Rep. Rothman details Israel's value to the US

From Bloomberg via Business Week, by US Rep. Steve Rothman:

The argument that American military aid to Israel is damaging to the U.S. is not only erroneous, it hurts the national security interests of this country and threatens the survival of Israel.

U.S. support for Israel is essential, not only for Israel's national security, but for America's. Every bit of that support -- and more -- withstands all reasonable scrutiny.

Under the 2010 U.S. budget, about $75 billion, $65 billion and $3.25 billion will be spent on military operations and aid in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan during this fiscal year, respectively. Israel will receive $3 billion, in military aid only. There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees that continue to be repaid in full and on time.

There isn't enough space here to discuss the relative merits of the expenditures in these other countries, but we already know the critically important return the U.S. gets for helping its oldest, most trusted ally in the strategically important Middle East -- the most powerful military force in that region, the pro-U.S., pro-West and democratic Jewish state of Israel.

Here's how.

First, it's important to remember that about 70 percent of the $3 billion aid must be used by Israel to purchase American military equipment. This provides real support for U.S. high- tech defense jobs and contributes to maintaining our industrial base. This helps the U.S. stay at the very top in the manufacturing of our own cutting-edge military munitions, aircraft, vehicles, missiles and virtually every defensive and offensive weapon in the U.S. arsenal -- with the added contribution of Israel's renowned technical know-how.

Second, the U.S. and Israel are jointly developing state- of-the-art missile defense capabilities in the David's Sling and Arrow 3 systems. These two technologies build on the already successful Arrow 2, jointly developed by our two countries, which is already providing missile defense security to Israel and U.S. civilians and ground troops throughout the region. The knowledge the U.S. gains from these efforts also has a positive multiplier effect on applications to other U.S. military and non-military uses and U.S. jobs.

Third, given Israel's strategic location on the Mediterranean, with access to the Red Sea and other vital international shipping and military lanes of commerce and traffic, it is critically important to the U.S. that Israel continues to serve as a port of call for our troops, ships, aircraft and intelligence operations.

Israel also has permitted the U.S. to stockpile arms, fuel, munitions and other supplies on its soil to be accessed whenever America needs them in the region.

Fourth, America's special relationship with Israel provides the U.S. with real-time, minute-to-minute access to one of the best intelligence services in the world: Israel's. With Israeli agents gathering intelligence and taking action throughout the Middle East and, literally, around the world, regarding al- Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and Hamas, among others, the U.S. receives invaluable information about anti-U.S. and terrorist organizations and regimes.

Fifth, imagine the additional terrible cost in U.S. blood, and the hundreds of billions more of American taxpayer dollars, if Saddam Hussein had developed nuclear weapons, or if Syria possessed them.

Then remember that it was Israel that destroyed the almost- completed nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981 and Syria's nuclear facility under construction at Deir-ez-Zor in 2007.

And think about the many operations that Israel's Defense Forces and intelligence agents have undertaken to foil, slow and disrupt Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region, all of Iran's Arab neighbors, the world's largest oil supplies and those who rely on that oil. It also would provide anti-U.S. terrorists with access to the most lethal Iranian technology and probably set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

For about 2 percent of what the U.S. spends in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan this year, Americans can take pride in the return on our investment in aid to Israel.

And with Israel's truly invaluable assistance to America's vital national security, we can take comfort that -- in actions seen in Tehran and Damascus and noticed by al-Qaeda and other anti-U.S. terrorists everywhere -- the U.S. is safer and made more secure because of the mutually dependent and beneficial relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

Read More

Al Qaeda threatens World Cup

From CBS:

The North African terror group al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has threatened to attack this summer's World Cup games in South Africa.

"How amazing could the match United States vs. Britain be when broadcasted live on air at a stadium packed with spectators when the sound of an explosion rumbles through the stands, the whole stadium is turned upside down and the number of dead bodies are in their dozens and hundreds, Allah willing," reads a statement the group published in a recent issue of the Jihadi online magazine Mushtaqun Lel Jannah (Longing to Paradise).

"Al Qaeda, who managed to deliver 50 grams of explosives to the Detroit plane, after infiltrating dozens of U.S. security barriers, al Qaeda, who enabled brother martyr Abul Kheir (Abdullah Asiri) to get into the palace of Mohammed bin Nayef, al Qaeda, who humiliated the world's greatest intelligence apparatus through the operation of Mujahid Abu Dujana al-Khorassani (Humam al-Balawi), who shattered the pride of the CIA and the Jordanian intelligence combined," the statement says. "Al Qaeda will have a presence in the games, Allah willing."

In addition to the U.S. and U.K. teams, the teams representing France, Germany and Italy are also on the group's list of targets.

"All those countries are part of the Zionist-Crusader campaign against Islam," the statement says.

I'm sure that Al Qaeda will change their tune when they find out that President Obama no longer specifies Islamic terrorism as a threat to the US.

Read More

Saudi preacher chickens out under fire

The Saudi TV preacher who promised to visit Jerusalem has chickened out under pressure from many Muslim leaders and Saudi officials.

Palestine Today reports that Sheikh Mohammed Al-Areefi was pressured by "Muslim scholars" who say that no Muslim leader should visit Jerusalem while it is under Israeli control.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad also told him not to go, claiming that it would be a type of normalization with the Zionist enemy. A Hamas cleric said that he shouldn't go while Israel was in its "orgy of Judaizing the city." Islamic Jihad cited the precedent of the current head of Al Azhar University who has vowed never to visit Jerusalem while it is under Israeli control.

The Director of Passports in Saudi Arabia also said that Areefi might be subject to arrest upon his return.

Arab News reports that his next show will be broadcast from Jeddah, with "some reports" filed from Jerusalem and other places.

If Muslims are not allowed to visit Jerusalem under Islamic law, then why should Palestinian Muslims be allowed to visit? I think it is time we got a definitive fatwa as to why the PA is not equally considered guilty of "normalizing" relations with the Zionists.

Read More

The dishonesty of Dalia Mogahed

Dalia Mogahed is an adviser to President Obama who was one of the two people behind a poll on worldwide Muslim attitudes in 2008 that spawned a very flawed book, "Who Speaks for Islam?"

She responds to a Lee Smith piece in Tablet that portrays her as very influential in the White House and also criticizes the poll. While I am not qualified to comment on her influence with Obama, the other part of her response is interesting to me.

She cuts and pastes from a Gallup FAQ about her book:

In the book Who Speaks for Islam?, we define the "politically radicalized" as respondents who A) answered a "5" when asked to rate the extent that 9/11 could be morally justified on a 5-point scale, where "1" is "cannot be justified at all" and "5" is "completely justifiable," and B) said they view the United States unfavorably. A population-weighted average of 7% fit these criteria. We labeled those who said 9/11 could not be completely justified as "moderates." We further broke this group down into those who were pro-United States and those who were anti-United States.
The decision as to where to break out the "politically radicalized" from the rest was data-driven. It was based on several analyses of where the data clustered for a natural breaking point. The analyses showed that the people who responded with a "5" (completely justifiable) to the question on the justifiability of 9/11 as a group were distinctly different from the groups who responded with a "1", "2", "3" or "4." The idea here is not that we are judging who or what a "moderate" or "radical" is, but rather assigning labels to statistical groups that we clearly define.
The term "moderate" is more of a placeholder label than a value judgment. It is similar to calling one clustering in the data "group A" and another "group B." We simply used labels that a broad audience can easily understand and remember.

This is how Gallup justified calling people who thought that the 9/11 attacks were "mostly" or "partially" justified as "moderate."
It is the bolded sentence that is dishonest. Mogahed and Gallup are claiming that the word "moderate"is not a value judgment, and that they could have just as easily called the groups "group A" and "group B."
In fact the way that the poll was publicized in press releases shows that it was used exactly as a value judgment. Look at how Gallup synopsizes the research in its web page:

What Makes a Radical?

March 13, 2008

The authors of the book Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think examine what separates the “politically radicalized” from the moderate majority.

Muslim Radicals: It's Politics, Not Piety

March 13, 2008

Experts react to Gallup findings revealing that views on politics, rather than personal piety, separate radical and moderate Muslims.

Clearly, Gallup is positioning the book as a referendum on who is a "radical" and who is a "moderate" with all the implications of those terms.

In addition, even though the authors and Gallup are claiming otherwise, it is impossible to separate the meanings of words with the purported neutral meanings that the authors claim for them. Using their standards, they could have called the two groups "extremely radical" and "somewhat less radical," or even "people who like daisies" versus "people who like roses." It is a self-serving and ultimately dishonest argument that the choice of appellations is somehow neutral when they have real meanings in the English language.

Perhaps Mogahed would not mind me terming all Muslim women who cover their hair and advise presidents of the United States as being "inveterate liars," as long as I clearly defined my terms ahead of time and say that calling her a liar is in no way a value judgment.

h/t zach

Read More

When the Muslims bargained away Jerusalem

An interesting passage in a book I just saw called The Jerusalem Question, 1917-1968, by H. Eugene Bovis.

Bovis was a Foreign Service Officer in the region for many years, and the book was published by the Hoover Institution in 1971.

From pages 114-5:

I guess the "Palestinians" of the 13th century didn't protest when the city that is supposedly their eternal capital was bargained away, just as they didn't protest when Jerusalem was under Ottoman, British and Jordanian control.

Perhaps their "love" of the city is of a more recent vintage.

Read More

Ray Hanania lies

Ray Hanania is one of the more moderate Arabs of Palestinian origin - an American-born commentator and sometimes comedian.

Yet he has no less of an urge to make up lies about Israel than his other PalArab comrades.

From the SW News Herald, copied from Palestine Note:

Jerusalem is a closed city. It has been for years. Every conqueror and occupier has restricted access to the city to certain people considered enemies.

The Ottomans did it. The Jordanians did it. And now Israel is doing it. Except that Israel is lying about it.

Israelis insist that Jerusalem is "finally" an open city. Yes, open to Jews from anywhere around the world and to most non-Arabs. But not to Arabs and especially not to Palestinians of the Christian and Muslim faiths.

Jerusalem under Israeli occupation is a closed city and the worst part about it is that most Israelis have closed their eyes and they don't care.

Israel's high powered propaganda machine - something the Arabs may not understand because they have no real professional communications at all - insists the "big lie" that Jews were banned from entering East Jerusalem after the cessation of fighting in the 1948 war and until Israel conquered it in their invasion in 1967.

That is an outright lie, of course. Jordan had the same policy that Israel has today. Exactly. Precisely. There is not a difference. During this Arab-Israeli conflict, ALL Arab countries banned Jews who had Israeli passports or who had visited Israel from entering their countries. They also banned pro-Israel activists. And that included East Jerusalem.

The Israelis focus on that fact without the accuracy, of course.

NOT BANNED, however, were Jews who did not travel to Israel and were from other countries who wished to visit East Jerusalem's Wailing Wall for religious, not political, reasons.

Jews prayed at the Wailing Wall all the time during the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem.

The difference is that Jordan didn't spend any time with clever public relations spin or professional communications explaining what they were doing.

Really? Jews prayed all the time at the Wailing Wall between 1948 and 1967??

Since there were approximately zero Jews in Jordan during that time period - they were all kicked out in 1948, including families who lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, without asking them if they were there for political or religious reasons - this is an astonishing assertion. Even more so since the newspapers of the 1950s and 1960s mention many, many times that Jews - not Israelis, but Jews - were banned from the Old City under Jordanian rule.

I found a single exception. During Christmas week in 1957, the Jewish and Arab mayors of Jerusalem opened up the Mandelbaum Gate and allowed a handful of religious Jews to the Old City. The Canadian Jewish Review mentions the incident, saying that the Jews cried far more for the ruins of the destroyed and desecrated synagogues than for the Temple, and some Arabs took advantage of the commotion to try to free some Arab prisoners from jail, causing the experiment in equal access to be aborted quickly.

Outside of that, the contemporaneous media uniformly mentions that Jews were not allowed to the Old City. Typical was this NYT snippet from January 13, 1957:

And there is the Wailing Wall, where the Jews may come no longer, barred now, as Christians or Moslems were from other shrines in ages past...

The Sydney Morning Herald, December 22, 1951, says

There is only silence to-day at the Wailing Wall, which is the western end of the great platform on which stood the Jewish Temple.

Is there "only silence" at the Al Aqsa Mosque today, Ray?

As far as the ability of Jews to travel to the Old City through Jordan, Dore Gold writes that "Jordan further barred non-Israeli Jews from the Western Wall, demanding that tourists present a certificate of baptism before a visa would be granted."

Hanania is claiming that Israeli policy today exactly mirrors that of Jordan during those infamous 19 years, in not allowing Arabs or Palestinian Christians to visit their holy sites. As I showed previously, not only did Israel hand out over 10,000 permits for Palestinian Christians to visit, but Israel also hosted hundreds of Jordanian and Egyptian Christians during Easter week this year.

To say that this is "exactly, precisely" the same policy that Jordan had when the Old City was Judenrein is nothing short of an absolute lie. If such a policy had existed, there would have been more Jews visiting holy places during Passover than there were Christians during Easter under Jordanian rule.

And, as I also mentioned, the number of religious visitors in Israel's undivided capital Jerusalem during the Passover/Easter season increased from 10,000 in under Jordanian rule in 1967 to over 100,000 this year.

Read More

Muslim world freaks over Saudi preacher planned visit to J'lem

From Al Arabiya:

A prominent Saudi cleric announced on his television show that he will visit the occupied Jerusalem next week to support Muslim claims to the city, according to media reports on Monday.

"I will shoot the next episode of 'Put your Fingerprint’ show in Jerusalem," Sheik Mohammed al-Areefi said, adding that Muslims have an obligation to Jerusalem.

Sheikh Areefi promised through the Saudi-based Iqraa TV channel that the next episode of his show would introduce "surprises," including a visit to Jerusalem and reports that would "astonish" the viewers.

AP adds:

A Saudi official says a cleric who announced that he will visit Jerusalem for a TV episode on claims to the city will be punished if he travels there.

The state-owned Al-Watan newspaper on Wednesday quoted the passports office spokesman Lt. Col. Badr Malik as saying visiting Israel is prohibited and any violator is punishable under the law.

Sheik Mohammed al-Areefi told his viewers Sunday on his television show that he will visit Jerusalem next week to support Muslim claims to the city.

Associates of the cleric have since said he was misquoted and does not plan to take the trip.

An Asharq al-Awsat columnist is upset:

It’s not the controversy surrounding the announcement made by the Saudi preacher Dr. Mohammed al Arifi to visit Jerusalem to film an episode of his weekly program there that bothers me. Rather, what worries me is the following question to al Arifi, his supporters and others; what about the Arab journalists who want to cover the Sheikh’s visit and the moment he enters Israel? Will they be held accountable for normalizing [ties] with the enemy or not? Will the [news] agencies and the press of slogans launch attacks against the journalists? Will the satellite channels that broadcast religious preaching programs send their correspondents to Israel to cover the visit?

You see, he is placing other Arab journalists in an uncomfortable position because of their twisted policy not to cover news in Israel, so by definition he is being a childish publicity hound.

Finally, Asharq al Awsat reports:

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that they did not object to the Saudi cleric's visit, and that he could apply for an entry visa from the Israeli consulate in Amman.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman reportedly said "throughout the years many people from countries like Libya, Indonesia and other countries that don't have relations with Israel have visited Jerusalem." He added that "all these visits were naturally coordinated with Israeli authorities."

Sources also informed Asharq Al-Awsat that Saudi cleric Muhammad al-Arifi is currently in the Jordanian capital, where he is delivering religious lectures at the Al-Isra University.

Informed sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that at the time of publication, Sheikh al-Arifi had yet to complete the procedures to obtain an entry visa to visit Jerusalem.

There is extreme secrecy surrounding the details of this visit, and the Iqra TV officials are refusing to clarify any information on this, saying that all details will be revealed on Friday by Sheikh al-Arifi himself during his next episode of "Da'Basmatak."

The source who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity also said that al-Arifi is not visiting Jerusalem as a propagandist or a media figure; however he refused to clarify the purpose of al-Arifi's visit. The source also denied any coordination with the Hamas movement with regards to this visit.

Al-Arifi's announcement received a lot of criticism, with many considering any visit that includes coordination with Israel to be part of normalizing relations. Sheikh Hamed al-Betawi, head of the Palestinian Scholars League and a preacher at the Al-Aqsa Mosque has called for Sheikh al-Arifi not to visit Jerusalem. In a statement published by the Muslim Brotherhood website Ikhwan Online, Sheikh al-Betawi, who is also Hamas's Spiritual Guide, said that "with all appreciation and respect towards Sheikh al-Arifi for the role that he has played in the service of Islam and for his support for the legitimate resistance; we object to this visit, because it comes at a time when the Al-Aqsa Mosque remains in the grip of occupation, and rather we hope that such a visit will take place following the liberation of Jerusalem."

Read More

Tunisian cleric issues fatwa on soccer prayer

A Tunisian sheikh has issued a fatwa against soccer players prostrating themselves in prayer after they score goals. According to the cleric, they are not appropriately dressed for prayer and it is not an appropriate venue for something that holy. Also, the players are not always appropriately facing Mecca when they do their game-time prostrations.

The practice of a thanksgiving prayer after scoring a goal is widespread in the Arab world, to the extent that the Egyptian team has been nicknamed "the worshippers."

Other clerics disputed this fatwa. An Egyptian cleric from Al Azhar University said that such prayers are appropriate, saying that such prayers are good publicity for Islam in front of the television cameras.

Read More

Behind the scenes at the Arab Summit

The Al Arab al-Youm newspaper published a fascinating exchange between Arab leaders behind closed doors at the Arab Summit in Libya late last month. It was reproduced by the Palestine Press Agency.

According to the reports, Mahmoud Abbas listed his demands for Arab support for his positions: use the UN to pressure Israel, support PalArab claims to Jerusalem ("there is no meaning to a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital"), keep pressuring the US not to allow any Israeli building in Jerusalem, 1967 borders "with slight exchange of land," rejecting any "cosmetic" Israeli moves like moving the separation fence or releasing prisoners, lift the "siege" of Gaza, force Hamas to reconcile with Fatah, and others.

Moammar Gaddafi responded with a demand that the Arab world declare the peace process dead and that they support Palestinian Arab armed resistance - without overt military support of Arab regimes. He also called for Syria to take the Golan back by force.

The Emir of Kuwait said that this was not a wise idea, in light of the diplomatic crisis between Israel and the US, saying that at the very time that the differences between Israel and America are at their widest, to go back to a military option would play into Netanyahu's hands.

The Syrian delegation initially said that they support the option of armed resistance as well, and saif that they have always supported Palestinian Arab military resistance.

Abbas responded that the "popular resistance" (with Palestinian Arabs throwing boulders) will continue as they occur in Nilin and Bilin every week, as he believes that such "resistance" is legal under international law, but the Palestinian Arab people are not yet at a stage that would allow them to use armed resistance, as the second intifada destroyed their ability to fight with weapons.

Abbas also called for a resumption of the official Arab boycott of Israel. He also challenged Gaddafi to say that if he supports a resolution that calls for Palestinian Arab armed resistance, he must also call for one that insists on Arab support for military action to recapture the Golan as well as Lebanese territory allegedly held by Israel. Gaddafi replied that he would send his tanks and planes to Syria to help "liberate" the Golan.

This then forced Syria's Bashir Assad to make a statement that surprised the audience saying that "peace is our choice, war is not our choice."

Read More

Follow up on Kuwaiti singer (updated)

I mentioned a few days ago about Emma Shah, a Kuwaiti singer who found herself severely criticized for singing a Hebrew song (Hava Nagila) in a Kuwaiti club.

It turns out that she has a YouTube channel where you can hear her French and Hebrew versions of Hava Nagila. Check out her nearly 20-second single high note that starts at around 2:55:



You can also see the Al Arabiya interview with her about this incident. It is in Arabic, but you can see a couple of seconds of her performing the song live before the interview:

UPDATE: Zvi found an English language report on the incident and comments:

Ema also appears to be free of insane hatreds. And she's willing to demonstrate this in public. In a society whose media is frequently critical of public displays of non-hatred of Jews or public acknowledgement that Jews exist and are human, that makes her a fairly impressive person to my mind.

Ema also responds that the poly-lingual Egyptian-Italian diva Dalida sang "Hava Nagila" (and also "Hine Ma Tov"). Ema dedicated her version of "Hava Nagila" to Dalida.

Here are 2 partial translations of Ema's interview responses, together with context. The Islamic scholar who led the attack on her in the press has attacked her before (see below). Maybe he's just obsessed with her. And since he says that she displays "alien attitudes that clash with the spirit, culture and values of the Kuwaiti society," the conflict is not limited to "Hava Nagila," and his accusations of pro-Zionism and the like are just the latest in an ongoing attack. What the guy really hates is her "attitude."

"Unfortunately, our media focuses on wars and problems, and not on meaningful work. I have written in Russian and performed in Arabic, English, Spanish, Japanese and French. Does that make me a spy for France or Britain?" she said acidly according to local media reports. -Gulf News, quoting Ema

I love her "attitude". I'm sure that Sheikh Awadhi really hates it when she uses logic.
"He had criticized me in the past for a song about Jesus, and I see no motive for his attacks on me," she said. "I am well versed in all religions, sects and creeds and I do not have a problem with anyone. I love all people and there are Christians and people with various religious beliefs in my audience," she concluded. -Gulf News, quoting Ema

Ema's detractors see her self-defense against their libel as "abuse" of freedom of the press (see the Toumi link above). They evidently believe that they have the right to lie about her (claiming that she sang insults against Arabs, which is a pathetic and laughable claim) but that she has no right to defend herself. That says an AWFUL lot about her detractors, doesn't it?

She's human. She's not perfect. I hope that the Kuwaiti media does not brow-beat her into making some public show of anti-Jewish feeling. That would be sad.

I wish her the best of luck.

Also, an anonymous correspondent send me a translation of the Al Arabiya interview. Excerpts:

We witnessed much anger in the Kuwaiti street due to the choice of Kuwaiti actress Emma to sing in Hebrew, in one of the concerts in the capital. The young actress has confirmed that the song she sang at a ceremony on the stage of Club Kuwaiti had already been sung by actress Dalida in French and Hebrew, and at the time Emma did not know the exact meaning of the text of the song, but after the uproar Emma defended the song, saying it does not indicate any kind of abuse of the Arabs.

And with us from Kuwait is Emma. Why did you sing in Hebrew?

Emma: Yes, dear, the show, my dear, was not limited to Hebrew, I sang eighty percent of the songs in classical Arabic and five songs in English and two songs in French and a song in Spanish and part of a song in the Japanese language and part also in Hebrew, which simulated a humanitarian tour around the world from France Enrico Macias and Guevara in Argentina, Germany, Hitler and Mahmoud Darwish in the wall and Britain, Sir Arthur, Gibran Khalil Gibran and Iraqi Maarov Rusafi as well as the Rasputin of Russia and the various personalities, and also the Christ of the Christian and Jewish heritage of all.

Presenter: But some see what is the significance of the song Artist Emma in Kuwait, the Arab public does not know Hebrew, speak Hebrew, they do not know what message that you were trying to deliver to them.

Emma: Honey, is not important to take the significance of the Arab world, because this show [was meant for an audience that was]a group of intellectuals. I was not necessarily obliged to explain this kind of art to the general audience. The idea of this show was a type of anthropology, human science , we are talking about man in the human race, I want to communicate between all members of the human race, I want to remove these barriers, this ideological borders the troubled psychologically such as religious Islamic fanatics who are against women and against freedom and against liberalism and democracy that are the foundation of this problem. The problem is not the streets of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti street has no problem in this maelstrom.

Presenter: If you please, let's not get into the clergy, especially as there are none of them here to respond...

Emma: No, no, Dear, no no no no. In all articles that had attacked me, the Islamists are the ones who attacked me.

Presenter: I understand you, but allow me this question, perhaps what you sang came out of what is happening in Palestine and not out of the clergy (Islamists)

Emma: No dear, I am not involved in the question of Palestine..., I'm an artist, and my case is not Palestine, I have issues that belong to me, I am interested in my issues.

Presenter: Last question, are you satisfied with the singing in Hebrew?

Emma: Of course, what is the problem? This is freedom, personal freedom. I call upon the city which actually placed in the Kuwaiti Constitution Article 35 and 36 the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and opinion and freedom to express one's opinion and to publicize it verbally, in writing or any other way that is desired.

Read More

Peaceful PalArab Passover

Here are some of the events that happened in Gaza while I was not able to post:

Three young men, aged 16 and 17, were injured when a rocket intended to land in Israel fell short in Beit Hanoun, Gaza. One was seriously hurt as shrapnel entered his head and he lost a hand (or a leg.) (UPDATE: 5 injured, English report here.)

Two smuggling tunnels collapsed, killing one and injuring six.

PCHR reported that two Gazans were abducted and tortured by Hamas over the weekend.

Read More

Taqiyya (Raymond Ibrahim)

An important article about the Muslim religious doctrine of deceit in wartime, by Raymond Ibrahim, was published in Middle East Quarterly. Excerpts:

Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam's dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur'an is against believers deceiving other believers—for "surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar"[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one's religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi'i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such as "God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr."[17]

In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[18] During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, "Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others."[19]

That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, "All's fair in love and war."[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur'an, "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily."[26]

Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur'an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including "every other verse in the Qur'an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers."[27] In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree that "jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse."[28]

The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised. Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years (by claiming a Quraysh infraction), the sole function of the truce is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive:[33] "By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike."[34] Hence "the fuqaha [jurists] are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims]."[35]

Even though Shari'a mandates Muslims to abide by treaties, they have a way out, one open to abuse: If Muslims believe—even without solid evidence—that their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first. Moreover, some Islamic schools of law, such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[36] This is reminiscent of the following canonical hadith: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."[37] And what is better, what is more altruistic, than to make God's word supreme by launching the jihad anew whenever possible? Traditionally, Muslim rulers held to a commitment to launch a jihad at least once every year. This ritual is most noted with the Ottoman sultans, who spent half their lives in the field.[38] So important was the duty of jihad that the sultans were not permitted to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, an individual duty for each Muslim. Their leadership of the jihad allowed this communal duty to continue; without them, it would have fallen into desuetude.[39]

This, then, is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God's will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam "until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: "So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem."[50]

In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of "war and peace" as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of "war and deceit." For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.

Read the whole thing.

h/t Joseph E

Read More

HRW followup

The Times (UK) article on HRW that I quoted from last week had a number of inaccuracies and other parts that HRW took exception to:

A Magazine article, “Explosive Territory” (March 28) by Jonathan Foreman, mostly about Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) work on Israel, requires clarification and correction. The magazine said that HRW had not published any report on the post-election abuses in Iran when in fact the organisation published one in February this year. Marc Garlasco, the former senior military analyst for HRW, was not the only person in the organisation who had military experience; a number of the HRW staff have military expertise. In the 20-year Kashmir conflict HRW has published nine reports, not four as the article stated. One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian pressure group Electronic Intifada without her permission but was not directly employed by that group, as the article suggests. Although HRW never produced a full report about the shelling at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in 2007 it did write three press releases, not one as the article stated. We regret the errors. Mr Foreman quoted a critic of HRW saying the group “cares about Palestinians when mistreated by Israelis but is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arabs”. In fact Human Rights Watch has reported on abuses of Palestinians by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. Mr Foreman cited unnamed sources that said Mr Garlasco resented what he felt was pressure to sex up claims of Israeli violations. HRW and Mr Garlasco both say HRW never pressured Mr Garlasco to change his findings. We are happy to clarify HRW’s position.

NGO Monitor comments on the corrections in the same link:

HRW’s “corrections” to Foreman’s expose raise more questions and create more confusion, while avoiding core issues like credibility, bias against Israel, and the Garlasco gag order.

1) They claim that “a number of the HRW staff have military expertise” – what does this mean regarding credibility of combat analysis? Basic training, some time in front of a computer, etc. does not provide the “military experience” necessary to assess actions and weapons (drones, WP, etc.) in Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon or Iraq. There is still no information to assess Garlasco's qualifications as HRW's "senior military analyst."

2) Regarding the employment of Lucy Mair in the anti-Israel MENA division: “One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian pressure group Electronic Intifada without her permission….” Mair published more than one article in EI. These have been on line for seven years, with no record of any objection by her. HRW’s response does not alter Foreman’s point that Mair was a highly visible anti-Israel propagandist before being hired by HRW.

3) Detailed HRW reports and accompanying media campaigns are not comparable to short press releases, whether on Kashmir or Palestinian terror. Reports indicate a major investment, while stand-alone press releases are quickly forgotten, as detailed in NGO Monitor research.

4) HRW officials assert that they “never pressured Mr. Garlasco to change his findings,” but they refuse to explain inconsistencies and changing “forensic” analysis in Gaza Beach and other examples.

Read More

Latter days of Passover open thread

I will be out of touch during the last days of the holiday, from now until at least Tuesday night.

Here's an open thread for you guys and gals to paste any interesting links you might find. (I do appreciate when people email me links; I might not use them all but it makes my life considerably easier.)

Chag sameach!

Read More

Jordanian Christians visiting Jerusalem for Easter under threat

Remember the absurd Reuters article that implied that Israel was doing everything it could to discourage Arab Christians from visiting Jerusalem, and that Israeli policies were keeping Christians from Arab countries away?

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Many of the Arab Christians flocking to holy sites in Israel this Easter Sunday come from neighboring Jordan.

But they do so at a price.

Those who make the trek – and, as part of a broader rise in religious tourism, more are making it every year – risk their professional reputation and their family’s disapproval.

For a country whose 1994 peace treaty with Israel was never accepted at the popular level, receiving an entry stamp, let alone a visa from Israel, is considered “treason” to the Arab cause.

But despite a growing movement to discredit those involved with the “Zionist enemy,” hundreds of Jordanians risk their careers and reputation to complete a pilgrimage to holy sites in Israel’s occupied territories.

“I cannot help it,” says Daoud Yazeed, a Jordanian Christian who disguises his pilgrimages as business trips. “Jerusalem is calling.”

In 2009, 15,000 Jordanians traveled to Israel, the most of any Arab or Muslim country. While a majority of them were visiting Palestinian relatives, a significant number are part of a growing trend of religious tourism.

According to tour operators, an increasing number of Jordanian Christians and Muslims – Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest city – are taking part in all-inclusive week-long trips through Nazareth, Hebron, and Jerusalem, priced at $600.

But under the Anti-Normalization movement, spearheaded by Islamists and professional associations opposed to Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty – or “normalization” with Israel – those found to have normalized are disbarred from their union and lose their professional licenses, which are required by Jordanian law.

Families further face the public humiliation of being added to a once-publicized blacklist of individuals and companies that deal with the “Zionist entity.”
'Anti-normalization' activists

Anti-Normalization activists are determined to crack down on the practice this holiday to bring to light those who have “normalized with the enemy,” according to Muslim Brotherhood and National Anti- Normalization Committee leader Hamzah Mansour.

“This is supporting Zionist efforts to rid the holy lands and Palestine of its inhabitants, and it is forbidden,” he said.

He compared trips to Jerusalem to the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca which is considered the duty of every adult Muslim, pointing out that the journey is not required if a worshiper has poor health or a lack of money.

“Al Aqsa is occupied territory and you are not expected to pilgrimage to Al Aqsa. God understands,” Mr. Mansour said, calling on Jordanian Christians to pray in local holy sites this Easter to “support the local industry.”

According to the professional associations, they have yet to revoke union memberships over normalization. But the threat itself has deterred hundreds, if not thousands, from making the trip, or pushed their travel into secret, tour operators say.

Normalization, however, was the last of the concerns for Ramzi Mustafa, one of 200 Christian pilgrims from Egypt – the only other Arab country that has made peace with Israel – in the holy city this weekend with organized tour groups.

He said his participation in processions on Via Dolorosa on Good Friday is a way of showing support for the Palestinians and the need for peace, not support for “Zionism.”

And what do the Arabs of Jerusalem think about all this?

Nor do Muslim pilgrimages suggest support for occupation, says the head of Jerusalem’s holy sites, Sheikh Mohamed Azzam Tamimi.

"Jordanians and Egyptians, all Arabs should come and see the holy city,” he said, noting that due to visa restrictions most of the visitors are from Asia, not the Arab world. “We may be under occupation, but supporting our efforts is not normalization.”

Politics should not prevent Arab Christians and Muslims from traveling to the holy city, according to William Shomali, auxiliary bishop of the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, who welcomed all Arabs to take part in Easter services.

“Our dream is for all Arab Christians and Muslims to come and pray in the holy city,” he said, acknowledging the current situation has been “difficult” for Arab Christians across the region.

“They should come regardless of the political situation,” he said. “We should separate politics from religion, even if certain parties want to join them together; all have the right to pray in the holy sites.”

The Islamists in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere threaten those who want to come to Jerusalem for any reason - religious or to give cultural support for Palestinian Arabs. The PalArabs who they pretend to be supporting are unanimous in their desire for the visitors, even if they get an Israeli visa stamp.

It just goes to show once again that the people who pretend to care about Palestinian Arabs really only care about hating Israel, not supporting their Palestinian brethren.

It also shows that Israel welcomes these Arabs into the country, and it indicates that Israel is much more interested in freedom of religion for the holy sites under its control than Arab nations ever were.

By way of example, some 105,000 visitors were expected in Jerusalem this week, as opposed to the 10,000 or less that would come during Holy Week before the Six Day War. Any implication that Israeli policies have reduced the number of religious visitors to Jerusalem (as the Reuters article implied) is not only a lie, but an egregious lie.

Read More