama administration has now made it clearer than ever that they irrationally and even antagonistically believe Israel is the reason there’s no peace. The U.S. does not believe it is not the fault of the Palestinian Arabs and the extremist Islamists in Fatah, Hamas, Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon. The Obama administration even blames Israel for these Islamists becoming more extreme and intransigent. Yet Panetta/Obama foolishly and antagonistically believe that this is the time for Israel to weaken itself by making more concessions to the Fatah/Hamas regime!”
“The U.S. is not holding these regimes accountable and is sending a message that these regimes can continue with their anti-peace, pro-terror actions and policies. This is a bad and dangerous policy for Israel. This is a bad and dangerous policy for American and the West.”
Monday, December 05, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
American Citizens and the Drift from First Principles
September 30, 2011
American Citizens and the Drift from First Principles
By Matthew May
Earlier this month I was present at a public appearance by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who had just finished touring a thriving and growing business on the North Shore. Following his tour, the governor delivered a gracious presentation to an assembly of employees. He invited questions following his remarks. What followed was an explicit demonstration of the corrosion of our political discourse.
It's not what you might think: stark-raving morons did not accuse the governor of hiding Barack Obama's original birth certificate underneath a tree in Boston Common. There were no demands that Patrick quarter state troopers in homes flying the Gadsden flag. All of the questions were politely proffered and, most likely in the minds of those asking, innocently benign.
One questioner mentioned how fortunate she was to enjoy employment inasmuch as she graduated with a degree in English. However, she wondered, what could the governor or the legislature do to encourage companies to actively hire other graduates of the liberal arts who are having difficulty finding jobs?
Another person cited a story on the Huffington Post(!) regarding a situation in which some employers in some industries are requiring that applicants for some positions be currently employed to be considered. What could the government do about this?
To his credit, Patrick deftly and diplomatically answered these inane questions about what the government could do about such nonsense with a gentle version of the correct answer: nothing. He let them down easy. But the unstated premise of the questions was frightening: any problem, no matter how anecdotal, no matter how easily solved privately or personally, no matter how irrelevant, demands a response from government. Looking to the government immediately rather than as the absolute last resort has become the default position of too many Americans.
We have a president who is currently doing everything he can to turn us in to Europe, which has been lounging on this very principle since the end of World War II. Every unoriginal solution Obama offers involves government. The government will give you health care. The government will determine what you may and may not eat. The government will determine what you may and may not drive. The government will determine how much debt your unborn children will be required to pay. In short, our president's promise to "fundamentally change" the United States is about the only promise he has kept. Too many in our midst see nothing wrong with this.
This conditioned begging for the attention of Washington or Boston -- with no thought of the consequences it entails -- is symptomatic of a citizenry that has lost its moorings. It is a misapplication of the basic reasons for and functions of government. It is a perversion of the phrase self-government. The more we expect our problems to be solved by distant central planners, the farther we drift from that which made our nation unique and the reason for its existence.
As Ronald Reagan said in 1964, there comes a time when a man who recognizes what has been sacrificed before and what is being irresponsibly risked for the future must say about those who seek to destroy from within that "there is a point beyond which they will not advance."
That is precisely why citizens who are variously known as Tea Partiers or constitutional conservatives, or who were perhaps previously politically ambivalent, are protesting and remaining silent no longer. It explains the enthusiasm for and curiosity about a politician like Texas governor Rick Perry, whose stated presidential campaign principle is to "make the federal government as inconsequential in your life as possible," or a private citizen like Herman Cain representing the non-political class.
That rhetoric resonates because it is a first principle -- perhaps the first principle -- of this republic. Citizens who defer to the government are either ignorant of or willfully blind to the first principles of our government. They have forgotten -- or were never taught -- that the brilliance of our democratic republic lies in self-reliance and charity. It lies -- or once lay -- in a reliance on local institutions, private organizations, our schools, and our churches. It lies -- or once lay -- in self-control and dignity.
Governance in America too was once primarily a local matter. As the late political philosopher Russell Kirk wrote of the way government once functioned in New England, "[g]overnment, in its simplicity, was of direct and immediate concern to most elements in the commonwealth; and since social conscience operates most rigorously when social proximity is the rule, this was, buy and large, a just society: corruption and negligence would have been too conspicuous to pervade for any length of time[.] ... Man had to look man in the eye, conscience spoke to conscience."
Or as the great observer of American life Alexis de Tocqueville put it, "[i]t is in the township that the strength of free peoples resides. Municipal institutions are for liberty what primary schools are for science; they place it within reach of the people[.] ... Without municipal institutions, a nation is able to give itself a free government, but it lacks the spirit of liberty."
It is in the spirit of liberty that there is indeed a cry for fundamental change all over the country. But that sort of fundamental change is alien to President Obama and his enablers because it is a change back to fundamentals that they flatly reject by word and deed every day. They will soon find themselves rejected.
Matthew May welcomes comments at matthewtmay@yahoo.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/american_citizens_and_the_drift_from_first_principles.html at September 30, 2011 - 06:19:41 AM CDT
American Citizens and the Drift from First Principles
By Matthew May
Earlier this month I was present at a public appearance by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who had just finished touring a thriving and growing business on the North Shore. Following his tour, the governor delivered a gracious presentation to an assembly of employees. He invited questions following his remarks. What followed was an explicit demonstration of the corrosion of our political discourse.
It's not what you might think: stark-raving morons did not accuse the governor of hiding Barack Obama's original birth certificate underneath a tree in Boston Common. There were no demands that Patrick quarter state troopers in homes flying the Gadsden flag. All of the questions were politely proffered and, most likely in the minds of those asking, innocently benign.
One questioner mentioned how fortunate she was to enjoy employment inasmuch as she graduated with a degree in English. However, she wondered, what could the governor or the legislature do to encourage companies to actively hire other graduates of the liberal arts who are having difficulty finding jobs?
Another person cited a story on the Huffington Post(!) regarding a situation in which some employers in some industries are requiring that applicants for some positions be currently employed to be considered. What could the government do about this?
To his credit, Patrick deftly and diplomatically answered these inane questions about what the government could do about such nonsense with a gentle version of the correct answer: nothing. He let them down easy. But the unstated premise of the questions was frightening: any problem, no matter how anecdotal, no matter how easily solved privately or personally, no matter how irrelevant, demands a response from government. Looking to the government immediately rather than as the absolute last resort has become the default position of too many Americans.
We have a president who is currently doing everything he can to turn us in to Europe, which has been lounging on this very principle since the end of World War II. Every unoriginal solution Obama offers involves government. The government will give you health care. The government will determine what you may and may not eat. The government will determine what you may and may not drive. The government will determine how much debt your unborn children will be required to pay. In short, our president's promise to "fundamentally change" the United States is about the only promise he has kept. Too many in our midst see nothing wrong with this.
This conditioned begging for the attention of Washington or Boston -- with no thought of the consequences it entails -- is symptomatic of a citizenry that has lost its moorings. It is a misapplication of the basic reasons for and functions of government. It is a perversion of the phrase self-government. The more we expect our problems to be solved by distant central planners, the farther we drift from that which made our nation unique and the reason for its existence.
As Ronald Reagan said in 1964, there comes a time when a man who recognizes what has been sacrificed before and what is being irresponsibly risked for the future must say about those who seek to destroy from within that "there is a point beyond which they will not advance."
That is precisely why citizens who are variously known as Tea Partiers or constitutional conservatives, or who were perhaps previously politically ambivalent, are protesting and remaining silent no longer. It explains the enthusiasm for and curiosity about a politician like Texas governor Rick Perry, whose stated presidential campaign principle is to "make the federal government as inconsequential in your life as possible," or a private citizen like Herman Cain representing the non-political class.
That rhetoric resonates because it is a first principle -- perhaps the first principle -- of this republic. Citizens who defer to the government are either ignorant of or willfully blind to the first principles of our government. They have forgotten -- or were never taught -- that the brilliance of our democratic republic lies in self-reliance and charity. It lies -- or once lay -- in a reliance on local institutions, private organizations, our schools, and our churches. It lies -- or once lay -- in self-control and dignity.
Governance in America too was once primarily a local matter. As the late political philosopher Russell Kirk wrote of the way government once functioned in New England, "[g]overnment, in its simplicity, was of direct and immediate concern to most elements in the commonwealth; and since social conscience operates most rigorously when social proximity is the rule, this was, buy and large, a just society: corruption and negligence would have been too conspicuous to pervade for any length of time[.] ... Man had to look man in the eye, conscience spoke to conscience."
Or as the great observer of American life Alexis de Tocqueville put it, "[i]t is in the township that the strength of free peoples resides. Municipal institutions are for liberty what primary schools are for science; they place it within reach of the people[.] ... Without municipal institutions, a nation is able to give itself a free government, but it lacks the spirit of liberty."
It is in the spirit of liberty that there is indeed a cry for fundamental change all over the country. But that sort of fundamental change is alien to President Obama and his enablers because it is a change back to fundamentals that they flatly reject by word and deed every day. They will soon find themselves rejected.
Matthew May welcomes comments at matthewtmay@yahoo.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/american_citizens_and_the_drift_from_first_principles.html at September 30, 2011 - 06:19:41 AM CDT
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Take your secret Saudi threats and shove ‘em
By Ezra Levant, QMI Agency, Toronto Sun
Saudi Arabia has hired lawyers to threaten Canadian broadcasters who dare to run a TV ad critical of Saudi conflict oil.
I know this because I am the volunteer chairman of EthicalOil.org, the non-profit website that promotes Canada’s oilsands as an ethical alternative to the conflict oil of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC dictatorships.
Alykhan Velshi, who runs EthicalOil.org, produced a 30-second TV ad comparing the treatment of women in Canada with the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. That’s a place where women can’t drive, can’t vote and can’t even get medical care without the permission of their husbands/owners.
Compare that to Canada, where the mayor of the oilsands capital, Fort McMurray, is a young woman named Melissa Blake.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t like criticism like that, though. They are a fascist state without a free press or any opposition political parties. And now they’ve hired one of the world’s largest law firms, a 2,600-lawyer monstrosity called Norton Rose, to threaten Canada’s media into silence, too.
Rahool Agarwal, one of the lawyers at Norton Rose, has been contacting broadcasters across Canada, threatening them if they air the ad. Already two networks have capitulated in the face of such threats, including CTV, Canada’s biggest private broadcaster. Agarwal has also threatened EthicalOil.org with a lawsuit, too. He won’t say for what he clearly has no legal case. But the point is silencing dissent. And it’s working.
The only way we heard about this campaign of threats was when one concerned Canadian who received a threat tipped us off. When our lawyer contacted Agarwal, he sounded genuinely surprised that he was caught. The Saudis prefer to operate under the radar.
Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Canada. They’re an enemy of the West. They’re an enemy of freedom. This is not a new revelation. Fifteen out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was from a prominent Saudi family. Saudi Arabia continues to finance terrorism around the world.
Normally, Islamic extremists focus their hatred on the Great Satan the United States. But Canada is now an enemy of the Saudis, too. Because we’re competitors to them for oil. Within ten years, the oilsands could totally replace Saudi exports to the U.S.
Recently, Saudi billionaire Prince Walid bin Talal said it was in his country’s interest not to let the price of oil get too high, lest alternative sources of oil become practical. Well, the largest unconventional oil reserves in the world are in the oilsands. He didn’t use the word, but he clearly meant it.
Like Greenpeace, the Saudis hate our oilsands. They’re usually content to let Greenpeace do the heavy lifting. But this time, the Saudis were caught red-handed.
The oilsands can take care of themselves. But what about Canada?s media? At least two broadcasters have already caved to this Saudi legal pressure. The Saudis are destroying our culture of freedom and replacing it with their sharia culture of tyranny and bullying.
Foreign Minister John Baird must summon the Saudi ambassador at once. If their foreign meddling and bullying doesn’t cease immediately, he should be expelled.
Canada is free, and our media should be free no matter what some dictatorship wants, and what that dictatorship’s well-paid lawyers threaten in secret.
Saudi Arabia has hired lawyers to threaten Canadian broadcasters who dare to run a TV ad critical of Saudi conflict oil.
I know this because I am the volunteer chairman of EthicalOil.org, the non-profit website that promotes Canada’s oilsands as an ethical alternative to the conflict oil of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC dictatorships.
Alykhan Velshi, who runs EthicalOil.org, produced a 30-second TV ad comparing the treatment of women in Canada with the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. That’s a place where women can’t drive, can’t vote and can’t even get medical care without the permission of their husbands/owners.
Compare that to Canada, where the mayor of the oilsands capital, Fort McMurray, is a young woman named Melissa Blake.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t like criticism like that, though. They are a fascist state without a free press or any opposition political parties. And now they’ve hired one of the world’s largest law firms, a 2,600-lawyer monstrosity called Norton Rose, to threaten Canada’s media into silence, too.
Rahool Agarwal, one of the lawyers at Norton Rose, has been contacting broadcasters across Canada, threatening them if they air the ad. Already two networks have capitulated in the face of such threats, including CTV, Canada’s biggest private broadcaster. Agarwal has also threatened EthicalOil.org with a lawsuit, too. He won’t say for what he clearly has no legal case. But the point is silencing dissent. And it’s working.
The only way we heard about this campaign of threats was when one concerned Canadian who received a threat tipped us off. When our lawyer contacted Agarwal, he sounded genuinely surprised that he was caught. The Saudis prefer to operate under the radar.
Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Canada. They’re an enemy of the West. They’re an enemy of freedom. This is not a new revelation. Fifteen out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was from a prominent Saudi family. Saudi Arabia continues to finance terrorism around the world.
Normally, Islamic extremists focus their hatred on the Great Satan the United States. But Canada is now an enemy of the Saudis, too. Because we’re competitors to them for oil. Within ten years, the oilsands could totally replace Saudi exports to the U.S.
Recently, Saudi billionaire Prince Walid bin Talal said it was in his country’s interest not to let the price of oil get too high, lest alternative sources of oil become practical. Well, the largest unconventional oil reserves in the world are in the oilsands. He didn’t use the word, but he clearly meant it.
Like Greenpeace, the Saudis hate our oilsands. They’re usually content to let Greenpeace do the heavy lifting. But this time, the Saudis were caught red-handed.
The oilsands can take care of themselves. But what about Canada?s media? At least two broadcasters have already caved to this Saudi legal pressure. The Saudis are destroying our culture of freedom and replacing it with their sharia culture of tyranny and bullying.
Foreign Minister John Baird must summon the Saudi ambassador at once. If their foreign meddling and bullying doesn’t cease immediately, he should be expelled.
Canada is free, and our media should be free no matter what some dictatorship wants, and what that dictatorship’s well-paid lawyers threaten in secret.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Distrusting The Common Man
Herbert I. London
September 16, 2011
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2428/distrusting-the-common-man
If there was one overarching goal of the Marxist project, it was refashioning human nature. Whether in religion or politics, the Marxists argued that an obsession with God and a belief in national identity had to be challenged and defeated.
His beliefs had little confidence in the common man.. Marxists maintained they were endowed with an understanding others did not possess. While Marxism is dead, this distaste for the opinion of the common man persists.
Instead of Marxism, this belief now takes the form of "Expert Opinion," or the "Fraternity of Experts," who are eager to regulate human behavior. These are the new progressives, many of them former Marxists, and many who believe that American patriotism should be subordinated to transnational loyalty. Some call these people "Liberal Internationalists." who rely on U.N. prerogatives and other international bodies -- often under the sway of totalitarian governments with not the slightest interest in civil liberties or human rights for guidance.
On the home front, this "Fraternity of Experts" has answers for everything that ails us. If health care is a problem, the experts contend a government engineered system must be put in place, rather than rely on the the marketplace.
If global warming is a problem – a somewhat contentious point – government regulations should be imposed through a "limited carbon footprint" rather than through educating people to deliver restraint. The "Expert" always believes public choices are ignorant and therefore decisions [his) must be imposed.
Another example is the government-imposed minimum wage. Although exploitation and sweatshops are not an acceptable answer, is it not enough to argue that the market, which is primarily based on the combined needs of the producer, the worker and the consumer, is sufficient to determine wages? The experts know better; they actually think they can determine the point at which wages meet labor needs.
Of course the United States is not alone in producing members of the "Fraternity of Experts." If the French are expert at self-proclaimed experts, the European Union is the exemplar of Expert Opinion so confident in its assertions that it seeks to regulate everything from truck tonnage to the size of lawn mowers. Moreover, the EU intends to eliminate national loyalty through the imposition of a transnational entity which not only fails to represent the will of the people, but which fails to note how these "Experts" (read: bureaucrats) in Brussels might be removed should they fail to succeed in their work.
From the ashes of Marxism has emerged a class of elitists not unlike the former members of the Soviet Communist party. They claimed to know what was best for the citizens of Russia; the "Fraternity of Experts" knows what is best for us.
Former Democratic candidate for president John Edwards liked to lecture about two Americas: the privileged and the poor. But this quasi-Marxist theme does not describe the real two Americas: one, managed by "Experts," who believe they possess superior knowledge that translates into engineered regulations; and the other, common sense embodied by the common man.
How can elites demonstrate their "superior" wisdom if they are restrained? How can experts flaunt their expertise if their plans for us are rejected?
The very fact that the "Fraternity of Experts" distrusts the common man should be cause to distrust it. So when the new big idea emerges from the tombs of government, beware. The expert who wants to regulate you distrusts you and your ability to decide anything for yourself.
Herbert London is president emeritus of Hudson Institute, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Books).
September 16, 2011
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2428/distrusting-the-common-man
If there was one overarching goal of the Marxist project, it was refashioning human nature. Whether in religion or politics, the Marxists argued that an obsession with God and a belief in national identity had to be challenged and defeated.
His beliefs had little confidence in the common man.. Marxists maintained they were endowed with an understanding others did not possess. While Marxism is dead, this distaste for the opinion of the common man persists.
Instead of Marxism, this belief now takes the form of "Expert Opinion," or the "Fraternity of Experts," who are eager to regulate human behavior. These are the new progressives, many of them former Marxists, and many who believe that American patriotism should be subordinated to transnational loyalty. Some call these people "Liberal Internationalists." who rely on U.N. prerogatives and other international bodies -- often under the sway of totalitarian governments with not the slightest interest in civil liberties or human rights for guidance.
On the home front, this "Fraternity of Experts" has answers for everything that ails us. If health care is a problem, the experts contend a government engineered system must be put in place, rather than rely on the the marketplace.
If global warming is a problem – a somewhat contentious point – government regulations should be imposed through a "limited carbon footprint" rather than through educating people to deliver restraint. The "Expert" always believes public choices are ignorant and therefore decisions [his) must be imposed.
Another example is the government-imposed minimum wage. Although exploitation and sweatshops are not an acceptable answer, is it not enough to argue that the market, which is primarily based on the combined needs of the producer, the worker and the consumer, is sufficient to determine wages? The experts know better; they actually think they can determine the point at which wages meet labor needs.
Of course the United States is not alone in producing members of the "Fraternity of Experts." If the French are expert at self-proclaimed experts, the European Union is the exemplar of Expert Opinion so confident in its assertions that it seeks to regulate everything from truck tonnage to the size of lawn mowers. Moreover, the EU intends to eliminate national loyalty through the imposition of a transnational entity which not only fails to represent the will of the people, but which fails to note how these "Experts" (read: bureaucrats) in Brussels might be removed should they fail to succeed in their work.
From the ashes of Marxism has emerged a class of elitists not unlike the former members of the Soviet Communist party. They claimed to know what was best for the citizens of Russia; the "Fraternity of Experts" knows what is best for us.
Former Democratic candidate for president John Edwards liked to lecture about two Americas: the privileged and the poor. But this quasi-Marxist theme does not describe the real two Americas: one, managed by "Experts," who believe they possess superior knowledge that translates into engineered regulations; and the other, common sense embodied by the common man.
How can elites demonstrate their "superior" wisdom if they are restrained? How can experts flaunt their expertise if their plans for us are rejected?
The very fact that the "Fraternity of Experts" distrusts the common man should be cause to distrust it. So when the new big idea emerges from the tombs of government, beware. The expert who wants to regulate you distrusts you and your ability to decide anything for yourself.
Herbert London is president emeritus of Hudson Institute, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Books).
A Plan B for Jordan?
Mudar Zahran
September 16, 2011
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2429/jordan-plan-b
The King of Jordan, Abdullah II, delivered a speech on September 11, in which he mentioned the Jordanian civil war of 1970 for the first time ever: "There are not any issues we are too embarrassed to discuss, even if there is someone who wants to discuss the incidents of 1970, this is a part of history; let us think of the future and not the past."
Commenting on the fear of Jordan's Bedouin minority -- who make up the king's military and are the protected class -- that Jordan might become the Palestinian majority's homeland -- a plan dubbed "the alternative homeland" by the local media -- the king said: "I would like to assure everyone that Jordan will not be an alternative country to anyone. Is it even logical that Jordan will become an alternative to anyone while we sit there and do nothing? We have an army and we are willing to fight for our country and for the future of Jordan, and we must speak vigorously and not ever allow this idea to remain in the minds of some of us….We have fought Israel before many times."
"Jordan and the future of Palestine," he added, "are much stronger than Israel today; the Israeli is the one who is afraid….When I was in the United States, I spoke to an Israeli intellectual; he told me that what was happening in Arab countries today is in the interests of Israel. I told him, 'I think it is the opposite: your situation today is much harder than before.'"
King Abdullah also mentioned the need to address the issue of "national identity" in Jordan -- a phrase associated with isolating the Palestinians, who make up 80% of the population, in favor of the Beduin minority, for whom he would establish Jordan as a purely Bedouin state: "We must speak with a loud voice about the Jordanian identity," he said, "yet national unity is a red line." In other words, the king openly supports talk about imposing a Jordanian Bedouin identity on the country, while at the same time prohibiting any "unity" with the Palestinians -- a notion he had previously denounced.
The king, in his speech, was using a common Arab political trick of saying an undesired thing to the public -- reminding the Palestinians of the civil war in which they were slaughtered -- and then, in the same sentence, ostensibly defusing the threat of another slaughter by adding that he would spare the Palestinians so long as they accept the situation as is, where they are citizens, but still treated as refugees and outsiders in every way.
Although it is common for Arab regimes that are pro-Western to talk tough about the US and Israel every now and then -- to rally their people behind them by threatening these cost-free targets, and thereby divert anger away from their own repressive regimes onto other countries -- this time the context was different: The King's speech, aired on Jordanian national television, came two days after Wikileaks released several US Embassy, Amman, cables that described the testimonies of some Jordanian Palestinians officials who were complaining to Embassy officers about the discrimination against the Palestinians in Jordan. One cable, entitled, "The Grand Bargain," mentioned a Palestinian political leader's belief that the "right of return" was unfeasible - signifying the Palestinians' willingness to accept a permanent home in Jordan --rather than in hoping to return to Israel, as the refugees and five generations of descendants are continually being promised -- in exchange for finally attaining civil rights in Jordan.
The government-controlled Jordanian media expressed anger at the US Embassy -- to the point of issuing calls for a protest against both the American and Israeli embassies in Amman, which they called "the espionage beehive."
The King's talk sounded provocative and terrorizing to the Jordanian Palestinians, who are already discriminated against and disenfranchised politically by the Hashemite regime. The Bedouin-dominated town of Kerak in Southern Jordan, for example, has ten parliamentary seats for fewer than 150,000 voters, while the Palestinian-dominated Amman has barely twenty parliamentary seats for three million voters.
What made matters especially threatening was the way Jordan's Bedouins seem to have understood the King's remarks. The King's statement, for instance, that he would "not feel embarrassed to address any issue including the civil war," seems to have been understood by the Bedouin military as permission to go out and target the Palestinians. Comments on Jordanian social websites, such as Facebook, appeared, with disturbing messages of incitement: Jordanian Bedouins began calling for violence against both Israel and the Palestinian majority. One of commentators said on Facebook: "We shall give the Palestinians another Black September," said one, "only this time we will make it red." Another said: "Those Palestinians are worse than Jews. I could never make out the difference. We will march to kick [the Palestinian] out [of Jordan] and we will knock down the Israeli embassy." Still another said, "You do the killing, guys, just leave the hot Palestinian chicks for me; I will rape their little girls." While this anti-Palestinian sentiment is not new in Jordan, after the King's speech it reached a new extreme.
It seemed as if the king was threatening Israel with a war, and the Palestinians in Jordan with a civil war. This perceived threat translated into protests: one against the American Embassy in Amman on September 15th, and one against the Israeli Embassy for Friday, September 16th. Both protests were called for and organized by Nahid Hattar, a Christian Bedouin writer, who has been calling for ousting the Palestinians from Jordan, and who has openly admitted his direct one-on-one connection to the former chief of the Jordanian Intelligence Department while the latter was in office.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs withdrew its ambassador and staff from the Embassy following the call for the protest. Several leaders of Palestinian refugee camps claimed they issued orders for their youngsters not to participate in protests against both embassies; eventually, the turnout rate at both events was low. Al-Jazeera TV reported tens of Muslim Brotherhood protesters opposite the American embassy on September 15th, while the Washington Post reported only around 200 protestors are expected against the Israeli embassy for September 16th. If this is a sign the Palestinians in Jordan's refugee camps have matured in their view of Israel, it is too early to tell.
The author has been receiving reports from Palestinian refugee camps' leaders, claiming that the government was arming the Bedouin Jordanian tribes, and handing out machine-guns to them -- allegedly along with anti-Palestinian incitement. These reports, whether true or not, indicate how fragile the situation is. The same fragility was also noted by Israeli officials, who reported that "Jordan is in an extremely precarious state and effectively hanging by a thread."
King Abdullah's threats of using his military to confront Israel are most likely hollow. Although he surely realizes he could not overpower Israel by force, as his grandfather and father tried to in 1947 and 1967, it is possible he believes he is in a stronger position than a few months ago, since Israel has lost significant allies in Egypt and Turkey, and therefore might feel more isolated, or regard its friendship with Jordan as more precious than ever. Or perhaps the king believes he has a Palestinian demographic card to play against Israel in his repeated emphasis on the "right of return" for his Palestinians, as he revealed in an interview on Israel's Channel 2, when he said Israel would have no clear future because of the demographic "challenge."
King Abdullah has also been placing demographic pressure on Israel, threatening to overrun it with Arabs, by stripping his Palestinians of their citizenships and ordering them to go "home to Palestine," meaning Israel, in what Human Rights Watch has described as a random and irregular manner. Human Rights Watch described stripping Palestinians in Jordan of their nationalities as "Jordan playing politics with its citizens' basic rights." The list of victims of this anti-Palestinian policy includes surgeons, academics, schoolchildren, and housewives. According to two reports by Human Rights Watch, Palestinians who have never been to Israel have found themselves with no Jordanian nationality, and often no nationality of any kind.
King Abdullah's situation should serve as a reminder that the status quo of Jordan is not necessarily sustainable. Although some might not like it, and others might wish it to remain forever, with the Arab Spring sweeping away much stronger regimes, such as that of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, it could be wishful thinking to assume that Jordan will stay the way it is.
It is not certain that King Abdullah's regime will be able to survive a revolt from the frustrated and angry Palestinian majority should one take place; or possibly even a revolt from the heavily-armed Bedouins who recently seem to have been acquiring a dislike for the Westernized king, and issuing public statements against him for over a year.
Should Abdullah be toppled tomorrow, does the United States have anyone prepared to speak with Jordan's non-Islamist Palestinians, who have been dominating the pro-reform protests, such as March 24th Movement? Or will the United States just accept anti-American Bedouins and Palestinians taking over Jordan?
It might be time to start at least considering a Plan B for Jordan -- just in case.
September 16, 2011
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2429/jordan-plan-b
The King of Jordan, Abdullah II, delivered a speech on September 11, in which he mentioned the Jordanian civil war of 1970 for the first time ever: "There are not any issues we are too embarrassed to discuss, even if there is someone who wants to discuss the incidents of 1970, this is a part of history; let us think of the future and not the past."
Commenting on the fear of Jordan's Bedouin minority -- who make up the king's military and are the protected class -- that Jordan might become the Palestinian majority's homeland -- a plan dubbed "the alternative homeland" by the local media -- the king said: "I would like to assure everyone that Jordan will not be an alternative country to anyone. Is it even logical that Jordan will become an alternative to anyone while we sit there and do nothing? We have an army and we are willing to fight for our country and for the future of Jordan, and we must speak vigorously and not ever allow this idea to remain in the minds of some of us….We have fought Israel before many times."
"Jordan and the future of Palestine," he added, "are much stronger than Israel today; the Israeli is the one who is afraid….When I was in the United States, I spoke to an Israeli intellectual; he told me that what was happening in Arab countries today is in the interests of Israel. I told him, 'I think it is the opposite: your situation today is much harder than before.'"
King Abdullah also mentioned the need to address the issue of "national identity" in Jordan -- a phrase associated with isolating the Palestinians, who make up 80% of the population, in favor of the Beduin minority, for whom he would establish Jordan as a purely Bedouin state: "We must speak with a loud voice about the Jordanian identity," he said, "yet national unity is a red line." In other words, the king openly supports talk about imposing a Jordanian Bedouin identity on the country, while at the same time prohibiting any "unity" with the Palestinians -- a notion he had previously denounced.
The king, in his speech, was using a common Arab political trick of saying an undesired thing to the public -- reminding the Palestinians of the civil war in which they were slaughtered -- and then, in the same sentence, ostensibly defusing the threat of another slaughter by adding that he would spare the Palestinians so long as they accept the situation as is, where they are citizens, but still treated as refugees and outsiders in every way.
Although it is common for Arab regimes that are pro-Western to talk tough about the US and Israel every now and then -- to rally their people behind them by threatening these cost-free targets, and thereby divert anger away from their own repressive regimes onto other countries -- this time the context was different: The King's speech, aired on Jordanian national television, came two days after Wikileaks released several US Embassy, Amman, cables that described the testimonies of some Jordanian Palestinians officials who were complaining to Embassy officers about the discrimination against the Palestinians in Jordan. One cable, entitled, "The Grand Bargain," mentioned a Palestinian political leader's belief that the "right of return" was unfeasible - signifying the Palestinians' willingness to accept a permanent home in Jordan --rather than in hoping to return to Israel, as the refugees and five generations of descendants are continually being promised -- in exchange for finally attaining civil rights in Jordan.
The government-controlled Jordanian media expressed anger at the US Embassy -- to the point of issuing calls for a protest against both the American and Israeli embassies in Amman, which they called "the espionage beehive."
The King's talk sounded provocative and terrorizing to the Jordanian Palestinians, who are already discriminated against and disenfranchised politically by the Hashemite regime. The Bedouin-dominated town of Kerak in Southern Jordan, for example, has ten parliamentary seats for fewer than 150,000 voters, while the Palestinian-dominated Amman has barely twenty parliamentary seats for three million voters.
What made matters especially threatening was the way Jordan's Bedouins seem to have understood the King's remarks. The King's statement, for instance, that he would "not feel embarrassed to address any issue including the civil war," seems to have been understood by the Bedouin military as permission to go out and target the Palestinians. Comments on Jordanian social websites, such as Facebook, appeared, with disturbing messages of incitement: Jordanian Bedouins began calling for violence against both Israel and the Palestinian majority. One of commentators said on Facebook: "We shall give the Palestinians another Black September," said one, "only this time we will make it red." Another said: "Those Palestinians are worse than Jews. I could never make out the difference. We will march to kick [the Palestinian] out [of Jordan] and we will knock down the Israeli embassy." Still another said, "You do the killing, guys, just leave the hot Palestinian chicks for me; I will rape their little girls." While this anti-Palestinian sentiment is not new in Jordan, after the King's speech it reached a new extreme.
It seemed as if the king was threatening Israel with a war, and the Palestinians in Jordan with a civil war. This perceived threat translated into protests: one against the American Embassy in Amman on September 15th, and one against the Israeli Embassy for Friday, September 16th. Both protests were called for and organized by Nahid Hattar, a Christian Bedouin writer, who has been calling for ousting the Palestinians from Jordan, and who has openly admitted his direct one-on-one connection to the former chief of the Jordanian Intelligence Department while the latter was in office.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs withdrew its ambassador and staff from the Embassy following the call for the protest. Several leaders of Palestinian refugee camps claimed they issued orders for their youngsters not to participate in protests against both embassies; eventually, the turnout rate at both events was low. Al-Jazeera TV reported tens of Muslim Brotherhood protesters opposite the American embassy on September 15th, while the Washington Post reported only around 200 protestors are expected against the Israeli embassy for September 16th. If this is a sign the Palestinians in Jordan's refugee camps have matured in their view of Israel, it is too early to tell.
The author has been receiving reports from Palestinian refugee camps' leaders, claiming that the government was arming the Bedouin Jordanian tribes, and handing out machine-guns to them -- allegedly along with anti-Palestinian incitement. These reports, whether true or not, indicate how fragile the situation is. The same fragility was also noted by Israeli officials, who reported that "Jordan is in an extremely precarious state and effectively hanging by a thread."
King Abdullah's threats of using his military to confront Israel are most likely hollow. Although he surely realizes he could not overpower Israel by force, as his grandfather and father tried to in 1947 and 1967, it is possible he believes he is in a stronger position than a few months ago, since Israel has lost significant allies in Egypt and Turkey, and therefore might feel more isolated, or regard its friendship with Jordan as more precious than ever. Or perhaps the king believes he has a Palestinian demographic card to play against Israel in his repeated emphasis on the "right of return" for his Palestinians, as he revealed in an interview on Israel's Channel 2, when he said Israel would have no clear future because of the demographic "challenge."
King Abdullah has also been placing demographic pressure on Israel, threatening to overrun it with Arabs, by stripping his Palestinians of their citizenships and ordering them to go "home to Palestine," meaning Israel, in what Human Rights Watch has described as a random and irregular manner. Human Rights Watch described stripping Palestinians in Jordan of their nationalities as "Jordan playing politics with its citizens' basic rights." The list of victims of this anti-Palestinian policy includes surgeons, academics, schoolchildren, and housewives. According to two reports by Human Rights Watch, Palestinians who have never been to Israel have found themselves with no Jordanian nationality, and often no nationality of any kind.
King Abdullah's situation should serve as a reminder that the status quo of Jordan is not necessarily sustainable. Although some might not like it, and others might wish it to remain forever, with the Arab Spring sweeping away much stronger regimes, such as that of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, it could be wishful thinking to assume that Jordan will stay the way it is.
It is not certain that King Abdullah's regime will be able to survive a revolt from the frustrated and angry Palestinian majority should one take place; or possibly even a revolt from the heavily-armed Bedouins who recently seem to have been acquiring a dislike for the Westernized king, and issuing public statements against him for over a year.
Should Abdullah be toppled tomorrow, does the United States have anyone prepared to speak with Jordan's non-Islamist Palestinians, who have been dominating the pro-reform protests, such as March 24th Movement? Or will the United States just accept anti-American Bedouins and Palestinians taking over Jordan?
It might be time to start at least considering a Plan B for Jordan -- just in case.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
The Tipping Point: Embracing the Muslim Brotherhood
Frank J. Gaffney, jr.
The Obama administration chose the eve of the holiday marking our Nation's birth to acknowledge publicly behavior in which it has long been stealthily engaged to the United States' extreme detriment: Its officials now admit that they are embracing the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan in Arabic). That would be the same international Islamist organization that has the destruction of the United States, Israel and all other parts of the Free World as its explicit objective.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to downplay the momentousness of this major policy shift by portraying it during a stopover in Budapest as follows: "The Obama administration is continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that have existed on and off for about five or six years." In fact, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out in a characteristically brilliant, and scathing, dissection of this announcement, Team Obama's official, open legitimation of the Brotherhood marks a dramatic break from the U.S. government's historical refusal to deal formally with the Ikhwan.
To understand why the Obama administration's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood is so ominous, consider three insights into the organization's nature and ambitions:
First, here's the MB's creed: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." (Source: Husain Haqqani and Hillel Fradkin, "Islamist Parties: Going Back to the Origins.")
Second, here's the Ikwhan's mission in America:
"A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, sabotaging its miserable house with their [i.e., Americans'] hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." (Source: Muslim Brotherhood's "Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goals of the Group," entered into evidence by the Department of Justice in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-finance trial. Archived at the NEFA Foundation.)
Third, here are excerpts from the Muslim Brotherhood's "phased plan" for accomplishing that mission:
Phase One: Discreet and secret establishment of leadership.
Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities. It greatly succeeded in implementing this stage. It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government.
Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.
Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.
Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united. (Source: Undated Muslim Brotherhood Paper entitled, "Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan." Archived at Shariah: The Threat to America.)
In short, the Muslim Brotherhood is deadly serious about waging what it calls "civilization jihad" against the United States and other freedom-loving nations in order to secure their submission to the Islamic totalitarian political-military-legal doctrine called shariah. The MB's goal in this country is to replace our Constitution with theirs, namely the Koran. And they regard this task as one commanded by none other than Allah. (For more details on the nature, ambitions and modus operandi of the Ikhwan, see the Team B II Report, Shariah: The Threat to America). To this end, as Andy McCarthy notes in the aforementioned essay, the MB's senior official, Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi, has effectively declared war on the United States.
Were there any doubt that legitimacy is what the Ikhwan is taking away from this gambit, consider this assessment from an expert in Islamic groups, Ammar Ali Hassan, cited by Associated Press: "...The Brotherhood will likely try to float ‘conditions' or ‘reservations' on any dialogue to avoid a perception that it is allowing the U.S. to meddle in Egypt's internal affairs. But in the end, the talks will give a boost to the group, he said, by easing worries some in the Brotherhood and the public have of a backlash if the Brotherhood becomes the dominant player in Egypt. ‘Now the Muslim Brotherhood will not have to worry [about] moving forward toward taking over power,' Hassan said."
Unfortunately, the U.S. government's dangerous outreach to the Ikhwan is not confined to Egypt but is systematically practiced inside the United States, as well. For example:
Muslim-American organizations identified in court by the U.S. government - and, in many cases, by the Muslim Brotherhood itself - as MB fronts are routinely cultivated by federal, state and local officials. Representatives of homeland security, Pentagon, intelligence and law enforcement agencies frequently meet with and attend functions sponsored by such groups.
MB-associated individuals are sent as our country's "goodwill ambassadors" to foreign Muslim nations and communities. MB-favored initiatives to insinuate shariah into the United States - notably, the Ground Zero Mosque and shariah-compliant finance, conscientious objector status for Muslim servicemen and stifling of free speech in accordance with shariah "blasphemy" laws - are endorsed and/or enabled by official institutions.
A blind eye is turned to the presence across the country of shariah-adherent mosques that incubate jihadism. A peer-reviewed study published last month in Middle East Quarterly determined that 81% of a random sample of 100 mosques exhibited such qualities - constituting an infrastructure for recruitment, indoctrination and training consistent with the Brotherhood's phased plan.
Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, individuals with family and other ties to the Muslim Brotherhood have actually given senior government positions. The most recent of these to come to light is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin (who also happens to be former Rep. Anthony Weiner's wife).
It seems a safe bet that, as Team Obama legitimates Muslim Brotherhood organizations and groups overseas, it will feel ever less constrained about further empowering their counterparts in the United States. If so, the MB will come to exercise even greater influence over what our government does and does not do about the threat posed by shariah, both abroad and here.
The absolutely predictable effect will be to undermine U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East and further catalyze the Brotherhood's campaign to insinuate shariah in the United States and, ultimately, to supplant the Constitution with Islamic law. Consequently, the Obama administration's efforts to "engage" the Muslim Brotherhood are not just reckless. They are wholly incompatible with the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and the similar commitment made by his subordinates.
These officials' now-open embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood constitutes a geo-strategic tipping point, one that must catalyze an urgent national debate on this question: Does such conduct violate their oath of office by endangering the Constitution they have undertaken to uphold?
At a minimum, such a debate would afford a much-needed opportunity to examine alternatives to the administration's present course - as well as the real risks associated with that its intensifying pursuit. For instance, one of the most astute American authorities on the Middle East in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, Dr. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a posting at The American blog yesterday:
"Rather than embrace the Brotherhood, the Obama administration should be seeking to ensure that the group cannot dominate Egypt. Most analysts agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is by far the best organized group in Egypt, but that it only enjoys perhaps 25 or 30 percent support. The secular opposition remains weak and fractured. If the Obama administration wishes to remain engaged in Egypt's future and shape the best possible outcome for both U.S. national security and the Egyptian people, it should be pushing for electoral reform to change Egypt's dysfunctional system to a proportional representation model in which the secular majority can form a coalition to check a Muslim Brotherhood minority for which true democracy is anathema."
The same goes for the enemy within. Instead of relying upon - let alone hiring - Muslim Brotherhood operatives and associates, the United States government should be shutting down their fronts, shariah-adherent, jihad-incubating "community centers" and insidious influence operations in America. By recognizing these enterprises for what they are, namely vehicles for fulfilling the seditious goals of the MB's civilization jihad, they can and must be treated as prosecutable subversive enterprises, not protected religious ones under the U.S. Constitution.
Let the debate begin.
This article can be found here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18757.xml
The Obama administration chose the eve of the holiday marking our Nation's birth to acknowledge publicly behavior in which it has long been stealthily engaged to the United States' extreme detriment: Its officials now admit that they are embracing the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan in Arabic). That would be the same international Islamist organization that has the destruction of the United States, Israel and all other parts of the Free World as its explicit objective.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to downplay the momentousness of this major policy shift by portraying it during a stopover in Budapest as follows: "The Obama administration is continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that have existed on and off for about five or six years." In fact, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out in a characteristically brilliant, and scathing, dissection of this announcement, Team Obama's official, open legitimation of the Brotherhood marks a dramatic break from the U.S. government's historical refusal to deal formally with the Ikhwan.
To understand why the Obama administration's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood is so ominous, consider three insights into the organization's nature and ambitions:
First, here's the MB's creed: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." (Source: Husain Haqqani and Hillel Fradkin, "Islamist Parties: Going Back to the Origins.")
Second, here's the Ikwhan's mission in America:
"A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, sabotaging its miserable house with their [i.e., Americans'] hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." (Source: Muslim Brotherhood's "Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goals of the Group," entered into evidence by the Department of Justice in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-finance trial. Archived at the NEFA Foundation.)
Third, here are excerpts from the Muslim Brotherhood's "phased plan" for accomplishing that mission:
Phase One: Discreet and secret establishment of leadership.
Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities. It greatly succeeded in implementing this stage. It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government.
Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.
Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.
Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united. (Source: Undated Muslim Brotherhood Paper entitled, "Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan." Archived at Shariah: The Threat to America.)
In short, the Muslim Brotherhood is deadly serious about waging what it calls "civilization jihad" against the United States and other freedom-loving nations in order to secure their submission to the Islamic totalitarian political-military-legal doctrine called shariah. The MB's goal in this country is to replace our Constitution with theirs, namely the Koran. And they regard this task as one commanded by none other than Allah. (For more details on the nature, ambitions and modus operandi of the Ikhwan, see the Team B II Report, Shariah: The Threat to America). To this end, as Andy McCarthy notes in the aforementioned essay, the MB's senior official, Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi, has effectively declared war on the United States.
Were there any doubt that legitimacy is what the Ikhwan is taking away from this gambit, consider this assessment from an expert in Islamic groups, Ammar Ali Hassan, cited by Associated Press: "...The Brotherhood will likely try to float ‘conditions' or ‘reservations' on any dialogue to avoid a perception that it is allowing the U.S. to meddle in Egypt's internal affairs. But in the end, the talks will give a boost to the group, he said, by easing worries some in the Brotherhood and the public have of a backlash if the Brotherhood becomes the dominant player in Egypt. ‘Now the Muslim Brotherhood will not have to worry [about] moving forward toward taking over power,' Hassan said."
Unfortunately, the U.S. government's dangerous outreach to the Ikhwan is not confined to Egypt but is systematically practiced inside the United States, as well. For example:
Muslim-American organizations identified in court by the U.S. government - and, in many cases, by the Muslim Brotherhood itself - as MB fronts are routinely cultivated by federal, state and local officials. Representatives of homeland security, Pentagon, intelligence and law enforcement agencies frequently meet with and attend functions sponsored by such groups.
MB-associated individuals are sent as our country's "goodwill ambassadors" to foreign Muslim nations and communities. MB-favored initiatives to insinuate shariah into the United States - notably, the Ground Zero Mosque and shariah-compliant finance, conscientious objector status for Muslim servicemen and stifling of free speech in accordance with shariah "blasphemy" laws - are endorsed and/or enabled by official institutions.
A blind eye is turned to the presence across the country of shariah-adherent mosques that incubate jihadism. A peer-reviewed study published last month in Middle East Quarterly determined that 81% of a random sample of 100 mosques exhibited such qualities - constituting an infrastructure for recruitment, indoctrination and training consistent with the Brotherhood's phased plan.
Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, individuals with family and other ties to the Muslim Brotherhood have actually given senior government positions. The most recent of these to come to light is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin (who also happens to be former Rep. Anthony Weiner's wife).
It seems a safe bet that, as Team Obama legitimates Muslim Brotherhood organizations and groups overseas, it will feel ever less constrained about further empowering their counterparts in the United States. If so, the MB will come to exercise even greater influence over what our government does and does not do about the threat posed by shariah, both abroad and here.
The absolutely predictable effect will be to undermine U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East and further catalyze the Brotherhood's campaign to insinuate shariah in the United States and, ultimately, to supplant the Constitution with Islamic law. Consequently, the Obama administration's efforts to "engage" the Muslim Brotherhood are not just reckless. They are wholly incompatible with the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and the similar commitment made by his subordinates.
These officials' now-open embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood constitutes a geo-strategic tipping point, one that must catalyze an urgent national debate on this question: Does such conduct violate their oath of office by endangering the Constitution they have undertaken to uphold?
At a minimum, such a debate would afford a much-needed opportunity to examine alternatives to the administration's present course - as well as the real risks associated with that its intensifying pursuit. For instance, one of the most astute American authorities on the Middle East in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, Dr. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a posting at The American blog yesterday:
"Rather than embrace the Brotherhood, the Obama administration should be seeking to ensure that the group cannot dominate Egypt. Most analysts agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is by far the best organized group in Egypt, but that it only enjoys perhaps 25 or 30 percent support. The secular opposition remains weak and fractured. If the Obama administration wishes to remain engaged in Egypt's future and shape the best possible outcome for both U.S. national security and the Egyptian people, it should be pushing for electoral reform to change Egypt's dysfunctional system to a proportional representation model in which the secular majority can form a coalition to check a Muslim Brotherhood minority for which true democracy is anathema."
The same goes for the enemy within. Instead of relying upon - let alone hiring - Muslim Brotherhood operatives and associates, the United States government should be shutting down their fronts, shariah-adherent, jihad-incubating "community centers" and insidious influence operations in America. By recognizing these enterprises for what they are, namely vehicles for fulfilling the seditious goals of the MB's civilization jihad, they can and must be treated as prosecutable subversive enterprises, not protected religious ones under the U.S. Constitution.
Let the debate begin.
This article can be found here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18757.xml
Friday, May 20, 2011
The Muslim Brotherhood Marches On...
May 20, 2011
The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report
Islamic Development Bank Awards Prize to U.K. Islamic Foundation
Arab News has reported that Islamic Development Bank (IDB) announced Wednesday that the Islamic Foundation, UK, is the winner of the IDB Prize in Islamic Economics for the year 2011. According to the report:
JEDDAH: The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) announced Wednesday that the Islamic Foundation, UK, is declared the winner of the IDB Prize in Islamic Economics for the year 2011 in recognition of its substantial contribution to the promotion of Islamic economics. The Prize will be awarded to the winner during the 36th IDB BOG Annual Meeting in Jeddah, to be held on June 29-30. Ahmad Muhammad Ali, president of the Islamic Development Bank Group, in a statement congratulated the laureate on its notable accomplishment. He commended its officers in-charge for the valuable contribution to Islamic economics and wished them greater success in all their endeavors. He also congratulated the British diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia for the achievement of this British Islamic institution in the service of Islamic economics. The IDB Prize Selection Committee, chaired by Professor Hatem Karanshawy, dean of the faculty of Islamic studies at Qatar Foundation and composed of eminent scholars and experts from outside and inside the bank, met at the IDB headquarters on May 15 and decided unanimously to award the IDB Prize in Islamic Economics for the year 1432H to the Islamic Foundation, UK by issuing the following statement: The IDB Prize Selection Committee unanimously decides to award the IDB Prize in Islamic Economics for the year 1432H to The Islamic Foundation, UK.
Read the rest here.
The Islamic Foundation is close to both the Pakistani Islamist group known as the Jama’at-e-Islami as well as to the Global Muslim Brotherhood .
In an article on “financial jihad”, authors Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen provide some useful information about the role of the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), known to have funded many global Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas-related projects:
In 1969, the Saudis convened Arab and Muslim states to unify the “struggle for Islam,” and have ever since been the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s (OIC’s) major sponsor. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan, and Syria. The Jidda-based, “pending the liberation of Jerusalem,” OIC’s charter mandates and coordinates “support [of] the struggle of the Palestinian people, . . . recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories.” The OIC charter includes all the MB principles. Its first international undertaking in 1973 was to establish the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) “in accordance with the principles of the shariah,”as prescribed by the MB—and to launch the fast-growing petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. The IDB, more a development than commercial bank, was established largely “to promote Islamic banking worldwide.” “[A]n Islamic organization must serve God… and ultimately sustain …the growth and advancement of the Islamic way of life,” writes Nasser M. Suleiman in “Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking.” And the IDB has done just that. Between 1975 to 2005, the IDB approved over $50 billion in funding to Muslim countries, ostensibly to develop their economic and educational infrastructures, but effected little regional economic impact. Its educational efforts, however, paid huge yields—via the rapid and significant spread of radical Islam worldwide. Moreover, in 2001 alone, the IDB transferred $538 million23 raised publicly by Saudi and Gulf royal telethons to support the Palestinian intifada and families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IDB has also channeled UN funds to Hamas, as documented by bank records discovered in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, the IDB received UN observer status in 2007. According to a 1991 U.S. Library of Congress report on Sudan, the IDB also supported Faisal Islamic Bank, established in 1977 under Sudan’s Faisal Islamic Bank Act by Saudi prince Muhammad ibn Faisal Al Saud and managed by local Muslim Brotherhood members and their party, the National Islamic Front. Soon other political groups and parties formed their own Islamic banks. Together, Sudanese Islamic banks then acquired 20 percent of the country’s deposits “providing the financial basis to turn Sudan into an Islamic state in 1983, and promoting the Islamic governmental policies to date.” Sudan Islamized its banking in 1989. However, Pakistan was the first country to officially Islamize its banking practices, in 1979.
Previous posts have discussed the role of the IDB in funding a project of a Ukrainian Brotherhood organization, in financing the projects related to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and sponsoring a philanthropic conference held by an organization with Brotherhood ties. Another post noted that IDB representatives were in attendance at a Saudi charity seminar attended by Wael Julaidan, possibly the known founder and financier of Al Qaeda. Another earlier post noted that former ISNA President Ingrid Mattson attended a 2010 meeting of the Islamic Development Bank to select members for the bank’s Women’s Advisory Panel.
Related posts:
Islamic Development Bank Launches Global Media Campaign
Ingrid Mattson Attends Meeting Of Islamic Development Bank In Saudi Arabia
Scottish-Islamic Foundation Tries To Broker Gulf Bid For Scottish Bank
RECOMMENDED READING: “Jihad Economics and Islamic Banking”
Bank CEO Praises Youssef Qaradawi For His Role In Islamic Financing
Turkish Muslim Brotherhood Network Calls Bin Laden Death “American Terrorism”
The Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center has issued a report detailing statements by key parts of the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood network denouncing the killing of Osama Bin Laden as “American terrorism.” According to the report:
Turkish Islamist organizations at a press conference convened at the ReÅŸadiye Hotel in Istanbul to denounce the killing of Osama bin Laden. An IHH representative denounced ‘American terrorism,’ saying that killing bin Laden was clearly an illegal act (Photo from the verfecr.com website). The banner reads ‘We condemn American terrorism.’ Third from the left is identified as Osman Atalay, the IHH representative who denounced the United States. Overview
The Turkish IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the upcoming flotilla to the Gaza Strip (Freedom Flotilla 2), joined other Turkish Islamist organizations in denouncing the killing of Osama bin Laden by the Americans. On May 5 the organizations convened a press conference at a hotel in an Istanbul suburb and issued a joint statement denouncing the United States. Osman Atalay, the IHH representative (who participated in the Mavi Marmara flotilla) said that killing bin Laden had been clearly illegal, and called for the condemnation of ‘American terrorism.’
Read the rest here.
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) has recently published an almost hundred page report titled “Turkey, the Global Muslim Brotherhood, and the Gaza Flotilla” which provides extensive background on the years leading up to the flotilla and that includes profiles on both IHH and an organization known as Mazlum Der, headed by Osman Atalay. The JCPA report abstract states:
There is strong evidence for Turkish governmental involvement in the Gaza flotilla incident, with Turkish government support channeled through the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood network. Since 2006, Turkey has become a new center for the Global Muslim Brotherhood. The IHH was not acting alone but rather was an integral part of a Turkish Muslim Brotherhood network.
With respect to the Global Muslim Brotherhood, report’s second conclusion states:
The Gaza flotilla incident brought into sharp focus an even more significant long- term development: the growing relationship between the Erdogan government and the Global Muslim Brotherhood, which has given rise to some of the most notorious Islamist terrorist groups – from al-Qaeda to Hamas. Since 2006, Turkey has become a new center for the Global Muslim Brotherhood, while the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip acted as the main axis for this activity.
Related posts:
Turkish Government Report Omits Its Role In Gaza Flotilla
Muslim Council Of Britain Calls Bin Laden Death “Assassination”
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Head Leads Delegation To Turkish Celebration
MIDEAST CRISIS: Turkish Diplomat Indicates Talks Between Turkey And Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood
ICNA Offers Condolences On Death Of Turkish Islamist Leader
U.K Muslim Brotherhood To Hold Islamophobia Conference
A coalition of U.K. Muslim Brotherhood and far-left political groups have announced a May 21 conference titled “Confronting anti-Muslim hatred in Britain and Europe.” According to the announcement, the following individuals are expected to participate:
John Esposito – Georgtown University, USA, supporter of the Global Muslim Brotherhood
Tony Benn – far left activist
Dr Robert Lambert – European Muslim Research Centre, funded by the UK Muslim Brotherhood
Hiba Aburwein – European Forum on Muslim Women, part of the Federation of Islamic Organizations In Europe (FIOE), the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe
Zad Ali – Islamic Forum of Europe, close to the UK Muslim Brotherhood
Kamal el-Helbawy – Former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman
Dr AbdoolKarim Vakil – Muslim Council of Britain, coalition of UK Muslim groups working closely with the Global Muslim Brotherhood
Lindsey German – Stop the War Coalition, far-left group frequently in coalitions with the UK Muslim Brotherhood
Dr Daud Abdullah – British Muslim Initiative, part of the UK Muslim Brotherhood
Mohammed Ali – Islam Channel, close to the Global Muslim Brotherhood
The conference is being organized by the Organised by the Enough Coalition consisting of the British Muslim Initiative, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Federation of Student Islamic Societies, Stop the War Coalition, Islamic Forum of Europe, One Society many Cultures, Muslim Safety Forum. All of these groups are known to be part of or close to the UK Muslim Brotherhood.
Virtually all of the known conferences on Islamophobia have been held by the Global Muslim Brotherhood.
Related posts:
Canadian Muslim Brotherhood To Hold Conference on Islamophobia
U.K. National Association of Muslim Police Holds Conference On Islamophobia
New British Muslim Brotherhood Organization Attends Far-Left Political Conference In London
German Muslim Brotherhood To Hold 29th Annual Conference
U.K. Muslim Brotherhood Launches Anti-Islamaphobia Campaign
Qaradawi Hospitalized Again
Gulf media has reported that Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi has been hopsitalized with unspecified health problems. According to a Gulf Times report:
DOHA: Eminent Islamic cleric Dr Yusuf Al Qaradawi is admitted in hospital and has not been able to deliver the Friday sermon at the Omer Bin Khattab Mosque for the past several weeks. According to Al Sharq, circles close to the scholar are not willing to disclose precisely what health problems he is suffering from because he doesn’t want people to visit him in the hospital. The daily said people have been missing the cleric’s Friday sermons, particularly as these are turbulent days for the Arab world and his comments and opinion on the revolution rocking several Arab countries are keenly followed around the world. The scholar spoke freely on political upheavals taking place in countries like Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and exhorted the common man to rise against authoritarian regimes. But when the powers that be in places like Yemen and Syria are facing increasing opposition from their people, Qaradawi’s followers are quite eager to listen to his viewpoint.
Previous posts have reported on other of the 85 year old Qaradawi’s illnesses and hospitalizations, the last of which was known to be in 2007.
Qaradawi, a virulent anti-Semite is often referred to here as the most important leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood, an acknowledgement of his role as the de facto spiritual leader of the movement. In 2004, Qaradawi turned down the offer to lead the Egyptian Brotherhood after the death of the Supreme Guide. Based in Qatar, Sheikh Qaradawi has reportedly amassed substantial wealth through his role as Shari’ah adviser to many important Islamic banks and funds. He is also considered to be the “spiritual guide” for Hamas and his fatwas in support of suicide bombings against Israeli citizens were instrumental in the development of the phenomenon. A recent post has discussed a video compilation of Qaradawi’s extremist statements.
Reprinted with permission from the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Collapse of Arab Civilization?
February 13, 2011
The Collapse of Arab Civilization?
By Michael Fraley
Five years ago, Lt. Col James G. Lacey published the article "The Impending Collapse of Arab Civilization" in The Naval Institute: Proceedings." He disputed the conclusions of two books which have particularly influenced recent foreign policy and grand strategy: The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, by Bernard Lewis, and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington.
In his article, he stated:
A more accurate understanding of events leads to the conclusion that Arab, not Muslim, civilization is in a state of collapse, and it just happens that most Arabs are Muslims. In this regard, the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a collapse of Western Europe and not a crisis of Christianity.
His thesis was that while Islam itself continues to grow and thrive around the world (and indeed, is continuing to make swift inroads into Western states), it has been specifically in the Arab world where one has seen the turmoil of civilization in decay.
He has not been alone. Azmi Bishara wrote in 2003, in Al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo):
The Arabs ... are in a double state of decay that boggles the minds even of those who expected a hot summer of post-war decadence ... The [Arab] nation will be split between those who dance to the beat of scandal and defeat, and those who blow themselves up in what is turning into a deafening religious ritual.
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami began his article Autocracy and the Decline of the Arabs with this strangely foretelling account:
"It made me feel so jealous," said Abdulmonem Ibrahim, a young Egyptian political activist, of the recent upheaval in Iran. "We are amazed at the organization and speed with which the Iranian movement has been functioning. In Egypt you can count the number of activists on your hand." This degree of "Iran envy" is a telling statement on the stagnation of Arab politics. It is not pretty, Iran's upheaval, but grant the Iranians their due: They have gone out into the streets to contest the writ of the theocrats.
Now, Mubarak has been deposed, but the question we all are asking is this: "In the final analysis, was this indeed victory for the people of Egypt, or a victory for radical Islamists?"
The Collapse of a Civilization?
Recent unrest in the Arab world exposes the discontent among the people that has been building for decades. But is this something larger and more profound than a series of uprisings? Now that the historic seat of Arab culture and power has been upended, does this indicate a renewal or decay of the civilization as a whole? Col. Lacey predicted the upheaval of current days, and made the case for these events being the harbinger for the historical end of the Arab world. This remains a monumental claim, and Lacey recognized the incredulity with which such a claim would be met.
The next question is, how could the world have missed an entire civilization collapsing before its eyes? The simple answer is that no one alive today has ever seen it happen before. Well within living memory we have seen empires collapse and nation-state failure has become a regular occurrence, but no one in the West has witnessed the collapse of a civilization since the Dark Ages. Civilizational collapses take a long time to unfold and are easy to miss in the welter of daily events.
The seeds of such a collapse, if that is what we are seeing take place, might well have been sown 600 years ago, according to Lacey, with the dawning of the Renaissance throughout Western Europe. However, one can make the case that the fate of Arab civilization was set two centuries earlier, with the exile of Ibn Rushd (western name of Averroes).
Different Paths
At a time when western philosophers were actively wrestling with many questions of ontology (what is) and epistemology (how we know), the Arab Caliphs and their chosen scholars handled philosophical disputes as they always had: with charges of infidelity to scripture, and sentences of prison, exile, or death. Ibn Rushd disputed the dominant thinking of Al-Ghazali (1059-1111), and followed more in the tradition of Ibn Sina, an 11th century Persian Islamic philosopher. Yousif Fajr Raslan writes:
Set back by the blind resistance of the Caliph's scholars, Ibn Rushd turned to Greek philosophy where he found his ideal in Aristotle...He applied rational reasoning to theology, an approach that further stirred his colleagues against him and against philosophy as a whole, not to mention their particular hatred of Greek philosophers.
Ibn Rushd was banished, putting an effective end to any hope of philosophical renewal and introduction of historically based rationality into the Arab culture.
Western philosophy traversed the Renaissance and periods of Empiricism and developed the "Scientific Method." Western thinkers, from Thomas Aquinas on, wrestled with the relationship between the metaphysical and the physical, along with issues of authority and the search for truth. Both Christian and secular Enlightenment scholars introduced ideas of "natural law," property rights, and the "social contract."
Arab scholarship, in contrast, went on to hold up Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), born in what is modern Tunisia, as one of their greatest political thinkers. His definition of government as "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself" still dominates Arab political thought [emphasis added].
Policy Choices
If Lacey was right, and we are truly witnessing the collapse of Arab civilization as a whole, this does not bode well for the western world. The powers able and ready to fill the void are neither friendly toward, nor passive in their attitude toward, the Western states. What happens in Egypt might well presage what happens in the rest of the Arab world. The key question is this: Has western thought been sufficiently infused within Egypt's people so as to lead to legitimate and lasting democracy? If not, then we will likely see a repeat of 1970s Iran; not only in Egypt, but throughout the entire Arab world
Col. Lacey made the case for dealing with a declining Arab civilization through means very similar to the Cold War: specifically, containment. We have largely followed this grand strategy until recently. Sadly, with our administration's bumbling and weak response to the events in Egypt, we might well have lost our most vital ally in the region, and hence, our ability to reverse a tidal wave of radical Islamic power.
Our only options now are to strengthen relationships with friendly powers in the region, give aid to those who seek freedom and democracy, and prop up the truly free states. It becomes even more imperative that we ensure the continued growth and success of Iraq; more critical still that we contain Iran and minimize their meddling within the affairs of Arab nations.
Nothing about this is easy. A proper understanding of the true nature of turmoil in the Arab states should have led to more proactive measures. It must lead to more clarity in our future strategy in the region. Otherwise, we might well see, within our lifetime, the rise of radical Islam and the crumbling of Arab civilization.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_collapse_of_arab_civilizat.html at February 13, 2011 - 08:42:10 PM CST
The Collapse of Arab Civilization?
By Michael Fraley
Five years ago, Lt. Col James G. Lacey published the article "The Impending Collapse of Arab Civilization" in The Naval Institute: Proceedings." He disputed the conclusions of two books which have particularly influenced recent foreign policy and grand strategy: The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, by Bernard Lewis, and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington.
In his article, he stated:
A more accurate understanding of events leads to the conclusion that Arab, not Muslim, civilization is in a state of collapse, and it just happens that most Arabs are Muslims. In this regard, the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a collapse of Western Europe and not a crisis of Christianity.
His thesis was that while Islam itself continues to grow and thrive around the world (and indeed, is continuing to make swift inroads into Western states), it has been specifically in the Arab world where one has seen the turmoil of civilization in decay.
He has not been alone. Azmi Bishara wrote in 2003, in Al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo):
The Arabs ... are in a double state of decay that boggles the minds even of those who expected a hot summer of post-war decadence ... The [Arab] nation will be split between those who dance to the beat of scandal and defeat, and those who blow themselves up in what is turning into a deafening religious ritual.
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami began his article Autocracy and the Decline of the Arabs with this strangely foretelling account:
"It made me feel so jealous," said Abdulmonem Ibrahim, a young Egyptian political activist, of the recent upheaval in Iran. "We are amazed at the organization and speed with which the Iranian movement has been functioning. In Egypt you can count the number of activists on your hand." This degree of "Iran envy" is a telling statement on the stagnation of Arab politics. It is not pretty, Iran's upheaval, but grant the Iranians their due: They have gone out into the streets to contest the writ of the theocrats.
Now, Mubarak has been deposed, but the question we all are asking is this: "In the final analysis, was this indeed victory for the people of Egypt, or a victory for radical Islamists?"
The Collapse of a Civilization?
Recent unrest in the Arab world exposes the discontent among the people that has been building for decades. But is this something larger and more profound than a series of uprisings? Now that the historic seat of Arab culture and power has been upended, does this indicate a renewal or decay of the civilization as a whole? Col. Lacey predicted the upheaval of current days, and made the case for these events being the harbinger for the historical end of the Arab world. This remains a monumental claim, and Lacey recognized the incredulity with which such a claim would be met.
The next question is, how could the world have missed an entire civilization collapsing before its eyes? The simple answer is that no one alive today has ever seen it happen before. Well within living memory we have seen empires collapse and nation-state failure has become a regular occurrence, but no one in the West has witnessed the collapse of a civilization since the Dark Ages. Civilizational collapses take a long time to unfold and are easy to miss in the welter of daily events.
The seeds of such a collapse, if that is what we are seeing take place, might well have been sown 600 years ago, according to Lacey, with the dawning of the Renaissance throughout Western Europe. However, one can make the case that the fate of Arab civilization was set two centuries earlier, with the exile of Ibn Rushd (western name of Averroes).
Different Paths
At a time when western philosophers were actively wrestling with many questions of ontology (what is) and epistemology (how we know), the Arab Caliphs and their chosen scholars handled philosophical disputes as they always had: with charges of infidelity to scripture, and sentences of prison, exile, or death. Ibn Rushd disputed the dominant thinking of Al-Ghazali (1059-1111), and followed more in the tradition of Ibn Sina, an 11th century Persian Islamic philosopher. Yousif Fajr Raslan writes:
Set back by the blind resistance of the Caliph's scholars, Ibn Rushd turned to Greek philosophy where he found his ideal in Aristotle...He applied rational reasoning to theology, an approach that further stirred his colleagues against him and against philosophy as a whole, not to mention their particular hatred of Greek philosophers.
Ibn Rushd was banished, putting an effective end to any hope of philosophical renewal and introduction of historically based rationality into the Arab culture.
Western philosophy traversed the Renaissance and periods of Empiricism and developed the "Scientific Method." Western thinkers, from Thomas Aquinas on, wrestled with the relationship between the metaphysical and the physical, along with issues of authority and the search for truth. Both Christian and secular Enlightenment scholars introduced ideas of "natural law," property rights, and the "social contract."
Arab scholarship, in contrast, went on to hold up Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), born in what is modern Tunisia, as one of their greatest political thinkers. His definition of government as "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself" still dominates Arab political thought [emphasis added].
Policy Choices
If Lacey was right, and we are truly witnessing the collapse of Arab civilization as a whole, this does not bode well for the western world. The powers able and ready to fill the void are neither friendly toward, nor passive in their attitude toward, the Western states. What happens in Egypt might well presage what happens in the rest of the Arab world. The key question is this: Has western thought been sufficiently infused within Egypt's people so as to lead to legitimate and lasting democracy? If not, then we will likely see a repeat of 1970s Iran; not only in Egypt, but throughout the entire Arab world
Col. Lacey made the case for dealing with a declining Arab civilization through means very similar to the Cold War: specifically, containment. We have largely followed this grand strategy until recently. Sadly, with our administration's bumbling and weak response to the events in Egypt, we might well have lost our most vital ally in the region, and hence, our ability to reverse a tidal wave of radical Islamic power.
Our only options now are to strengthen relationships with friendly powers in the region, give aid to those who seek freedom and democracy, and prop up the truly free states. It becomes even more imperative that we ensure the continued growth and success of Iraq; more critical still that we contain Iran and minimize their meddling within the affairs of Arab nations.
Nothing about this is easy. A proper understanding of the true nature of turmoil in the Arab states should have led to more proactive measures. It must lead to more clarity in our future strategy in the region. Otherwise, we might well see, within our lifetime, the rise of radical Islam and the crumbling of Arab civilization.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_collapse_of_arab_civilizat.html at February 13, 2011 - 08:42:10 PM CST
Obama's Middle East disaster
Thomas Lifson
Barack Obama's Middle East fumbles are clearly explained and placed in context by Niall Ferguson, whose Harvard/Oxford/Stanford credentials are difficult for ruling class elitists to ignore. In essence, Obama is winging it (my term, not Ferguson's), lacking a "grand strategy" (Ferguson's term) for the Middle East, and (my phrasing) caught by surprise by events, just making it up as he goes along, saying whatever sounds good at the moment. Ferguson:
The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak's cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn't end there. America's two closest friends in the region-Israel and Saudi Arabia-are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington's failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration's apparent cluelessness.
Personnel is policy, as the old DC saying goes:
...no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.
Astonishing incompetence, right up there with DNI Clapper's assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood is secular. Why does the President suround himself with fools?
Incompetence leads to a lack of foresight:
I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration's strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things-ranking priorities and gaming scenarios-that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.
Newsweek has just added the distinguished professor to its roster of columnists in the wake of its takeover by The Daily Beast, as surprisingly hopeful sign for what had become a reliably moribund leftist leftover. This column deserves a read in its entirety.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/obamas_middle_east_disaster.html at February 13, 2011 - 08:37:40 PM CST
Barack Obama's Middle East fumbles are clearly explained and placed in context by Niall Ferguson, whose Harvard/Oxford/Stanford credentials are difficult for ruling class elitists to ignore. In essence, Obama is winging it (my term, not Ferguson's), lacking a "grand strategy" (Ferguson's term) for the Middle East, and (my phrasing) caught by surprise by events, just making it up as he goes along, saying whatever sounds good at the moment. Ferguson:
The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak's cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn't end there. America's two closest friends in the region-Israel and Saudi Arabia-are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington's failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration's apparent cluelessness.
Personnel is policy, as the old DC saying goes:
...no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.
Astonishing incompetence, right up there with DNI Clapper's assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood is secular. Why does the President suround himself with fools?
Incompetence leads to a lack of foresight:
I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration's strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things-ranking priorities and gaming scenarios-that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.
Newsweek has just added the distinguished professor to its roster of columnists in the wake of its takeover by The Daily Beast, as surprisingly hopeful sign for what had become a reliably moribund leftist leftover. This column deserves a read in its entirety.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/obamas_middle_east_disaster.html at February 13, 2011 - 08:37:40 PM CST
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)