"67 BORDERS NOT DEFENSIBLE" - SAYS ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU BY: FERN SIDMAN Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was greeted with great enthusiasm and thunderous applause at the concluding banquet of the 2011 AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington last night. "America! We're with you, this day and every day", he said, mentioning the tragic death tolls in the aftermath of the tornados in Joplin, Missouri. Thanking his "good friends", Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker of the House John Boehner, (R-OH) he said that "Israel thanks you for your deep commitment to its security". Embellishing on the unbreakable United States/Israel relationship, Netanyahu said, "Israel is America's indispensable ally" and thus, the two nations should stand "shoulder to shoulder" and protect their common interests. On a lighter note, the Prime Minister mentioned that he and his wife toured Washington, visiting the monuments to America's founding leaders and said that, "I read the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, 'we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal', and these exalted principles were "first championed by the Jewish people; that we are all created in G-d's image", adding that "Israel is the cradle of our civilization". "Today, one million Muslims enjoy full democratic rights in Israel; Christians are free to practice their faith; all because of the shared principles of democracy that bind us," he said. Receiving a great round of applause, the Prime Minister said, "these rights go forth from the one, united city of Jerusalem". Saying that "Israel and America share deep well springs of our common values as we have forged an enduring friendship, not just between our governments, but between our peoples." At one point in his speech, he stopped and heaped accolades upon Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut; one of Israel's greatest friends and allies in the US Senate and said there is hope for uniting, 'even independents like you, Joe" "The American people's support for Israel is reflected in my invitation to address a joint meeting of Congress tomorrow" he said. "I will talk about the great convulsion taking place in the Middle East; I will talk about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. I will also outline a vision for a secure Israeli-Palestinian peace. I will speak the unvarnished truth. Now, more than ever, what we need is clarity', he added "Since the days of Harry Truman', said the Prime Minister, "there has been broad support for Israel in the US and they have stood by us as we meet the challenges of the future" He also thanked President Obama and Congress "for vital assistance so Israel can defend herself, by herself". Making special mention of the "Irondome" missile defense system, the Prime Minister related a recent incident in which Hamas rockets were intercepted in mid-air. Speaking of the cooperation and state of the art advancements in science, trade, technology and investments, Netanyahu said, "not only do American companies invest in Israeli companies, but Israeli companies have invested $50 billion in American companies, helping to stimulate the US economy." In the field of medical research and development, he spoke of the rapid advancements in research of Alzheimer's disease and cancer and spoke of the Israeli invention of a "tiny diagnostic camera that can fit inside a pill" and of the "miraculous bandage that helped to save the life of Arizona congresswoman Gabriella Giffords" who was the victim of an attempted assassination in January. On the political front, the Prime Minister spoke of the "great convulsion in the Middle East" and "the dangers of a nuclear powered Iran". The simple truth, he said is, "the problems of the region are not rooted in Israel". Illustrating the yearnings for "freedom, progress and a better life" by peoples throughout North Africa and the Middle East, he said that their aspirations are not related to Israel but to their own brutal governments and despotic leadership. In an indirect manner, he took issue with US President Obama by intoning,"peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not a panacea for problems in the Middle East. Israel is not what is wrong with the Middle East but what is right about the Middle East." Expressing his desire for a just and lasting peace, the Prime Minister said, "We want peace; we know the agony of war; the pain of terror". Stating that the impasse of peace negotiations rests squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians, he declared, "peace has not been achieved because they (the Palestinians) refuse to recognize the Jewish state". Firing yet another salvo at President Obama for his recent shift in foreign policy towards Israel that was outlined in his now infamous speech delivered on May 19th, the Prime Minister declared, "Israel must be left with defensible borders and this cannot be achieved with the 1967 lines". Thanking the US for condemning Hamas in the most vociferous of terms, he also spoke of the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas for five years with not a single visit from the Red Cross. “The whole world should join together with a simple message for Hamas: release Gilad Shalit!” called Netanyahu. .
 AIPAC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADDRESSES UPRISINGS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
BY: FERN SIDMAN
During the morning session of day two of the AIPAC 2011 Policy Conference, the organization's Howard Kohr addressed the recent insurrections in North Africa and the Arab countries of the Middle East. "Think back just one year ago: Which one of us, when people thronged the streets and squares across the Arab world, demanding regime change – which one of us would have predicted they would not be shouting slogans against the United States, or carrying signs slandering Israel? Which one of us would have predicted we would hear those voices crying out against the injustices of their own rulers – crying out for the right to determine their own fates?" he queried.
Despite the initial hopes that the advancement of democracy and freedom would eventually become endemic to these countries Mr. Kohr pointed to the fact that the precise opposite results have unfolded with "America and Israel once more the enemy." Using oblique references to the rise in popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic elements, Mr. Kohr said, "There are forces – internal and external – in every one of the Arab nations who seek a different ending to the story. Who seek to strengthen the forces of oppression and stifle democracy. Who seek to defeat America and to destroy Israel. Who seek to use this moment of hope to advance their own power and substitute a new era of repression and aggression."
Reminding his audience of the recent January 25th revolution that took place in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Mr. Kohr spoke of fallen president Hosni Mubarak and the ultimate outcomes of the uprising. "Even now, when the dictators have been deposed, that remains their legacy heard today on the Arab Street. Is it any surprise that the fall of a dictator leaves a vacuum – setting off a scramble for power in which the forces of democracy are just one contender among many?"
In stark contrast to the true nature of democratic institutions, Mr. Kohr addressed the underlying anti-Semitism that accompanies the protracted events. "We should all celebrate the genuine green shoots of democracy in the Arab world, but we must never shrink from calling out and condemning anti-Semitic policy under the guise of popular will. True democracy is more than the right to vote. True democracy includes building civil institutions and a sense of civic responsibility. And true democracy can never be rooted in racist hatred." He added, "We have an obligation to urge our policy-makers to do all they can to ensure that Egypt holds to its peace treaty with Israel" and said that this should be an imperative of American foreign policy.
"For 30 years, the prospect of an all-Arab war against Israel has been inconceivable – impossible, without the participation of Egypt. For 30 years, not only Israel, but the United States and the world have benefited in a shared strategic interest that there be no regional war in the Middle East. Should the new Egyptian Government renounce the peace treaty with Israel – the inconceivable becomes possible", he intoned.
Declaring that a post-Mubarak Egypt must maintain its commitment to peace with Israel, Mr. Kohr added that that would include "a continuation of the blockade of Gaza, no rapprochement with Iran and maintaining the integrity of the Suez Canal."
Pertaining the draconian measures employed against pro-democracy protestors by the Syrian government, Mr. Kohr was livid by the abject silence of the world."In Syria – we are witnessing political turmoil not seen in 30 years. What we see there is the raw power of repression. Indiscriminate killing. Mass graves. Tanks rolling through the streets. Secret police going door to door, rounding up thousands of people – torn from their homes, many never to be seen again. Where is the international outrage? Where are the demands that this must stop? And where is the U.N. Security Council Resolution? We applaud last week’s decision by the White House to sanction Assad, and we hope this is the beginning of ratcheted pressure on this regime."
Also addressing the international nemesis that is embodied by Iran, Mr. Kohr declared, "There is one regime whose leaders regularly celebrate the rising masses in every Arab nation – and yet, will not tolerate the smallest street gathering at home. When it comes to Iran – the international community has fallen silent. Yet, Iran is fomenting unrest in Bahrain. They are aiding the crackdown in Syria. Iran is funding Hezbollah, and they are arming Hamas. Iran is projecting its strength by sending naval ships into the Eastern Mediterranean. Iran is running new weapons into the region, and they are encouraging their proxies to probe and provoke Israel. And if that were not enough, Iran just went to the International Atomic Energy Agency and said – “We are ready to implement the next phase of our nuclear program.”
Concerning the ill advised partnership of Fatah and Hamas, Mr. Kohr proffered an astute analysis of the reluctance of the PA leader to takes the steps necessary to create a long-term peace agreement with Israel. "Abbas is ready to go to the ends of the earth but he will not travel the few short steps to sit down with Israel to pursue real peace." Citing Abbas willingness to orchestrate a propaganda campaign against Israel, he said, "So for the past 18 months, he has traveled a long and winding path, taking him farther and farther away from the neighbor he needs to sit down and negotiate with. Instead, Abbas has traveled as far as European and South American capitals, where he has encouraged the de-legitimization of the Jewish state, aimed at sapping Israel’s very ability to defend her own citizens. He has even begun to carve a path to the United Nations to seek a unilateral recognition for statehood. And now, in the last month, he has decided to come back – closer to home and pursue an effort to make peace with Hamas."
Mr. Kohr urged "faith, trust, and confidence between the leaders of Israel and the United States", adding that, "if Israel's foes come to believe that there is diplomatic daylight between the United States and Israel, they will have every incentive to try to exploit those differences and shun peace with the Jewish state."
PRESIDENT OBAMA ATTEMPTS TO SHORE UP SUPPORT AT AIPAC CONFERENCE
BY: FERN SIDMAN
In an address aimed at placating his disgruntled Jewish supporters, President Barack Obama told his audience of over 10,000 at the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, D.C. on Sunday that "a strong and secure Israel is in the interest of the United States and the bond between our two vibrant democracies must be nurtured."
He maintained that he did not say anything fundamentally new in his Thursday speech,, when he mentioned the "1967 borders" as a basis for future peaceTaking intense criticism from pro-Israel supporters since then, when he called for Israel to negotiate a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, he sought to heal wounds by enumerating actions taken by the US to foster Israel's security."We have made the most advanced technologies available to Israel including the 'iron dome' anti-rocket system. We have imposed the toughest sanctions on the Iranian regime as we remain committed to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. We have told the United Nations that it will meet resistance from the US as we stand in steadfast opposition to their efforts to isolate and delegitimize Israel. We responded to the Goldstone report by reasserting our belief that Israel has a right to defend herself", declared President Obama. Obama said "demographic realities are making it harder to maintain Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state and a just and lasting peace can only be achieved through the establishment of two states for two peoples. Warning that procrastination on a peace deal with the Palestinians will only serve to "undermine" Israel's security, President Obama said that any borders for a proposed Palestinian state would be predicated upon "mutual swaps" and recognition that geo-political realities have changed since 1967. "We must acknowledge that a failure to try and make peace is not acceptable," he said.
He insisted that his statement last week, in which he mentioned the 1949-1967 borders as the basis for a peace agreement, was a continuation of the policy of previous administrations. Regarding the phrase “1967 lines,” Obama repeated part of his Thursday speech verbatim.
“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with swaps’ means,” he then added. “The parties themselves will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed in 1967. That is what ‘mutually agreed swaps’ means. It allows for the parties to take account of the changes that have taken place over the past 44 years, including demographic facts on the ground and the needs of both sides.”
Disclosing the essence of his meeting on Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama said, "As friends often do, we may disagree. We have an open and honest relationship.".
“Core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties,” he said, and reaffirmed that no country can be expected to negotiate with a terror organization bent on its destruction. Hamas, he said, must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence and adhere to all existing agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
He called on Hamas to release captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit – and received a rousing ovation.
“What I did Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately,” he explained. “I did so because the world is moving too fast for us to wait another decade. Delay will undermine Israel’s security.”
He concluded with a quote from the Talmud, which says that as long as a person breathes, he should not abandon faith.
There was speculation that Obama would use the opportunity to announce a visit to Israel in late June, but he did not do so.
In his speech, which began shortly before 11:00 EDT, Obama told the audience that in his meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu, "We reaffirmed the fundamental truth that the bonds between the U.S. and Israel are unbreakable and the commitment of the US to Israel’s security is ironclad."
The US and Israel do not just share strategic interests or common dangers – like terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons, he said. Rather, America’s commitment to Israel’s security flows from common values.
Obama reminded his audience of his visit to Israel before the 2008 election, and of his meeting with a Sderot boy who lost his leg in a Kassam attack.
He promised to continue to stand up to Hizbullah, and to block any attempt to delegitimize Israel. He cited the Durban conference, from which the US withdrew. “In both word and deed we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security,” he told the audience.
The conference is the largest in AIPAC history and includes more than 10,000 delegates, from all 50 states. According to AIPAC, the Policy Conference is the largest annual bipartisan gathering of U.S. senators, representatives, administration officials, diplomats and foreign ambassadors except for the State of the Union address.
AN INTERVIEW WITH AARON KLEIN Author of "THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT" - Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other anti-American Extremists" BY: FERN SIDMAN Released in May of this year by WND Books, this seminal piece of investigative journalism entitled, "The Manchurian President" has been both embraced by political conservatives and repudiated by Obama apologists in progressive enclaves. Listed as number 23 on The New York Times non-fiction bestseller list as of June 27th, this eye-opening account of President Obama's ties to radical left-wing extremists represents the latest work of intrepid investigative journalist and WABC radio talk show host, Aaron Klein. The Jewish Voice sat down with Mr. Klein to discuss his new book. FS: Concerning your latest book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists", what served as the inspiration for you and Brenda J Elliott to collaborate on such a monumental investigative task? AK: I was inspired to undertake this task because so few reporters were conducting any real investigation into Barack Obama's background. I reported in February of 2008 that Obama was tied to Weather Underground criminal/terrorist Bill Ayers. When I did a Google search to see if any other reporters or media outlets had uncovered this information, I was stunned to find that they had not. After all, it is the responsibility of the media to engage in a vetting process of sorts when it pertains to presidential candidates. Based on my research, it was clear to me that Obama had a long relationship with Ayers and Ayers even gave Obama his first job at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They also served together, in the 1990s on the board of the Woods Fund; a non-profit organization that funneled money to leftist causes including the Midwest Academy that practiced Alinsky-like tactics of working within the capitalist system in order to overthrow it. What really served as the impetus for me to write this book was the lack of any real independent investigative journalism on the part of the mainstream media, as it pertained to Obama's past. FS: As you previously mentioned to Sean Hannity on FOX News, President Obama was not forthright in his book concerning his first boss who he claimed was Marty Kaufman. Since no such person exists, and the person to whom he referred was Gerald "Jerry" Kellman, what connections does Kellman currently have with this administration? AK: While Jerry Kellman may not have ties to the administration, it is clear that Obama apparently deliberately disguised the fact in his autobiography that he was given a job at the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools or ABC's by someone he claimed was Marty Kaufman, who in fact does not exist. Rather, he was referring to Jerry Kellman, who is an avowed Marxist and a stalwart acolyte of Saul Alinksy, the radical community organizer. Obama also disguises other names in his so-called autobiography, "Dreams From My Father", and neglects to mention that his childhood mentor was another Communist agitator named Frank Marshall Davis. Very little information was known about Obama other than what he had penned in his book. All of this information should be considered a major political scandal and the fact that he changed the names in his book should be challenged. FS: Why do you think the mainstream media did not scrutinize Obama's background and ties to extremists and why do you think he was not carefully vetted by the Democratic party? AK: I think the mainstream media promotes the same kinds of policies that Obama is espousing. He is the kind of candidate that they've been wishing for and hoping for. He is their dream come true. The Democratic Party did not carefully vet him because even those in his own presidential campaign such as David Plauth, who made a lot of Obama's videos, admitted that he didn't check out his background and was unaware of his affiliation for over 22 years with Rev Jeremiah Wright's church and black liberation theology. The party betrays it's past and it's roots by remaining indifferent to the polemical aspects of Obama's career. Obama has been pushing for the very same policies that the mainstream media itself that has been advocating for years and now they have this candidate named Obama so of course they're not going to investigate him in any serious way. To them these issues are not scandals. The media has been promoting Bill Ayers and other radical leftists and the causes that Obama has been representing for years, so this comes as no surprise. FS: Your book sheds light on the sketchy details surrounding Obama's college days. What were his political leanings during his years at Occidental College and Columbia University and was he under the tutelage of Marxist mentors and professors? AK: As to Obama's college days, no official or unofficial records were ever made available to the media. No college transcripts, published records, or even contemporary newspaper announcements about his education have been released. Obama remarkably relates in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father" that, beginning at Occidental, he surrounded himself with an assortment of radicals, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and communists. Obama, however, provides neither names nor clues. It was at Occidental that Obama first engaged in community activism, delivering what has been described as the first political speech of his career. On Feb. 18, 1981, Obama addressed students gathered outside Coons Hall administration building, exhorting Occidental's trustees to divest from South Africa. Obama writes in "Dreams" about the rally in which he took part, reportedly led by the Black Student Alliance and Students for Economic Democracy. Students for Economic Democracy, or SED, was a national student advocacy group established by soon-to-be California State Representative Tom Hayden, now a professor at Occidental, and his former wife, actress Jane Fonda. FS: As to Israel, the Middle East and relations with the Muslim world, many people feel Obama has coddled our Islamic terrorist enemies such as Iran, and their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. In a recent article (June 15) by Jerusalem Post reporter, Caroline Glick, she writes: "It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama's friends, former Weatherman Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fundraiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is former US senator from South Dakota James Abourezk." What are your comments on this? AK: As I reported back in January of this year, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers along with Code Pink's Jodie Evans were in the forefront of fomenting chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement to join in solidarity with the territory's population and leadership. The three helped to stir riots after the Egyptian government refused to allow a large number of protesters to enter neighboring Gaza. Eventually, the protesters accepted an Egyptian offer of allowing about 100 marchers into Gaza. Once in the territory, those marchers were reportedly met on the Gaza side by Hamas' former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Clearly, President Obama's associates have helped shape his adversarial stance towards Israel, but he has a history of political leanings towards Hamas. In the 1990s, Obama spoke at pro-Palestinian events alongside Ali Abunimah, who was with Evans' group in Egypt, and who runs the web site called "Electronic Intifada" which spreads anti-Israel propaganda. In one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for Palestinian "refugees," Abunimah recalled introducing Obama on stage. Obama, like most leftists, believe that all conflicts can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations, which is why I believe he is coddling Iran in part. He is advancing and agitating for policies that help Hamas and we might see in the future even the White House eventually opening channels with Hamas because they believe that Hamas can be talked out of their extremism that is patently ridiculous. I know many Hamas leaders and have interviewed them and they are looking to spread their brand of Islam around the world and it's not like we can talk them out of it or talk them into peace negotiations. Obama has an "Israel problem". He has a real issue with the Jewish state. This is evidenced by his radical affiliations with such people as Rashid Khalidi, the pro-PLO Columbia University professor and others like him. FS: Can you shed some light on whom, in the Obama administration, were significant figures in pushing a socialist domestic agenda including the national health care reform bill? AK: As I reveal in my book, a convicted felon named Robert Creamer who is the husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who was one of Capitol Hill's most visible cheerleaders for Obama's health-care bill is the one who helped provide a blueprint for the president's health-care legislation. Creamer said his declared strategies on health-care reform are not about "policies" but "are about the distribution of wealth and power." Creamer also recommended the president "create" a national consensus that the country's health-care system is in a state of crisis in order to push a radical new health-care plan. Creamer was sentenced to federal prison in 2006 after pleading guilty to bank fraud and withholding taxes while heading Citizen Action of Illinois. While in prison, he wrote a book titled "How Progressives Can Win." Obama's chief adviser, David Axelrod, touted Creamer's book as providing "a blueprint for future victories," including on health care. His book was endorsed by other leading Democrats and by Andy Stern, a close ally of the president who as head of the Service Employees International Union had visited the White House more than any other individual. FS: You write quite extensively on the role of the SEIU, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, and of course ACORN in their support for President Obama. Can you tell us if the leadership and rank and file of these unions call for a Socialist and/or Communist agenda and what role, if any, they play in helping to craft legislation? AK: For example, one of Obama's close advisors is Eliseo Medina, the international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. Medina is in the forefront of spearheading legislation that would grant citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, with the stated objective being the expansion of the "progressive" electorate that would help to ensure a "progressive" governing coalition for the long term. The SEIU is closely linked to the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN and they are top supporters of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez's Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Bill, which seeks to document up to 12 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. Also on the council was Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., the co-sponsor of Gutierrez's immigration reform bill. Medina was a chief lobbyist credited with a change in the longstanding policy of the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S. The union reversed its stance against illegal immigration in February 2000, instead calling for new amnesty for millions of illegals. The New Zeal blog documents how Medina was honored in 2004 by Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America for his "vital role in the AFL-CIO's reassessment of its immigration policy." That same year, Medina became a DSA honorary chairman. The DSA also supported Gutierrez's 1998 bid for Congress. In the mid-1990s, Gutierrez served on the board of Illinois Public Action alongside a number of DSA members, including Obama health-care advisor Quentin Young. FS: Can you elaborate on David Axelrod's Communist background that you extensively explore in your book? AK: David Axelrod was mentored by Don Rose, a founder of the pro-Communist publication called "Hyde Park Voices" and who, in the 1960s, was a member of a purported Communist Party front called the Alliance to End Repression. Axelrod began his professional career as a journalist with this paper. Rose also worked with the late David S. Canter, who was the co-founder of the Voices newspaper and was named as a communist in the late 1960s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In my book, I document the fact that Rose had written to Marc Canter, the son of the late David Canter and said, "Your dad and I 'mentored' and helped educate Axelrod politically, which is perhaps why you may recall seeing him hanging around the house." In 1987, Axelrod was hired to help in the re-election campaign of Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor, where he once again worked with Rose and Canter. It should be noted that Washington's campaign was supported by a coalition of communist and socialist groups. FS: Will you be speaking about this book on college campuses throughout North America? AK: I will not be focusing on a speaking tour right now but will be putting my efforts into a media tour to help promote the book.
 The American people overwhelmingly think that the Christmas Day airplane bomber, not to mention 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, should be treated as enemy combatants, not common criminals or Prisoners of War afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions.
Interestingly enough, Attorney General Eric Holder agrees -- at least, he did back in 2002.
Here’s what he said when discussing the 9/11 terrorists: “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.…It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves,…that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not.”
Holder also acknowledged back then that giving terrorists access to lawyers and telling them they have the “right to remain silent” -- as the Obama administration did with the Christmas day bomber -- means you can no longer effectively interrogate them.
In a 2002 interview on CNN, Holder was asked about John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban captured in Afghanistan and brought to America for trial. “How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?” CNN asked. Holder replied, “Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States.” How times have changed. In his shocking new book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA has Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack, author Marc Thiessen reveals a stunning reversal of opinion when Holder said years later in a speech to the American Constitution Society “I never thought I would see the day when…the Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.” Like so many others in this administration, Holder puts political convenience above common sense, military tradition and any concern for the safety of American citizens. As Thiessen points out in Courting Disaster, this is just one more instance of the Obama administration endangering our safety and inviting the next terrorist attack.
 A theme constantly repeated both by the internationalist left and the isolationist right is that Islamic terrorism is a backlash or blowback against our foreign policy. Exponents of this point of view, whether it is Bill Ayers or Pat Buchanan, echo the same list of Muslim grievances against America and imply that if we simply left the Muslims alone, they in turn would leave us alone. But their premise is as foolish as arguing that the Visigoths would have left Rome alone, if only Rome had left the Visigoths alone. One can buy some time by leaving the people who are expanding into your territory alone, but that just means postponing the inevitable. Europe is full of governments anxiously trying to leave the Muslims who are overrunning their countries alone. And all they're doing is buying themselves a little time, until the inevitable sacking begins. In countries such as France and Belgium, the sacking has begun already. The internationalists and isolationists who are expert at offering the most cynical and conspiratorial readings of American foreign policy, also inevitably offer the most optimistic and naive readings of Muslim expansionism. That double standard is a mandatory requirement for blaming America first and blaming Islam never. Instead Muslims are treated as pinballs who only act violently in response to our aggression. This pinball theory of Islamic victimization is used to sell absurdities such as the Cycle of Violence theory, which argues that if people stopped fighting Islamic terrorism it would go away, or the They Hate Us Because of Our Foreign Policy theory which pretends that Islamic terrorism is a justified response to our liberation of Kuwait, protection of Saudi Arabia and foreign aid to Israel. Both theories dehumanize Muslims by assume that the Ummah has no larger agenda than just wanting to be left alone. Far left and far right critics of America, such as Ayers and Buchanan, routinely charge America with that dreaded "I" word, Imperialism. But it is the rising Caliphate that practices actual imperialism, spreading the faith by the sword, expanding its dominions by exploiting Muslim fifth columns around the world, and murdering anyone in its way. Muslim corporations from the oil rich gulf states leverage their wealth to promote their influence in the United States and Europe. Muslim nations band together in the UN to outlaw any speech they consider blasphemous, even when that speech takes place in non-Muslim countries. When Obama bows to the Saudi King, when tax dollars are used to repay US oil companies whose property was nationalized by the Saudis, when Saudi lobbyists hold high positions in the government, when terrorists out of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia murder thousands of Americans while their countries profit from US foreign aid and rising oil prices from the aforementioned nationalized US oil companies, when Islamic leaders promote death and terror against the infidels, while demanding unflinching respect for their beliefs-- there you can see true imperialism. There was a time when Islamic terrorism was about foreign policy, but that time has long passed for Europe, where Islamic terrorism is now a matter of domestic policy. It is quickly becoming a matter of domestic policy in America as well. Because while Westerners may divide Islamic grievances into domestic and foreign spheres, Muslims themselves make no such distinction except within their own nations. The rise of an Islamic minority in a non-Muslim country to the Muslim mind demands the imposition of Islamic law, since all other forms of jurisprudence are illegitimate and inferior in comparison to it. If that request is not granted, then Muslims naturally have the "right" to rise up against their oppressors. If the request is granted, the first seeds of an Islamic takeover have been planted. Soon disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims will have to be tried in accordance with Islamic law. Blasphemy must be outlawed. And Islamic law must step by step become the basis of the nation's legal system. Eventually the nation's indigenous legal system is so weak and inferior that it is wholly swallowed up by a little problem named Sharia. When Muslims speak of fighting an American or Western empire, they don't mean it in quite the sense that Ron Paul or Cindy Sheehan do. They mean it in the sense of obliterating the Pax Americana, the hegemony of the Western powers in the military, economic and cultural spheres-- and replacing it with their own. The Ummah is not searching for some Benetton/UNICEF fantasy of global co-existence. It is playing a zero sum game from which there is no exit. The Islamic birth rate combined with their domestic impoverishment and oppression stimulate immigration, the growing treasure houses of the oil rich states are used to buy power and influence-- and to do what all royal houses do, extend their power and dream of global ambitions. American and European internationalists are still wedded to Soviet propaganda, which with the flexibility of Communist dogma was willing to embrace anyone at war with the West as an enemy of capitalism. This flexibility allowed them to embrace Hitler and Nazi Germany as victims of Western Imperialism (at least until German tanks swept across the border). Embracing Islamism seems almost like a trivial contortion of principles at this point. American isolationists like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul still think that bashing American foreign policy and Israel is a cure all for all of Islam's ails, a foolish cowardice that they share with many tottering European governments who imagine the same thing. While Islamists such as Bin Laden do indeed resent America's ties to the governments of Egypt, Yemen, Israel or the House of Saud-- that is only because we stand in the way of their ambition to take over those countries, a move that would quadruple the world's terrorist quota. One might as well argue that the solution to race riots is to appoint Al Sharpton president, an absurd premise that neither Buchanan nor Paul would sign on to at home, but that they somehow seem to think would solve all our problems abroad. While European right wing isolationists have generally learned that playing the foreign policy card or taking out and polishing one's antique anti-semitism for display, as the likes of Buchanan are wont to do, are no answer, their solutions depend on isolationism combined with a limited domestic crackdown are no answer either. That might have been enough in 1968, but probably not even then. It certainly would not be enough now. Not in a world where the Caliphate is organized enough to sow domestic terrorism around the world, while keeping a death grip on the UN and the international energy trade. Not in a world in which NATO warplanes bombed a country to rubble because it dared stand up to Islamic separatists. Not in a world in which international boycotts are organized by the left against Israel for simply building a wall to keep the terrorists on their side of the border. Not in a world in which the ministers of every civilized nation tremble when the Caliphate squeaks. One cannot simply build a wall and then wait out the worst of it. Because the worst of it is yet to come. If darkness spreads across Europe and the world, then Fortress Britannia will not wait it out alone. Not without cutting off international trade, ending free elections in which any more liberal party could win, developing a nuclear shield and enough weaponry to stand off all the combined forces that the UN or the remains of NATO could field. In short it isn't feasible. If a patient falls ill, he cannot simply wall off the disease in his foot or his right arm. And like it or not, the modern world has become far too interconnected for isolationism to be a survival strategy anymore. No single nation alone could have stood off Nazism. No single nation alone can stand off Islamism.What was once foreign policy, is now domestic policy. What was once a distant thunder, is now a dull roar in our own streets. If you build a wall, they can shoot rockets over it. If you pass laws, they will become causes of terror. And if you fail to pass them, you will be forced to live under theirs, sooner or later. We can either stand together, or following the cowardly policies of the last few decades, sell each other out in the hopes that the best diplomat and the most esteemed backstabber will be the last to be eaten by the black crocodile of the caliphate that circles the globe from ocean to ocean. There is no help for it, but to form an alliance of nations, an alliance of religions, an alliance of philosophies and civilizations, from the east to the west. That alliance is not yet here, but it must come, if we are to survive what waits ahead for us.
 By TAREK EL-TABLAWY The Saudi billionaire whose investment firm is one of the biggest stakeholders in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. said he is looking to expand his alliances with the media giant, in the latest indication that his appetite for growth remains robust even as his company retrenches. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king and who was listed last year by Forbes as the world's 22nd richest person, met with News Corp.'s chief executive Rupert Murdoch on Jan. 14 in a meeting that "touched upon future potential alliances with News Corp.," according to a statement released by his Kingdom Holding Co. late Saturday. Media reports have indicated that News Corp, parent to Fox News and Dow Jones & Co., among others, may be thinking of buying a stake in Alwaleed's Rotana Media Group, which includes a number of satellite channels that air in the Middle East. Neither company has commented publicly on the possible deal, but the talks offer an indication yet that such an agreement may yet be in the offing. Kingdom Holding's statement said Alwaleed is already the second largest stakeholder in News Corp., with 5.7 percent of the shares of the media company. The stake is held through Kingdom Holding, in which Alwaleed holds a 95 percent stake. The investment company has a diverse portfolio, ranging from hotels to shares in Apple, eBay and Citigroup. Alwaleed, and the investment firm, were hit hard by the global meltdown. He has since focused on shoring up borrowing power, in part through a recent decision to transfer 180 million of his shares in Citigroup to Kingdom Holding. In a statement last week, he described the move - valued at about $600 million - as key to facilitating future borrowing and growth. The Saudi royal also met last week with Citigroup's chief executive Vikram Pandit, according to a statement by Kingdom Holding e-mailed Sunday. Alwaleed told Pandit that the "honeymoon is now over," a clear indication that one of the banking giant's largest investors wants solid results this year, according to a transcript of an interview that aired Thursday on Fox Business News. "I told him that clearly the market gave you two years leeway, but I think now it's time to deliver," Alwaleed said. "And 2010 is really for him is year to make it or break it, and he has to deliver. " Alwaleed raised his stake in Citigroup to 5 percent in late 2008 from less than 4 percent in a move that came as the company was facing a possible collapse. Kingdom Holding says Alwaleed is the single largest shareholder in Citigroup. Citigroup has repaid the money it borrowed from the U.S. government during the financial crisis, but still faces a new fee to be levied on banks by the Obama administration to recoup $120 billion in taxpayer money used to support faltering companies. Alwaleed said he was opposed to the move, arguing that "I believe taxing the banks right now is not the right time at all." "It's like you have a patient just coming out of ICU, intensive care unit, and all of sudden bang him with another tax. I think it's too much, it's too early for that if it's going to have that happen," he said, according to the transcript. The $120 billion recovery goal is the most that administration officials expect to lose from the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program that bailed out banks, automakers and other financial firms. Alwaleed's Rotana already has an alliance with News Corp. In 2008, the two companies teamed up to bring Fox Movies to the Arab world and then last year, Rotana and Fox International Channels signed a multi-year output deal with The Walt Disney Co. to provide a range of programing to viewers in the Middle East, according to the statement by Kingdom Holding. Alwaleed has also been meeting with officials in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich emirate that recently bailed out Dubai, its glitzy neighbor awash in debt. A statement by Kingdom Holding said the Saudi royal met with senior officials in Abu Dhabi, which holds the presidency of the United Arab Emirates, a federation of seven semiautonomous city-states. Abu Dhabi's largest sovereign wealth fund, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, alleges "fraudulent misrepresentations" by Citigroup over the fund's $7.5 billion investment in the banking giant. ADIA has said it is seeking compensation or an exit from the deal. KansasCity.com
 IS little Mikey really a terrorist? That is the question America is asking after it emerged that the eight-year-old Cub Scout from New Jersey is frisked every time he flies because his name is on a US terror watchlist.
Michael "Mikey" Hicks, whose father is a US Navy veteran and mother a photojournalist who has flown with the US vice-president, has been the target of extra security measures at airports since he was 2.
"Why would a kid be a terrorist?" he asks. Michael is not on the US Government's "no-fly" list of 2,500 people considered too dangerous to be allowed into the air. However, his name appears to be among, or to closely match, one of the 13,500 on the "selectee" list who are singled out for extra airport security. His parents first learnt of his status when they could not get him a seat for a flight to Florida because, as an airline official explained, he was "on the list". He was patted down for the first time aged 2 as he passed through Newark airport in New Jersey. Michael has been asked to see the supervisor whenever he checks in for a flight. On a recent trip to the Bahamas he was frisked on the way out and searched more aggressively on the return flight. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is charged with trying to explode a bomb, was identified as a possible problem when his father in Nigeria alerted the US Embassy that he had expressed extreme views before disappearing. The US Government added Mr Abdulmutallab to the 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database. But his name was not added to the "no-fly" list or the "selectee" list, so he was able to get on a US-bound plane without attracting extra attention. Hundreds of people have been added to these lists since the breakdown was identified. The United States, though, is deeply reluctant to start profiling passengers by singling out Muslims.
Instead the Obama Administration has taken an intermediate step by ordering full-body pat-downs for all US-bound passengers from Nigeria and 13 other countries where the US suspects that terrorists operate. On its website, the Transportation Security Administration, which is responsible for airport security, insists that no eight-year-old boy is on the "no-fly" list. "Airlines can and should automatically deselect any eight-year-olds out there that appear to be on a watchlist," it says. "Whether you're 8 or 80 the most common occurrence is name confusion and individuals are told they are on the no-fly list when, in fact, they are not." Michael's mother, Najlah Feanny Hicks, has enlisted the help of her congressman to get the listing removed. "You could have seen that he was 2; that he was 3, 4 or 5. Now it's scary because he's 8. What happens when he is 16?" she asked on the television channel CBS2. The Australian
 What? "Terrorism," you say? I thought the "war on terror" was over! Wasn't this a "man-caused disaster"? I thought it was vicarious Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder! Anyway, that Tim McVeigh is incorrigible! He must be stopped! "Fort Hood shooting was terrorism, U.S. says," by Phil Stewart for Reuters, January 15 (thanks to Weasel Zippers): WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The shooting rampage at a U.S. Army base in November was "an act of terrorism," an Obama administration official said on Friday, as the Pentagon ordered an overhaul of protocols to spot threats within the military. Reviews ordered on Friday by the Pentagon and White House exposed shortcomings in both intelligence and oversight before the November 5 shooting, which authorities blame on a military psychiatrist. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said his department was still "burdened by 20th century processes and attitudes mostly rooted in the Cold War," and needed to do more to combat self-radicalization. "Our counterintelligence procedures are mostly designed to combat an external threat such as a foreign intelligence service," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon, adding there was not enough focus "on internal threats."... Watch for the new emphasis on "internal threats" to focus not on Islamic jihadists, at least after the Hasan heat is off, but on "right-wing extremists." With thanks to JihadWatch
 Shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001; back when such attacks were almost universally considered to be acts of war and not just crimes committed by “alleged suspects”, there was a lot of talk of the terrorists winning or losing. It was often said that if people in the West did this or did that, the terrorists would win. Those days are long gone. Although there have been a few such comments since the Christmas Day attempt to bring down Flight 253, they have been few and far between. Perhaps this is recognition of the fact that the current administration and congress in Washington do not treat terrorists as enemies with whom a war is ongoing. It could also be that this “war” is easy to forget; although the militaries of the United States and its allies are engaged in fighting, it is easy for everyone else to simply ignore what is taking place. In the above context it was somewhat surprising to see David McCaig, the head of the Association of Canadian Travel Agents, being quoted in the media as saying last week that the terrorists were winning.
McCaig was particularly referring to the use of full body scanners and searches where passengers are patted down all over their bodies except in the crotch area where Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab kept his explosives. It will be years until this war ends, if in fact it ever ends, but looking at its progress during the last 12 months in terms of winning and losing battles, it is easy to conclude that the Islamic fundamentalists had a hell of a good year. The terrorists won when Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. While John McCain seemed more concerned with reaching across the aisle to Democrats than enacting policies that would appeal to more conservative voters there is no doubt that he would have prosecuted the war more seriously than the Obama administration is doing. Obama ran on a platform of hope and change. Once elected, he “hoped” that the Islamic fundamentalists would “change” and not attack a country who was led by a nice guy like him. Obama was of course wrong. The terrorists won when Obama’s first announcement as president was that he was going to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. The terrorists, as everyone else did, realized that he made the decision without deciding what to do with the detainees that were being housed in Cuba. The terrorists won when the administration stopped using the term “war on terror” and began to refer to it with cutesy phrases such as “man made disasters”. The terrorists won when Janet Napolitano, who had no expertise in security, was made Secretary of Homeland Security. The terrorists won when Eric Holder was appointed as Attorney General. Holder had practiced law with a firm that defended some of the Guantanamo detainees. The terrorists won when Obama travelled around the world and apologized for all the problems that were caused by the United States. This was especially true of his Cairo speech where he made it clear that Muslims, who are not a threat to the West, were much more worthy of priority than the jihadists who seek destruction. The terrorists won when Barack Obama dithered and dawdled and seemed not to care about how many, if any, more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. The terrorists won after Adulmatallab’s attempt to blow up Flight 253 when Barack Obama decided to stay on vacation in Hawaii. Even though the president could do everything from Hawaii that he could have done from Washington, it gave the perception that Obama is a weak leader who didn’t take terrorist attacks seriously. The terrorists won when Obama’s first comment from his sunny vacation paradise was that the carefully planned attack was “an isolated incident”. The terrorists won when Secretary Napolitano went on television the following Sunday and stated that “the system works”. The terrorists won when the TSA came up with comical solutions to protect airline passengers. They could not be told or shown where the plane was during their trip and for the last hour would have to remain in their seats during the last hour with nothing on their laps, save their neatly folded hands. The terrorists won when the American media heaped praise upon the president for being so brave as to actually use the word “war” in public. One thing was clear; when Barack Obama returned from his Hawaiian vacation, he was scared. Unlike some U.S. senators he can’t bribe the Islamic fundamentalists with stimulus slush funds. Nor can he bully the attackers like he tries to do with Israel; nor can he simply ignore the terrorists as he does with the student uprisings in Iran. Obama may have finally realized that the fundamentalists are a threat not just to the United States but to his legacy. All he could do was blame everyone else while throwing out the line that “the buck stops here”, knowing that the sycophantic media would praise his leadership skills. Like it or not, the terrorists are winning. And they probably had a few good laughs along the way. CFP
 What red flags? They still don't know why the military promoted Hasan and didn't act on "concerns". What concerns? His devotion to Islam? What would have been done had he been reported for his pious and devout love and devotion to Islam? Not only would he still have been promoted, anybody who reported him would have been demoted, a racist! An Islamophobe! An anti-Muslim bigot! The military gives korans to GITMO killers. Soldiers get their asses kicked, court martialed or worse if they diss jihadis' korans here or abroad. Obama gives jihadis constitutional rights! Who can anyone in the military go to if a Muslim soldier is devout without getting ruined? Who would anyone go to? Gates? Diversity Casey? Better yet, Hesham Islam? Has any military spokesman spoken openly about jihad in the Fort Hood Islamic attack? Steve Coughlin, call your office. Uh, never mind. Pentagon Review Doesn’t Explain Fort Hood Gunman’s Promotions A Defense Department review of the deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood fails to determine why accused gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan advanced in rank despite concerns about his competence. WASHINGTON (January 11, 2010)—A Pentagon review of the deadly Nov. 5 shooting rampage at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center that left 13 dead and 29 wounded fails to determine why accused gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was promoted in spite of worries over his competence, The Associated Press reported Monday. While the doctors who oversaw Hasan's medical training voiced concerns about his strident views on Islam, he continued to get positive performance evaluations. The review, obtained by The Associated Press, found that no one challenged his eligibility to hold a secret security clearance, even though his views raised doubt about his loyalty to the United States. The report is to be delivered to Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the review because it's not complete.
Nothing has changed. Keep scratching your heads, asshats. With thanks Atlas
 YEMEN'S President yesterday said he was willing to strike a deal with al-Qa'ida if militants laid down their weapons, amid warnings that dozens of foreign fighters were streaming into the country. Ali Abdullah Saleh's offer to negotiate with members of the terror network came as officials said that several al-Qa'ida operatives, including Saudis and Egyptians, were travelling from Afghanistan to join fighters in the lawless tribal lands in central and southern Yemen. It came as US President Barack Obama said in a magazine interview that he would not be sending troops to Yemen, which is quickly emerging as a new front in the war on terror, nor Somalia. Among those said to be in hiding in South Yemen is influential Yemeni preacher Anwar al-Awlaki. The US-born imam preached to two of the September 11 bombers in California and had links to the US army psychiatrist charged with the Fort Hood gun rampage and the Nigerian man who allegedly tried to blow up a Christmas Day flight to Detroit. Some Yemeni officials believe that Mr al-Awlaki, a member of a powerful clan who claims not to be a direct member of al-Qa'ida, may be willing to enter talks. A slim, bearded and bespectacled 38-year-old former civil engineer who was born in New Mexico to a Yemeni father, Mr al-Awlaki is an imam whose fluency in English and command of internet communications have made him a top recruiter for disfranchised young Muslims in the West. Dozens of Mr al-Awlaki's speeches can be found on the YouTube website, referring to everything from Koranic parables to the rapper Snoop Dogg and zombies. While serving as a preacher in San Diego in 2000, his sermons were attended by two of the men who participated in the September 11 attacks - Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar - and he became a spiritual adviser to the hijackers. He later exchanged emails with Nidal Hasan Malik, the US army major accused of killing 13 soldiers in a shooting spree on the military base of Fort Hood in November last year. Yemeni officials believe that he met Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Nigerian accused of trying last month to bring down a flight with explosives hidden in his underwear. Mr Saleh told Arabic television news that he was willing to offer al-Qa'ida militants a last chance to put down their weapons and come to an accommodation, even as US special forces instructors put troops through intensive anti-terrorist training. Mr Saleh said: "If al-Qa'ida lay down their arms, renounce terrorism and return to wisdom, we are prepared to deal with them. "They are a threat not only to Yemen but also to international peace and security." Mr Obama said he had "no intention" of sending US troops to fight militants in Yemen and Somalia. The Australian
 Israeli officials on Sunday tried to downplay tensions looming with the United States after George Mitchell, the Obama administration's Middle East envoy, suggested in a PBS interview that the US could consider withholding support for loan guarantees for Israel. Israel's finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, said on Sunday that Israel has "no indication that there is any intention to pressure us through the guarantees ... only a few months ago we reached an agreement with the US treasury and state departments on the extension of their guarantees." However, he also said that Israel could do without the guarantees, if necessary. "We don't have to use those guarantees. We are doing very well without them," Mr. Steinitz said Sunday. He added in his comments that Israel late last year agreed with the US on the guarantees for 2010 and 2011, and no conditions were placed on Israel at that time.
Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar also addressed Mr. Mitchell's remark at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, saying that Israel would act in its own interests and not according to external pressures.
"The American administration knows that those who are holding up the negotiations are the Palestinians," said Sa'ar. "Israel made many concessions while the Palestinians didn't do a thing."
From the Israeli point of view, Netanyahu's offer of a ten-month freeze in settlement construction back in November was a peace-making gesture that has not been met by Palestinian willingness to come back to the negotiating table.
But from the Palestinian viewpoint, President Mahmoud Abbas is finally "standing up" to Western pressure to return to negotiations by insisting on a full moratorium on building of Israeli settlements, including in East Jerusalem.
The Palestinians see the eastern half of the city – under Jordanian control until 1967 -- as their future capital, but Israel annexed the territory and does not consider East Jerusalem neighborhoods as settlements. US backing for Israel's loan guarantees has been a hot issue in the past, most pointedly in the early 1990s when the administration of George H. W. Bush faced a head-on collision with the Likud premier, Yitzhak Shamir, who refused to curtail settlement building in the West Bank.
Ultimately, the Bush administration decided it would subtract equivalent amounts of money from the $10 billion in loan guarantees for every dollar Israel spent building settlements in the occupied territories. The outcome of the spat was a low-point in US-Israel relations.
"Theoretically of course, the withdrawal of loan guarantees could be an act of pressure, but Israel doesn’t really need loan guarantees," says Peter Medding, an expert on US-Israel relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "But if they try to do it, as they did very unsuccessfully in the early 1990s, it would have to come from the White House. I don't think it's Obama's style, and I don't think it fits the circumstances.
If anything, they've been trying to persuade Abbas to come to the party, and are still waiting for him. " More at CSM
 Gen David Petraeus, head of Central Command or Centcom, did not elaborate on the plans, but said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there. Asked about the vulnerability of Iran's nuclear installations, he told CNN: "Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear." He added: "It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies." Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel has called Iran's nuclear programme the major threat facing its nation. Gen Petraeus declined to comment about Israel's military capabilities, according to CNN. Iran had until the end of last year to accept a deal offered five permanent UN Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany. It did not do so. Instead, Tehran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal. Petraeus said he thought there was still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any US contingency plans. But he added that "there's a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head". The Telegraph
 A REPORT questioning the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for former terrorists is threatening to undermine Barack Obama's pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. The US President has suspended a release of Yemeni prisoners because of the attempted Christmas Day bombing masterminded from Yemen. The administration has conceded it will not meet its January 22 deadline for closing the base in Cuba. The fate of all 198 prisoners still at Guantanamo now hangs in the balance after US figures showed that up to one in five former detainees have engaged in terrorist activity after their release. The main hope had been a much vaunted rehabilitation program set up by Saudi Arabia in 2003. This uses crayon therapy, table tennis and video games to reform jihadists. The Saudis had claimed near-total success for the program, which had 108 former Guantanamo detainees pass through it. But 11 of these graduates have been named on the kingdom's list of 85 "most wanted" terrorists. They include Said Ali al-Shihri, who re-emerged as a leader of al-Qa'ida in Yemen, the group claiming responsibility for the Christmas Day bombing plot. "The Saudis claim 80-90 per cent success in turning these jihadists," said John Horgan, director of the International Centre for the Study of Terrorism at Pennsylvania State University, who was among the experts. "But when I asked Saudi officers how they knew these people were safe to release, all they could say was they got a feeling." Run by Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the program initially received international plaudits. Aside from art therapy, games and religious discussion to counter radicalisation, it relies on social support. Jihadists are encouraged to get a flat, find a wife and settle down. "It's more like a halfway house than a prison," said Christopher Boucek, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who visited the camps. "The centres have guards and fences and you can't leave when you want to, but the first thing that happens to prisoners is their shackles are removed." He warned: "I think what we have seen is, it is unrealistic to close Gitmo if you don't have a program to monitor people when released." Mr Horgan agrees. Although he praised the Saudi scheme for being "innovative and ambitious", he said: "The idea that this is a silver bullet is naive. These guys are not being deradicalised. They are being encouraged to disassociate from terrorism, but their fundamental views have not changed." The unpublished Homeland Security report's main criticism is the lack of any reliable risk assessment to decide whether an individual should be allowed back into society. "Sex offenders have to meet all sorts of criteria before they are released," Mr Horgan said. "Why shouldn't it be the same for terrorists?" The report points out that there is no way of measuring recidivism. Many of the Saudi rehab graduates ended up in Yemen. Apart from Shihri, these included Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaish, al-Qa'ida's spiritual leader in the Arabian peninsula, and Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Awfi, who appeared in an al-Qa'ida video last January, threatening attacks. Shihri is thought to have played a direct role in an al-Qa'ida attack on the US embassy in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, in 2008, in which 19 people died. The Australian
 Islam is in trouble at the heart of its birthplace, Saudi Arabia, and consequently in other Muslim countries. Muslim leaders and media are desperately trying to regain control both internally and externally. Muslims are starting to openly and defiantly question; while the international image of Islam is being tarnished daily with every act of terror, hate speech and calls for jihad from the pulpits of mosques. The traditional open calls for violence and jihad Islam got away with for centuries is now under scrutiny especially after 9/11. Islam is now under the microscope. That is the quagmire of Muslims today. How can they continue teaching their basic religious jihad education but still save face and Islam’s reputation in a culture where image and honor is everything. The West is not fully aware of what is happening in the Muslim world today where taboo topics are being discussed by brave Muslim reformists and former Muslims.
There are ground breaking Arabic TV and internet shows aired inside homes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, etc, discussing what ordinary Muslims were never allowed to heard before.
The brilliant Rachid Hmami, a Former Muslim turned Christian and originally from Morocco, has a show, Suaal Garii ‘Daring Question,’ that is making shock waves across the Middle East.
Another equally effective show, is that of the brave Coptic priest, Father Zakareya Botros, who was imprisoned in Egypt for proselytizing to Muslims. Father Botros’s show is a huge success in exposing tyranny, contradictions and weaknesses in Islam. Muslims who call in, are often in shocked by what they hear for the first time about their own religion, yet another proof that Muslim establishment intentionally spreads misinformation and ignorance of basic Muslim doctrines to Muslims. Many Muslims, even from Saudi Arabia, call in to renounce Islam. Unprecedented defiance is happening in the heart of the Muslim world. Recently a prominent Egyptian female attorney and human rights advocate, Nagla Al Imam, announced she left Islam and became a Christian and insists that she will remain in Egypt, in defiance of Islamic law condemning her to death. She is now under intense 24-hour security. Islam is in trouble from within. Both, King Abdullah, custodian of the two Holy Mosques of Islam in Mecca and Medina, and the Islamic establishment everywhere, are extremely alarmed by the status of Islam today. Their power to control Muslims, trained for centuries to blind submission, is slipping away. Huge sums of oil money dedicated to rescue Islam’s image, is not enough to do the job. That is where Obama’s services come to the rescue of King Abdulla. Obama’s bow to the king was no small matter, but of great significance in Muslim culture. It is a Muslim symbol of subjugation and inferiority. It was said that Obama decision to hold a trial in New York of the confessed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and the rest of the Guantanamo detainees, is proof of the US’s just legal system. But the Muslim world already knows that. Not one Muslim country demanded such a trial or claimed the KSM was innocent. To the contrary, the Muslim public, in general, think that Americans are stupid for opening their country to such terrorists and giving visas to terrorists while often denying it to legitimate travelers. Recently, my daughter innocently asked, why is America trying to tame untamable terrorists, it is like “having a pet shark”. The claims that such a trial will give an opportunity to the terrorists to justify their actions and hate propaganda, is true, but it is much more than that. Such a trial will vindicate and justify mainstream Islamic education of hatred and will help Muslim establishment tighten their screws. It will greatly boost to the status quo in Muslim counties and an opportunity for Arab media and Muslim clerics to justify 9/11, their hate propaganda, incitement to violence and outright lies. This trial will be a set back to Muslim reformers, human rights activists and Arab feminists. It is telling them there is a good reason for Islamic violence dictated by Sharia law. This trial will create unnecessary sympathy among the many uninformed Western citizens to Islamist fictitious ‘causes’ and finger-pointing Muslims have been taught and believed in since birth. Like the OJ Simpson trial, a good portion of Americans will be confused over glaring truths which will cause a huge set back to America’s war on terror. Knowingly or unknowingly, Obama has given a great gift for the New Year to the custodian of Islam, King Abdullah; a self-imposed trial by the victim nation of 9/11, a free televised propaganda machine from ground zero, to rescue mainstream Islam’s reputation. Protecting the image of Islam is one of the basic duties of Muslim leaders and the utmost obligation of every Muslim who is obliged by Islamic law to lie, cheat and kill for its sake. By holding such a trial in New York, America, intentionally or unintentionally, will be contributing to reforming Islam’s image, supporting its old ways of doing business and suppressing the brave reformation movements across the Muslim world, a true New Year’s gift to King Abdullah. Nonie Darwish FormerMuslimsUnited.org Author of ‘Cruel and Usual Punishment’ Thanks to Atlas for this exclusive.
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
