Despite promises to clean up violent and xenophobic content from textbooks, recent editions in Saudi Arabia continue teach school children barbaric practices, Fox News reported.
The news network, which was able to obtain translated copies of the recently-printed books from the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, DC, said that the books teaches ninth graders that the annihilation of Jews is imperative.
“The hour (of judgment) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them,” one part reads. “There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
The reviewed editions were printed for the 2010-2011 academic year. Another book teaches 10th graders how to cut off the hands and feet of a thief.
“This is where terrorism starts, in the education system.” Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, said, noting that the books were financed by the Saudi government.
In addition to coaching kids to kill Jews and amputate body parts, the text books depict women as weak and irresponsible. Moreover, al-Ahmed said the textbooks call for homosexuals to be put to death “because they pose a danger at society, as the Saudi school books teach.”
Suicide bomber education?
Al-Ahmed, as Saudi national, predicted that the extremist education within the kingdom could have devastation implications on the world at large.
“If you teach six million children in these important years of their lives, if you install that in their brain, no wonder we have so many Saudi suicide bombers.”
Most of the terrorists involved in September 11, 2001 attacks on the US were of Saudi origin, a fact that violently turned the West’s attention to the education system in the kingdom. In 2006, Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Turki al-Faisal said that King Abdullah is determined to eradicate the hateful ideology in his country.
“In recent years, the kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education,” al-Faisal said. “Not only have we eliminated what is objectionable from old textbooks that were in our system, we have also implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan. “
Category Archives: News Articles
12/22/11
Factbox: In 1919, ‘Palestine Part of Arab Syria’
The Palestinian Authority is furious at Newt Gingrich for calling “Palestinians” an “invented people,” but a short history shows that Arabs in the British Mandate and modern Israel never considered themselves a people.
“Both historically and in contemporary times, the Arabs living in the area now known as Palestine were regarded both by outsiders and by their own spokespeople as members of the greater Arab population, without a separate or distinct identity,” according to Prof. Michael Curtis of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
He concluded, “Whatever one’s views of Gingrich’s sagacity or judgment on other issues, or one’s opinions on the more general issue of the desirability and character of a Palestinian state existing alongside the State of Israel, the accuracy of his statement cannot be denied…. The concept of Palestinian identity and nationalism is a recent invention.”
He noted that in 1919, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire that ruled in what is now Israel, the first Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations declared, “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographical bonds.”
Similarly, “Palestinian” spokesman told the United Nations Security Council in 1956 that Palestine was nothing more than southern Syria.
Prof. Curtis added that in 1977, The head of the Military Operations Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Zuheir Muhsein, declared, “Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. …the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there for tactical reasons.” The PLO charter states that Palestine is part of the Arab nation.
“The Ottoman Empire, which ruled from 1516-1918, was the last recognized sovereign power in the area,” explains Prof. Curtis. “The area of Palestine was a district of the Empire, officially a vilayet (province), not a political entity. No independent Palestinian state has ever been established, nor was there a single administrative or cultural unit of Palestinians.
“On the other hand, a sovereign Jewish state existed prior to the rise of the Roman Empire. While the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, changed the name of the land to Syria Palestina, and banished the Jews from Jerusalem, this did not eradicate all Jewish presence in the area.”
Palestinian Authority officials have claimed that Israel also is “invented,” but Prof. Curtis wrote, “Jewish nationalism may include not only centuries-old traditions but also certain invented elements. What is important, however, is that the Jews constitute a people – a set of individuals linked together not only by a common religion, but also as members of an ethnic community with memories of a shared past, common ceremonies and culture, and mutual legal codes, social behavior, myths and symbols. Between Jews there is a peoplehood, a subjective belief in their common descent from ancestors in Judea and Samaria.”
The term ”Palestine” as a definition of what now is Israel came into being after the British chased out the Ottoman rulers. The League of Nations creates a “Mandate for Palestine,” which was handed over to Britain.
Both Jews and Arabs were regarded as “Palestinians,” and Prof. Curtis adds, “Ironically, the name was used not by Arabs but only by Jews in the area, as in The Palestinian Post and the Palestine Symphony (now Israel Philharmonic) Orchestra.
“Only after the State of Israel was established in May 1948 did the term “Palestinian” become exclusively used in referring to Arabs in the area. The single most important factor leading to the idea and development of a Palestinian national identity was the creation of Israel and the Arab defeat by Israel in 1948-49.
Saudi King Calls for Arab Super State
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia formally called for the formation of a Gulf Union on a backdrop of regional unrest and growing tensions with rival Iran.
“I ask today that we move from a phase of cooperation to a phase of union within a single entity,” Abdullah said during his address at the opening session of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council conference in Riyadh.
“You must realise that our security and stability are threatened and we need to live up to our responsibilities,” said King Abdullah.
“Our summit opens in the shadow of challenges that require vigilance and a united stance,” he added.
The GCC — comprised of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates — was formed in 1981 as a security alliance to counter post-revolution Iran.
While Abdullah did not speak directly to the nature such a union might take, the six-member GCC has been openly discussing transforming their alliance into a unified diplomatic and military confederation for months now.
It has also been actively moving to expand its ranks. The GCC opened integration negotiations with Jordan earlier this month, and is engaged in exploratory talks with Morocco.
Last week GCC officials revealed they were making the inclusion of Egypt – the region’s most populous and militarily powerful Arab country – a priority.
The GCC nations have technically been at war with Israel since 1948, raising uncomfortable questions about the future of Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan should those nations join.
The move also comes on the heels of the GCC flexing its muscles in the Arab League, where it moved to isolate key Iran ally Syria over the bloody crackdown of President Bashar al-Assad that has killed over 5,000 civilians.
In a clear reference to Syria, Abdullah urged his GCC allies to help their “Arab brothers so that the blood stops flowing and to guard against the risks of foreign intervention.”
Analysts say isolating Assad also weakens Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, the Shi’ite terror organization Hizbullah, which relies on Syria as a land-bridge to Tehran.
Earlier this year Abdullah met with Lebanon’s Saudi-educated former Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri, whose Future Movement is closely allied with the anti-Hizbullah opposition in Beirut.
According to the analysts, the move also makes it more difficult for Iran to maintain its insurgency in Iraq as the United States begins its final withdrawal from the war-torn country.
Iraqi leaders have long complained to U.S. officials that Riyadh and Tehran are respectively backing competing Sunni and Shi’ite insurgencies in their country.
If pro-Saudi opposition groups Lebanon and Syria were to come to power they too could be targeted for recruitment into Abdullah’s proposed union, as might Iraq.
Earlier this year Saudi Crown Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud said, should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, that Riyadh would seek them as well.
Such a move would place the potentially nuclear armed Arab super-state on all of Israel’s borders.
Video: So, What is the Miracle of Chanukah Really About?
One days’ worth of olive oil lasting for 8 days, was indeed, miraculous… but there is so much more to this holiday than meets the eye.
Chanukah is the miraculous story of the Jewish People, and as you will see -the story never ended.
It lives today in our times, through the miracle of the State of Israel, and the modern day Maccabees who stand alongside her. Watch this short and powerful video from Jerusalem, for illuminating insights and fascinating perspectives into the holiday of Chanukah.
ADL lists Top 10 2011 issues affecting Jews
The Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday released a list of the top 10 issues affecting Jews in 2011, ranging from regional changes in the Middle East to anti-Semitism on social media websites.
The list began with the “profound transformation [taking place] across the Arab world,” known as the Arab Spring. Most notable in this phenomena were the ousters of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and the Syrian government’s bloody crackdown on civilian protests against its regime.
In the report, the ADL explained that social media websites have “remained one of the biggest bastions for spreading anti-Semitism and hate speech” and have left Internet providers the difficult task of defining free speech versus hate speech. Namely, Facebook administrators closed a page encouraging a “Third Palestinian Intifada” in March following complaints of incitement.
Next on the list was the Palestinian Authority’s campaign to achieve statehood in the UN, despite calls from world leaders to return to bilateral, direct negotiations with Israel. While the fate of Palestinian statehood in the Security Council is still unclear, a successful PA bid to join the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has led to the freezing of US funds to the UN agency.
The return of captured soldier Gilad Schalit to Israeli soil in an Israel-Hamas exchange that saw the release of 1,027 Palestinian and Arab prisoners also appeared on the list. The deal was brokered with German and Egyptian support, and “was difficult for the country to bear, but showed Israel’s deep commitment to the lives of each and every one of its citizen soldiers.”
The assassinations of al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden in May and Anwar al-Awlaki in September by the US were also featured, along with increasing concerns about religion in US politics, Holocaust trivialization, US immigration laws and the shooting of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who is Jewish.
North Korea’s military to share power with Kim’s heir
By – Benjamin Kang Lim – Thomas Reuters
The source added that the military, which is trying to develop a nuclear arsenal, has pledged allegiance to the untested Kim Jong-un, who takes over the family dynasty that has ruled North Korea since it was founded after World War Two.
The source declined to be identified but has correctly predicted events in the past, telling Reuters about the North’s first nuclear test in 2006 before it took place.
The comments are the first signal that North Korea is following a course that many analysts have anticipated — it will be governed by a group of people for the first time since it was founded in 1948.
Both Kim Jong-il and his father Kim Il-sung were all-powerful, authoritarian rulers of the isolated state.
The situation in North Korea appeared stable after the military gave its backing to Kim Jong-un, the source said.
“It’s very unlikely,” the source said when asked about the possibility of a military coup. “The military has pledged allegiance to Kim Jong-un.”
North Korea’s collective leadership will include Kim Jong-un, his uncle and the military, the source said.
Jang Song-thaek, 65, brother-in-law of Kim Jong-il and the younger Kim’s uncle, is seen as the power behind the throne along with his wife Kim Kyong-hui, Kim Jong-il’s sister. So too is Ri Yong-ho, the rising star of the North’s military and currently its most senior general.
The younger Kim, who is in his late 20s, has his own supporters but is not strong enough to consolidate power, analysts said.
“I know that he’s been able to build a group of supporters around himself who are of his generation,” said Koh Yu-hwan, president of the Korean Association of North Korean Studies in Seoul.
“So it is not entirely elders in their 70s, plus some like Jang in their 60s, who are backing him. These young backers will be emerging fairly soon.”
Koh said the coterie was put in place by Kim Jong-il before he died. “The relative calm seen these few days shows it’s been effective. If things were not running smoothly, then we’d have seen a longer period of ‘rule by mummy’, with Kim Jong-il being faked as still being alive.”
He said the younger Kim would accept the set-up, for now. “Considering the tradition of strongarm rule by his father and grandfather, things can’t be easy for him,” he said.
“REGIME SURVIVAL”
Ralph Cossa, an authority on North Korea and president of the U.S. think tank Pacific Forum CSIS, said it made sense that the ruling group would stick together.
“All have a vested interest in regime survival,” he said. “Their own personal safety and survival is inextricably tied to regime survival and Kim Jong-un is the manifestation of this. I think the regime will remain stable, at least in the near-term.”
He added in a commentary that the new group may be inclined to reform, but stressed this was far from confirmed.
“Over the long term, there appears to be some hope, primarily emanating from Beijing, that Kim Jong-un will take North Korea down the path of Chinese-style reform, apparently based on the belief that Jang is or will be a ‘reformer’.”
“Who knows, this may be true. While this could relieve the suffering of the North Korean people over time, it will do little to promote the cause of denuclearization, however.”
The high-level source also said North Korea test-fired a missile on Monday to warn the United States not to make any moves against it. Pyongyang however had no immediate plans for further tests, barring an escalation of tensions.
“With the missile test, (North) Korea wanted to deliver the message that they have the ability to protect themselves,” the source said.
“But (North) Korea is unlikely to conduct a nuclear test in the near future unless provoked” by the United States and South Korea, the source said.
The unpredictable North’s nuclear program has been a nagging source of tension for the international community.
Pyongyang carried out nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, and has quit six-party talks with South Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia on abandoning its nuclear program and returning to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The high-level source also said Beijing was only notified of Kim’s death earlier on Monday, the same day North Korean state television broadcast the news. Kim died on Saturday.
A leading South Korean newspaper reported on Wednesday China learned of Kim’s death soon after it occurred.
China has given no official comment or even hints suggesting it was told of Kim’s death before the public announcement.
Beijing, the North’s closest ally and biggest provider of aid, has pulled out the stops to support the younger Kim.
The government has invited him to visit and, in an unusual gesture, President Hu Jintao and Vice-President Xi Jinping also visited the hermit state’s embassy in Beijing to express their condolences. Roads leading to the embassy were blocked.
Mainly, the prospect of instability on its northeastern border worries China and it sees the younger Kim and his coterie as the best prospect for keeping North Korea on an even keel.
North Korea has been pressed by China to denuclearize and is willing to do so on condition that North and South Korea, the United States and China sign an armistice replacing a 1953 ceasefire agreement, the source said.
The two Koreas have been divided for decades and remain technically at war since their 1950-53 conflict ended with an armistice but no peace agreement. The United States backed the South, while China supported the North in that conflict.
Pyongyang is also convinced there are U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea and demands Washington pull them out, the source said.
Mexico Mayan region launches apocalypse countdown
Seize the day.
Only 52 weeks and a day are left before Dec. 21, 2012, when some believe the Maya predicted the end of the world.
Unlike enthusiasts of other doomsday theories who suggest putting together survival kits, southeastern Mexico, the heart of Maya territory, plans a yearlong celebration.
Mexico’s tourism agency expects to draw 52 million visitors by next year only to the regions of Chiapas, Yucatan, Quintana Roo, Tabasco and Campeche. All of Mexico usually lures about 22 million foreigners in a year.
It’s selling the date, the Winter Solstice in the coming year, as a time of renewal. Many archeologists argue that the 2012 reference on a 1,300-year-old stone tablet only marks the end of a cycle in the Mayan calendar.
“The world will not end. It is an era,” said Yeanet Zaldo, a tourism spokeswoman for the Caribbean state of Quintana Roo, home to Cancun. “For us, it is a message of hope.”
Cities and towns in the Mayan region on Wednesday will start the yearlong countdown. In Chiapas the town of Tapachula on the Guatemalan border will start a countdown on an 8-foot digital clock in the main park exactly a year before the mysterious date.
In the nearby archaeological site of Izapa, Maya priests will burn incense, chant and offer prayers.
In the tropical jungle of Quintana Roo, between the resorts of Cancun and Playa del Carmen, people are putting messages and photos in a time capsule that will be buried for 50 years. Maya priests and Indian dancers will perform a ritual at the time capsule ceremony.
Yucatan state has announced plans to complete the Maya Museum of Merida by next summer.
“People who still live in Mayan villages will host rites and burn incense for us to go back in time and try to understand the Mayan wisdom,” Zaldo said.
The Maya reputation for wisdom has people taking the alleged prediction seriously.
The Mayan civilization, which reached its height from 300 A.D. to 900 A.D., had a talent for astronomy
Its Long Count calendar begins in 3,114 B.C., marking time in roughly 394-year periods known as Baktuns. Thirteen was a significant, sacred number for the Mayas, and they wrote that the 13th Baktun ends on Dec. 21, 2012.
The doomsday theories stem from a stone tablet discovered in the 1960s at the archaeological site of Tortuguero in the Gulf of Mexico state of Tabasco that describes the return of a Mayan god at the end of a 13th period.
Believers have taken the end-of-the world fears to the Internet with hundreds of thousands of websites and blogs.
“The Maya are viewed by many westerners as exotic folks that were supposed to have had some special, secret knowledge,” said Mayan scholar Sven Gronemeyer. “What happens is that our expectations and fears get projected on the Maya calendar.”
Gronemeyer of La Trobe University in Australia compares the supposed Mayan prophecies to the “Y2K” hype, when people feared all computer systems would crash when the new millennium began on Jan. 1, 2000.
For some reason, Gronemeyer says, people have ignored evidence that dates beyond 2012 were recorded.
The blogosphere exploded with more speculation when Mexico’s archaeology institute acknowledged on Nov. 24 a second reference to Dec. 21, 2012, on a brick found at other ruins.
“Human beings seem to be attracted by apocalyptic ideas and always assume the worst,” Gronemeyer said.
It’s all a bit frustrating for serious Mayan researchers whose field has made huge strides in recent years.
“This new historical and archaeological knowledge is so much more interesting and mind-blowing than the fantastical claims about Maya prophecies one sees on TV, books or on the Internet,” David Stuart, a specialist in Mayan epigraphy at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an email to The Associated Press. “We’re dealing with thousands of newly deciphered texts and trying to weave together a coherent picture of Maya history and culture, which to me is as exciting as it gets.”
While the 2012 hype might increase interest in the Maya, “that will probably be offset by the long and difficult effort ahead to correct the ubiquitous lies and misconceptions, even after 2012 has come and gone,” he wrote.
Jonnie Channell of Albuquerque, New Mexico, says that 2012 “is going to be one of those things where people are definitely going to have to plan,” not because of impending apocalypse, but because hotel rooms in the Maya region are probably going to be full.
Channell, who owns Maya Sites Travel Services, is surprised that she already has 24 reservations for three tour packages she is offering to major Mayan ruin sites in the week leading up to the solstice.
She named one “Beginning the New Calendar Era Under the Yucatan Stars.”
“We put together these tours, and we’ve got lots of signups, and people are excited about it,” she said. “If anybody think it’s going to be the end of the world, then they better stay home.”
Israel Rightly Mum About Iran Attack Plans
The Israelis will likely attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, but they won’t alert the U.S. prior to launching that operation for six reasons.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers Iran’s acquisition of atomic weapons an “existential” threat to the Jewish nation. Recently, concern about that threat skyrocketed with the release of a chilling report by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For the first time, the IAEA said it believes Iran conducted secret experiments solely to develop nuclear arms.
That report said Iran created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on nuclear triggers, and did research under a program called AMAD that included at least 14 designs for fitting an atomic warhead on a Shahab missile, which has a 1,200-mile range, enough to reach Israel. This revelation prompted calls for tougher sanctions to discourage Iran, and some unidentified nations apparently accelerated covert operations—assassinations, sabotage and spying—against Iran’s atomic weapons facilities and staff.
But there is growing resignation, especially among Israelis, that current efforts won’t stop Iran’s march to atomic weapons status. Yet President Barack Obama doggedly insists sanctions alone will pry atomic weapons from Tehran. Netanyahu is increasingly skeptical that anything short of a military attack will work.
That view fuels speculation that Israel will unilaterally attack Iranian atomic facilities. Unfortunately, the first indication of that operation won’t be a telephone call to Obama alerting him of a pending attack, but radars displaying Israeli fighters streaking across the Saudi Arabian deserts to Iran.
Why won’t Netanyahu alert Obama?
First, Israel seldom notifies the U.S. when undertaking high-risk operations. Israel didn’t notify the U.S. about its 1981 strike at Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and as Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) said, the Bush administration “didn’t know when the Israelis hit the reactor in Syria [in 2007].”
Likely Israeli leaders have certain “red lines” related to Iranian nuclear progress, which could trigger action at any moment. Netanyahu confirmed that view last Sunday, saying he will be prepared to make “the right decision at the right moment.”
Second, Netanyahu knows Obama doesn’t support a military attack. This has been made clear by Leon Panetta, Obama’s secretary of defense, who frequently pours cold water on the idea. Panetta warns that an Iran strike would “at best” slow down Tehran’s program for “maybe one, possibly two years,” the “targets are very difficult to get at” [read Israel lacks the capability to do the job] and we “could have unexpected consequences” such as damage to the global economy.
But Obama’s current efforts are failing. Even new efforts, such as so-called tougher sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which funds Tehran’s nuclear program, are destined to fail due to Obama’s lack of support.
The U.S. Senate just created the tougher banking sanctions in response to the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C., restaurant. But Obama objects to these sanctions because they might alienate U.S. trading partners who deal in oil with the Central Bank of Iran.
The Wall Street Journal editorialized about Obama’s real motive for opposing these tougher sanctions, saying they could “hurt his reelection chances.” After all, “disrupting Iran’s oil exports would increase oil prices and thus the price of gasoline at the American pump.”
Third, Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama. Last month, Obama was speaking with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who, not realizing his microphone was hot, expressed contempt for Netanyahu. “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar.” Obama commiserated with the Frenchman. “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Obama replied, according to Reuters.
Obama and Netanyahu have a rocky relationship that started in 2009 with the prime minister’s first meeting in the White House. It took Netanyahu weeks to secure the meeting, and then it happened at night without the typical media fanfare: No greeting by Obama at the front entrance, Netanyahu was forced to leave via a side exit, and Obama ordered the prime minister to keep the contents of the meeting secret.
A year later, Obama treated Netanyahu even shabbier than during their first White House meeting. Netanyahu failed to give Obama the concessions on Jewish settlements requested, so the President walked out of the meeting after inviting the prime minister to stay to consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new.”
Fourth, Obama doesn’t understand the Middle East, and shows favoritism toward Islamic parties. His actions speak for themselves. He bowed to the Saudi king on their first meeting; called the revolution that ousted Egypt’s president and will now likely be replaced by a radical Islamist government “a positive force”; praised Tunisia’s election as an “inspiration”—the country is now led by Islamic extremists who have called for war against Americans and support Iran; waged war against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was replaced by Islamists imposing Sharia law and al-Qaeda allies; and invested two years into diplomatic back-slapping with Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is a butcher with the blood of at least 4,000 citizens on his hands.
Meanwhile, Obama blames Israel for the problems in the Middle East because it won’t settle with the Palestinians. But he has yet to visit Israel as U.S. President to see the issues firsthand, even though he insists Jerusalem must surrender to Palestinian demands and withdraw to the pre-1967 Arab-Israeli war territorial lines and welcome back so-called displaced Palestinians, which would inevitably destroy Israel as a Jewish nation.
For these reasons and more, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney rightly said that Obama “has immeasurably set back the prospect of peace in the Middle East.”
Fifth, Obama isn’t committed to the only potentially effective alternative to military attack—containment. Even if Israel were to accept an atomic-armed Iran, it doesn’t believe the U.S. is committed to long-term containment.
Presidents during the Cold War who faced down the Soviet Union were confident that the U.S. had sufficient military power to support a policy of containment. But that sort of staying power in the Middle East is missing under Obama’s watch.
He is prematurely pulling forces out of Iraq, and anxious to get out of Afghanistan. That is why few Middle Eastern leaders believe Obama is willing to invest heavily in the region to contain an atomic Iran, especially now that he has made it clear his new priority is the Asia-Pacific.
That lack of trust has prompted the Saudis to consider going nuclear to counter Iran. Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence and former ambassador to the U.S., said his country cannot stand still if Iran develops a nuclear capability: “We must…look into all options we are given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves.”
Finally, Netanyahu doesn’t need Obama’s support because he knows the American people will forgive and understand should Israel attack Iranian atomic weapons facilities. Most Americans (57%) say they support Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear sites, according to a poll commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League.
Netanyahu also knows Obama won’t abandon Israel because the President needs Jewish voters, a key Democratic voting bloc that went 78% for him in 2008, but is down to 54% today, according to a Gallup poll. Recently, Obama promised 900 rabbis on a conference call, “Prime Minister Netanyahu knows he can count on the United States.”
Netanyahu won’t be calling Obama before Israeli jets launch on their mission to destroy Iran’s atomic weapons facilities. That’s Obama’s fault, and the U.S. will pay a high price for it and all the rest of the President’s numerous misjudgments.
Obama in for a Radical Change as Islamist Egypt Emerges
By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events
It is almost certain America’s ally Egypt will become an Islamist state if last week’s vote is any indication. President Barack Obama, who supported Egypt’s revolution, had better prepare for a radically different Middle East.
An Islamist Egypt, the largest Arab country and a longtime American ally, could turn the Middle East on its head. It will likely exchange the 30-year peace with Israel for war, play host to Islamic terrorists, embrace Sharia (Islamic) law, limit the use of the strategic Suez Canal, and spread radicalism across the volatile region.
Last week’s mostly urban vote was the first of three rounds of Egypt’s complex parliamentary elections to fill the People’s Assembly (the lower house). The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (JFP) captured perhaps 43%, and surprisingly, the ultraconservative (Salafist) Al Nour (“The Light”) party earned as much as 30% of the vote.
The final two voting rounds will take place between now and early January, and are expected to be even more successful for the Islamists because the remaining voters are in primarily rural, conservative governorates. And there is no reason to expect the election for Egypt’s upper house, the Shura Council, which takes place between late January and March, to be any different.
Following those elections, the new Islamist majority parliament will convene to draft a constitution which will be submitted to a referendum. Then, according to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF)—Egypt’s military rulers—there will be a presidential election “no later than 30 June 2012.”
It is clear Egypt faces a cultural and political tsunami. An Islamist majority parliament will ignore the Tahrir Square pro-democracy movement that pushed former President Hosni Mubarak out of office. Worse, the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood will be pushed to the Islamic right by its Salafist allies. Then expect the Islamists to display no pretense about embracing radical Sharia law.
This outcome was widely predicted by Middle East observers such as this author, but leaders such as President Obama called the revolution that ousted Mubarak “a positive force for a democratic Egyptian future.” Obama then said, “I have an unyielding belief that you [Egyptians] will determine your own destiny.”
One of the best indicators of Egypt’s “destiny” is what the Islamist leaders promise.
The Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, said Muslim regimes must confront Islam’s enemies, Israel and the U.S., and that waging jihad against them is a commandment of Allah. He called for “all forms of resistance for the sake of liberating every occupied piece of land in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all [other] parts of our Muslim world.”
Badie said the Koran should “become our constitution,” and in 2007 then-supreme guide Mohammed Mahdi Akef drafted the Brotherhood’s political platform.
That platform states Islam will be the state religion and that Sharia “is the main source for legislation.” Non-Muslims and women are barred from the presidency, and the 1979 peace with Israel would be put to referendum, which means certain defeat in the 95% Muslim majority country. And tourists visiting Egypt must “be in line with Islamic principles, values and laws,” which would put a serious damper on Western tourism.
The most prestigious Brotherhood cleric, Shaykh Qaradawi, represents mainstream views, according to the Washington-based Brookings Institute’s Shadi Hamid. Those views are radically anti-Israel. Qaradwi denies Palestinian suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians constitute terrorism, and he issued a fatwa (an Islamic ruling) stating that it was mandatory for all Muslims to support Iran terror proxy Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.
Recently Qaradawi, who heads of the Union of Muslim Scholars, co-sponsored a massive rally in Cairo’s Al-Azhar mosque in which a 5,000-strong crowd chanted passages from the Koran vowing that “one day we shall kill all the Jews,” according to Israel’s Ynetnews.
The theologian also embraces radical views for everyday Egyptians. He “accepts” wife beating “as a method of last resort,” according to London’s The Guardian, and female circumcision for “whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters.” He also believes that homosexuality should be punishable by death.
The Brotherhood’s Salafi partner, the Al Nour party, is the largest of Egypt’s three licensed Salafist parties and perhaps the most dogmatic. It calls for laws mandating a shift to the complete application of Sharia, including Islamic banking (no interest or fees for loans), “just and equal distribution” of income to the poor, restricting the sale of alcohol, providing special curricula for schoolchildren, and censoring the arts and entertainment.
Sheikh Yasir Burhami, considered Al Nour’s godfather, previously rejected participation in politics and government because it conflicted with his religious principles. But he reconciled participation in the current election process by rejecting democracy—the rule of the people—while embracing democracy’s methodology (elections), which “seems to be the best option available, or the lesser evil,” Burhami said.
Burhami advocates this “lesser evil” (elections) in order to change the basis for Egyptian law. In a March interview on Al-Khaleejiah television, Burhami explained that under Islamic rule, laws are based on the Koran and the Sunnah, the practice of Muhammad. Under democracy, he explained, it is the will of the people that he rejects. But then he implied Salafis joined this election as a means to leverage their popularity in order to change the basis for Egyptian law.
Al Nour’s platform states “there is a broad popular consensus among all sectors of Egyptian [society] regarding establishing Islam as the state religion, Arabic as the official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia as the primary source of legislation.” “We believe that Islam is the decisive [authority] in all domains of life, including politics,” Burhami said. He argues that Islam is “both religion and state,” and cannot be separated from politics. He believes secularism amounts to atheism.
There are at least five consequences of an Islamist Egypt.
First, the Islamists will adopt a Sharia-based constitution that radically transforms the country’s security and trade arrangements, as well as the way it treats minorities such as Coptic Christians (who are already leaving the country), as well as women. Keep in mind regional trade depends on Egypt’s Suez Canal, and vacating the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords with Israel, which the Salifists reject, could return the region to a war footing.
Second, an Islamist Egypt would realign partnerships. Cairo would grow closer to the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon, Islamist Libya, and radical Iran, while becoming hostile to most of the West.
Third, an Islamist-controlled Egypt would eventually purge its American-trained and -equipped military, much like the transition that is now happening with Islamist Turkey. Egyptian guns could soon be pointing at Americans.
Finally, Salafi terrorist groups would find safe harbor in Egypt, the ideological home of al-Qaeda. That would radicalize the region and could turn Egypt into another terrorist haven like Pakistan.
The wild card in this political tsunami is the SCAF, which has goals starkly different from the Islamists, such as maintaining secular rule. Will it allow the Islamists to radically transform Egypt?
Recently the Obama administration called on the SCAF to transfer power to a civilian government “as soon as possible.” That may happen, but as the consequences of an Islamist Egypt play, out everyone should remember a similar transition 32 years ago in Iran. It appears Obama never learned the lessons of his predecessor President Jimmy Carter, who badly fumbled the Iran crisis. It now appears Obama is doing the same with Egypt.