Child Psychologist Fadel Abu Hein: “This is a great loss for children”
This year, the summer camps revolve around the theme of “the suffering of the Palestinian prisoners”, giving the children a “first-hand experience” of the daily lives of Palestinian prisoners in Israel.
The mock prison is divided into six rooms and contains an interrogation cell, a solitary confinement cell and a regular cell with handcuffed mannequins representing the prisoners. Other rooms represent the prison hospital and a torture chamber. There is even a small prison courtyard. A Palestinian child psychologist, Fadel Abu Hein, called the indoctrination camp “a great loss for children.”
Ahmad Rantisi, one of the organizers of the summer camp, said that its goal is to allow children to experience the suffering of Palestinian prisoners, and strengthen their belief in the protection of Palestinian land and the high price that must be paid.
Learning to “Liberate Palestine”
In Hamas camps, boys ride horses, play football and learn how to shoot at a target using a pellet gun. They are also taught about Islam and told to fight Israel to “liberate Palestine”.
Children practicing shooting in Hamas’ summer camps in 2011
Girls, however, don’t participate in sports because Hamas considers such activity to be improper. Instead, girls learn cooking and embroidery.
Paramilitary Training
For more advanced military training, there are special camps for specially selected boys over the age of 14. Aisha Nahal, a 14-year-old camper, said that her cousin Saher went to a regular Hamas-run summer camp in June. Then counselors asked him to join a “scout” camp.
Children walk on boards with rusty nails in Hamas’ summer camps
For a week, alongside two dozen other youths, Saher learned to slide over thorns using his elbows for propulsion. He practiced running and jumping through flaming hoops. In addition to the mock prison, the children participated in different activities, including military training, religious studies and walking on boards with rusty nails and knife blades.
Read more about Hamas’ indoctrination of children:
Hamas’ foreign minister, Mohammed Awad, visited Tehran last week and thanked the Iranian leadership “for its practical support” for the Palestinian cause.
Hamas MP Al-Masri: “Our women will pave the road with their body parts”
March 29, 2012
On March 25th, Al Aqsa TVaired Hamas Member of Parliament, Mushri al-Masri, addressing a score of Palestinian women in Gaza, dictating their future role in the Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ).
Voice of Terror: Mushir al -Masri – Our Women’s Blood is a Sacrifice for Al-Aqsa Mosque
Throughout his speech, Al-Masri stated that the women of Gaza’s blood will be sacrificed in an effort to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem and all of Palestine. He stressed that all of this land and property belongs to the Palestinian people and the Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades.
Towards the end of his speech, Al-Masri turned his focus to the GMJ, emphasizing that the march is part of the revolution in ousting the “Zionist regime” from Palestine.
A stalwart Democratic defender of Israel lost his congressional primary bid Tuesday against a fellow Democratic lawmaker whose Arab supporters leveled charges of dual loyalty.
Longtime New Jersey Rep. Steve Rothman was bested by Rep. Bill Pascrell, who earned61 percent of the vote after running a campaign that rallied the Arab community to the polls over Rothman’s support of the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Pascrell will now face off in a general election against superstar Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a pro-Israel stalwart who declared himself a Republican candidate due to what he says are President Obama’s failed policies towards Israel.
As the dust settles in New Jersey’s District 9, observers wonder if Pascrell will be able to repair his fractured relationship with the state’s pro-Israel community, which largely supported Rothman and resented Pascrell’s refusal to condemn his supporters’ anti-Semitic charges of dual loyalty.
“It’s a heartbreaker,” Ben Chouake, president of NORPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee based in Englewood Cliffs, told the Free Beacon. “If Rothman’s positions [on Israel] hurt him anywhere it was in the Muslim community.”
Chouake said that despite the crushing loss, Rothman was the choice of pro-Israel voters.
“The disparity between the two candidates was substantial, and we chose a side,” he said. “If Pascrell is angry at some of us, that’s the deal. But we’re adults, and he’ll get over it in a few days.”
Other activists said the race proves that mainstream, pro-Israel Democrats no longer have a firm place in the party.
“It means there’s no room for a Steve Rothman in the Democratic Party anymore,” said one pro-Israel activist who is closely following the race. “There’s no room for someone who stands up for Israel and who is willing to defend Israeli policies and actions.”
[...]
In the weeks leading up to the race, Pascrell refused to condemn the rhetoric of his Arab supporters who charged that Rothman put Israel’s interests above America’s, a charge reminiscent of anti-Semitic rhetoric employed by white supremacists and other hate groups.
An Arabic campaign postersupporting Pascrell that surfaced in the days before the election urged the “Arab diaspora community” to “elect the friend of the Arabs” and billed the race as “the most important election in the history of the [Arab] community,” according to a WFB translation of the sign.
Pascrell waged a charm offensive in the Arab community, campaigning alongside a Hamas sympathizer and others who have expressed hostility towards Israel.
He also held a high profile eventat a local mosque where he was joined by Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn), a prominent ally of the fringe group J Street and the first Muslim member of Congress.
Not only has our beloved “Dear Leader,” Obama, managed to “PO” Israel even more, he has now “PO’ed” the Baku government of Azerbaijan. By leaking news, recently, that Israel and Azerbaijan have reached an agreement for Israeli aircraft to have landing rights at Azeri airbases, Obama has infuriated Israel’s Netanyahu government even more and may have compromised Azerbaijan’s relations with Iran (shaky as they may be), as well. [emphasis added]
In case you missed it when looking at a map, Azerbaijan is the small country snuggled tightly against the northern border of Iran. There are roughly sixteen million Azeris (The people of Azerbaijan).
Now here’s the thing: Azerbaijan’s government and the Israeli government have become, er,friends. The only people who are having a problem with this is the Obama Administration in America —and the Ahmadinejad Administration in Iran. Suddenly, it would seem, the US and Iran are BOTH going after Israel. [emphasis added]
We have told you for months and even years that the Netanyahu government in Israel does not trust the Obama administration in the US and that is why the Israelis refuse to give Obama a heads-up on an attack on Iran. They are convinced (as am I) that the Obama Administration would immediately pick up the phone and call Iran and tell Ahmadinejad “the Israelis are coming.”
Far-fetched, you say? Believe what you want, but the truth is—Obama’s people have already tipped off Iran that there is a pact of some sort between the Baku government in Azerbaijan and the Netanyahu government in Israel possibly for landing rights for Israeli combat aircraft on Azerbaijan soil.
Israeli attack aircraft cannot make it to Iran, drop their ordinance, and make a return flight to Israel without refueling. For that reason, an air raid on Iran by Israeli jets has been considered a “suicide mission.” Lack of fuel would not allow Israeli aircraft to loiter over their targets or even fend off attacks by the Iranian air forces. A second run on a target would be compromised by low fuel.
In-flight refueling could solve that problem, IF it could be done over friendly territory, which is sorely lacking in that neighborhood. Damaged aircraft would simply have to be abandoned. If Israeli pilots chose to bail-out of their foundering jets, it was/is a given they would be captured and killed or languish for years in an enemy prison.
Those Azerbaijan airbases make perfect refueling bases—and forward bases for Israeli search and rescue units—for an air raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and an emergency landing field for damaged aircraft.
It is no secret that the American President’s favor lies with the Muslim countries of the world. He has made that abundantly clear since he first entered the office of President of the United States. And Israel wisely does not trust him.
“We’re watching what Iran does closely,” one of the U.S. sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed. “But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.” —This is a quote from an article by Mark Perry at FOREIGN POLICY.COM. It is an excellent article and we recommend you read the entire piece. (SOURCE)
The Azeris and the Persians tolerate each other—but just! There are those who fear that IF Azerbaijan does allow Israel to use its airbases for an attack on Iran, Iran might use that as an excuse to reclaim Azerbaijan as a part of the so-called “Mother Persia” and make a military move against their northern neighbor.
And then there is the solidly based concern that Russia may step in and create trouble in Azerbaijan to foil any attempt by Israel to use those Azeri airbases. With Putin in charge in Russia, it is certainly within the realm of possibility. Putin’s Russia will again be seeking to expand its influence in the Caucasus.
By and large, the people of America stand with Israel— even if their President does not. Obama is the most divisive American president since Abraham Lincoln. You may recall that upon Lincoln’s election eleven American states pulled out of the Union. Many Americans feel the Presidential Election in November of 2012 is every bit as important as the 1860 election, which broke apart the United States.
As Israel and many other countries of the world still look to the United States for assistance and direction, America is roiling in a national controversy to decide if the nation remains a constitutional republic or adopts socialism and dumps the constitution and representative government. The American people’s attention is turned inward at this moment in history and that is allowing the mice to come out and play.
When Obama removed America from a leadership role in the world, it opened the door to all sorts of mischief around the globe. An isolationist America has a history of producing deadly wars, some even global in scope. [emphasis added]
Israel, the best friend to America in the Middle East, has been forced to look elsewhere for alliances simply because Obama refuses to maintain America’s alliance established almost the moment Israel became a country/ state.
The point is simple: Had Obama maintained the long-standing relationship the US had with Israel, then there would have been no need for Israel to seek friends—and assistance—elsewhere. As a result, there is a strong possibility the US will be drawn into a war in the Caucasus—as well as a war in the Persian Gulf—when Israel strikes Iran.
ABC’s Jake Tapper has a stunning report out of Seoul, South Korea this morning. According to him, President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that if given “space,” he’ll have more flexibility “after my election.”
At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
And here’s the exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
[...]
This isn’t the first time Obama has been caught on a hot mic. In November he was overheard blasting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to French President Sarkozy. Additionally, Vice President Joe Biden was heard telling Obama the health care bill was a “big fu**ing deal” after that legislation passed.
************************
In Obama’s discussions with Turkey’s President Erdogan, what was discussed?
**************************
Obama’s “Love Affair” With Islamist Turkish Tyrant
President Barack Obama is continuing his love affair with Turkish Islamist leader Recep Erdogan. As Erdogan continues to undermine Turkish democracy, throw hundreds of moderates into jail, destroy the nation’s institutions, help Iran, throw hysterical tantrums about how much he hates Israel, promote Islamism in the region, and is fresh from still another meeting with Hamas leaders, Obama continues to use Erdogan as his guru.
When the two men met at the Seoul, South Korea, Nuclear Security Summit on March 25, Obama practically slobbered over the anti-American ruler, calling Erdogan his “friend and colleague….We find ourselves in frequent agreement upon a wide range of issues.” [Emphasis added]
When Erdogan goes to elections or is criticized by the opposition he uses statements like this to “prove” that his policies aren’t radical or anti-Western at all. Here’s a man whose regime can help terrorist groups organize a violent confrontation with Israel, preside over a virulently anti-American media, insist Iran isn’t seeking nuclear weapons and has a wonderful government, and then be lionized by the president of the United States.
Obama adds:
“I think it’s fair to say that over the last several years, the relationship between Turkey and the United States has continued to grow across every dimension. And I find Prime Minister Erdogan to be an outstanding partner and an outstanding friend on a wide range of issues.”
What did the two men talk about? Well, they first discussed Syria, an issue on which Obama praised Erdogan’s “outstanding leadership.” In fact, Turkey has helped to engineer an Islamist leadership in the Syrian National Council that wrecked any chance for opposition’s unity. Turkey’s rulers did this not to promote democracy but to promote the Muslim Brotherhood. [Emphasis added]
Now, according to reliable sources, Obama is discouraging Erdogan from advocating a no-fly zone and safe haven in northern Syria because the U.S. government has basically decided not to help the opposition, which will ensure that the Syrian dictatorship crushes it and continues to be Iran’s main ally in the region.
Instead, Obama is opting, in his words, for “a process whereby a transition to a representative and legitimate government in Syria takes place.” In other words, Obama advocates a deal between the opposition and the dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad If this sounds like a contradiction, remember that this is also the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood line but is opposed by both the Free Syrian Army and the moderate oppositionists. [Emphasis added]
Of course, however, this strategy will merely buy time for the regime to achieve a bloody victory. Erdogan is now headed to Tehran where he will try to convince his friends there to stop helping their friends in Syria. Does that sounds like a mission likely to succeed?
Erdogan and Obama also discussed Iran. While Obama kept up his superficially tough language (“I believe there is a window of time to resolve this question diplomatically, but that window is closing”) he also indicated his strategy on that issue. In exchange for assuring Iran “the right to engage in peaceful nuclear power,” he thinks that Tehran will give up its ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons. He thinks it is possible to negotiate a deal with Iran.
And how can Obama use Erdogan as his intermediary with Iran when the Turkish ruler made an unauthorized–according to administration officials!–deal with Tehran in 2010 that sabotaged the delicate U.S. drive to toughen anti-Iran sanctions? Indeed, Obama gave Turkey a waiver on implementing the sanctions and Turkish trade with Iran keeps growing, in direct contradiction to Washington’s supposed strategy! For Obama to use a man who is, in effect, in cahoots with the Iranian regime, who has said that he doesn’t believe Iran is building nuclear weapons and stressed his friendship toward that dictatorship, is remarkable. [Emphasis added]
Erdogan is totally indifferent to U.S. interests over Iran while, regarding Israel, he sounds more like Iranian President Ahmadinejad on the issue than like any past American president.
Obama’s policy toward Iran will also inevitably fail, merely giving Tehran more time to build nuclear bombs. And as Obama appears weak, he encourages Iran to be more aggressive, thus making an eventual war more rather than less likely.
Obama did chalk up one small achievement, getting the Turkish regime to reopen the Eastern Orthodox seminary at Halki. Yet on everything else—including Erdogan’s dreadful human rights’ record—Erdogan gives nothing while getting everything. And, as we’ve seen previously, Obama apparently said nothing to encourage Erdogan to ease his regime’s passionately anti-Israel policy that has periodically crossed the line into open antisemitism.
[...]
In the end, Erdogan gloated:
“A very, very important point has been that from the moment Barack became President we upgraded the status of our relations from a strategic partnership to a model partnership, which he also placed a lot of importance on.” He will again meet Obama in June and that “will also lead to a significant increase once again for those relations.”
What did the two men talk about? Well, they first discussed Syria, an issue on which Obama praised Erdogan’s “outstanding leadership.” In fact, Turkey has helped to engineer an Islamist leadership in the Syrian National Council that wrecked any chance for opposition’s unity. Turkey’s rulers did this not to promote democracy but to promote the Muslim Brotherhood.
“U.S. government has basically decided not to help the opposition”
****
REALLY?
US to give “non-lethal” aid to Syrian opposition
By Niall Green
26 March 2012
US President Barack Obama pledged Sunday to deliver “non-lethal” supplies to Western-backed anti-government insurgents in Syria. The announcement came as Kofi Annan, due to head a United Nations mission to Damascus, was in Moscow for talks with the Russian government on the crisis in Syria.
Obama’s announcement was made following talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the eve of the nuclear security conference taking place Monday and Tuesday in Seoul, South Korea. Turkey has played host to Syrian opposition forces, including the main opposition bloc, the Syrian National Council (SNC), and its military wing, the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The US president stated that he and Erdogan agreed that foreign assistance to these armed opposition groups would aid the transition to a “legitimate government.”
The SNC and the FSA have been promoted in the West as the official representatives of opposition to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, the leaderships of these organizations have little popular backing inside Syria, where there are a large number of disparate and fractious armed groups, including Sunni Islamist fighters.
Backed by the Western powers and the Arab monarchies, especially Washington’s allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, these opposition forces have failed to win broad support across Syria, especially in the capital, Damascus, and the main economic hub, Aleppo. Rather, the opposition militants resort to terrorist methods and sectarian violence has allowed Assad to present himself as the defender of stability and the rights of non-Sunni minority groups.
Following Obama’s announcement, White House spokesman Ben Rhodes indicated that “strategic communication” equipment would be provided by the US to opposition forces. “It is important to the opposition as they’re formulating their vision of an inclusive and democratic Syria to have the ability to communicate,” Rhodes told reporters traveling with Obama.
The clear purpose of this type of “non-lethal” materiel is to allow the Syrian opposition to more effectively coordinate its attacks on government forces and institutions. High-tech communications equipment will also enable insurgents operating inside Syria to receive orders from their headquarters in neighboring Turkey and Jordan.
In the event of an international military intervention against Syria, such communication devices will provide the link between fighters on the ground and the warplanes and missiles of foreign armed forces. This would allow a replay of the tactics used during the NATO-led war against Libya last year, when local fighters called in Western air strikes to incinerate the Gaddafi regime’s army.
Obama’s announcement largely undercuts the mission of former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to Syria before it has started. Annan, who has already held talks with the Assad government on behalf of the UN, is due to leave for Syria this week with a team of international observers to study and report on the conflict.
[...]
This push for regime-change against Syria has been opposed by Russia and China, who view the US-led charge to refashion the energy-rich Middle East as a direct threat to their interests. Russia, in particular, has close economic and security ties to Syria, including billions of dollars in trade and arms deals. The Syrian port of Tartus is home to Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean, and Moscow has deployed several warships to the Syrian coast.
The Russian government had presented Annan’s mission as a diplomatic coup for its position. Speaking in Berlin last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that he was “very glad” that the Security Council had backed Annan’s assignment to Syria, adding that it was a sign that the Western powers and the Arab League had “abandoned ultimatums, abandoned threats and have abandoned attempts to address the problem by making unilateral demands.”
Russia has increased pressure on the Syrian regime to come to a compromise with elements of the opposition, with Lavrov telling the Russian parliament last week that Assad had been too slow to implement reforms. In addition, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov recently announced that talks would be held in Moscow with Syrian oppositionists, including the National Coordination Committee, the second largest opposition bloc in Syria.
The US and its allies viewed the mission by Kofi Annan as a means to get Russia and China to back a non-binding Security Council resolution calling for Assad’s forces to withdraw from centers of fighting while monitoring takes place, a measure that Washington hopes will provide breathing room for the divided and beleaguered opposition militants.
So who is the man who got the “hug treatment”? Erdoğan has shown a commitment to Islamist politics, has demonstrated hostility toward Israel, recently downgrading relations andexpelling its ambassador, and says he doesn’t believeHamas is a terrorist organization. These views have increased his stature across the Middle East.
[...]
Michael Rubin reveals in Commentarythat the Obama administration is showing Turkey love not only with hugs and high fives:
On October 28, at Obama administration behest, the Pentagon officially notified Congressof its intention to sell Turkey three Super Cobra helicopters. In the past, officials rebuffed such Turkish requests because those helicopters were needed in Afghanistan. Frankly, they still our and American lives depend on them. Senators now have 15 days to object to the sale; the Obama administration, however, hopes that their request will slip through unnoticed.
We are currently being subjected to a chorus of proclamations by government spokesmen, American Jewish leaders and Obama administration representatives reassuring us that Israeli-US relations are back on track. Ironically, these frenetic denials that any problem exists merely highlight the severity of the crisis.
Having recently gained direct insight into the American political scene and met a wide cross-section of American Jewish leaders and opinion makers, it is frustrating to observe how in response to a few friendly strokes and reassuring words, we still grasp straws to avoid facing unpleasant realities and accept at face value meaningless incantations that all is well.
The truth is that there is no tangible evidence that the US has diverted from its policy of “engaging” or appeasing Islam by distancing itself from us.
There definitely is a problem.Here’s another indication of a top Obama administration official, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, revealing that U.S. policy toward Israel has changed under Obama. Brennan refers to Jerusalem as ‘al-Quds.’
“I did spend time with classmates at the American University in Cairo in the 1970’s. And, time spent with classmates from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine from around the world who taught me that whatever our differences in nationality, or race, or religion, or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our family. To practice our faith freely (huh?). To live in peace and security. And in a 25 year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East… In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage. And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem where three great faiths come together.”
This is really strange.
Although some might think it’s not a big deal, when I hear a U.S. official using the term “al-Quds,” I think it’s significant. It’s just another indication of the strained relationship Obama has with Israel and the change.
Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day was the brainchild of Ayatollah Khomeini. In August of 1979, he declared:
For many years, I have been notifying the Muslims of the danger posed by the usurper Israel which today has intensified its savage attacks against the Palestinian brothers and sisters, and which, in the south of Lebanon in particular, is continually bombing Palestinian homes in the hope of crushing the Palestinian struggle. I ask all the Muslims of the world and the Muslim governments to join together to sever the hand of this usurper and its supporters. I call on all the Muslims of the world to select as Quds Day the last Friday in the holy month of Ramadan – which is itself a determining period and can also be the determiner of the Palestinian people’s fate – and through a ceremony demonstrating the solidarity of Muslims world-wide, announce their support for the legitimate rights of the Muslim people.
I ask God Almighty for the victory of the Muslims over the infidels.
Imam’s message announcing Quds Day, dated 7 August 1979 (16 Murdad 1358 AHS). Sahifa-yi Nur, Vol. 8, p. 229.
An excerpt from another message from Khomeini:
Quds Day is the day of Islam; it is the day when Islam should be revived, so let us revive it and implement Islamic laws in the Islamic countries. Quds Day is the day when we must warn all the superpowers that they can no longer keep Islam under their control by means of their evil agents. Quds Day is the day to give life to Islam. The Muslims must awaken, they must come to realise the power they have, the material power and the spiritual. What are the Muslims, who form a population of one billion, enjoy divine support and have Islam and their faith behind them, afraid of? . . . The governments in the world should know that Islam will not be defeated, Islam and the teachings of the Qur’an should prevail in all countries. Religion should be the religion of God and Islam is the religion of God so it should advance on all regions of the world. Quds Day is the day to announce such a matter, the day to announce ‘Muslims, advance!’ Advance on all the regions of the world. Quds Day is not confined to (matters pertaining to) Palestine alone, it is the day of Islam, the day of Islamic government, the day when the flag of an Islamic Republic should be raised in all (Islamic) countries, the day when the superpowers should be made to realise that they can no longer advance on the Islamic countries.
I see Quds Day as a day of Islam and a day of the Most Noble Messenger (peace be upon him and his descendants). It is the day when we must prepare all our forces and bring the Muslims out of the seclusion they (the foreign powers and their agents) forced them into, so that with all their might and main they can stand up to the foreigners. And with all our strength we are standing against the foreigners and will not allow anyone else to interfere in our country’s affairs. The Muslims should not allow anyone else to interfere in the affairs of their country. On Quds Day, the nations should caution those governments which are traitors. Quds Day is the day when we shall discover which individuals and which regimes approve of the conspiracies of international groups and oppose Islam. Those who do not participate they oppose Islam and are in agreement with Israel, and those who participate they are committed, and in agreement with Islam opposing the enemies of Islam at the head America and Israel. It is a day when truth will be distinguished from falsehood, the day when truth and falsehood will be distinct.
I beseech God the Blessed and Exalted to grant victory to Islam over all sections of the population in the world and to the oppressed over all the oppressors. And I beseech God the Blessed and Exalted to deliver our brothers in Palestine, in Lebanon and in southern Lebanon, indeed anywhere in the world they may be, from the hands of the oppressors and plunderers.
Peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God and the Imams of the Muslims
Imam’s message dated 16 August 1979 (25 Murdad 1358 AHS). Sahifa-yi Nur, Vol. 8, pp. 233-234.
I’ve never heard a member of an American president’s administration refer to Jerusalem as anything other than Jerusalem.
Al-Quds leaves me with an uneasy feeling.
“Quds Day is the day when we shall discover which individuals and which regimes approve of the conspiracies of international groups and oppose Islam. Those who do not participate they oppose Islam and are in agreement with Israel, and those who participate they are committed, and in agreement with Islam opposing the enemies of Islam at the head America and Israel. It is a day when truth will be distinguished from falsehood, the day when truth and falsehood will be distinct.”
John Brennan, the President’s national security advisor, praising Islam and the Arab culture
Obama’s National Security Advisor “Went Native” Years Ago
March 13, 2012
By Alan Caruba
There’s a YouTube videoof John Brennan, the President’s national security advisor, praising Islam and the Arab culture to an unidentified group of Arabs that is so revealing it should be probable cause for his removal from office. At one point, he addresses them in fluent Arabic, a language acquired in his studies and CIA posts over the years.
When the British Empire spanned much of the globe there was a term for men who embraced the culture and nations to which they were assigned. They were deemed to have “gone native”, often wearing Arab garb and becoming apologists or advocates. Among the most famous was Lawrence of Arabia, but there were many others such as Lieutenant-General, Sir John Bagot Glub, called “Glub Pasha” and best known for leading and training Jordan’s Arab Legion from 1939 to 1956; the same Legion that took part in attacks on Israel after it declared independence in 1948.
In the video, Brennan waxes poetic about Arab culture. In 1977 Brennan had received a degree in political science from Fordham University. During his studies he had spent his junior year learning Arabic and taking Middle Eastern Studies courses at the American University in Cairo. He received a Master of Arts degree in government with a concentration in Middle East studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980.
His career in the Central Intelligence Agency was one in which he reached the highest rungs as an analyst, serving at one point as a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton. In 1996, he was the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers, a housing complex, was blown up by a truck bomb, killing nineteen U.S. servicemen billeted there. He would serve under CIA Director George Tenet as the director of its newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center from 2003 to 2004. He would serve as director of the CIA’s National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2005.
One might assume from such an impressive resume that Brennan was the ideal man to be appointed President Barack Hussein Obama’s chief counterintelligence advisor with the title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
One might assume that, but Brennan, from his earliest days in that post made a number of statements and authored a USA Today opinion editorial that revealed deeply felt sympathies for the very people who were and are attacking Americans at home and overseas. In his USA Today opinion, Brennan criticized “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering that only serve the goals of al Qaeda.”
Commenting on Brennan’s USA Today opinion, Jeb Babbin, in an article for Human Eventson February 11, 2010, wrote of Brennan and the Obama administration’s incomprehensible national security actions, “Consider their consistent record of bad decisions only one year into Obama’s presidency: to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; to move Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other al Qaeda varsity out of the military commissions system and try them in civilian criminal court; to war against the intelligence community; to put the White House in charge of interrogations of captured terrorists; and, most recently, the hasty decision to put the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in civilian custody thus preventing professional intelligence interrogators from having access to him.”
Babbin characterized Brennan’s USA Today article as “a string of fibs and misleading statements so easily disproved (that) it leaves observers wondering about Brennan’s sanity.”
Writing in the Washington Observer on May 26, 2010, Spencer Ackerman reported that “Brennan signaled as well that the administration is concerned that blowback from civilians killed by drones could turn tactical success into strategic failure.” Brennan said the U.S. had an obligation to destroy al Qaeda proactively, “but also has a responsibility not to overreact in the event of a successful attack.”
One wonders if he thought that President George W. Bush overreacted to the al Qaeda attack on 9/11. One can only assume he agreed with President Obama’s decision to send a SEAL team to assassinate Osama bin Ladin. In his defense of the decision to have Adulmatalleb read his Miranda rights, Brennan said, “Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lacks foundation.” This ignores the long history of trying people who commit acts of war against the United States the use of military courts.
The fact that Brennan is one of the chief advisors to President Obama explains a lot about the decisions Obama has made since taking office with regard to protecting the nation against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It explains Obama’s now famous “apology tour” of the Middle East that he took in 2009 and his conciliatory speech delivered at the University of Cairo.
Egypt has now moved outside the nation’s zone of influence and Iran openly mocks the Obama policies of using diplomacy and sanctions to stop their quest for nuclear weapons. Israel, despite Obama’s latest reassurances, was earlier told to stop building housing in its capitol city and to retreat to indefensible 1967 borders.
Inside the White House, Obama continues to be advised by a man whose sympathies, despite his long service in the CIA, appear to be with the Islamic enemies of the nation. It is no surprise that Brennan has maintained a very low profile since 2009-2010.
Where does the Obama Administration’s priorites REALLY lie with religions in America?
May 27, 2010
By Rick Moran
I know what he was trying to say; that there are some schools of Islamic thought that defines “jihad” as unarmed “struggle” by the pious Muslim against his own weaknesses.
So what?
That’s not how our enemies describe Jihad. The Islamists combine religious fervor with a fanatical political ideology that instructs them to kill those who won’t submit. It really is that simple and the idea that we have top officials (Brennan isn’t the only one who holds this view) in the Obama White House who pretend that Islamists don’t believe what they actually believe is worse than self-delusion; it is bordering on criminal negligence:
The president’s top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam,” arguing that the term “jihadists” should not be used to describe America’s enemies.
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms.”
He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not “terrorism,” because terrorism is a “tactic,” and not terror, because terror is a “state of mind” — though Brennan’s title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word “terrorism” in it. But then Brennan said that the word “jihad” should not be applied either.
“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said.
Please note in the second paragraph above where Brennan describes violent extremists as “victims.” What does that make the targets of their fanaticism? Do we have victim on victim crime? Or perhaps the jihadists targets had it coming? You cannot have a terrorist attack without someone being at fault. And if Brennan is going to excuse the jihadists because they are suffering oppression or something, then he must believe that those who die horribly in those attacks deserved it.
This is the same naive fool who wants to look for and promote Hezb’allah “moderates.”
Washington-based cleric working toward
‘Islamic State of North America’ by 2050
A Washington, D.C., imam states explicitly on the website for his organization that he is part of a movement working toward replacement of the U.S. government with “the Islamic State of North America” by 2050.
With branches in Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and Philadelphia, the group As-Sabiqun – or the Vanguard – is under the leadership of Abdul Alim Musa in the nation’s capital.
Spencer told WND that figures such as Musa should not be ignored, “Not because they have the power to succeed, but because they may commit acts of violence to achieve their purpose.”
Musa’s website declares: “Those who engage in this great effort require a high level of commitment and determination. We are sending out a call to the believers: Join with us in this great struggle to change the world!”
Musa launched the group in the early 1990s at the Al-Islam mosque in Philadelphia. His group says it is influenced by the writings and life work of Muslim thinkers and leaders such as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Iranian revolutionary Ayatollah Khomenei.
The writings of Al-Banna and Qutb figured prominently in al-Qaida’s formation.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Thousands of Muslims gathered Friday on Capitol Hill for a day of prayer that organizers said was intended to inspire American Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
“America is not perfect,” Abdul Malik, an organizer of the event called Islam on Capitol Hill, told the crowd.
“But I will say something it took me my whole adult life to come to: America is not perfect, but I want to tell the truth: It is one of the best places in the world to live.”
Organizers had hoped that 50,000 people would show up for the Friday afternoon prayer session, which took place at the foot of the U.S. Capitol.
There were also anti-Muslim protesters near the event.
Earlier, Malik said, “This is not a protest, it is a day of prayer, of devotion, hoping that we can work … for the betterment of the world community.”
He added, “We can come together and work together for the common good.”
He said that Muslims in the United States have a “unique responsibility” and that the event seeks to inspire Muslims and all Americans.
[....]
And one Christianleader warned of a strategy to “Islamize” American society.
“It is important for Christians to understand that Friday’s Muslim prayer initiative is part of a well-defined strategy to Islamize American society and replace the Bible with the Koran, the cross with the Islamic crescent and the church bells with the Athan [the Muslim call to prayer],” the Rev. Canon Julian Dobbs, leader of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America’s Church and Islam Project, said in a written statement.
“The time has come for the American public to call Islam to account,” he said.
The Athan [Muslim call to prayer] will be chanted on Capitol Hill, echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill
***********
Obama administration reaches out to Muslims
April 17th, 2010
WASHINGTON — Nearly a year after President Obama told an audience in Cairo that America wanted a “new beginning” with the Muslim world, evidence of that policy shift has, in recent weeks, become hard to ignore.
* The Obama administration is revising national security guidelines that strip references to “Islamic radicalism” and other terms deemed inflammatory to Muslims.
* Officials reversed three-month-old guidelines that singled out passengers on flights arriving from 13 Muslim countries, and Cuba, for mandatory screening.
* Controversial scholar Tariq Ramadan entered the U.S. for the first time in six years after being barred by the Bush administration.
* The Obama administration has dispatched American Nobel Prize winners to advise Muslim scientists, economists and other professionals on how to improve their research and better manage their institutions.
* At the end of this month, the U.S. government will host some 500 mainly Muslim business people for intensive seminars on entrepreneurship.
“There’s a lot going on but not a lot being told,” said Qamar ul-Huda, a senior officer at the Religion and Peacemaking Program at the United States Institute of Peace, an independent non-partisan institute chartered by Congress. [.....]
(A)nalysts say the long-term battle for Muslim hearts and minds is just beginning, and they caution it will take time to win over people in societies plagued by unemployment, corruption, and social malaise — much less those who are more familiar with U.S. troops in Afghanistan than business seminars in Washington.
Obama and other administration officials stopped using terms like “Islamic extremism” shortly after taking office, and are now purging “Islamic radicalism” from the National Security Strategy policy document.
“It’s offensive to everyday Muslims who don’t like their religion tied to extremism,” ul-Huda said. While not yet finalized, the new language will target terrorism groups rather than use general terms that connect terrorism to Islam.
While Bush was criticized heavily in the Muslim world for using terms like “Islamo-fascism,” changes started being made while he was still in office.
In 2008, the National Counterterrorism Center produced a document called “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication,” which recommends that government agencies and officials avoid characterizing al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as “Islamic” or “Muslim” because those terms could “unintentionally legitimize” their tactics.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton decided in January to lift a 2004 revocation of Ramadan’s visa. Critics said the revocation undermined America’s credibility as a beacon of democracy. “It made it harder to sell democracy in the Muslim world,” said Asma Afsaruddin, an Islamic studies professor at Indiana University who taught at Notre Dame when Ramadan was barred.
Many Muslims have welcomed the changes and shift in tone.Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called the new White House vocabulary “another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad.”
“We hope this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the Middle East and withdrawal of our nation’s forces from Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.
AND Guess what NGO has a specific Arab Initiative? GEORGE SOROS and the Open Society.
The Open Society Foundations Arab Regional Office was established in 2006 to support local civil society in its efforts to protect human rights and build vibrant and tolerant societies. Based in Amman, Jordan, the office supports a diverse group of civil society organizations, research centers, universities, and media organizations across the Arab world in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, [Emphasis added] Tunisia, and Yemen.
The office operates within six distinct programmatic areas which provide financial and technical support to individuals and organizations working to improve government accountability, transparency, rule of law, and human rights, as well as to those working to empower women and marginalized communities such as migrants and refugees and foster independent media and the open exchange of information.
[....]
The office works in consultation with an advisory board composed of leading regional experts and activists, as well as with various offices and programs that are part of the Open Society Foundations.
A number of other Open Society foundations and initiatives tackle issues that, although not part of the Arab Regional Offices focus, have a wider relevance to the Arab region and reflect the office’s focus on support for marginalized and disenfranchised communities and minorities including migrants and refugees.
Following the events of September 11, in the United States, various initiatives and programs of the Open Society Foundations have fought to address abuses relating to profiling and other discriminatory practices towards Muslim, Arab, and other minority individuals and communities. A key component of this work also supports the capacity building of these groups in an effort to eliminate such practices.
Since 2000, the Foundations have been conducting research and advocacy on the situation of Muslim communities in Western Europe. In 2007, the At Home in Europe program was begun which examines public policies on the social inclusion of minority and marginalized communities in cities across Europe.
After France passed legislation banning the face veil in April 2011, the Foundations released a reportdocumenting the actual experiences and testimonies of women in France who wear the full-face veil (Neqab) in an attempt to debunk the myths and misrepresentations of these women prevalent in the media.
The Foundations documentedstop-and-search practices in the Paris metro system in 2009—which showed that Arabs are 7.6 times likely to be stopped than whites.
(CNSNews.com) – The head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has acknowledged that a U.N. religious tolerance resolution heavily promoted by the Obama administration has the same aims as the Islamic bloc’s annual “religious defamation” resolutions, which Western democracies have consistently opposed for more than a decade.
The State Department this week hosted three days of talks with foreign governments and international organizations, including the OIC, on implementing “resolution 16/18,” a measure adopted “by consensus” – without a vote – at the U.N. Human Rights Council last March and set to be endorsed by the full U.N. General Assembly within days.
The resolution, formally entitled “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” has been championed by the administration – and some human rights advocacy groups – as a historic achievement, in that it supposedly seeks a balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
It was hailed as a shift away from earlier “defamation of Islam” (later changed to “defamation of religion”) resolutions introduced by the OIC, and duly voted through each year at both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly – in recent years,by steadily smaller margins.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday toldthe closing session of the meeting at the State Department that the adoption of resolution 16/18 had “ended 10 years of divisive debate where people were not listening to each other anymore.”
Critics have been doubtful about the OIC’s sincerity, however, noting the top priority it has given to the drive to curb speech and actions which it views as insulting to Islam – ranging from the Mohammed cartoons and threats to burn the Qur’an to anti-shari’a campaigns and post-9/11 security profiling.
In remarks delivered on his behalf to the State Department meeting – released by the OIC after the closed-door talks ended – OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu made it clear that, for the bloc of 57 Islamic states, the goal remains the same.
Passage of resolution 16/18, he said, “clearly demonstrated that, as a mature international organization, OIC was not wedded to either a particular title or the content of a resolution,” Ihsanoglu continued. “We just wanted to ensure that the actual matter of vital concern and interest to OIC member states was addressed.
He went on to commend the role played by the Obama administration: “I particularly appreciate the kind personal interest of Secretary Clinton and the role played by the U.S. towards the consensual adoption of the resolution.”
Ihsanoglu said it was now vital to ensure the resolution was implemented.
“The adoption of the resolution does not mark the end of the road. It rather signifies a beginning based on a new approach to deal with the whole set of interrelated issues. The success of the alternative approach contained in the resolution 16/18 will be judged by addressing vital concerns of all parties in a time-bound framework,” he said.
“As mentioned in the resolution, steps to end double standards and racial or religious profiling need to be taken. Such acts must not be condoned by states but duly addressed through structured and sustained engagement.”
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu meets President Obama during an official reception given by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul on April 6, 2009. (Photo: OIC)
Ihsanoglu silent on freedom of expression
Resolution 16/18 calls on states to make “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”
Countries are expected “to take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief.”
For the U.S. and other mostly Western democracies, a crucial aspect of the resolution is a clause “[r]affirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can
play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance.”
Despite the importance ascribed to that aspect of the resolution by the U.S. and other, Ihsanoglu in his brief comments to the Washington meeting made no reference to freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
Instead, he obliquely warned that failure to act against religious “hate speech” would fuel Islamic terror.
So who is the man who got the “hug treatment”? Erdoğan has shown a commitment to Islamist politics, has demonstrated hostility toward Israel, recently downgrading relations andexpelling its ambassador, and says he doesn’t believeHamas is a terrorist organization. These views have increased his stature across the Middle East.
This latest warm gesture to a leader that doesn’t always represent American values might remind some readers of the controversial bow President Obama gave Saudi King Abdullah at the G-20 two years ago.
State department protocol indeed decrees that presidents bow to no one, and has had to deal with similar controversies before, when then president Bill Clinton did a semi-bow to Japan’s Emperor Akihito.
In diplomacy, what matters more: words, actions or gestures?
Inthe reportfrom White House pool reporter Tangi Quéméner covering the G-20 summit in Cannes, France, an interesting detail emerged about the gestures President Obama used to greet the different leaders (my highlight):
“[President Obama] entered the room at 1:15 and took to his left, heading to Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. They chatted for a few seconds before British Prime minister David Cameron joined them. Hard to understand what they were saying amid the cameras noise. POTUS then took a stroll to Australian Premier Julia Gillard who got a hug as European president Herman van Rompuy, European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso and Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan were watching. Eventually the Europeans got a handshake but Erdogan got the hug treatment. POTUS then walked all the way around after noticing that “people are really far away around there”. He stopped for quick handshakes and reached out to President Hu of China, telling him ‘ni hao’ (hello). They cordially shook hands and posed for photographers…POTUS then greeted his Argentinian counterpart Cristina Kirchner who just got reelected without runoff. Angela Merkel was just congratulating her (in English). “So Nicolas, we all have to take lessons” of Kirchner’s victory, joked POTUS, who‘s up for reelection in ’12, as Sarkozy is (next May).
So who is the man who got the “hug treatment”? Erdoğan has shown a commitment to Islamist politics, has demonstrated hostility toward Israel, recently downgrading relations andexpelling its ambassador, and says he doesn’t believeHamas is a terrorist organization. These views have increased his stature across the Middle East.
Daniel Pipespoints out that in June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a high-five to the Turkish foreign minister.
Michael Rubin reveals in Commentarythat the Obama administration is showing Turkey love not only with hugs and high fives:
On October 28, at Obama administration behest, the Pentagon officially notified Congress of its intention to sell Turkey three Super Cobra helicopters. In the past, officials rebuffed such Turkish requests because those helicopters were needed in Afghanistan. Frankly, they still our and American lives depend on them. Senators now have 15 days to object to the sale; the Obama administration, however, hopes that their request will slip through unnoticed.
This latest warm gesture to a leader that doesn’t always represent American values might remind some readers of the controversial bow President Obama gave Saudi King Abdullah at the G-20 two years ago.
State department protocol indeed decrees that presidents bow to no one, and has had to deal with similar controversies before, when then president Bill Clinton did a semi-bow to Japan’s Emperor Akihito.
In diplomacy, what matters more: words, actions or gestures?
Mr. Obama thought he was making a gentle joke about Mr. Sarkozy, host of the summit, when he congratulated Mr. Sarkozy and wife Carla Bruni on the birth of their baby daughter on Oct. 19. Instead, Mr. Obama caused a minor international incident.
“I want to make mention that this is our first meeting since the arrival of the newest Sarkozy, and so I want to congratulate Nicolas and Carla on the birth of Giulia,” Mr. Obama told reporters shortly after his arrival at the G-20, with Mr. Sarkozy at his side. “And I informed Nicolas on the way in that I am confident that Giulia inherited her mother’s looks rather than her father’s, which I think is an excellent thing.”
Mr. Sarkozy, who is said to be very conscious about his looks, did not appear greatly amused by the comment, and some observers who attended the meeting said Mr. Obama’s remark fell flat.
But Mr. Obama’s remarks, intended as a compliment for the French president’s glamorous wife, ended up in the eyes of some Frenchmen as tagging their leader as an ugly man. France took notice.
=============================
=============================
Isn’t there a CZAR within the White House that advises Obama on etiquette when visiting foreign countries instead of Obama looking like a maladroit representative of the United States?
A protester holds the Egyptian national flag as a fire rages outside the building housing the Israeli embassy in Cairo, Egypt, Friday, Sept. 9, 2011. Hundreds of Egyptian protesters, some swinging hammers and others using their bare hands, tore down parts of a graffiti-covered security wall outside the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Friday. Thousands elsewhere protested for the first time in a month against the country’s military rulers. (AP Photo)
CAIRO (AP) – Protesters broke into the Israeli Embassy in Cairo Friday and dumped documents out of the windows as hundreds more demonstrated outside, prompting the ambassador and his family to leave the country. The unrest was a further worsening of already deteriorating ties between Israel and post-Hosni Mubarak Egypt.
Egyptian police made no attempt to intervene during the day as crowds of hundreds tore down an embassy security wall with sledgehammers and their bare hands or after nightfall when about 30 protesters stormed into the Nile-side high-rise building where the embassy is located.
Just before midnight, the group of protesters reached a room on one of the embassy’s lower floors at the top of the building and began dumping Hebrew-language documents from the windows, said an Egyptian security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
In Jerusalem, an Israeli official confirmed the embassy had been broken into, saying it appeared the group reached a waiting room on the lower floor. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to release the information.
CAIRO (The Blaze/AP) — An official Iranian news agency says Iran is sending a submarine and a warship to the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.
Press TV quotes the commander, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, as saying the deployment will serve the country’s interests and “convey the message of peace and friendship to all countries.”
The item on Press TV’s website Tuesday said the presence of the Iranian navy would “tighten security for all countries.”
Sayyari said the ships would also fight against pirates.
Somalia, on the southern coast of the Gulf of Aden, is a base for many pirate gangs. The body of water is south of Iran.
Interestingly enough, however, Iran’s action comes on the heels ofIsrael sending two additional warships to the Red Sea border with Egypt following warnings that militants are planning another attack on southern Israel from Egyptian soil.
ANKARA, Turkey – Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stepped up his belligerent rhetoric against Israel, saying Turkish warships will escort future aid boats leaving its territory for Gaza to prevent a repeat of last year’s deadly Israeli raid on an aid flotilla.
Erdogan’s comments to Al-Jazeera television Thursday were the first time Turkey has said its navy will use force to protect ships attempting to break Israel’s blockade of the coastal Palestinian territory.Turkey had already announced it would increase navy patrols in the eastern Mediterranean in response to Israel’s refusal to apologize for the raid.
Dan Meridor, the Israeli Cabinet minister in charge of intelligence, called Erdogan’s threat “grave and serious.”
“Turkey, which declares that Israel is not above international law, must understand that it isn’t either,” he said Friday.
Eight Turks and a Turkish-American were killed aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara – part of an international flotilla trying to break the blockade, which Israel says it imposed in 2007 to keep militants from bringing weapons into Gaza.
Turkey and Israel have enjoyed close relations that gave Israel a strong defense ally and allowed Turkey to purchase Israeli high-tech military equipment.
But relations declined steadily after 2008 over Israel’s war in Gaza, with Erdogan repeatedly attacking Israel for the deaths of Palestinians. Erdogan, whose party has roots in Turkey’s Islamic movement, has also adopted a more hardline approach toward Israel after a strong election victory in July gave him a third consecutive term in office.
The rift with Israel comes as Turkey’s yearslong bid to join the European Union has all but faltered and the country has forged closer ties with the Arab and Muslim world.
Israeli Military Official Says Drones Deployed Over Egyptian Border
Published September 08, 2011
| Associated Press
A senior Israeli military official says the air force has deployed a special unit of unmanned surveillance aircraft along its long, porous border with Egypt after militants crossed the frontier and killed eight Israelis last month.
The official says the drones are monitoring both sides of the 150-mile border, though the aircraft are flying only in Israeli airspace. In the wake of the attack, Israel also has sent more troops along the border.
Officials have grown increasingly concerned about the security situation in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula following the ouster of longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity under military guidelines.
1. Egypt attacks Israeli embassy in Cairo. Egytian militants crossing Egytian border and killing Israelis.
2. Iran sends warship AND submarine to the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.
3. Turkey has said its navy will use force to protect ships attempting to break Israel’s blockade of the coastal Palestinian territory. Turkey had already announced it would increase navy patrols in the eastern Mediterranean in response to Israel’s refusal to apologize for the raid.
Do YOU see anything ominous about the above?
Obama’s response to this?
How involved is Samantha Power and Rashid Khalidi in this? Both have disdain for Israel.
Samantha Power is an Obama advisor.
Rashid Khalidi is a friend of Obama’s.
Obama pushed his “responsibility to protect” agenda as a way to send troops into Lybia. Where’s the Obama plan for responsibility to protect Israel?
Despite their claims of suffering impoverished conditions due to alleged humanitarian aid blockades imposed by Israel — Palestinians actually seem to be living high on the hog, enjoying a laundry list of luxury goods delivered directly to them by Israel. According to an UnDhimmi report, Israel has increased its delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. In addition to basic necessities the “aid” even reportedly includes daily shipments of Mercedes, high definition televisions, jacuzzi tubs,and frost-free refrigerators. Israeli officials cite the country’s humanitarian aid policies for the reported 15% increase in Gaza’s GDP.
IDF’s Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea and Samaria, Major General Eitan Dangot discussed Israeli relief measures in Gaza:
Among the measures taken were: increasing the number of trucks that transport goods into the Gaza Strip, renovating the land crossings into Gaza and increasing the range of goods allowed into the Strip, approving extensive projects in Gaza funded by members of the international community, increasing the export of agricultural produce from Gaza, and increasing the amount of entry and exit permits from Gaza into Israel for Gaza’s residents.
Dangot’s comments are in line with an illustrative video released by the IDF spokesperson’s office last week. The video details the amount of goods Israel transfers to the inhabitants of Gaza on any given week. This includes 6,000 tons of goods (around 260 truckloads) which are transferred into Gaza on a daily basis. The products transferred into the Strip include baby food, poultry, vegetables, construction materials, and other miscellaneous goods such as medicine, clothing, electrical equipment and hygiene products.
Major General Dangot noted further that Israel even regularly transfers luxuries into the Strip, including LCD screens, luxury cars such as Mercedes and Hyundai jeeps, modern refrigerators, and whirlpool bathtubs. He emphasized that these goods enter Gaza daily and are not part of any special one-time deliveries.
This IDF video features truckloads of luxury goods making their way into Gaza. Items include Mercedes, LCD TV’s, jacuzzis and frost-free refrigerators:
Dangot stressed that Israel’s civilian policies toward Gaza prove there is not in fact a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza, as is claimed by Hamas and pro-Palestinian activists including organizers of the Freedom Flotilla 2.
He added that Israel’s policy towards Gaza’s population has led to an improvement in the Gaza Strip and has resulted in an increase in the living standards there. He added that evidence shows that there has been an increase of 15% in the GDP in the Gaza Strip, and an increase of approximately 11% in the GDP per capita.
Below is a picture of the luxurious Gaza Grand Palace hotel:
A bipartisan group of top-ranking lawmakers is calling on the Obama administration to veto an “anti-Israel” resolution being pushed by Palestinian leaders at the United Nations.
In a letter to President Obama, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer joined other officials in claiming the proposed resolution was “without merit” and should be publicly condemned.
“Instead of negotiating directly with Israel to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict, Palestinian leaders continue to seek to circumvent the negotiating process,” they wrote. “Mr. President, the passage of this resolution would simply isolate Israel and embolden the Palestinians to focus on further such pyrrhic victories, immeasurably setting back prospects for achieving real peace.”
The lawmakers urged the administration to oppose the resolution “publicly and strongly, including through the use of our veto at the United Nations Security Council.” The United States is one of five veto-wielding, permanent members on the Security Council.
“The Palestinian Authority must be reminded that any path towards statehood must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians, not imposed,” the lawmakers wrote.
Palestinian leaders submitted the resolution last week. It would condemn Israel’s settlement activity and call for construction in the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem to stop.
While the United States has not said whether it would veto the proposal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed disappointment in it last week.
“The only way that there will be a resolution of the conflict … is through a negotiated settlement,” she said, according to AFP. “Therefore, we don’t see action at the U.N. or any other forum as being helpful in bringing about this desired outcome.”
The letter sent Thursday to Obama was signed by Cantor; Hoyer; Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtninen, R-Fla.; Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.; Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio; and Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.
Ackerman had earlier voiced concern with the resolution after the liberal Jewish lobbying firm J Street put out a statement calling on the Obama administration not to veto the measure if it comes up for a vote. [Emphasis added]
The group said it was not endorsing the resolution and preferred diplomatic action, but that the resolution is in line with U.S. policy since it condemns Israel’s ongoing settlement activity.
Protecting the Quarterback on J Street By Lenny Ben-David
September 13, 2009
J Street seems to pop up in all the right places lately, buoyed and immunized by indulgent, adoring and uncritical journalists. The upstart lobby was invited to join other Jewish organizations in a July meeting with President Obama; a month later they attended a meeting with President Mubarak of Egypt.
Yesterday’s New York Times [Sunday, Sept. 13] magazine published the latest paean to J Street, portraying it as brash and brave, representative of 92 percent of American Jewry, and a young and open organization willing to take on a monolithic and paleolithic AIPAC and other veteran American Jewish organizations.
Frankly, the Times article is missing so many components and questions about the so-called “pro-Israel” organization that it cannot be viewed as anything other than J Street puffery.
For instance, the writer, James Traub, devotes considerable effort to show how J Street is in touch with American Jewish opinion on issues such as Israeli settlements and American engagement in the peace process. J Street commissioned “an extensive poll of Jewish opinion on Middle East issues,” Traub wrote. But Traub failed to report the recent and shocking exposé, written in Commentary by Noah Pollak, that J Street’s poll was conducted by J Street’s own former vice president, Jim Gerstein. J Street’s in-house chef had cooked the polls!
“J Street not only commissions polls,” Pollak wrote, “it writes the questions, conducts them, analyzes the results, and then carries out promotional campaigns with the findings. If you were wondering how it was possible that J Street could repeatedly produce ‘polling data’ that almost perfectly complements the group’s political agenda, now we have one important clue.”
[Challenged on this and other issues, J Street felt compelled last week to post a “Myths and Facts about J Street” on its website. As a founder of the original Myths & Facts, a Factbook on the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” published by AIPAC’sNear East Report, I am reminded how some critics referred to it as “Myths & More Myths,” a title much more appropriate to J Street’s new attempt at defending itself.]
The Times’ Traub failed to report on the identity of J Street’s broader leadership and decision-makers. To whom does director Jeremy Ben-Ami answer or consult? Who sits on the organization’s board of directors? Who are the organization’s funders?
Traub reports on the 50-member Finance Committee, the existence of which was revealed in a Jerusalem Post exposé last month. The Post revealed names of some of the members: “The finance committee with a $10,000 contribution threshold” the Post wrote, “includes Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute (AAI), and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) board.”
J Street’s website presents its distinguished 170-member “Advisory Council,” a display case of wealthy progressive Jews and former U.S. diplomats to the Middle East, including several who became foreign agents working the halls of Washington for Arab countries. Perhaps J Street’s ultimate leaders are among these advisors, but there’s no way of knowing who they are.
The Post exposé revealed that J Street’s PAC was the recipient of donations from Arab- Islamic- and Iranian-Americans, but Traub doesn’t mention that controversial fact. The existence of these donations is understandably played down by Ben-Ami, but that information certainly should have been made available to the Times’ readers.
J Street’s Finance Committee list only reflects contributors to the PAC as they appear in public records of the Federal Elections Commission. The list of donors to J Street’s main organization is secret.
Traub should have asked what role George Soros plays in the organization. A National Journal article written in April 2008 prior to J Street’s launch reported that “billionaire and controversial activist George Soros, a party to the early talks about forming a new group, is reportedly no longer involved, in part, sources say, because concerns that his participation might be a lightning rod for critics.”
J Street’s disturbing alliance with the Iranian lobbying group, the National Iranian American Council, is also ignored by the Times’ tribute. J Street and NIAC directors co-authored a Huffington Post article earlier this year arguing against new sanctions on Iran. When Congress was considering anti-Iranian legislation a year ago, J Street went into action. In the words of one anti-Israel blogger at the time, “J Street played a key role in dealing that astonishing defeat to AIPAC in Congress — in which a coalition of peace groups and religious groups spearheaded by the National Iranian American Council lobbied effectively against a belligerent resolution.”
One fact the Times magazine seems to get right: “J Street shares the Obama administration’s agenda.” But the Timesshould have gone on to ask the nature of J Street’s relationship with senior officials in the Obama administration. The National Review article on organizational meetings prior to J Street’s launch – and at the height of the Democratic primaries — listed advisors including “several activists with ties to Democratic contender Barak Obama of Illinois.”
The initial support of J Street came from multi-billionaireGeorge Soros, who for a brief time was associated with the organization. Soros pulled out before the initial launch, so as not to negatively affect the group.[17] In September 2010 it was revealed that despite denials, Soros secretly funded the group.[18]
Confidential IRS documents obtained by The Washington Times in 2010 showed that George Soros had been a donor to J Street since 2008. The approximately $750,000 from Soros and his family, together with donations from Hong Kong-based businesswoman Ms. Consolacion Esdicul, amounted to about 15% of J Street’s funding since establishment.[18] In previous statements and on its web site J Street had seemed to deny receiving support from foreign interests and from Soros, a bête noire to conservatives.[39][40] Jeremy Ben-Ami apologized for earlier “misleading” statements regarding funding from Soros. Ben-Ami also clarified that donors to 501(c)(4) organizations are promised confidentiality by law and challenged critics to make public the contributors to opposing organizations.[41]Rabbi Steve Gutow, a president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, called J Street “irresponsible” for its handling of the issue.[39]
Ben-Ami has a long career in government and politics, and an association with . left-liberal causes. Along with others, including George Soros, Ben-Ami founded J Street last year as an organization that was “both pro-peace and pro-Israel”. A key feature of J Street’s strategy was to establish themselves as a centrist force. To achieve this they needed to do two things. First, market themselves as moderate and as authentic representatives of the American Jewish community, and secondly break the influence of AIPAC and other Jewish organizations by re-labeling them as right wing, and not sufficiently committed to the peace process.
During its short history, J Street has built up an extensive list of positions detrimental to Israel. With respect to Iran, they have defended Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and lobbied Congress not to place new sanctions on Iran, claiming that the President’s use of diplomacy was preferable to any timelines or new round of sanctions. They have urged ending sanctions against Syria also, and have favored pressuring Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syrian control,
They have lobbied Congress to oppose an initiative calling on Obama to pressure Arab governments to normalize relations with Israel, They favor negotiating with Hamas.They support the “Arab Peace Initiative. And when the President awarded the Medal of Freedom to the Durban anti-Semitic ringmaster Mary Robinson, it was J Street that was tasked with defending the indefensible.
But their most controversial action relates to Operation Cast Lead. Last December, after several months of deadly rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, Israel finally took military action against Hamas to defend its citizens. J Street opposed this action, calling for an immediate cease fire on the first day, claiming that Israel’s actions were contrary to the interests of peace. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of Reform Judaism and an early supporter of J Street, broke with them over this issue, calling it a mistake that “misjudged the views of American Jews”. According to Rabbi Yoffie, J Street “is showing signs of moral deficiency and appalling naïveté”.
J Street’s strategy is deceptively simple. No matter how damaging to Israel a particular position might be, they follow with the mantra “and we are pro-Israel”. That J Street takes positions inimical to Israel’s welfare should be obvious, but it disguises its anti-Israel bias behind repeated declarations of support for the State of Israel. Since there is much disagreement about how best to help Israel, J Street’s repetitive claim that they are a pro-Israel organization offering an enlightened and liberal view, in contrast to the “right wing” views of the Israeli government and the mainstream American Jewish organizations, has credibility.
The media and most individuals, lacking sufficient knowledge to recognize this deception, have rarely questioned the pro-Israel appellation.
This Orwellian deception permits Obama to take steps inimical to the security of Israel while incurring minimal criticism from those who are increasingly alarmed about his growing hostility to Israel There is no other Jewish organization so aligned with the positions of this President on the foreign policy and security issues of the Middle East. Like Obama, J Street believes that the settlements are the major obstacle to peace. Like Obama, J Street believes that mainstream American Jewish organizations are less relevant, and future developments and political inroads will come by way of progressive Jews and their organizations. Like Obama, J Street believes that the current government in Israel is right-wing and will not take steps toward peace unless pushed.
