History News Network

Breaking News

Departments

Inactive on HNN Only: Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist at the New York Sun and the Jerusalem Post. A former official in the U.S. Department of State, he has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. Mr. Pipes is the author of fourteen books on the Middle East, Islam, and other political topics; his most recent book is Miniatures: Views of Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics (Transaction Publishers, 2004). He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University, both in history. He spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. Click here for his website.

Click here for his latest blog entries.

1,378 Words Later – Or, How to Mangle an Interview with the Secretary of State

1,378 Words Later – Or, How to Mangle an Interview with the Secretary of State I was one of the many readers who jumped (in my case, at "Will the Gaza Precedent Haunt Israel?") on seeing this passage recently in the New York Times:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday [Aug. 17] offered sympathy for the Israeli settlers who are being removed from their homes in Gaza but also made it clear that she expected Israel and the Palestinians to take further steps in short order toward the creation of a Palestinian state. "Everyone empathizes with what the Israelis are facing," Ms. Rice said in an interview. But she added, "It cannot be Gaza only."

It turns out that this is a massive distortion of her words and meaning. In another instance of the blogosphere catching out the mainstream media, Rick Richman shows in "Condoleezza Rice and The New York Times" how the two Times interviewers, Joel Brinkley and Steven Weisman, manufactured the above quote.

Drawing on the full transcript of the interview, as provided on the State Department website, Richman shows that the first sentence of the quote comes from this statement by Rice:

Let me say, first, a word about Gaza disengagement and the withdrawal that's going on. First of all, it is an enormously courageous decision on the part of Ariel Sharon and his government. And it is a decision that, in having talked to these people a lot, they took because they believe it is the right thing for the Israeli people and that it is going to improve the security of Israel. I know, in having talked to them and watched how hard and I think everybody empathizes with what every Israeli has to be feeling and with people uprooting from homes that they have been in for a generation and the difficulty and the pain that that causes. And so I watched Prime Minister Sharon's address to the nation and it was really remarkable statesmanship.

(Note the inaccuracies in wording of the New York Times version.) The second part comes 1,378 words later, from here:

QUESTION: Do you think you'll go back there [the Middle East] in the fall to keep the momentum going?

SECRETARY RICE: Let's see, you know, what's required. We will have a Quartet in New York because the world comes here for the UNGA. And we'll certainly have a Quartet meeting at that time. There's a Quartet envoys meeting that's scheduled for this week and part of their job is to kind of prepare the meeting of the Quartet and I think we'll look at where we are. But by no means do I think that this is the end. The other thing is, just to close off this question, the question has been put repeatedly to the Israelis and to us that it cannot be Gaza only and everybody says no, it cannot be Gaza only. There is, after all, even a link to the West Bank and the four settlements that are going to be dismantled in the West Bank. Everybody, I believe, understands that what we're trying to do is to create momentum toward reenergizing the roadmap and through that momentum toward the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state.

Alex Safian of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) explains the difference between the Times version and the actual interview:

What the Times portrays as Ms. Rice's statement was actually her recounting of what others are saying "to the Israelis and to us." Yes, she expresses the US position in favor of the Roadmap and the "the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state," but that's a far cry from immediate pressure on Israel to go beyond the Gaza withdrawal, which is what "It cannot be Gaza only" clearly means in this context.

Safian then goes on to document "outright inventions" in other parts of the Times reportage.

Comments: (1) One finds oneself wondering if the mainstream media was always this fraudulent and in the pre-internet age one just did not find out; or whether it has degenerated as partisanship has taken hold. I suspect the latter.

(2) Acquired habits of credence must be shed; the New York Times and like sources of information now must be read with an "interesting if true" spirit.

(3) Most mysterious: Why did the secretary of state's office, which surely noted this mangled quotation, not correct it? (August 27, 2005)

Sep. 1, 2005 update: A reader responds to the first comment with a reminder about Walter Duranty's cover up for Lenin and Stalin and Herbert Matthews' fabrications on behalf of Fidel Castro, concluding: "So as you can see your first supposition in the comment was correct." Those were indeed wretched – and far greater – sins than this one. Still, I wonder if in those days New York Times reporters would distort an interview with the secretary of state in like fashion.

Sep. 4, 2005 update: There has been no correction forthcoming from the New York Times but Steven Weisman quietly changed his reporting on Rice's statement in a news item today, "Hoping to Buttress Sharon, U.S. Urges Allies' Restraint." Quite contrary to the interview, Weisman reports here that the U.S. government does not want to pressure Israel for further concessions:

The Bush administration, hoping to strengthen Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the Israeli turmoil after the Gaza withdrawal, is urging allies of the United States to refrain from pressing Israel to make new concessions to Palestinians, senior American officials said this week. …

A senior administration official also said: "There's no question that we are aware of the toll that the whole disengagement debate took on Israelis. In our view, the message to Prime Minister Sharon from people in New York [the UN] should be one of congratulations, not one of new pressures."

Comment: It's good to see this implicit correction, but it should be made explicit.

Sep. 5, 2005 update: Rick Richman takes up my third comment above, where I ask why Rice did not correct the record immediately. At "Condi and the NYT -- The Last Word," he points out that on August 18, the day the interview appeared, two things happened: an Israeli minister called Rice on it and the quote was the subject of a contentious exchange at the State Department's daily press briefing. Then, five days later, President Bush obliquely addressed this issue. Richman concludes from this:

Between August 18 (when the Times story appeared) and August 23 (when the President next spoke with the press) -- there was undoubtedly a discussion between Bush and Rice about how to correct the misimpression the Times had created, and do so in a manner that would leave no doubt about the U.S. position. Secretaries of State do not write letters to the editor. The mangled quote was corrected by the Chief of State.

To my mind, this explanation is too convoluted. There was no need for a letter to the editor – the department press briefer on August 18, assuming with Richman that he was aware of the problem, easily could have corrected the record and dispatched the problem within hours of its appearance.

Why did he not do so? I suspect because he and the secretary did not want to embarrass the Times reporters. Government officials and the press who cover them must work together and rudely to expose so egregious an error could sour relations. Better a small diplomatic storm, went the implicit calculation at State, than to make important journalists look bad.

Sep. 9, 2005 update: CAMERA reports on a letter from Steven Weisman to a reader sent sometime before his Sep. 4 correction:

Thanks for your note. We are not issuing a correction.... [Secretary Rice] called on Israel to pull forces out of five cities in the West Bank, to dismantle the four settlements in the West Bank and to carry out other steps in the Sharm el-Sheikh accord of earlier this year, and not wait for the Palestinians to take their steps. I'm afraid that your quarrel is with her, not us...

Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 9:15 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Europe's Burqa Wars

Europe's Burqa Wars Nothing symbolizes the rift between radical Islam and the West so non-violently but pungently as the burqa, a full body-covering that covers even the eyes, which Westerners find especially offensive when located on their own streets. I will follow these confrontations from time to time here.

Our story begins with a news item, "City to Pay Woman's Fine for Breach of Burka Ban," a title that neatly sums up the quandary of a newly assertive Europe.

The city council in Maaseik, Belgium on December 27, 2004 approved the so-called "burka decision," criminalized the wearing of the burqa and the niqab (a face covering that covers the face up to the eyes) in its public places. Breach of the law carries a €125 fine.

Five women have been booked for this crime, one of whom, a young woman of Moroccan origin who wore a burka, has now been found guilty and charged the fine. Ironically, in all five cases, the women are receiving social security payments – and these will pay for the fines.

Comment: I would be hard pressed to find a more apt illustration of the self-contradictory nature of European policy toward its Muslim minority. (August 25, 2005)

Aug. 30, 2005 update: The story gets more interesting. It turns out that the Maaseik woman not only refuses to pay the fine but also refuses to give her name or speak to the police or in any way cooperate with municipal authorities. And, it turns out, she is the wife of one Khalid Bouloudo, 30. A pastry chef in his civilian life, he is said to be the Belgian coordinator of the Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain, an Islamist organization linked to both the 2003 Casablanca and 2004 Madrid bombings. In that capacity, Bouloudo just yesterday was accused in a Brussels court of aiding and abetting terrorists who carried off the Madrid attack.

Comment: In such circumstances, one can only wonder that his wife is making so much gratuitous trouble.

Oct. 14, 2005 update: The Utrecht City Council has voted to reduce benefits by 10 percent for unemployed women if (1) they refuse to take off their burqas and (2) that prevents them from finding a job. The council reached this decision after two Muslim women receiving €550 a month in unemployment benefits told announced that they had stopped going to job interviews because their burqas meant they had no success. A spokesman for the Dutch city noted that the problem is more one of principle than economics: "People get benefits when they are out of work but there is also an obligation to do everything to get a job. These women were educated, spoke good Dutch and had opportunities in the labour market." The city also noted that the official Equality Commission backed employers refusing positions to burqa-clad women, as seeing a person's face is essential to many jobs.

Oct. 16, 2005 update: "Holland fears killings over ban on burqa" reads the Sunday Times (London) headline. "Holland's Muslims have responded with outrage to government proposals to ban the burqa," it reads, "and there are fears that Rita Verdonk, the minister behind the move, will be added to a list of ‘enemies of Islam' targeted for assassination."

Verdonk, minister of integration and immigration, noted in parliament that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups is over and that a ban on burqas might be needed in some circumstances for the public safety. Her spokeswoman said that a ban "in certain circumstances seems quite sensible." Verdonk then initiated an investigation into whether Holland should prohibit the burqa.

The Times reporter, Matthew Campbell, notes the irony of this proposed legislation: "For a country that has legalised gay marriage, prostitution, euthanasia and cannabis, Holland seems in no mood for compromise when it comes to applying tough laws on immigration." If the legislation passes, the Netherlands would become the first European country to outlaw the body covering.

Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 at 8:27 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Dallas Jews, Secrecy, and Security

Dallas Jews, Secrecy, and Security A resident of Dallas, Texas recently sent me a report about the North American regional JCC Maccabi games, hosted on July 31-August 5, 2005 by the Dallas Jewish Community Center:

Held at the Resistol Arena in the suburb of Mesquite, the competition involved 1,400 athletes from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Israel. Some three to four thousand spectators (in addition to the athletes) attended the opening ceremony, which included a keynote address by Mark Cuban, the charismatic owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, reminiscing about his boyhood participation in JCC basketball leagues in Pittsburgh.

But an eerie secrecy surrounded the Maccabi games. They were well publicized within the Jewish community via the local Jewish press, synagogue newsletters, direct mail from Jewish community centers, and the internet. But the general Dallas media – television, radio and newspapers – barely mentioned them. Particularly striking was the marquee at the Resistol Arena, which did not indicate the activities within.

Also, security was intense. Those who wished to attend the opening ceremony or the athletic competitions had to pick up tickets in person from the JCC campus in North Dallas. Security on site included at least five staffed Mesquite police cars on the premises and many uniformed and armed officers in the arena. All spectators were screened at the door, with handbags prohibited in the arena.

I sent the above to Kenny Goldberg, one of the organizers of the Maccabi games, asking for comment. He pointed out in some detail what an impressive volunteer effort the games were, the benefits they brought to the participants, and the like, none of which I for a second doubt. He also called it "not accurate and even a little offensive" to describe the games as secret because

if you could talk to any of the 1,500 young Jewish athletes, their families, the 500 coaches and delegation heads, and particularly the more than 2,000 local volunteers and host families you would get a sense of the phenomenal results we were able to accomplish. This event electrified and energized our community and created life changing and lifelasting experiences for our "kids."

As for the lack of publicity, he informed me that there was

a plan in place to execute later in the week. The Dallas Morning News' religious and sports departments were contacted and encouraged to participate after opening ceremonies. Our media team was told to activate the general community with the same timing. I cannot tell you why this p.r. did not occur, only what the plan was.

Comment: (1) To me, observing from the outside, the reason for the quiet and the security seems obvious – a concern that Muslims would make some kind of trouble. In the city that hosts the Holy Land Foundation, the Elashi brothers, and Mufid Abdulqader, the Jewish community is understandably anxious. Such a prospect is made all the more real by the subsequent arrests in Los Angeles of Levar Haney Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, and Hamad Riaz Samana (who had in their possession the addresses of synagogues, the Israeli Consulate and the El Al ticket counter at LAX).

(2) It was just a few years ago that American Jews met openly and publicly in Dallas and elsewhere, but this appears no longer to be the case. I take it as further proof of what I have been saying for some time, that the golden age of American Jewry is coming to an end. (August 23, 2005)

Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 7:48 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Mainstream Reporter Coaches Sami Al-Arian

Mainstream Reporter Coaches Sami Al-Arian The wiretaps on Sami Al-Arian's telephones in Tampa picked up not just his terrorist chatter but everyone he spoke with, including reporters. For years, the local press divided on him, with the Tampa Tribune critical of him and the St. Petersburg Times very gentle on him.

Actually, we now learn, not just gentle but complicit. Fox News' O'Reilly Factor last night played back two parts of a conversation between Al-Arian and Jim Harper, a reporter at the St. Petersburg Times that took place on Nov. 2, 1995. (The transcript of the show is available online, as is a streaming video; but, relying on the original FBI transcript, I have made changes to the transcript and added to what was played back on television.) In the first clip, Harper brings to Al-Arian some useful news:

JIM HARPER: You probably read … in the Tribune that a former state senator thinks you ought to be fired and so on and so forth.

SAMI AL-ARIAN: Is that what she said?

HARPER: Yes.

AL-ARIAN: Who's she?

HARPER: Huh?

AL-ARIAN: Who is she?

HARPER: She's just—she doesn't hold any office now but she's I think considered a leader in the local Jewish community.

AL-ARIAN: Oh, she's Jewish, huh?

HARPER: Yes, Helen Gordon Davis.

In the second, Harper advises Al-Arian how to deal with the rival Tampa Tribune:

HARPER: I think you should confront the Tribune directly.

AL-ARIAN: Hmm.

HARPER: And ah, ah I think that every error that they make I think that you should at the least, ah, write them a letter.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: And point it out.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: Ah you know, even if you're not gonna do any other action. You know, file any suits or anything …

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: Ah, just so, just on general principles … but also to preserve your legal rights, in case you do decide you want to file, you know. Suppose they do something else?

AL-ARIAN: Right.

HARPER: Later on.

AL-ARIAN: Yes.

HARPER: That's not the truth. You can show that you have a record of making complaints …

AL-ARIAN: Uhm.

HARPER: And you'll have a record of how they responded.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: And ah.

AL-ARIAN: Good point.

HARPER: You know, I mean, actually … I'm giving you advice as a journalist. … That's how you build a record against somebody that's treating you unfairly.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: I'll give you that advice 'cause I don't [laughs] plan to treat you unfairly.

The conversation ends on a touching note.

HARPER: Well, I feel like you and I are getting to know each other pretty well.

AL-ARIAN: Yes. Well, ah … I don't regret that.

HARPER: I don't either.

AL-ARIAN: Very well, thank you.

HARPER: I don't either. Thank you for calling me.

AL-ARIAN: Very well.

HARPER: Bye.

AL-ARIAN: Bye bye.

O'Reilly reports that Harper no longer works at the St. Petersburg Times and no one there will say what has become of him – "He just kind of vanished." Steven Emerson, discussing this topic with O'Reilly, points out that Harper "not only bought into Al-Arian's denials that he was a terrorist, but he actually started coaching him. … This was a wholesale bias that was deliberately perpetrated by the St. Petersburg Times for years."

Comment: It would surprise me to learn that Jim Harper and the St. Petersburg Times are the only media guilty of siding with accused terrorists. More than a few other reporters and newspapers come to mind. (Hint: Look for the reporters who win awards from pro-terrorist organizations.) Sadly, their conversations may not make it to prime-time television. (August 23, 2005)

Sept. 1, 2005 update: A reader points out that Harper has not vanished:

This reference to the obscurity of Jim Harper's present whereabouts is rather curious in light of an article in the St. Petersburgh Times on August 12, 2005, "Al-Arian's talks with reporter examined." It quotes him: "that night [Oct. 30, 1995] when I called Sami, I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that there really was something to what the stories said." The same article goes on to say that Harper is "now a writer in Tampa."

Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 10:06 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Talking Freely about the Enemy

Two recent developments prompt some reflections:

The State Department took the unusual step of condemning the views of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives as "insulting and offensive"; and
A subsidiary of the Disney Corporation fired a talk-show host.

In both cases, the trigger was the same – speaking about Islam.

I disagree with Congressman Tom Tancredo about keeping the option open to "take out" Mecca and with Michael Graham that "Islam is a terror organization." But I do think it vital that they and others be able to conduct a freewheeling discussion about the Koran, jihad, radical Islam, Islamist terrorism, and related topics, without fearing a reprimand from the U.S. government or a loss of their livelihood. (The same applies to another case I have previously discussed, publication of Craig Winn's Prophet of Doom: Islam's Terrorist Dogma, In Muhammad's Own Words.)

Americans are seriously discussing the nature of the enemy and how to defeat it. It is a confusing topic; for proof, look at how many differing ways George W. Bush has described the enemy, from "terrorists" to "evildoers" to "an ism" to "a fringe form of Islamic extremism" to "Islamic militants."

Especially at a time when establishment institutions are so timid or even deceptive, nothing can be off limits in this debate; and there must be no penalty for those who express their views. (August 22, 2005)

Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 at 1:50 PM | Comments (0) | Top

A Hot Summer in Scotland

A Hot Summer in Scotland The Scotsman newspaper runs parallel quotes in one article that define the current outer limits of British debate.

Yaqub Zaki, born in Greenock, Scotland as James Dickie, now deputy leader of the self-styled Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, and author of an article in Muqarnas (a scholarly journal in which I too have published) on "The Mughal Garden: Gateway to Paradise," says he has no problem with Muslims mounting a rocket or bomb attack on the prime minister's residence at 10 Downing Street.

I say go ahead, I would be very happy. The IRA did it. They had rockets that were ready to rain down on No 10. "It would be a shame because it's a beautiful Georgian property. I wouldn't like to see it destroyed but as for its inmates, well, I don't care much for what happens to them.

He would not object to the bombing of Tony Blair's office and residence? "No, I wouldn't be upset, no. But I'm not calling for his execution." Zaki raised the possibility that the July 7 attacks in London were carried out in collusion with the security services to demonize Muslims.

On the other side, The Rev David Lacy, moderator of the Church of Scotland (the church's ranking position), invited imams who encourage hatred and terrorism to leave the country.

They have been welcomed as brothers and have treated us as enemies. It is hypocrisy - they should leave. If we are their enemies they should have nothing to do with us, but they don't. They speak out against us from within and get heart operations and care on our system. And we are happy to do that for them, to give them rights and care, but we expect them to love us in return and accept our right to be who we are.

Comment: Nowhere in the Western world is the debate so polarized as in the United Kingdom; and this exchange suggests that Scotland may be where in the UK it is the most bitter. (August 22, 2005)

Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 at 11:51 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Idiots' File

Idiots' File Just as there are especially insightful statements (a few of them collected by me at "Caught My Eye – Noteworthy Quotes"), so there are assertions that dazzle with their stupidity. Here is a sampling, in reverse chronological order:

_________

Olivier Roy, famed French specialist on Islam, discussing twelve days of rioting by Muslim youth in France: "It is nothing to do with radical Islam or even Muslims." Although many rioters are from Muslim backgrounds, "these guys are building a new idea of themselves based on American street culture. It's a youth riot." (Quoted in James Button, "Paris heat not from Muslims," The Age (Melbourne), November 8, 2005) To which Tariq Ramadan added his assent: "Above all, one must not Islamisize the question of the suburbs. The question that France must answer is absolutely not a question of religion." ("Do not Put Islamic Spin on French Riots: Ramadan," IslamOnLine.net, November 8, 2005) Patrick Seale, British journalist and author : "These riots are the immediate results of social and economic crises and have nothing whatsoever to do with religion." (Quoted in Hadi Yahmid, "UK Writer Urges Europe to Treat Migrants With Dignity," IslamOnLine.net, November 9, 2005)

Faisal Devji, assistant professor of history at the New School in New York, argues in a new book, Landscapes of the Jihad, that violence is less important to Al-Qaeda than ethics. In an interview with the Guardian, he suggests understanding it as a global movement, rather like environmentalism. In his words:

As I see it, al-Qaida's actions are typically "symbolic" - they can be seen as "effects" rather than political interventions. This is because they have no way of planning what they want to achieve. They have no blueprint for the future. This, of course, is also true of other global movements like environmentalism. They, too, have no coherent political programme.

Oh, and "violence is the least important thing about al-Qaida because the violence is ethical in origin and will quite likely flip into its opposite. The most important feature of al-Qaida is fragmentation and dispersal of Islamic thought globally." (October 17, 2005)

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leader, discussing George W. Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court justice: "I have to say without any qualification that I'm very happy that we have someone like her [on the court. She is] very personable, very genuine, somebody that answers her phone calls immediately." (Quoted in Elisabeth Bumiller, "Bush Names Counsel as Choice for Supreme Court," The New York Times, Oct. 4, 2005) To this, David Kuo, a former special assistant to the president, adds another powerful endorsement:

	From The Weekly Standard, Oct. 17, 2005.

Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&Ms in her West Wing office. It wasn't a huge secret. She'd stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&Ms in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush's reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&Ms were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: "I like M&Ms and I like sharing."

("The Harriet Miers I Know," belief.net, undated)

That returning "phone calls immediately" and giving out candies should qualify a person for Supreme Court justice brings to mind the ditty of Sir Joseph Porter in Gilbert and Sullivan's H.M.S. Pinafore, the first stanza of which goes like this:

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
And I polished up the handle of the big front door.
I polished up that handle so carefullee
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Edina Lekovic, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council, commenting on local authorities in Lodi, California, rejecting an application of the Farooqia Islamic Center (whose leadership has been associated with terrorism): "If you replace the word ‘mosque' with ‘synagogue' or ‘church,' would we see the same type of scrutiny and fear?" (Quoted in Neil Gonzales, "Islamic leader mystified by supervisors' decision," Stockton Record, Sep. 29, 2005)

Rachel Zoll, Associated Press religion reporter, in an article on the anticipated ban on homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood: "Several priests challenged [the argument that homosexuals face strong pressures in the priesthood's all-male atmosphere] and noted that heterosexual priests face their own temptations: The overwhelming majority of lay ministers who work side by side with clergy are women, yet no one has suggested banning heterosexuals from the priesthood." ("Expected Vatican Ban Roils American Church," Sep. 22, 2005)

Ali Hamka, 25, the son of Lebanese immigrants and a high school economics teacher in Rochester, a Detroit suburb, discussing the press focus on the London bombings of July 7, killing 52: "The media is always ready to point out that it's Muslims involved in terrorism. I don't think they get the message that, you know, we're a religion, about peace, not killing people." (Quoted in "Michigan Mosque Is Testament to Islam's Integration in American Society," RNS, Aug. 22, 2005)

Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, London: there is "nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim. … The key issue is the slide into extremism." (Sarah Blaskovich, "London Police Chief Reaches Out to Muslims," July 15, 2005)

David Dickson, a specialist on Africa: "Political Islam, by definition, is neutral. It is any variant of Islam inspiring or serving as a vehicle for political mobilization or activity. Productive scholarship and policymaking must reject definitions that categorically treat political Islam as either a malevolent or benevolent force." ("Political Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Need for a New Research and Diplomatic Agenda," U.S. Institute of Peace, May 2005)

Larry C. Johnson, former State Department counterterrorism specialist (and note the date below before reading): "Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

"None of these beliefs are based in fact. … when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.

"Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.

"Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they ‘discovered' terrorism as an important priority. … terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way." ("The Declining Terrorist Threat, The New York Times, July 10, 2001)

Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 at 9:56 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Basheer M. Nafi, Co-Editor and Accused Terrorist

Basheer M. Nafi, Co-Editor and Accused Terrorist Convicted criminals and even convicted terrorists do significant intellectual work (think of Antonio Negri, co-author of the acclaimed Empire). Still, it took me aback, as the Sami Al-Arian trial is underway, to receive a serious volume of essays, Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century, co-edited by a defendant in that trial. Basheer M. Nafi's name comes up all the time in the court hearings. (For a selection of news items on the trial that pertain to Middle East studies, see the Campus Watch page on the University of South Florida.) Specifically, he is charged with "conspiracy to murder, maim or injure persons outside the United States."

In this book, Nafi (for brief bios, see here and here), of course does his best to sanitize radical Islam. Here is the conclusion (on p. 34) to his discussion of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), the thinker whose work still inspires the Wahhabi movement.

Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's acute recovery of the creed of tawhid, with its liberating force, from the heavy burden of the dense Islamic traditions propelled the appeal of the Wahhabi enterprise well beyond the traditional and Sufi counter-response and Ottoman political and military reactions.

Elsewhere in the volume, writing with his co-editor, Nafi calls Hasan al-Turabi, the man who, as I put it in 1992 (to his face) "helped turn a poor country in the throes of a decades-long civil war into one of the most wretched places on the planet," one of the "most illustrious Muslim intellectuals of the twentieth century." And so on.

Comments: (1) How can a self-respecting academic press, in this case I.B. Tauris, publish a book co-edited by an accused terrorist who remains on the lam? (2) I await the reviews of Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century with interest, expecting that not a single one will make reference to Nafi's circumstances. (August 19, 2005)

Aug. 23, 2005 update: I did not have long to wait. The Asia Times columnist who goes by the pseudonym Spengler in today's issue respectfully cites "the Islamists Suha Taji-Farouki and Basheer M Nafi" on the topic of radical Islam's demographics. There's nary a word about Nafi's being under indictment for supporting terrorism.

Aug. 30, 2005 update: "Spengler" gracefully acknowledges this entry in a note appended to his column today and concludes:

I did not know of the accusations against Nafi before reading Pipes' comment, but should have Googled him before citing him. In retrospect, I am not surprised. The Muslim intellectuals who best understand the demographic and social predicament of Islam are more likely than anyone else to employ violence to achieve theocracy while there is still time.

To which I reply that Spengler is too hard on himself and taking on too much responsibility; writers cannot check the biographies of each person they cite. But it is important that the word get out that the U.S. government considers the co-editor of a seemingly respectable academic study to be an accessory to murder.

Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 at 11:37 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Will the Gaza Precedent Haunt Israel?

Will the Gaza Precedent Haunt Israel? "Everyone empathizes with what the Israelis are facing, [But] it cannot be Gaza only." So spoke Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, presumably articulating Bush administration policy. She does not, in this interview with the New York Times, further explain her meaning, but one can readily guess that she wishes the Israeli government to withdraw its civilians and soldiers first from the West Bank and – who knows? – some day from the Golan Heights.

By forcible removing thousands of his own citizens, Sharon has established an important precedent and one wonders how he or future Israeli leaders can defy demands for "disengagement," perhaps under U.S. or international pressure. (August 18, 2005)

Aug. 21, 2005 update: At least one Israeli official, Health Minister Danny Naveh of the Likud party, has said he wants the Sharon government to demand this statement by Condoleezza Rice.

Aug. 27, 2005 update: For the correction to the above quotation, see "1.378 Words Later – Or, How to Mangle an Interview with the Secretary of State."

Aug. 28, 2005 update: Condoleezza Rice did not portray the Gaza withdrawal as a model for future Israeli retreats, but the European Union envoy to the Middle East, Mark Otte, did. He told Al-Quds "Our position regarding the West Bank and east Jerusalem is identical - they are occupied territories."

Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 9:16 PM | Comments (0) | Top

350 Bombs in an Hour – A Vision of the Terrible Future?

350 Bombs in an Hour – A Vision of the Terrible Future? Admittedly, the bombs were small affairs and Bangladesh is a country few outside its region pay much attention to. But still – as reported by Shafiq Alam and Helen Rowe in the Australian – the bombing campaign on August 17 was extraordinary and presumably without precedent:

Around 350 small homemade bombs exploded within an hour of each other yesterday, in almost every town or district across the country, killing two people and injuring more than 100. Many of the improvised bombs were placed in front of government offices, courts, hotels, and bus and railway stations. "We launched a nationwide crackdown and so far we have arrested 87 people," Bangladesh's Inspector General of Police, Abdul Kaiyum, said. "Our forces are everywhere. We are on the highest alert." … Home Ministry officials said leaflets from the outlawed Jamayetul Mujahideen, [DP: link added] calling for the installation of Islamic law, had been found at all of the bomb sites. Police said some leaflets had also warned Britain and the US to "get out of Muslim countries".

A subsequent report counts over 500 bombs exploding in the capital city and 63 of the country's 64 district headquarters, killing two persons and injuring about 140.

And just to prove that denial is also a river in Bangladesh: "The Islamist-allied coalition Government describes the nation as moderate Muslim, and has repeatedly rejected any suggestion that there could be a problem with Islamic extremists." Worse, the authorities insist on barking up the wrong tree:

Strangely, the [Bangladeshi security] agencies did not discuss evidence blaming the blasts on the Jama'atul Mujahedeen Bangladesh (JMB), but rather made oblique reference to the opposition party, the Awami League. … While [State Minister for Home, Lutfozzaman] Babar asked the agencies to launch countrywide raids to nab the terrorists, he also gave instructions that madrassas and mosques should not be raided unless there was any specific information. Intelligence officials even said that the blasts were triggered to tarnish Bangladesh's image abroad, adding that the recent London bombings had inspired the blasts.

Comments: (1) It is not hard to imagine 350 large bombs going off in an hour and a country becoming truly terrorized. (2) The first reaction of the security agencies suggests that it won't be that hard to pull off this scenario again, at least in Bangladesh. (August 18, 2005)

Oct. 26, 2005 update: Maulana Hafizur Rahman, a leader of JMB sent a letter containing A threat to blow up all the police stations of Bangladesh unless Islamic law is implemented under the aegis of an Islamic constitution.

Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 10:45 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Canadian University Suggests Abu Nidal Was a "Freedom Fighter"

Canadian University Suggests Abu Nidal Was a "Freedom Fighter" The Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. offers a course on Real Estate for prospective real estate agents. Lesson three deals with "Land Ownership and the Law of Tort" and concerns such matters as "negligence on the part of salespeople and agents in performing their duties." For example (an actual example from the lesson plan), what happens if a banana peel is found on the floor of an open house? This is followed by multiple-choice answers which the student must choose from. Sounds pretty innocuous.

But Middle East politics rears its ugly head at question 10 on p. 7 of that lesson (a pdf version is on the UBC website but requires a password; I have posted it on my site). It posits the following scenario:

Quin owned acreage in Langley which he leased to Abu Nidal as a training camp for freedom fighters. Jane operated a mink farm on the property next to Quin's land. As a result of gunfire and explosions taking place at Abu Nidal's training camp, every year for 3 years in the breeding seasons Jane's minks became distraught and died.

The multiple-choice answers then ask who is responsible for the damage, Quin, Abu Nidal, or Jane.

Comments: (1) So far as I know, there is only one publicly known Abu Nidal, the arch Palestinian terrorist; the use of that name and the scenario featuring "gunfire and explosions" in a town called Langley (where the CIA happens to be located, though it is also a small farming community in British Columbia) all points to this being the person referred to.

(2) Calling Abu Nidal a "freedom fighter" is a moral perversion – the sort of thing only a university would tolerate.

(3) The rot in Canadian universities is not limited to the social sciences but extends even to the real estate division of a business school. (August 17, 2005)

Aug. 18, 2005 update: Within a day of this posting, I am pleased to report, the Sauder School replaced the rogue question 10 with an acceptable alternative (see the pdf here):

Quin owned acreage in Langley which he leased to Simon as an explosives testing site. Jane operated a mink farm on the property next to Quin's land. As a result of the explosions taking place at Simon's site, every year for 3 years in the breeding seasons Jane's minks became distraught and died.

Comment: The good news is, when the business school makes a political mistake, it is more likely to fix it. Thank you, Sauder School.

Aug. 22, 2005 update: The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's two national papers, today has an article, "UBC pulls Abu Nidal reference from course," on Abu Nidal and the mink farm scenario. In it, Dale Griffin, assistant dean of academics for the Sauder School of Business, is paraphrased saying "the reference was not appropriate and was removed" and "the question has been part of the course since 1991 and it is not known who wrote it."

(Less accurately, the Globe and Mail ascribes this critique to Campus Watch, which deals only with Middle East studies, not real estate instruction; and it mischaracterizes what Campus Watch does; but then, the newspaper has a history of getting that wrong.)

Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 8:21 AM | Comments (0) | Top

Do Canadian Islamists Approve Profiling or Not?

Do Canadian Islamists Approve Profiling or Not? Two parallel but opposite press releases just emerged from the Islamist swamps of Ontario.

In the first, the Council on American-Islamic Relations reacted to the suggestion of a (black) Toronto city councilor, Michael Thompson, that the police should as a temporary measure "pull over young black men in their problem communities to ask questions to determine whether or not those young black men are armed, carrying weapons." CAIR responded with utter horror, issuing a press release that calls Thompson's statement "alarming" and fears it sets "a dangerous precedent in legitimizing racism."

In the second, the Canadian Islamic Congress reacted to the appointment of what it called "two influential pro-Israel Liberals to high-profile federal government roles" with a press release announcing that these appointments have the effect of making Canadian Muslims feeling "nervous." The CIC also announced that it wrote "letters of concern" urging a re-thinking of these choices. One went to Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew (about Jonathan Schneiderman as Middle East advisor) and one to Deputy Prime Minister Anne McClellan (about Leo Kolber as chair of her advisory council on national security matters). In a follow-up interview, the National Post paraphrases the CIC head, Mohamed Elmasry saying that Kolber "should be replaced" on the advisory board with a Muslim. Frank Dimant, executive director of B'nai B'rith, responded by noting that the Elmasry "is effectively saying that Jews ought to be automatically excluded from holding positions of influence." (On this point, see the concept of dhimmitude.)

Comment: So, which is it, Islamist organizations? You against profiling or you for it? Or do you disapprove of it for potentially gun-toting blacks and approve of it for potentially pro-Israel Jews? (August 17, 2005)

Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 10:50 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Calling Islamism the Enemy: Originally Posted 1/29/04

Calling Islamism the Enemy Although I sense much backsliding in the current war – with many Democrats advocating a return to the law enforcement model rather than the war model – I also see that there is a growing inclination to assert that Islamism – or at least a vague hostile ideology – not "terrorism," is the enemy and that it includes a war of ideas as well as it one of violence. This recognition is vital if the barbarous enemy is to be defeated. Here are some notable examples, in reverse chronological order, of individuals and institutions being willing to call a spade a spade, or at least take a step in that direction (with thanks to Willy Gjosund for several references):

Click here to continue reading this blog entry.

Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 4:29 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Londonistan Follies: Originally Posted 5/16/03

The British government won itself the reputation for being tough because it joined with the U.S.-led effort in Iraq, quite in contrast to France. But when it comes to domestic counterterrorism, the French are far ahead of the hapless, head-in-the-sand Londonistanis – as I have noted earlier. Indeed, it sometimes seems like one could handsomely fill a blog with nothing but entries documenting the British follies. Here are some examples, in reverse chronological order:

_____________

Bibliography – My Writings on the Gaza Withdrawal

As the sad and perhaps lethal day of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza arrives, I offer a chronological overview of my writings on this mistaken policy.

"Reading Sharon's Mind." New York Sun, December 23, 2003.
Expects that Sharon is more crafty than sincere about the Gaza withdrawal idea.

"Sharon Loses His Way On Israeli ‘Settlements'." New York Sun, February 10, 2004.
Recognizes that Sharon is more sincere than crafty, criticizes him for this.

"Palestinian Responses to an Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza." DanielPipes.org, February 21, 2004.
Documents the Palestinians' claim that they pushed the Israelis out.

"Israel out of Gaza?" DanielPipes.org, March 20, 2004.
More skepticism on my part: "not only does Sharon seem to have little wish to fulfill his plan but neither do other Israelis want him to."

"Israel's Wayward Prime Ministers." New York Sun, June 29, 2004.
Attempts to account for Sharon's radical change in policy by placing him the context of his three elected predecessors, all of whom made similar changes toward unilateral concessions.

"There Is No "Daniel Pipes Plan" for the Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza." DanielPipes.org, July 8, 2004.
Suggests a better way for the Israeli government to handle the withdrawal.

"Ariel Sharon, Far-Leftist." DanielPipes.org, March 11, 2005.
Documents Sharon's radical change across the political spectrum.

"Ariel Sharon's Folly." New York Sun, April 5, 2005.
Criticizes the Israeli prime minister for betraying his supporters, dividing Israeli society, handing the Palestinian rejectionists a unique victory, and failing his American ally.

"The Forcible Removal of Israelis From Gaza." FrontPageMag.com, April 11, 2005.
Establishes that what Sharon plans to do in Gaza has no precedent among democracies.

"Sharon's Gaza Withdrawal – Made in Washington?" DanielPipes.org, April 11, 2005.
Shows that the withdrawal policy was made in Jerusalem, not Washington.

"Business as Usual in the Palestinian Authority." New York Sun, May 17, 2005.
Argues that "Ariel Sharon [has] neatly arrayed all the elements for a massive train wreck."

"The Gaza Withdrawal – A Dreamy Return to Oslo." DanielPipes.org, June 9, 2005.
Analyses a speech by Israel's vice prime minister Ehud Olmert that reveals the Likud leadership's magical premises.

"‘Some Congressional Leaders Worry Gaza Pullout Amounts to Appeasement.'" DanielPipes.org, August 2, 2005.
Notes the quiet unease on Capitol Hill about the withdrawal plan.

"‘Today Gaza, Tomorrow Jerusalem'." New York Sun, August 9, 2005.
Assesses aggressive Palestinian responses to the withdrawal plan.

"[The Gaza Withdrawal:] A Democracy Killing Itself." USA Today, August 15, 2005.
Lists the withdrawal's damaging implications.

(August 15, 2005)

As I continue to cover the topic, here are additional writings:

"Will the Gaza Precedent Haunt Israel?" DanielPipes.org, August 18, 2005.
Argues that Sharon has established a precedent for "disengagement" that will then apply to the West Bank.

"Israeli Taxpayers Fund Gaza Razing." DanielPipes.org, December 22, 2005.
Notes with surprise that Israelis are paying for the destruction of their own buildings.

Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 at 8:47 AM | Comments (0) | Top

An Islamic School for Lodi, California?

An Islamic School for Lodi, California? Lodi, an agricultural town of 65,000 in northern California, found itself in the spotlight in early June 2005 due to the arrest of four Muslims, plus accusations that they were connected to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and many unanswered questions.

Then, on July 22, remote from the national spotlight, the San Joaquin County Planning Commission voted 3-1 to grant permission for the Farooqia Islamic Center, a private Islamic school, to be built off Lower Sacramento Road. Some Lodi residents have appealed that decision and, the Lodi newspaper reports today, the County Board of Supervisors will meet on Sept. 27 to consider their request.

It's strictly a land-use decision, so the issue is framed in terms of noise and traffic. One family that is building a house next to the Farooqia property, for example, argues that the school would encroach on their privacy. The Muslim response brushes aside these concerns and asserts that townspeople just don't want a parochial Muslim school. The debate replicates many others throughout the West, except for the added twist of the terrorism charges and the fact that some of those involved with this Farooqia Islamic Center were also connected to an identically named madrassah in Pakistan, one known to have graduated terrorists.

But there is another angle to be taken into account, apart from land use and the Pakistan connection: the unpleasant fact that Islamic schools in Western countries often offer an Islamist curriculum that prepares students for alienation from their society, if not terrorism. I point out this pattern in "Troubles at Islamic Schools in North America."

Therefore, when assessing the request to build any Islamic institution – school, mosque, or otherwise – the authorities need to pay close attention to the outlook of the founders. That is not a guarantee that things will go right ever after, but at least it improves the odds. (August 11, 2005)

Sep. 27, 2005 update: The Board of Supervisors met and rejected the Farooqia Islamic Center request in a 5-0 vote.

Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 at 5:31 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Can Infidels be Innocents?

Can Infidels be Innocents? Three so-called fatwas (even a novice in Islam knows they do not fulfill the definition of a fatwa, which has to be written by a Islamic jurisprudent in response to a specific query) came out in July condemning the 7/7 attacks in London.

British Muslim Forum: "Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives." (July 18, 2005)
120 Canadian imams: "Any one who claims to be a Muslim and participates in any way in the taking of innocent life is betraying the very spirit and letter of Islam." (July 21, 2005)
Fiqh Council of North America: "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." (July 28, 2005)

Non-Muslims can be forgiven if they assume the reference to "innocent lives" includes those traveling on the Underground and bus lines in London earlier in the month. But the term "innocent lives" can be much more restricted in application, as a fascinating article in today's Sunday Times (London) makes clear.

Titled "Undercover in the academy of hatred," it is based on the covert research by Ali Hussain of the newspaper's Insight team. Ali joined the Saviour Sect in June, a few weeks before the 7/7 bombings and took along his tape recorder. What he heard is hair-raising – it is imperative for Muslims to "instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar," "I am a terrorist. As a Muslim, of course I am a terrorist," "They will build tall buildings and we will bring them down," the bombings were "a good start" and Allah should "bless those involved"

He also heard two speakers discuss whom they consider to be innocent.

Zachariah, referring to the London passengers: "They're kuffar [infidels]. They're not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state."
Omar Bakri Mohammed, the sect's leader, who publicly condemned the deaths of "innocents," but at the Selby Centre in Wood Green, north London, on July 22 referred to the 7/7 bombers as the "fantastic four" and explained that his grief for the "innocent" applied only to Muslims. "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."

Comments: (1) Muslim statements condemning the killing of "innocents" cannot be taken at face value but must be probed to find out who exactly are considered innocent and who not. In brief, Can infidels be innocents?

(2) For other assessments of the U.S. "fatwa," see the critiques of Abul Kasem, Yehudit Barsky, Steven Emerson, Christopher Orlet, Steven Stalinsky, and the United American Committee, as well as the interesting quotations in an Associated Press report. For an analysis of the Canadian one, see the one by David Ouellette.

(3) These documents fit a pattern of dissembling by Islamist organizations; for another example, see "CAIR's Phony Petition." (August 7, 2005)

Aug. 30, 2005 update: In a bellicose interview in Lebanon (where he may feel he has nothing to lose in being more candid), Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly came close to confirming the above sentiments. He was questioned by Sanaa al Jack of Ash-Sharq al-Awsat:

(Q) you said that you are against killing innocent people and have nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda Organization. Now you are calling for jihad. How do you explain your position?

(A) I have often repeated that I am against the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world but who are the innocent? I keep the answer to myself.

Q) Who do you define as innocent?

(A) The innocent people are specified by Islam. I denounce killing innocent people regardless of who kills them. However, who are the innocent? I do not have to explain this issue.
|
(Q) Does this mean that you support killing those whom you consider guilty and those whom Islam as you understand it describes as not innocent?

(A) I support what the Sunni Muslim youths in Lebanon believe in.

(Q) What about killing in general?

(A) Sister, I do not say that I support killing in general. You said that.

(Q) But you alluded to a classification of innocent people. Does this mean that you support jihad in certain areas because of things that are being done against Islam?

(A) Do you think that the Palestinian resistance is not right?

(Q) I am not giving an opinion, I am asking about your point of view.

(A) I am against killing innocent people and I repeat this everywhere. This is my personal position.

Sep. 15, 2005 update: A Pakistani veteran of the jihad, Khalid Khawaja, explains his understanding of "innocents" this way to Steward Bell (as quoted in Bell's new book, The Martyr's Oath, p. 81): "We don't believe in killing innocent people but we would certainly like to send you into the Stone Age the same way you have sent us into the Stone Age."

Posted on Sunday, August 7, 2005 at 11:00 PM | Comments (0) | Top

More Praise for "Terrorist Profs"

More Praise for "Terrorist Profs" In February 2003, three current or former instructors in Middle East studies at the University of South Florida in Tampa were charged with racketeering and conspiracy to murder. In response, I wrote an article, "Terrorist Profs" reviewing the standing of Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, Bashir Musa Mohammed Nafi, Sameeh Hammoudeh in the profession. What particularly surprised me was how their Middle East studies colleagues continued to praise them, that even after the indictments.

Arthur Lowrie, formerly vice chairman of USF's Committee for Middle Eastern Studies, praises Shallah for his "good scholarly work." And Gwen Griffith-Dickson, director of Islamic studies at Birkbeck, describes Nafi as "highly respected," lauding him for his efforts "with energy and commitment, to encourage critical thinking about religious issues and academic balance in his students, and thus to encourage social responsibility."

Well, it gets worse. Those three were only indicted (their trial is currently underway); what about a convicted abettor of terrorism? Mohamed Yousry, 49, an Arabic-language translator, was convicted on Feb. 10, 2005, in connection with Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh. He is guilty of providing material aid to terrorism and conspiring to deceive the government and awaits sentencing on Sept. 30. He faces up to 20 years in prison.

When not translating for the blind sheikh, Yousry was writing a Ph.D. dissertation about him at New York University. Zachary Lockman the professor who originally had urged him to write about Abdel Rahman, testified on Yousry's behalf at the trial. After the conviction was handed down, Lockman referred to it as "ludicrous" and described Yousry as "a very sweet, mild-mannered guy" whose political views "are not those of Omar Abdel Rahman by any stretch of the imagination." (August 7, 2005)

Comments: (1) Is it not amazing that Middle East studies professors have nothing but nice things to say about those accused and convicted of abetting Islamist terrorism? More dramatically than anything else, this reveals the field's degradation.

(2) I can't wait to hear the encomia should the Tampa gang be convicted.

Posted on Sunday, August 7, 2005 at 1:39 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Hizbullah Teaches Terrorism to the Palestinians

Hizbullah Teaches Terrorism to the Palestinians It's long been known that Hizbullah's expulsion of Israeli forces from Lebanon in May 2000 had a major impact on the Palestinians. Here is how I summarized the matter a year later:

That impact is partly practical, with Hizbullah providing instruction and arms to the Palestinian Authority. For example, Hizbullah reached an agreement with the PA "to train fighters and provide weapons against tanks and aircraft," reports the Middle East Newsline. Palestinians took up Hizbullah's distinctive tactics and tools - suicide bombings on the one hand, roadside bombs detonated by mobile phones on the other. They even adopted the Hizbullah technique of filming themselves carrying out attacks on Israelis, then making the film available to the Arab and Muslim media.

The impact is also psychological. Palestinians watched Hizbullah impose every last one of its demands on Israel, without having to sit around a table with Israeli diplomats; this served as an object lesson. Palestinians concluded that if they used enough violence, they too could get all they wanted from Israel without having to compromise.

This "Lebanonization" of the Palestinian approach then had major consequences.

Hizbullah's success first inspired the Palestinians to turn down even the amazingly generous terms that prime minister Ehud Barak subsequently offered them, confident that they could do better on the battlefield. It prompted the Palestinians to abandon the bargaining table and revert to violence against Israel. It helps account for the escalation in that violence, which started with rocks and now includes long-distance mortar shellings.

In the most direct confirmation I have yet seen of this point, Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post today tells about Hizbullah's impact on the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, as explained by its commander, Jamal Abu Samhadaneh:

The Popular Resistance Committees was established in the Gaza Strip shortly after the beginning of the intifada in [September] 2000. Its founders said then that they had been deeply influenced by the "great victory" achieved by Hizbullah following Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon [about five months earlier]. According to Abu Samhadaneh, the Israeli pullout from Lebanon "enhanced our belief that the option of resistance can succeed, especially through qualitative operations against the occupation."

The "qualitative operations" are a reference to suicide bombings, rocket attacks and drive-by shootings used by Hizbullah against IDF troops. "This was our model," Abu Samhadaneh explained. "We learned from Hizbullah and started establishing armed cells that have carried out special operations against settlements and the Israeli army together with other Palestinian groups."

Comment: One can only wonder at who in turn will be inspired by the evil example of the Popular Resistance Committees' success this month. (August 7, 2005)

Posted on Sunday, August 7, 2005 at 4:13 PM | Comments (0) | Top

"Russia's Turning Muslim, Says Mufti"

"Russia's Turning Muslim, Says Mufti" That's the startling headline in the Times of London today. Ravil Gaynutdin, head of the Council of Muftis of Russia, announced that Russia's population of 144 million contains 23 million ethnic Muslims – and not, as the census indicates, 14.5 million, or, as the Orthodox Church estimates, nearer to 20 million. An estimated 3-4 million Muslims are migrants from former Soviet regions, including 2 million Azeris, 1 million Kazakhs, and several hundred thousand Uzbeks, Tajiks and Kyrgyz.

Plus, Russians of Orthodox background are converting to Islam. (For one important case, see the story of Viacheslav Sergeevich Polosin.) The Orthodox church claims 80 million adherents, but observers say the real number is about half that, and falling.

And more: while the Orthodox population is in demographic decline, the Muslim population is surging. Although the total Russian population dropped by 400,000 in the first half of 2005, it increased in 15 regions, such as the Muslim republics of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia. The birth rate is 1.8 children per woman in Dagestan, versus 1.3 for Russia as a whole. Male life expectancy is 68 in Dagestan, versus 58 for Russia.

The Times observes that this growth in the Muslim population "has raised fears among Orthodox Church leaders and nationalists that Russia could eventually become a Muslim-majority nation." Aleksei Malashenko, an expert on Islam, does not expect Russia to become "a Muslim society in several years, although maybe in half a century we'll see something surprising." (August 6, 2005)

Posted on Saturday, August 6, 2005 at 1:08 AM | Comments (0) | Top

"Some Congressional Leaders Worry Gaza Pullout Amounts to Appeasement"

"Some Congressional Leaders Worry Gaza Pullout Amounts to Appeasement" That's the eye-catching title of an article in www.geostrategy-direct.com (available by subscription only). The text is no less interesting:

Nobody in the Republican-controlled Congress wants to be seen as opposing the wishes of both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Bush administration. But quietly, the unilateral Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip is making some prominent House and Senate members nervous.

The article goes on to give one specific quote, from Rep. Dan Burton, (Republican-Indiana) in a speech on the House floor on June 20.

Personally, I will not second guess the prime minister [of Israel]'s wisdom. I very much hope that he is right. But again, my experience tells me that if you take steps to appease an enemy you only give him a green light to put more pressure on you. In my opinion, it is imperative and critical to U.S. national security that we as policymakers understand the consequences should the Israeli disengagement plan fail to live up to expectations.

Comment: This cautious demurral follows in the tradition of other American politicians who worry that the Israeli government is not taking its own or American security enough into account. Here is how I summed up the views of two prominent senators in a December 2000 Commentary article:

Senator Charles Schumer of New York, a Democrat, has said that he would, for the Israeli's own protection, "put more pressure on them to do more to go after Hamas and the terrorist groups," while Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a Republican, responded to last summer's Camp David summit by saying that in his opinion, Barak's concessions there "went too far" and that the borders contemplated at the summit "leave Israel vulnerable."

My conclusion to that article, written at the tail end of the Oslo process, is worth hauling out again as the Gaza withdrawal looms large: "Israel's acute demoralization thus places upon the United States an urgent and unusual burden: the need to firm up a democratic ally's will to resist. One can only hope, for the sake of both countries' interests, that Americans rise to this challenge." (August 2, 2005)

Posted on Tuesday, August 2, 2005 at 10:42 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Home Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs Contact Us All Articles