Fox News team release

LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September 1/06

Opinions & Studies
After Lebanon, saving Palestine. By Ahmed Al-Jarallah -Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times 01.08.06
Is the West Racist Toward Muslims and Arabs?By: Michael Rubin 01/08/06
Axis of Appeasement - The Inconveniet Truth -David J. Jonsson - Global Politician 8/29/2006
Iran’s Lebanon Card-George Perkovich - Global Politician 8/28/2006
Jihadist games in Gaza-By Walid PharesWashington Times - Washington,DC,USA-
We Ought to Be Ashamed-Dar Al-Hayat - Beirut,Lebanon
Hezbollah and Accountability Hassan Haydar-Alhayat
Did Nasrallah Really Apologize?By: Daoud Shirian-AlHayat

Latest New fromThe Daily Star for August 31/2006
Berri Calls for MPs Sit-in as of Saturday Until Israel's Blockade Lifted
Annan Arrives in Syria, Denounces Israel Use of Cluster Bombs After Talks with Jordan's King Abdullah
Donors promise $940 million to Beirut
Stockholm conference was just the first step of many
Berri stresses Shiites' committment to Lebanon as their sole country under Taif Accord
MPs discuss case of general who had tea with Israelis
Majority condemns Aoun for demanding that Siniora quit
Jewish state 'will negotiate' for return of soldiers
A new struggle looms over Hizbullah's arsenal
MPs bicker over convening of extraordinary session
Pre-war Beirut wins high honor from travel magazine
$940 million aid pledge puts Siniora back on top
Lebanon's university students get crash course in humanitarian work
Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 1/2006
Donors meet in Sweden to raise funds for Lebanon-Reuters
Siniora: Donor Funds Will Not Reach Hizbullah-Arutz Sheva
Lebanon 'desperate for new funds'-BBC News
Israel, Lebanon differ on peace-News24
Defiant Iran set to spurn UN deadline on uranium-CNN International
UN slams Israel cluster bombs-News24
Saniora says prisoner swap with Israel being considered Jerusalem Post
Canadian MP Mourani backs off war-crimes accusation against Israel-The Gazette
In Lebanon, France converging to pre-mandate policy-Online Journal
Aoun: Saniora Will 'Pay the Price of his Stubbornness-Naharnet
Israel begins handover of border zone-AP
Israel to withdraw from south Lebanon after deployment of 5,000 UN-Xinhua
Hizbollah's compensations from abroad-Lebanon cbank-Reuters
Germany Expected to Send Troops to Lebanon-Washington Post
Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah-Los Angeles Times
Venezuelan Seeks Another Anti-US Ally in Syria-New York Times
Lebanon Split Over Hezbollah's Disarmament-Angus Reid Global Scan
In the Lebanese War, Hezbollah Might Have Won, But Iran Has Lost.-Iran Press Service
Hezbollah terrorist group: MPs-Victoria News
Hezbollah: Only swap will do-News24 - South Africa
Lebanon border attracts the curious-BBC News
DC Lobbyist Is Key in Stopping Hezbollah Broadcasts-New York Sun
Hezbollah advertises 'divine victory'-Washington Times
Annan Visits Syria to Boost Israel, Hezbollah Truce-Bloomberg
Israel dismisses Golan negotiations as 'unrea listic'-Jerusalem Post
Syria, Venezuela against 'imperialism'-Houston Chronicle
Italy tells Syria not to send arms to Lebanon-People's Daily Online
UN: Israeli Troops Leaving Posts In South Lebanon-All Headline News
Hundreds of Druse clergymen arrive in Syria on pilgrimage-Raw Story
With a victory like this, who needs defeat?Al-Bawaba - Amman,Jordan
Protests against Khatami US visa-BBC News

Hezbollah Envoy: Israeli Aggressions Soon Responded by Hezbollah
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Representative of Hezbollah in Tehran said that the leader of the Shiite group, Seyed Hassan Nasrallah protests to the Israelis' aggressions and breach of ceasefire on a daily basis, and further warned that Hezbollah's patience has limits. "Hezbollah troops will soon respond to the Israeli aggressions," he stressed. Speaking to FNA in the central city of Semnan on Tuesday, Seyed Hossein Safioddin criticized heads of some Arab states for their ignorance in the last 50 years, and added, "But, victory of (the Lebanese) resistance will yield its gradual effects and cause vigilance of the world of Islam." He said Hezbollah's victory is followed by many impacts and effects, which are still to be manifested in the near future.
Safioddin strongly rejected allegations by the Israeli and some western states concerning import of weapons and armaments from Iran during Hezbollah's 33 days of resistance against the Zionist regime, and reminded that Israelis allege that they had fenced or quarantined all bridges, paths and roads, coasts, sea waters and air space of Lebanon, asking, "then how has it been possible for Hezbollah to break through such military barriers and tight control and import arms from Iran?" "Despite Israelis' allegations about the destruction of 50 to 70 percent of the military weapons and equipment of the Islamic resistance movement, Hezbollah still owns many unfired missiles and rockets," he continued. The envoy reminded that the Shiite movement still holds many unused Russian and Chinese-made rockets, saying that arms market is not limited to any specific region or country. "Hezbollah can purchase advanced and hi-tech weapons from many regional manufacturing countries," he continued.

PRISONER EXCHANGE
Hezbollah refuses unconditional release of Israeli soldiers
08/30/2006
Hezbollah captured the two Israeli soldiers on July 12 and the incident triggered the recent conflict between both countries.
Israeli soldiers
Related news Annan requests Israel to lift blockade on Lebanon Annan demands Israel and Hezbollah live up to resolution
A Hezbollah Cabinet minister said on Wednesday that the militant group would not release two captured Israeli soldiers unconditionally, and that they would only be freed in a prisoner exchange."There will be no unconditional release. This is not possible," Lebanese Minister of Energy and Hydraulic Resources Mohammed Fneish told reporters in Beirut. He is one of two Hezbollah members in Lebanon's Cabinet. "There should be an exchange through indirect negotiations. This is the principle to which Hezbollah and the resistance are adhering," he said. Hezbollah captured the two Israeli soldiers on July 12 and the incident triggered the recent 34-day conflict between the militant organisation and Israel in Lebanon. Veteran civil rights leader the Reverend Jesse Jackson, speaking in Beirut, said he was told that the three soldiers, including one captured by Hamas-allied militants from Gaza, were alive during his meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Khaled Mashaal, political leader of Hamas, in Damascus.Jackson met on Wednesday with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora at his office in Beirut. "I think the real concern is about Israeli prisoners and Lebanese prisoners, and Syrian prisoners," Jackson said after the meeting. "I'm convinced that Hamas and Hezbollah are interested in working out some plan of exchange. I hope that will happen soon.

Israel destroyed 1489 buildings in south Lebanon Brussels,
Aug 31, IRNA -EU-Lebanon-Damages
Israel destroyed or damaged in south Lebanon 1489 buildings, 21 of 29 bridges over the Litani river, 535 sections of road and 545 cultivated fields during its 34-day military offensive, according to an EU assessment released Thursday. In Beirut, 326 residential buildings have either been damaged or destroyed in the southern suburbs, of which 269 are located in the Haret Horaik area. All runways of Beirut airport and six strategic highway sections have been severely damaged. The European Commission, through its in-house scientific expertise and working with the EU Satellite Centre, provided a preliminary damage assessment and had called for another assessment for south Lebanon to assist a donors' conference on Lebanon being held today Stockholm.

MP Mourani backs off war-crimes accusation against Israel
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=4649b0ac-620b-4f48-9368-35de94f3eaa3
KEVIN DOUGHERTY, The Gazette
Published: Thursday, August 31, 2006
Maria Mourani, the Bloc Quebecois MP for Ahuntsic, issued a statement yesterday clarifying her allegations that Israel committed war crimes during its summer war in Lebanon, saying it is up to the United Nations to verify such accusations. "It is up to duly mandated international organizations to define what constitutes a war crime," she said, adding that she fully supports her party's position that both Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel and the Israeli bombing "were reprehensible." The Bloc MP was reacting to a front-page story in Le Devoir quoting her as blaming "the Israelis" for the widespread destruction of Lebanon in their war against Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Shiite organization branded by Canada and other Western countries as terrorist.
Amnesty International and Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have also suggested Israel committed war crimes by destroying civil infrastructure. Mourani noted, as well, the use of cluster bombs by the Israeli air force. Yesterday Jan Egeland, who heads the UN's humanitarian agency, called its use of such bombs "completely immoral." UN clearance experts have found 100,000 unexploded cluster bombs in Lebanon.
Others have condemned Hezbollah's use of steel ball bearings, aimed to inflict bodily injuries, in the warheads of rockets fired into civilian areas of Israel.
Mourani, 37, is of Lebanese origin but was born in the West African country of Ivory Coast. She was one of three opposition MPs who visited Lebanon as guests of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations. The three went to Qana, where eight members of Montreal's Al-Akhrass family, visiting Lebanon, were killed by an Israeli bomb. Mourani said Israel says the Al-Akhrass home sheltered trucks carrying Hezbollah weapons. She said she searched the ruins but found no trace of such trucks. Mourani told Le Devoir Israel had deliberately targeted water works, electricity-generating plants and food supplies. "These are also war crimes, according to international law," she said. The MPs met a mixed reception; some Lebanese welcomed them, while others gave them a thumbs-down sign. Mourani said Canada's reputation was hurt by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's initial comment that Israel's attack, after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, was "measured

Did Nasrallah Really Apologize?
Daoud Shirian Al-Hayat - 30/08/06//
Some Arab commentators hailed the courage of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah who said: "Hezbollah's leadership did not expect the capturing of the two Israeli soldiers would lead to a war on such scale…. Had I known the operation would lead to this result, I would have never carried it out".
Some perceived the statement as an apology for the destruction, an acknowledgment of a sweeping political defeat, and a clear declaration that this war was a mistake from beginning to end, and that Nasrallah is rebuffing those fond of nonsensical, inconsequential talk, and hence putting a lid on the frenzy of the delusional victorious. But I fail to understand the basis for these interpretations. Nasrallah, as it is clear from the wording of the text, did not apologize, nor did he admit defeat. As a matter of fact, all the published articles that went into great lengths to interpret Nasrallah's statement as such were no more than an extension of the campaign against Hezbollah and its leader since the beginning of the war.
As I see it, talk of how courageous Nasrallah's statement was is deceptive. It is condemnation shrewdly disguised as praise. For if Nasrallah really meant what is being propagated in these writings, he would have explicitly said that he failed by not acting on returning the soldiers and ending the war. In that case, the Lebanese people would also have to ask Nassrallah: why did he not announce his approval to the returning of the soldiers a week into the war to spare the death of thousands of innocents and the destruction of a nation; and why, since the consequences of the war were clear from its onset, did Hezbollah not move along the lines it is purported to have meant in the statement in question?
The answer is that Nasrallah's statement actually came to curb the wrangling among those who claim victory and those who oppose this claim, and particularly geared toward those who went too far in their interpretation of victory.
Not about to disappoint his supporters, or supporters of this 'victory', Nasrallah in this statement, meant to indirectly tell his supporters: it is true we won militarily, were steadfast in the face of the Israeli military might, reached northern Israel with our missiles, and dictated a state of war on the Israeli citizens, who were under the impression that they were safe from the dangers of war, and proved to Israel, and others, that force is not always the solution. But this came at a hefty price, and had we known that the reaction to abducting the soldiers would be to that degree of brutality, we would have changed our position.
This is what Nasrallah meant to tell his supporters. But he did not apologize.
He is telling those who claim victory that it is time to soften the debate with those who do not agree, and by that he actually agrees with those who reject the claim of victory, but he does not admit defeat.
While not denying victory and not admitting defeat, Nasrallah simply states that victory came at a heavy price, and at the expense of many people and many other things. Nevertheless, it still is ultimately a victory. There is no doubt that Nasrallah's words meant to spell insistence with an apologetic tone, for if Nasrallah directly apologized and admitted defeat, Lebanese and regional politics would never be the same, since this would be a rejection of all the pretexts that justified this war, and this is what some are counting on. But they will be disappointed, because Nasrallah still sees himself as a resistance commander not a political leader; this is a key problem in the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people.
Furthermore, Nasrallah is taking into account the sentiments of those obsessed with the delusion of victory, and is aware that admitting defeat after declaring victory is a serious issue that could affect the future of Hezbollah as a political party and Resistance.
During the war, Nasrallah was a model leader whose words did not contradict his deeds and who honored his promises. If what is being said is true, namely: that Nasrallah actually acknowledged defeat and apologized, this would then mean that he actually prevailed over Israel and over his critics in the Arab world. He might have even turned a lot of tables, and rewarded Hezbollah and its local and regional status with rewards beyond those achieved by the war.
While it is certain that the statement did not imply admitting defeat nor apology, it does represent an important shift in Hezbollah's polices. Nasrallah's statement could be seen as Hezbollah's clear and direct renunciation of their concept of war in the future.
What Nasrallah really wanted to say in his statement is: God blesses those who know what their abilities and limitations are, and that we are not interested in an open-ended, unfair conflict. His statement also seems to prepare public opinion for the coming political stage in which the Hezbollah party will uphold politics and diplomacy over beating the drums of war.

With a victory like this, who needs defeat?
Posted: 31-08-2006 ,
"With a victory like this, who needs defeat?" concluded an article by Lebanese publicist Husam Itani in Al Saffir, a pro-Syrian Lebanese daily that can hardly be dubbed "anti-Hizbullah."If a publication such as Al Saffir can publish such a scathing critique of Hizbullah's victory rhetoric, it is clear that once the clouds of smoke and dust settle from the recent war in Lebanon, the burning flames of public criticism of Hizbullah and its leader Nasrallah will be exposed.
"As the number of deaths rises while new problems continue to surface such as water pollution and unexploded ordnance across Lebanon, the level of complexity of reconstruction efforts become clear," Itani goes on. "Especially as senior leaders begin to count their profits from corrupt dealings while there remain those intent on presenting the recent events in Lebanon as peripheral, choosing against dimming the shining glory of victory."
"We would be revealing no secret by saying that at least a portion of the recent declarations and behavior reveal an unmistakable disregard for human life."
Unmistakable as well, is the fact that critics of Syria and Hizbullah, such as Walid Jumblatt, questioned even at the height of the war (Al Mustaqbal, 21 June) "to whom would Hizbullah attribute a victory?" Jumblatt took his critique even further, saying: "Even Adolph Hitler conjured feelings of pride in his nation—and then dragged it into war," A few days ago, the Druze leader also called on Nasrallah to take responsibility for the mistakes he has done, and step down from his post. Such statements leave no room for any doubt: The Lebanese nation has put an end to rhetoric and empty slogans such as "honor" and "victory." The tremendous number of deaths and widespread destruction, along with frustration and fear about the future have now gained a central place in Lebanon's public discourse. As for the public standing of the central figure leading Lebanon into the current cycle of bloodshed, it is clear that irreversible damage has been done; Nasrallah has proven himself to be increasingly concerned with apologies rather than the steadfast leader that he was famous for.
The deterioration of Nasrallah's public image is all the more obvious against a backdrop of successful leadership of other high-profile Lebanese figures. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has proven himself to be a statesman able to lead the country responsibly while forging national unity and pride. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has also proven himself to be a responsible public leader, guiding the nation in times of crisis to rationale and action. No doubt Berri has managed to garner support within Lebanon's Shiite community to the detriment of the Hizbullah chief. Nasrallah, on the other hand, is depicted in Lebanon as one who draws support solely from figures seemingly by now outdated, such as President Emile Lahoud who became an ardent supporter of Lebanon's opposition forces, at the expense of real Lebanese interests. Thus, the Hizbullah leader has found it increasingly difficult to convey a positive side to the unending images of death and destruction in Lebanon. Word in Lebanon has it that Hizbullah is experiencing a crippling morale crisis amidst growing political criticism. No doubt, the majority of public critique names Israel as the ultimate destructive force behind the war; however, beneath such arguments also lies growing criticism of Hizbullah and its leader who vowed to rehabilitate the country, a promise he may not be able to realize in full.
Will Nasrallah succeed in reclaiming his pre-war standing amongst the Lebanese public? Will he survive the waves of criticism in the public and justify the destruction wrought on Lebanon? The majority of voices in Lebanon express doubt that he will, claiming that the once legendary leader has finally reached the end of his prominent political road. The question that now remains is, when exactly will Nasrallah grasp the fact that his failure has been exposed, and how will he handle such a realization when he does.
© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)

Jihadist games in Gaza
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Walid Phares
August 31, 2006
The release in Gaza of Fox News journalist Steve Centanni and camera man Olaf Wiig, kidnapped Aug. 14 by a group calling itself Holy Jihad Brigade, raises a number of salient issues: "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Mr. Centanni told Fox News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."
Such a statement raises a number of points. First, it is not unusual that jihadist groups would force hostages to convert to Islam. But at the same time it hasn't been a systematic behavior. Over the past 25 years, jihadist organizations, cells and captors — including al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Laskar Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya, Salafi Combat group, etc. — have taken hostages. In many cases the jihadists either asked the hostages or forced them to convert. But in other cases they haven't. Statistically, most hostages who have been executed were not asked to convert, while those who were released were either asked if they wished or in some cases were told that it would be better for them to do so. Obviously, hostages — especially if they weren't evangelists — would accept the conversion as a means for securing liberation or at least physical security. But there were cases of priests, evangelists and Christian local leaders who were executed after they refusedto convert.
These cases didn't receive the publicity received by media or secular Western citizens' hostages. However, there were cases where hostages were released without being forced or even asked to convert. The question emanating from these hostage-conversions is twofold:
A) Is it considered legitimate in the eyes of Islamic law? Under international law, any forced conversion under threat is null and void. Under Shariah law a similar verdict could be issued by an Islamic court who would argue that conversion by force is not acceptable. But jihadi interpretation may argue that the conversion is standing with the immediate consequence that reverting back from the new religion is punishable by death. This would play a considerable role in intimidating the ex-hostages and would allow the terrorist group to call for sanctions in the future against the journalists.
B) The group calls itself the Holy Jihad Brigade. As in previous cases, this may not be a new organization but a name given by the kidnappers or those who ordered thekidnapping for this particular operation. There have been many names that appeared after a terrorist operation or hostage-taking and never heard from again in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon and Kenya, to name few cases. A Palestinian security official told the Associated Press that "Palestinian Authorities had known the identity of the kidnappers from the start." The source said "the name was a front for local militants." While indeed the name was created as a front for a local operation, the question is who ordered it? Palestinian Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh said "it is not al Qaeda, and there is no al Qaeda in Gaza." In fact, al Qaeda presence exists in Gaza and it was reported in many previous reports not denied by the Hamas cabinet. However it would be less likelythat al Qaedawas behind the operation because of the modus operandi of the group (such as sending a video to al Jazeera, and as in some cases in Iraq or Pakistan, execution could have ensued. So, who could be behind the kidnapping and the release?).
There are strong possibilities that Hamas could be behind the operation. Why? Hamas has been complaining about U.S. support of Israel, but more importantly about Washington's pressures to shut down all economic support to the U.S.-listed terrorist organization. On many occasions, Hamas spokesmen blamed the United States for the "sanctions" against their government. It is widely known in the Palestinian territories that the financial conditions of Hamas' government are worsening, allowing their opponents in Fatah to criticize them. An unofficial hostage operation against journalists affiliated with a media network perceived as close to the U.S. administration and very critical of Hamas, could have been authorized by the security agencies of Hamas as a way to send a message to Washington.
Mr. Haniyeh may not want to cut it completely with the United States yet, knowing that the Mahmoud Abbas forces can still take advantage of the situation, hence the authorization for a "local" group to perform a jihadi-like abduction and release to send a message westbound.
Another analysis takes the regional situation into account and factors in the Syrian and Iranian regimes that have a strategic alliance with Hamas with Tehran funding the group and Damascus hosting its headquarters. Requests from either one or the other regimes for such an operation in Gaza are not unlikely.Since the Tehran embassy incidents both Iran and Syria demonstrated that they do not implicate themselves in hostage-taking on their own soil. For two decades at least, jihadist groups allied with the two regimes have taken, released and some times executed hostages in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories by proxies. Is that a signal of a developing trend? It could well be. During the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, CNN and other media complained of intimidation and control of the reports by Hezbollah. And as Iran and Syria mobilize for confrontation with the international community over the nuclear crisis, Western and international media should be careful in their planning for coverage in Jihadi-controlled areas.
**Walid Phares is a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

In Lebanon, France converging to pre-mandate policy
By Nicola Nasser
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Aug 31, 2006, 00:58
In a pattern that reminds of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement [1], France seems converging to a role that belongs to its previous colonial era in Lebanon and Syria, in harmony with, but under the regional hegemony of the United States’ involvement in other countries of the Arab Levant, in a stark departure from Charles de Gaulle’s post-Algeria legacy. Gone are the days when Paris was briefly perceived early in 2003 as if it were in the shoes of the former Soviet Union as a balancing world power, trying to halt the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Of course, Paris doesn’t see eye to eye with Washington over Lebanon.
“During the 34-day [Israeli] onslaught [on Lebanon] that ended on August 14, the U.S. government appears to have experienced internal divisions over the extent to which it should encourage and re-supply the Jewish state, but the end-result was a policy of unconditional backing for a campaign that primarily destroyed civilian lives and civilian property. Any suggestion that the current administration is a "friend" to Lebanon is therefore viewed with understandable scepticism.” [2]
Ostensibly in contrast, President Jacque Chirac said on July 27 that France wanted to see an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon, “accepted by all those involved,” followed by a political agreement on the basis of U.N. Resolution 1559, which calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and the disbandment of the Lebanese militias, and then the “deployment of a multinational force” under U.N. auspices.
This French position was essentially endorsed on August 12 by the U.N. Security Council’s Resolution 1701, wherein an integrated and complimentary division of “influence” in the Middle East was envisioned by the French and U.S. powers.
However the tactical French-U.S. differences could not smokescreen a strategic understanding, according to which Paris was satisfied in practice to drop its previous bitter opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and confine its influence to Lebanon within the framework of the U.S.-Israeli strategic hegemonic plans in the region, thus establishing France as a partner thereto, leaving to the “Great Britain,” the pre-WWII leader of western colonialism, the secondary role of “subservient” to the White House, in the words of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. [3]
True France has proved itself true to Charles de Gaulle’s independent policy, but only for Paris to qualify to be incorporated as a partner into the U.S. regional plans.Only this interpretation could explain the joint U.S.-French sponsorship of both U.N. Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701.
It was noteworthy that the recent U.S. urgent calls on France to commit more troops to Lebanon coincided with President George W. Bush’s authorization to recall reservists to Iraq. How could this be interpreted other than being a division of labour !
Regionally the French-U.S. strategic understanding also boils down to practically playing in the hands of Israel to neutralize all Lebanese as well as regional factors that could make the Israeli occupation of Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian lands shorter both in time and space.
A Lebanese-Syrian coordination on the highest level, the presence of a well-organized grassroots Lebanese defence militia blessed internally with the support of the Lebanese government and regionally by neighbouring countries, and a Lebanese national consensus on identifying who’s the enemy and who’s the friend are some of the major factors to secure a credible defence for the fragile Lebanon.
All these and other related factors are targeted by France as well as by Israel and the U.S., without securing an alternative other than fitting Lebanon into the U.S.-Israeli regional plans, which give priority to “their new and greater” Middle East and not to ending the Israeli and American occupations in the Arab Levant. French preoccupation with Lebanon is self-justified by a historical commitment to preserve Lebanon’s sovereignty.
But neutral observers could not detect a similar French preoccupation when Lebanon’s sovereignty is violated by the Israeli occupation and successive invasions since 1978 and could easily compare the French passive and very calm policy vis-à-vis Israel’s occupation with the French tense, impatient and urgent responses to any Syrian hints of normal, and legitimate geopolitical influence in the country.
Where was France when the Syrians flocked politically and militarily into Lebanon to preserve its sovereignty that was threatened by both Israeli invasions and Israeli-incited and fomented civil war? Or how could this French preoccupation be interpreted in comparison with France’s indifference vis-à-vis Israel’s 39-year old occupation of Syrian Golan Heights, or with the absence of any sense of urgency vis-à-vis the Israeli 1967 occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip? France seems to join the U.S. and Israeli “raise-a-hell” policies in defence of the “independent” decision-making in individual Arab League countries when this decision-making is constrained by influences of other member states, but hail the “independence” of any such country when its decisions are either only influenced or overtly or covertly dictated to it by the U.S.-Israeli decision makers !
Replacing the French preoccupation with “removing” Syria from Lebanon by engaging the Syrian geopolitical interests and national security concerns, and replacing the French insistence on "disarming of militias" by removing forever any further Israeli violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty, are only two factors that would render credible President Jacque Chirac’s call on Monday for a rapid meeting of the "Quartet" of Middle East peace brokers -- the U.S., the U.N., the E.U. and Russia -- to look at ways of resuming peace talks.
Chirac’s warning that: “To resign oneself to the status quo is to risk being trapped in a cycle of violence which will get out of control” in the Middle East sounded contradictory to France’s political orientation under his leadership. [4]
Glimpse of History
Internally in Lebanon, the French current “Syria-hands-off-Lebanon” policy is in harmony with France’s as well as Britain’s historical colonial roles.
A confidential appendix to the King-Crane Commission Report (August 28, 1919) revealed that the British [and] French “tendency would be for Christian Syrians to concentrate in the Lebanon, Jews in Palestine, and Moslem Syrians in the remainder” of Greater Syria or “Greater Lebanon.” [5]
Paris has ever since sponsored a French-oriented Christian ruling elite whose survival depends on French as well as on other foreign presence in the country and has retained close links with the country, and many Lebanese speak French, live in France, or have French nationality.
Accordingly, it was only a normal reaction by Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, patriarch of the Maronite Church in Lebanon, to say, “If Hezbollah should one day take power in Lebanon, the Christians will leave the country in droves.” [6]
wide-ranging spectrum of the Lebanese Christians disagree with His Highness, including among many others the emerging influential General Michel Aoun -- possibly Lebanon's next president -- who has forged an alliance with Hezbollah on a national, not sectarian, platform.
But a wide-ranging spectrum of pro-U.S. and former Israeli-linked Lebanese politicians agree with the patriarch.
What draws attention here is the fact that the second spectrum of politicians is essentially representative of the political and social forces that gained or increased their wealth and power under the French mandate and ruled Lebanon after its independence in 1943. Thereafter these same forces allied themselves with western powers to avert the emergence of new political and social forces inspired by Pan-Arabism and Islamic movements, thus sowing the seeds of civil war and foreign interference with all the ensuing tragic events.
In a 1920 conference, the Arab Lebanese Shiites rejected a French offer to have their independent political entity in the south and have ever since struggled democratically to occupy their place in the national political landscape in spite of the practical Maronite monopoly of power and the practically, but not constitutionally, sectarian political system. They did not even think of “leaving the country in droves.”
Foreign interference was the major factor that historically threatened the Christian presence in the Arab Muslim countries by focusing on the sectarian differences that threaten the historical social coexistence cemented by the ethnic Arab identity of both Muslims and Christians as well as by the tolerance of Islam, which enshrines a pluralistic religion that views Judaism and Christianity as an integral part of its monotheistic dogma.

D.C. Lobbyist Is Key in Stopping Hezbollah Broadcasts
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 31, 2006
When prosecutors last week announced the arrest of a Staten Island man for broadcasting Hezbollah propaganda, court papers gave some of the credit for the investigative work to Mark Dubowitz.
Mr. Dubowitz, 37, is not an agent at the FBI or even an employee of the federal government — he works at a small Washington policy group.
His group, Coalition Against Terrorist Media, for the past two years has lobbied against al-Manar, working to convince broadcasting companies from Hong Kong to Paris to remove the Hezbollah-sponsored station from their satellite programming. Mr. Dubowitz says the group, which has a staff of six, so far has briefed 800 government officials and private sector executives who either worked for satellite broadcasting companies or had advertising accounts with al-Manar. A former venture capitalist with a law degree, Mr. Dubowitz knew very little about al-Manar until 2004. while working at a policy group, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. When a researcher of al-Manar, Avi Jorisch, informed the foundation about the links between al-Manar and Hezbollah, the Coalition Against Terrorist Media was born. Al-Manar, which is frequently quoted in American news accounts of the recent war in Lebanon, has between 10 million and 15 million viewers worldwide daily, Mr. Dubowitz said.
Despite al-Manar's large audience, the Coalition Against Terrorist Media claims several successes against the station in recent years. The group's goal — to take al-Manar off the air — has found a friendly reception on Capitol Hill, Mr. Dubowitz said in an interview
Before the group began making it's push, al-Manar operated with relative freedom in America, with a Washington, D.C., bureau providing news spots for the network. Viewers across America could purchase access to the network, whose programs often glorified suicide bombing and conducted fundraising on Hezbollah's behalf, Mr. Dubowitz said. "They wouldn't call you up and ask if you were looking for HBO and ESPN and so how about we add al-Manar," Mr. Dubowitz said." But if you were looking for what they call an ‘Arab bouquet' — an Arab package of programs — this would be one of the stations available."
Then, in 2004, two satellite providers, one in France and one in Barbados, abruptly dropped al-Manar's service to America, following the State Department's placement of al-Manar on the Terrorist Exclusion List, Mr. Dubowitz said.
With that, Mr. Dubowitz said he believed al-Manar had been banished from American households via satellite.
In court papers filed last week, prosecutors allege that a Pakistani businessman in New York, Javed Iqbal, was still promising customers access to the programming. Mr. Iqbal allegedly boasted that 80% of his Lebanese clients had subscribed, according to court papers.
The government's investigation began in February, according to the court papers. In December 2005, Mr. Dubowitz said he heard reports that al-Manar was still accessible to American viewers. From a tip, he said discovered that the satellite provider broadcasting al-Manar locally was a Brazilian company, Hispamar. Mr. Dubowitz called Hispamar's parent company, located in Spain, and was informed that the al-Manar broadcasts originated from a Brooklyn business called HDTV Corporation that had rented capacity on the company's satellite, he said.
It was a tangled set of transactions, according to Mr. Dubowitz. He characterizes it as: "A Spanish company that owns a Brazilian company has a business relationship with a company in Brooklyn that has a broadcasting relationship with al-Manar in Lebanon."
With that, Mr. Dubowitz was on Iqbal's case, the owner of HDTV Corporation. Prosecutors have corroborated only a part of Mr. Dubowitz's account. Papers they released last week say Mr. Dubowitz contacted the Department of Treasury, Justice Department investigators, and, through an intermediary, had been in contact with Mr. Iqbal. Mr. Iqbal's lawyer, Mustapha Ndanusa, did not return repeated calls for comment. Mr. Iqbal was released Monday on a $250,000 bond after his arrest last week. Some First Amendment experts responded with skepticism to the charges against Mr. Iqbal, saying that a person should not be prosecuted for importing information. The satellite Mr. Iqbal allegedly used, called Amazonas, has the capacity to reach across America, although Mr. Dubowitz said. When contacted yesterday, a salesman at Hispamar in Brazil, Ruben Levcovitz, said that due to the "sensitive issues" of the case, the parent company, Hispasat in Spain, would issue a statement today. Still, the nature of Mr. Iqbal's relationship with al-Manar executives —if there was one at all — remains unknown.Mr. Iqbal's lawyers last week denied that Mr. Iqbal had any connection to al-Manar.

Angus Reid Global Scan : Polls & Research
Lebanon Split Over Hezbollah's Disarmament
August 31, 2006
- Lebanese adults are divided on the future of Hezbollah, according to a poll by Ipsos. 51 per cent of respondents believe the military and political organization should disarm, while 49 per cent disagree. A majority of Sunni, Druze and Christian respondents would like Hezbollah to lay down its arms, while 84 per cent of Shiite respondents oppose the idea. Hezbollah—or Party of God—was founded in 1982. The military and political organization was originally assembled to fight Israel in the southern area of Lebanon. Hezbollah has been implicated in several terrorist attacks, including the 1983 truck bombing that killed 241 American soldiers in Beirut. On Jul. 12, Hezbollah militants based in Lebanon killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two more in a cross-border attack. The Israeli armed forces launched air strikes inside Lebanese territory to fight Hezbollah, targeting the country’s infrastructure and its airport. Hezbollah retaliated by firing rockets into several Israeli towns. A ceasefire brokered by the United Nations (UN) came into effect on Aug. 14. Security Council Resolution 1701 calls for "a full cessation of hostilities" from both sides and allows Lebanese government troops and a 15,000-member peacekeeping force to enter into southern Lebanon during the withdrawal of Israeli forces, but sets no timetable for the disarmament of Hezbollah or the return of the two abducted Israeli soldiers. Last week, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah discussed the current state of affairs, declaring, "Hezbollah’s leadership did not expect the capturing of the two Israeli soldiers would lead to a war on such scale. Had I known the operation would lead to this result, I would have never carried it out."
Polling Data
Do you support or oppose the disarmament of Hezbollah?
All
Sunni
Shiite
Druze
Christian
Support
51%
54%
16%
79%
77%
Oppose
49%
46%
84%
21%
23%
Source: Ipsos
Methodology: Interviews with 600 Lebanese citizens—Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, and Christians—conducted from Aug. 11 to Aug. 17, 2006. No margin of error was provided.

Hundreds of Druse clergymen arrive in Syria on pilgrimage
Deutsche Presse Agentur
Published: Thursday August 31, 2006
Damascus- Around 595 Druse clergymen from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights crossed into Syria Thursday for an annual pilgrimage to the holy Habil shrine at Zabadanto, a Red Cross official in Damascus said. The clerics crossed the Israeli-Syrian border at the Quneitra checkpoint, around 65 kilometres south of Damascus, in two groups and walked for about 300 metres while elderly men were transported by by UN buses, which was broadcast live on local television.
Crowds of Syrians awaited them as they made their way to an official reception.
"The main objective of my visit is to see my homeland and relatives," said Sheik Hamed al-Halabi, 57, from the village of Mas'ada in the Golan Heights, and condemned Israel's ban on Druse women visiting Syria, "as cheap blackmail."
Israel had done everything to obstruct their visit. "This is a clear message, but we all reject their attempts."
Since 1988, Israeli authorities have allowed Druse to perform the pilgrimage in Zabadani, 45 kilometres west of Damascus, the official said. But in the past two years, Israel has reduced the their stay in Syria from 15 to to four days.
Habil is the Arab name for Abel, Cain's brother. The two sons of Adam and Eve are mentioned, though not by these names, in the Quran, Islam's holy book.
Sheikh Tawfuq Gakavu, 70, from Majdel Shams, the largest village in the Golan Heights, told reporters that he was "overjoyed to be in Syria".
Around 125 clergymen had been banned from travelling to Syria "without any clear reason", adding, "It's up to the Israelis to decide who should go and who shouldn't. They consider us people of second degree."
A Red Cross official, who requested anonymity, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa by telephone that the delegation had not encountered problems when crossing the border.
Around 17,000 Arabs who follow the Druse sect, an offshoot of Islam, live on the Israeli-occupied side of the Golan Heights along with 15,000 Israeli settlers.
Nearly all the Arabs have rejected Israeli citizenship and retain strong feelings towards Syria, which provides them with free tuition, university campus housing and allowances.
Israel seized the strategic Golan Heights in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed the territory in 1981.
Syrian-Israeli peace talks collapsed in 2000, when then-Syrian president Hafez Assad rejected an offer of an Israeli withdrawal from virtually all of the Golan, with minor border adjustments near Israel's Sea of Galilee at the foot of the plateau.
Syrians insist that Israel withdraw to the frontier that ran between the two countries on the eve of the 1967 Mideast war.
© 2006 DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agenteur

In the Lebanese War, Hezbollah Might Have Won, But Iran Has Lost.
By Safa Haeri
Posted Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Paris, 30 Aug. (IPS) With one day before the United Nations Security Council meeting on Iran’s nuclear issue, and as the Lebanese Army has started confiscating arms destined to the Iran-backed Hezbollah organization, the clerical led leadership in Tehran is wondering if the devastating 31 day war that opposed Israel to the Hezbollah left them as the biggest loser?
For official Iran, there is no doubt that Hezbollah won that conflict, its leader, Sheykh Hasan Narallah became a “hero” for the majority of the Lebanese as well as the Arab and the Muslim world and both Israel and the United States lost and humiliated.
Thank to the Almighty and the will of the heroic sons of the Muslims, a new Middle East is shaping, an Islamic Middle East.
“Thank to the Almighty and the will of the heroic sons of the Muslims, a new Middle East is shaping, not on the Great Middle East the United States wanted to create, but a New Islamic Middle East”, assured Mr. Qolamali Haddad Adel, the Speaker of the Iranian Majles, or Parliament on 16 August 2006.
“Despite the official propaganda that projects Hezbollah as the absolute winner of the hostilities with Israel, many in the leadership are wondering whether there was any winner or loser and although they accept that their Syrian ally might have scored some comeback into the Middle Eat theatre, but one country has definitely lost and this is Iran”, a senior Iranian diplomat commented for Iran Press Service on condition of note being identified.
“A recent analysis of the Resolution 1701 at both the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the Supreme Council on National Security reached the conclusion that the document deprives the Islamic Republic of its most important card in the region”, the source revealed.
As for Syria, a very strong worded article in the Egyptian pro-Government newspaper “AL Gomhouriyah” told the Syrian president Bashar el Asad “not to celebrate other’s victory” and warned him to “expect increasing international political and economic pressures”.
“Maybe Iranian and Syrian leaders think that the so-called victory of the Hezbollah has strengthened their mutual positions, but once the Lebanese and international forces deployed in the areas dominated by the Hezbollah, the time for the United States, Israel and the West for revenge would come”, said a European diplomat, adding that Syria “already” suffered its first setback after German Foreign Affairs Minister Frank Walter Steinmeir canceling his planned visit to Damascus.
In fact, if the UN Security Council’s resolution 1701 is applied, and all signs points to the fact that it is being implemented, thousands of Lebanese army backed by thousands of international soldiers would be deployed all over the southern parts of the country, better known as the “Hezbollahland”, ending the 20 years-old rule of the Organisation in the region.
“Hezbollah was not a state within a State, nut a state within a non-State”, said Amal Saad Ghorayeb, a professor at the American University of Beirut.
According to informed sources, Iran has spent more tan four billion US Dollars in arms, equipments and training to make Hezbollah a strong “deterrent force” against Israel, in case the Jewish State attacks Iranian nuclear facilities.
According to Israeli soldiers who took part in the Israel-Hezbollah war, Hezbollah men were “very professional, well trained and well equipped with modern arms”.
But in the hostilities that started on 12 July following the surprise attack of the Hezbollah on an Israeli column, killing eight soldiers and kidnapping two, an important part of the Hezbollah-Iran’s arsenal, including most of the medium-range Zelzal missiles that can reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were destroyed by Israeli bombardment, not accounting the thousands of rockets and short-range missiles fired over Israeli towns and villages during the 31 days the war lasted.
The terrible Israeli attack on Lebanon must be seen as an exercise and rehearsal for the possible American attack on Iran.
“The terrible Israeli attack on Lebanon must be seen as an exercise and rehearsal for the possible American attack on Iran; the destructions inflicted on Lebanon must be seen on the dimensions of Iran; human costs must be multiplied by tens, considering the Iranian population … and its impact on the growth of fundamentalism evaluated at the dimensions of the region”, observed Mr. Hoseyn Baqerzadeh, an Iranian human rights and political activist based in England.
Meanwhile, the Europeans have decided to keep open the doors of dialogue with Iran concerning its controversial nuclear activities, confronting the United States, which wants the UN Security Council imposing sanctions on Tehran.
While Mr. Xavier Solana, the European Union's Minister for Foreign and Security Affairs has suggested a meeting with Mr. Ali Larijani, the top Iranian nuclear negotiator. "We never stopped talking to the Iranians. Now it is time that we engage them on their last letter", Mr. Solana said, referring to the response Iran provided on 22 August to the latest "package" offered by the 5+1 (the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany).
His suggestion was endorsed by France, proposing to meet the Iranians in the coming days, in the sidelines of the next meeting of the EU's Foreign Affairs minister in Helsinki. ENDS IRAN HEZBOLLAH 30806

Hezbollah terrorist group: MPs
By Mark Browne
Esquimalt News
Aug 30 2006
Two local MPs want to make it clear their parties aren't taking a soft stance on Hezbollah.
"They're a terrorist organization. We certainly condemn their attacks against Israel," said Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and the party's foreign affairs critic.
Martin's comments followed a statement from Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj that Hezbollah should be removed from Canada's designated list of terrorist organizations. He made the comment after returning from a fact-finding mission in Lebanon with a bipartisan committee that included NDP MP Peggy Nash and Bloc Quebecois MP Maria Mourant.
Wrzesnewskyj's statement created a controversy in the Liberal caucus, which asked him to retract his comments. Last week, he quit as the party's deputy foreign affairs critic.
"Borys recognized that he voiced comments that did not recognize the party's position at all. He resigned in order to avoid any confusion because he recognized that his comments proved to be deeply divisive within the party," Martin said. "He did the honourable thing by stepping down."
It wasn't necessary, Martin said, for Wrzesnewskyj to step down from his post as retracting the comments was sufficient.
Only if Hezbollah renounces its position that Israel should be destroyed and stops attacking the country, should the organization be included in negotiations for resolving the conflict in Lebanon, Martin said.
The NDP didn't object to the then-Liberal government adding Hezbollah to Canada's list of designated terrorist organizations in 2002, Victoria NDP MP Denise Savoie stressed.
"The NDP has never requested that the government remove them," she said.
While some media reports indicated that Nash suggested that Hezbollah be removed from Canada's terrorist list, that isn't the case, Savoie said.
"I think some media outlets mistakenly reported that Peggy Nash called for Hezbollah to be removed. But what she did call for was for Canada to support a way for all parties to be part of a solution in the conflict in Lebanon," she said. "She didn't advocate for an amendment for the terror list."
During the initial stages of the conflict in Lebanon earlier this summer, Savoie joined her NDP colleagues by calling for Canada to take a stronger leadership role in the Middle East while urging for a ceasefire in Lebanon.
On the issue of Israel's right to self defence, Savoie said she personally supports any country's right to defend itself. At the same time, she said she's reminded of Mohandas Ghandi comments that "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."
"So I think that I like to balance those two views and this is an incredibly complex situation. It's complicated by geopolitical problems so there's no easy solution," Savoie said. "But I still think Canada should strive to support sustainable peace in that region and do what we can."
The Liberals support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, Martin said.
"But we do not support the killing of civilians, obviously. We made our position very clear to Israel that by all means go after Hezbollah but do not take actions that result in the deaths of civilians."
The same position applies to Hezbollah and Iran and Syria, which both support the organization.
"They must pull back Hezbollah because Hezbollah is attacking civilians in Israel," Martin said, adding that at the end of the day, none of the conflicts in the Middle East will be resolved through warfare.
"They're only going to be resolved through negotiation, diplomacy and development," he said. "When the different groups in the region understand that and begin to act accordingly, then peace will occur."
However, Martin admits that it's not easy to be optimistic about establishing peace in the region.
"But one has to keep trying because it is, not only important for the region, but important for the rest of the world."
mbrowne@vicnews.com

Hezbollah: Only swap will do
30/08/2006 23:20 - (SA)
Beirut - Hezbollah will only release two captured Israeli soldiers as part of a prisoner exchange with Israel, a Hezbollah government minister said on Wednesday. "There is no unconditional release. It is not feasible," Lebanese energy minister Mohammed Fneish told a news conference.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who held separate talks with Fneish in Beirut on Monday, had called for the two Israelis to be handed over to the Lebanese government or a third party, under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The capture of the two soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12 sparked a five-week Israeli military campaign in Lebanon that was halted by a UN truce on Aug. 14. The UN resolution that ordered the truce calls for the release of the soldiers and for finding a solution to the issue of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. "Since the resistance captured the two Israeli soldiers, (Hezbollah's) position was clear," Fneish said. "The goal of this operation was to conduct indirect negotiations and a swap. "This was the position before the (Israeli) aggression and it's only natural to reinforce it after the aggression."

Hezbollah advertises 'divine victory'
By David Enders
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 31, 2006
BEIRUT -- With the guns put away for now, jockeying for political position in Lebanon has begun, and Hezbollah has mounted a massive advertising campaign. Along roads in and out of the capital, there are red signs with slogans such as "the divine victory" and images ranging from angry Lebanese standing on the rubble of their homes to children wounded by Israeli bombs to Hezbollah guerrillas standing next to Katyusha rocket launchers.
"What we are trying to do is to make sure that everyone knows that Hezbollah beat Israel and to make sure that Lebanon is rebuilt as soon as possible," said Ghassan Darwish, the head of Hezbollah's information department, in Haret Hreik, a southern Beirut suburb that was home to many Hezbollah offices and was heavily bombed. Nearby, women picked through the rubble of their homes before the concrete and twisted metal was carted away.
The government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora also has begun to advertise, but without the money on hand or the discipline of Hezbollah.
Among observant Muslims in the Sunni stronghold of Tripoli, support for Shi'ite Hezbollah appeared to cross sectarian lines.
"There is only one atmosphere in the entire country," said an imam at one of the oldest mosques in Tripoli. "No one will ever say that they are against [Hezbollah leader] Hassan Nasrallah."
Before the fighting with Israel began, Lebanese parties had been debating the issue of Hezbollah's disarmament.
"Those that were opposed to Hezbollah before July 12 are still opposed to Hezbollah, but definitely they are more scared," said Hanady Salman, an editor at As-Safir, arguably Lebanon's most left-leaning daily. He was referring to Hezbollah's seizure of two Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil, which started the war.
"Hezbollah is portrayed -- outside Lebanon and inside Lebanon sometimes -- as a group of people who came from outer space and want to impose their will on the Lebanese people. But Hezbollah is Lebanese, those were Lebanese people fighting in the south."
"The difference now is that Hezbollah is now viewed outside Lebanon as a Arab nationalist movement," Mr. Salman said. "But it still needs to prove its legitimacy as a Lebanese party." The belief that the U.S. supported Israel during the war also helped to boost Hezbollah's standing.
We're not in a popularity contest -- we have much longer objectives," said a U.S. diplomatic source in Beirut. "There were very significant benefits for the pro-reform, pro-democratic movement." But analysts and members of the largely secular and pro-economic reform parliamentary bloc, with whom the United States and the West are most familiar, fear that public support for this group has declined with the surge in Hezbollah's popularity.
"The underlying issue is the rebuilding of the state, including the need to have only one armed force with only authority over weapons and that kind of thing, so to have that kind of assistance happen outside the state, that only helps perpetuate the weakness of the state," said Mohammed Shatah, an adviser to Mr. Siniora. "Frankly, we have mixed feelings." The reform bloc, led by Mr. Siniora, took control of parliament after Lebanon's Cedar Revolution last year.
Asking a group of Lebanese about what Hezbollah's long-term goals are prompts a varied response -- from the goal of legitimate resistance to the takeover of the Lebanese government on behalf of Iran. "For lots of people, Arab nationalism and secular movements and leftist movements failed in providing what they promised to provide," Mr. Salman said. "This huge support is not due to an Islamist turn, but for once, someone was able to teach [Israel] a lesson. I wouldn't say they were victorious, but they kicked them out."

Israel changes its role in Mideast script
By AMOTZ ASA-EL
GUEST COLUMNIST
Having just endured 4,000 rockets that smashed 6,000 of their homes, displaced 300,000 of their countrymen and sent another million of them into bomb shelters, Israelis are amused by the attempt to portray this frontal and unprovoked attack on innocent civilians and what came in its wake as all kinds of things except what it really was: an Islamist assault on freedom. Yes, not all of those involved in the effort to confuse villains and victims do so deliberately, as part of the Islamism, Arabism, anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism that drives the rest of them. And yes, the spotlighting of a counterattack's damage is often driven by the ignoramus' impressionability rather than by premeditated emotional blackmail. Still, a European-led effort to change the subject in the debate over Lebanon's future is well under way and Westerners who care for their own future had better resist it.
What is immediately at stake in Lebanon is not the Islamist Revolution's desire to expunge Israel, which its leaders are leaving for later, but their designs on Lebanon, the Arab world's most Westernized enclave, which they judge as ripe for the picking. The Khomeini Revolution has had many accomplishments since deposing the shah in 1979, but in terms of geopolitical conquests it has been a failure. Though it won over many hearts and slew countless infidels the world over, it failed in its attempts to depose Arab regimes, and it failed to lead into its orbit at least some of post-Soviet Central Asia. Even Afghanistan -- whose Islamist rulers were anti-Iranian -- has been lost to the West. The Islamist snatching recently of Somalia, while far from encouraging from a Western viewpoint, is nonetheless little consolation from an Islamist viewpoint; it's just not much of a place. Beirut, however, indeed is.
The conquest by Islamism of the freewheeling metropolis once known as the Paris of the Middle East would be the equivalent of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It would inspire and embolden Islamists wherever they be in ways that are difficult to predict, and surely will increase the chances of any Western person to be killed in an airplane, mall, train station, resort, restaurant, theater or school, the way so many innocent people already have been in situations that had nothing to do with the Middle East conflict and everything to do with Islamism's obsessive quest to culturally challenge and physically cripple the West. This is how we, the same Israelis who in the past backed land-for-peace deals with various anti-Islamist Arab interlocutors, now see the Lebanese situation. Sad to say, many elsewhere in the international system still delude themselves that the Lebanese situation is not about their own societies' safety, values and dignity but merely about Arabs and Jews squabbling, yet again, about this hill, that river or those ranches.
And so, France is backtracking from its promise to send thousands of troops to south Lebanon; Russian officials, when shown Russian-made weaponry captured from Hezbollah fighters respond with anti-Israeli fury; and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero allowed himself to wear a Palestinian scarf and accuse Israel of attacking and "abusing" Lebanon while ignoring Lebanon's real abuse, the one done by Hezbollah, and which is so patently part of a broader scourge that threatens Spain itself.
Why? Why are so many Europeans so reluctant to face up to the Islamist menace, which, frankly, threatens them even more than it threatens Israel? How can they fail to connect the dots between the Islamist problems they face at home, and the prospective fall of Beirut abroad? How can Zapatero not understand what an Iranian conquest of Beirut would do to European Islamists who say Muslims should wrest all former Muslim domains, which happen to include the entire country of Spain?
The answer is simple: They suffer from a denial syndrome. And so, when Islamism peeks through the horizon, they run home, lock the door and scream, "I am not home." Dancing with wolves, courting the devil and compromising with freedom's enemies long have been European specialties, so much so that it took foreigners to save Europe from both fascism and communism. Back in the 1930s, most Europeans remained deaf to warnings that Hitler was after them, preferring to delude themselves he was "merely" after the Jews, and that the beast could be soothed by feeding it the Jewish prey whose taste it simply could not resist. When Europe understood, well after Kristallnacht, that the Jews were merely Fascism's warm-up act, it was too late.
Today a very clever Islamism is also telling Europe it merely wants the Jews, and, unfortunately, many Europeans still respond with the same moral understanding and political appeasement that only a few decades ago set their continent ablaze. Even more unfortunate, the Jews -- that stiff-necked lot -- are no longer prepared to play their part in the script: They fight.
*Amotz Asa-El, formerly the Jerusalem Post's executive editor, is now its senior columnist

Hizbullah: We're arming for second round
In interview to Iranian news agency, group representative in Tehran says his organization is preparing for 'second round against Israel,' contrary to UN resolution
Dudi Cohen Published: 08.30.06, 18:31
Hizbullah representative in Iran Muhammad Abdullah Sif al-Din, said Wednesday that Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah has a new strategic plan to rearm ahead of the "next round against Israel ." In an interview with the Iranian news agency Fars, al-Din said: "No one can promise us that Israel won't attack again. Whoever lives as a neighbor to the Zionist regime is in danger and must not save any effort to obtain all of the means to defend himself. We are convinced that there still danger and the situation has not yet been solved. We must, all the time, prepare ourselves for self-defense and to plan for the next stage."
'Situation is good' During an interview, al-Din was asked about Hizbullah's military situation after the war.
"Our situation is very good, the Israelis didn't manage to strike Hizbullah's military command and our ability to launch missiles. In the first days we launched 100 missiles and in recent days we fired 350 missiles a day. So we have no problem from a military perspective," he replied.
War in Lebanon Hizbullah: We were surprised by Israel's response to kidnapping / Roee Nahmias
Deputy secretary general of Hizbullah, Sheikh Naim Kassem, says that organization surprised by strength and duration of Israeli response to kidnapping of two soldiers on July 12. Kassem also says organization does not intend to disarm, but to maintain weapons clandestinely
Unlike Nasrallah, the Hizbullah representative in Iran expressed no regret for kidnapping soldier, the operation which caused the outbreak of the war. "In retrospect, if Israel would have attacked again and we had to defend ourselves, we could have done it again and with great vigor," he said.
Regarding UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701, calling for, among others, the disarmament of Hizbullah, Sif Al-Din said that his organization had no intention of disarming, as the issue was an internal Lebanese one.
"From the perspective of the parliament and government in Lebanon , Hizbullah is not a military militia, but a resistance force. Therefore, the clause in resolution 1559 (calling on the disarmament of armed militias â€“ D.C.) can't include Hizbullah. The Lebanese agreed among themselves that Hizbullah's disbanding is an internal issue and should be solved among one another," he said.
He added that pressure from the West on Hizbullah would not be effective.
"After the murder of the Lebanese prime minister, Rafik al-Hariri, and resolution 1559, heavy pressure was placed on Hizbullah in order to disarm. We all understood that no one can disband Hizbullah, even Israel's foreign minister admitted this," said al-Din.
'Lebanese army can't deal with Israel'
The Hizbullah representative to Iran added that Lebanon had one problem and that was "a possible attack by the Zionist regime on Lebanon. We have to discuss the way to defend ourselves. Our main problem is how to use force to defend Lebanon," he said.
Despite his remarks on the arming of Hizbullah for a second round with Israel, al-Din said that he was not interested in war.
"We are not interested in war, because we have families. We want to live. But so long as there is a danger called the Zionist regime we'll continue to protect ourselves. The current way is best way to remove the danger from the direction of the Zionist regime," he added.
Addressing the deployment of the Lebanese army in south Lebanon, al-Din said that his organization had no opposition to the move so long as it would not be asked to disarm. He added that there was no possibility that Hizbullah would join the Lebanese army.
"One of the reasons we didn't agree in advance to the deployment of the army in south Lebanon is that we are worried for the army, because it doesn't have the capability of dealing with Israel. If the Lebanese agree that the army deploys in the south, we have no problem. But the entrance of the army to this area is dangerous for it and we are worried from this perspective," he said.

We Ought to Be Ashamed
Zuheir Kseibati Al-Hayat - 31/08/06//
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is a source of daily confusion to those who try to rank him among the policy makers of the Jewish State, which has destroyed Lebanon, and that has been besieging it to this day.
Yet, the Jewish State's condition is similar to that of those who are overwhelmed by questions, from a conspiracy theory to the assumption that a lapse of reason was behind the 33-day war. Nonetheless, the only truth was probably that which was confessed by Olmert, who spoke of his army's 'failure' to carry out indiscriminate destruction by way of air raids to keep the people of Lebanon in abhorrent shock for a long time.
In one moment, Olmert denies that the war was waged to 'destroy Hezbollah', while in another, he claims (possibly to entice the people of Lebanon with the allure of peace) that the war did not constitute a conflict between them.
If such assumptions are true, then why, may we ask, were more than 1000 martyred in Lebanon? Was it for the sole purpose of taming Hezbollah, or forcing it into politics, as the Europeans say? Or was it to push its missiles north of the Litany River in preparation of the show down with Iran, while at the same time driving a huge, explosive wedge into Lebanese unity and turning resistance into a burden that weighs heavily on them and their apprehension?
Since the war started, and to this day, Olmert rarely told the truth; a fact which the Israelis know better than most of the Lebanese, who united against an enemy by the same sentiments, and who have come to understand what it means to be the last in the Arab line, if ever the time comes for accepting a just peace, at the risk of a deadly blow to what is left of their unity.
Lebanese Prime Minster Fouad Siniora's reaction to the Olmert's 'dovish' emotional overflow was clear and unequivocal. With this overflow, he was not sending a message to the Americans who conspired with the State of Israel, battered with 'achievements' from its war against a political party; but was rather addressing a nation, divided from within over the so-called victory, stressing: no agreements with the Jewish State, and no direct contact before a just and lasting peace.
As for the divided Lebanese front, it may have been the much needed pretext for waging a war against the whole of Lebanon to provoke accusations and mistrust in Siniora's government and its firmness to portray it as an opponent to the Resistance and its resilience.
An example of Israeli foolishness at its best was the scattering of notions of 'dialogue and direct contact' with the Lebanese government into the air, so as to hasten the revival of internal obsessions in Lebanon and deepen chasms momentarily bridged by a stage marked by solidarity against an enemy for a period of 33 days.
On an equal footing came the American impulsiveness at its climax in turning a blind eye to the dilemma of the Israeli blockade, giving momentum to voices within Lebanon casting doubt on the seriousness of Siniora's government, and even challenging its loyalty through questions over sovereignty, without giving much thought to the reasons that led to the imprisonment of all the besieged people of Lebanon.
One of the most basic questions being raised is: is the Lebanese army required to enter a confrontation with the Israeli air force, which will respond by destroying battalions deployed in the South and abort the first serious attempt to rebuild the presence of the Lebanese State there? Or should war resume finishing the task of slaughtering all the hostages from Southern Lebanon to the Beqa'a and from Akar to Beirut?
It is shameful to see national unity, with both its government and resistance wings, on the brink of collapse within days into a truce, requiring a great deal of soul searching, self-assessment and evaluation instead of self-torture and undermining the nation by pointing arrows at the government under the pretext of the need for change and the need for new faces, falsely suggesting that the government started the war with Israel and has to pay for damages, or that the joining of any given party or group, be it Gen. Michel Aoun himself, to the government, will suffice in easing the pain of the wounded and the grief of those whose loved ones were martyred, or undo the destruction and decimation by an enemy love-stricken with forging peace with Lebanon.
For those who returned to hurling accusations back and forth, a simple reply should be given: enough questioning the patriotism of the Lebanese people, enough hijacking of sects and faiths en route to dreams of acquiring power.
Fundamental respect for the blood of martyrs calls for silent lamentation in the face of a horrible disaster of such magnitude. Perhaps the time has come for the politically prudent and wise to realize that the actual defeat lies in haughtily denying the facts, pretending to hold the privileges on absolute righteousness, and monopolizing the recipe for salvation, while deafening their ears to the moaning victims of the Israeli massacres.
Their ears are only capable of tuning in to the daily bickering that left the people of Lebanon voiceless and tired in the anticipation of the arrival of the next round, preparing for the great exodus after they exhausted all their resilience following the surprise of July 12.
Even dialogue among those at the helm has ceased to be productive, despite their code of honor, which is considered by some as a charade. The real charade my friends has been exposed... We ought to be ashamed.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: First wave of arrests inside Hizballah of suspected informers to Israeli intelligence
August 29, 2006, 11:54 AM (GMT+02:00)
No commissions of inquiry for Hassan Nasrallah. Our exclusive sources learn that Hizballah’ special security service has begun rounding up suspects in the northern Beqaa Valley, Baalbek and South Lebanon of members and others suspected of tipping off Israel intelligence on the location of the storehouse holding the heavy Zelzal missiles.
Those missiles, no more than three or four, were held in reserve as Hizballah’s most devastating strategic weapon against Israel, capable of hitting Tel Aviv.
Monday, Aug. 28, prime minister Ehud Olmert revealed for the first time that the Israeli air force destroyed those missiles in the first 34 minutes of the Lebanon war on July 12. Nasrallah needs urgently to find the leak through which the missiles’ place of storage and very existence, one of Hizballah’s most tightly kept secrets known only to very few top leaders of the organization, reached Israel. The first arrests were made among people living in the vicinity of the missile cache. More arrests have been carried out in the Shiite communities who live near or are connected with the Hizballah intelligence and secret command centers in Baalbek, which were targeted by Israeli air strikes and commando forays. DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources reveal that Hizballah’s special security apparatus is focusing on two lines of inquiry: 1. Israel’s Aug. 1 commando raid on the Deir al Hikhma hospital in Baalbek. 2. The series of Israeli incursions in the course of the war in the hills northwest of Baalbek, where Hizballah’s main command center, including its intelligence headquarters, are hidden underground in well fortified quarters – and are still in place.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: The most burning issue on the mind of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his talks in Jerusalem was not Lebanon – but Iran
August 30, 2006, 10:57 PM (GMT+02:00)
Our exclusive Jerusalem sources reveal that the issues raised at his press conferences with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and FM Tzipi Livni – the full implementation of UN resolution 1701, the Israeli blockade of Lebanon, the kidnapped Israel soldiers, the embargo on imported weapons for Hizballah - were all left outside the closed doors of the conference rooms he entered in Jerusalem. Inside, the UN Secretary went straight to the point: He wanted an Israeli message to hand to Iranian leaders in Tehran which he hoped to visit later in his 11-day Middle East tour. The message was to contain an assurance that, despite the Lebanon war and the accelerated tempo of the Iranian nuclear program, Israel undertook not to attack Iran. Annan wanted to be the bearer of a Note in this vein to dispel the Islamic Republic’s fears of an imminent Israeli strike. He told Olmert he intended placing this assurance in the hands of supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in person. Olmert turned him down. DEBKAfile’s Jerusalem sources add: Olmert asked the UN Secretary if he had procured a message in this spirit from Washington and, if so, would he submit the American and Israeli notes to Iran’s rulers together or separately.
According to our sources, Annan ducked the questions and instead waxed eloquent on the breakthrough in Iran-Israeli relations which an Israeli pledge to refrain from attacking Iran was capable of effecting. “With your note in my hand, I can get an interview with Khamenei himself,” he said. The UN secretary rated a meeting with president Mahmoud Ahmadnejad as of “no importance” except as a courtesy call. Annan explained that, on the strength of an Israeli assurance, he would be able to promise the Iranian leader that he need not fear UN Security Council sanctions or any other unpleasantness and that the nuclear controversy could be worked out amicably. Olmert and Livni were not convinced. Secretary-General Annan departed Jerusalem empty-handed, as he did Beirut, where Hizballah refused to part with the slightest scrap of information on the abducted Israeli soldiers for him to carry to Jerusalem.

Is Israel's Military Might a Myth?
Bhuwan Thapaliya - 8/30/2006
Are the dark clouds of bloody conflict that were gathered over Lebanon really parting? It may seem an unduly bleak question. Weeks after the U.N.-brokered ceasefire took effect, normality has returned to the country more rapidly than anyone expected. Lebanon's long war is finally over. Probably. But peace in Lebanon is not yet permanent. Agreement about how to reach a consensus could be months, if not years, away.
Critics and opposition figures have called Israel's assault on Hezbollah a total failure. None of Israel's aims has been achieved. Western powers now urge restraint, from both sides, as most no longer believe a military solution is possible -- good news for all the ordinary people trapped by the conflict.
Cross border terrorism issues continue to plague Hezbollah-Israel relationships. Israeli military chief of staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz has for the first time publicly admitted to failings in the conflict with Hezbollah. In a letter to troops, he said the conflict had exposed shortcomings in the military's logistics, operations, and command.
"We have to proceed to a meaningful examination of the successes and the errors. We have to extract professional lessons, as we are faced with more challenges. This test concerns us all, from me down to the last soldier," Halutz wrote in his letter, as quoted by the BBC.
Critics say the statement is a strong signal that Israel's military might is deteriorating, as Hezbollah was strong enough to resist their assaults with temperate ease. But Israel and especially America cried foul. Despite Iran's claims of having had no direct intervention in Hezbollah's stronghold, southern Lebanon, circumstantial evidence suggests that Hezbollah forces received some sort of strong moral and artillery support from Iran.
Looking on anxiously is the United States of America, which can hardly be pleased by the latest turn of events. The U.S. and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military ties for decades. The U.S. is believed to have been training Israel's military and supplying it with modern high-tech warfare machineries. It is conceivable that the Bush administration was not directly behind the Lebanon plot, but no more than conceivable: the overwhelming likelihood is that it was indirectly involved somehow.
Analysts say that on the surface this war was between Hezbollah and Israel. But below the surface, it was really a war between the U.S. and Iran. And this makes Middle East politics more complex. Moreover, the way Hezbollah successfully resisted the Israeli attacks has chilled the spine of the Bush administration, which was closely involved in planning Israel's retaliatory attacks. It is understood that mutual understanding with Israel is of extreme importance for the U.S., though Washington intends to achieve this understanding chiefly by taking into consideration U.S. strategic interests and long-term goals.
The astounding strength of Hezbollah's resistance, and its continuing ability to fire rocket after rocket into northern Israel in the face of constant Israeli bombing, has sent a strong message to those in the White House who want to use force in Iran. The problem for both Israel and the U.S. is that even those who continue to support Israel's war against Hezbollah agree that American influence in the Middle East is waning.
Analysts are now asking whether the Middle East saga must now unfold in the same tragic sequence for Israel? That depends on whether you weigh history in weeks or in decades. What makes the conjunction of these events distressing for Israel is the fact that prior to this latest conflict, the Israeli military was widely perceived to have failed in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, too.
Bhuwan Thapaliya is a Nepalese journalist and book author.

Axis of Appeasement - The Inconveniet Truth
David J. Jonsson - 8/29/2006
On January 20, 2002, President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address stated: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."
Today, we are seeing the allies of the United States possible becoming the “The Axis of Appeasement.” The question remains to see if the allies joined for freedom and liberty will support a battle against the forces of evil.
In any war, the critical elements of success are:
Who is the enemy?
What are their goals?
What is the definition of success, and finally
What will the world be like if we lose?
Up to the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938, these questions were not answered. The West faces the same situation following the cease-fire in Lebanon in 2006. The West better decide on the answers to the questions or be prepared to live under Shariah Law in a totalitarian Islamic state. The question that has to be answered is: Would you choose appeasement and wind up as a lampshade in a palace or fight for Western democracy, freedom and liberty?
Funding Terror
An Inconvenient Truth
The Reality of the Inconvenient Truth
Islamists Recognize the Value of Joining with the Leftist Movement
The Cease-Fire in Lebanon is Reminisant of Munich in 1938
Founding of the Green Party
How it all Began
Fischer: A self-justification
Al Qaeda Forges the links with the Leftist/Marxist Alliance
Al-Qaeda Issues An ‘Invitation’
Complications on the Issue of Profiling
Joe Lieberman vs. Ted Lamont
August 12, 2006 Anti-War Demonstrations
The US and Israel Stand Alone
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Role of Hezbollah in the Middle East
Islamist Sunni-Shia Convergence
Following the Strategies Laid Out by The Muslim Brotherhood
The Project and the Protocols of Zion
Al-Qaeda Book on Managing Savagery
The Underlying Cause Driving the Axis of Appeasement
Funding Terror
I led a recent round-table on current affairs on the campus of a major university, the subject was funding terror and how to reduce the threat of terror by eliminating funding—and if that was possible. Naturally, a logical portion of the discussion dealt with the role that energy plays in providing the funding. But more important to the subject is: What other ways funding is provided?
The first question raised by one of the participants was: How do I know that the organizations that I support are not supporting terror? In my opinion, we are not just fighting a war on terror, but witnessing a war between those who wish to impose an Islamist totalitarian form of government verses Western democracy, capitalism, freedom and liberty. In many cases it may be the extension of the same battle that tore Europe apart during most of the twentieth century that has now spread to the Muslim world. The current clash also includes the added dimension of a battle for the control of oil. The West no longer has control of oil resources to provide energy security. See also my earlier article: Give Me Energy Security And I Will Give You A Foreign Policy.
The discussion evolved. Funding of terror really involves many aspects; it can take the form of direct monetary transfer to terrorist organizations, it can include providing labor in the form of organizing demonstrations which promote ideologies which are anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western democracy, and it can also take the form of supporting causes which prevent the development of energy self-sufficiency thus making the U.S. dependent for our energy supplies from countries supporting terrorism. Jihad should not be considered exclusively a terrorist action, such as blowing up planes and trains; it may take the form of economic jihad such as financing Islamist projects, white-collar jihad—influencing the media, promoting Islamist ideologies in schools and universities or just plain participating in a demonstration or peaceful march. However the goal remains the same, to bring about the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth and to impose Shariah law.
Which leads us the main question, which organizations and/or action of individuals promote anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, etc. I believe that the well-known statement: “If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, eats like a duck, it probably is a duck.” How would one apply this comment to the present situation? Some of the organizations mentioned in this study are leaders of protest marches preaching these ideologies. The spokespersons for the organizations have made speeches espousing the ideologies; the funding (eating) includes organizations espousing similar beliefs. I would have to add that certainly not all and possibly most of the organizations do not have all the characteristics, however they do have association through their sponsorship of the events, interlocking of funding and interlocking of boards. I might add, that just like the duck that provides excellent food and delicious pate and other useful products; terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas also have two sides. On the one hand, they provide schools, hospitals, and support for the poor and food. Environmental organizations raise our awareness of need to protect our environment for current and future generations. The goal is therefore is sort out their multiple functions and goals. The Islamists recognized this dual role and therefore have utilized these organizations in their strategy. The strategy is laid out in the sections on “The Project” and “Managing Savagery.”
The “The Project” an ambitious strategy intended “to establish the kingdom of God over the whole world recommends “to study the local and world centers of authority, and the possibilities of placing them under influence,” “to enter in contact with all new movements engaged in the jihad wherever that it is on planet, to create cells of the jihad,” and “to nourish the feeling of rancor with regard to the Jews.” The document describes the strategy planned to ensure a growing influence of the Brotherhood on the Muslim world. It is stipulated there that the Muslim Brothers “should not act in the name of the Brotherhood, but infiltrate in the existing organizations. Their existence will not be located, and then neutralized.”
If the pattern and actions of the organizations appear to be consistent with the strategy laid out by the Islamists, then one must pay special attention.
If you spend some nights and weekends at a whorehouse, your spouse has every right to assume the reason for spending time there is not for the purpose of playing tennis.
In the document below are presented from newspaper accounts and other sources the association of organizations behind the statements, protests and actions. The Islamist strategy has recently been made public through the publication of translated documents. It is for the reader to further explore the links.
Think about it; check it out. Are you naively funding terror? Because we still have freedom and do not live under a totalitarian government we must respect the rights of others to express their opinions and enter into dialog. However just the participation in an elected form of government and/or economic development does not necessarily lead to freedom, liberty and elimination of terror. Suggested reading: Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror by Thomas Carothers from Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003 and Development and Democracy by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005.
The Islamist strategy of infiltrating in the existing organizations, NGOs and foundations, many of which perform apparently valuable services is extremely valuable to the cause of establishing a totalitarian form of government. The existence of Muslims with an Islamist agenda and supporters of their cause are not easily located and then neutralized.
An Inconvenient Truth
As Jagdish Bhagwati commented in an article on August 16 in the Financial Times Al Gore has been busy returning global warming to center stage with terrifying warnings of disaster with his best-selling book, An Inconvenient Truth, and the popular companion documentary. Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has joined – even led – the renewed focus on global warming, charging Sir Nicholas Stern, the economist, with solving the problem. Alongside his successful initiative on Africa, this is to be his sure-fire international legacy as he ends his last term in office.
One has to ask: Which is more important in the near term the preservation of democracy, liberty and freedom or global warming?
Khamenei—the supreme religious authority to Hezbollah followers—said. “With God's help you (Hezbollah) were able to prove that military superiority is not (measured) in the number (of soldiers), planes, warships and tanks. Rather, it depends on the power of faith and holy war,”
Just as the Iranian soccer fans hold photos of Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, during the Iran and Syria Asian Cup 2007 qualifying soccer match in Tehran on Wednesday Aug. 16, 2006, anti-war demonstrators at protest marches on August 12 demonstrations in the Stop the US Israeli War rally in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and worldwide held up signs in support of the Hezbollah and Hamas. The enemy within has reached America’s shores.
The Reality of the Inconvenient Truth
In reality, the Inconvenient Truth represents a much broader significance. The environmental movement represented by Al Gore plays a significant role in the “The Axis of Appeasement” and is directly linked to the formation of Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance.
The Inconvenient Truth is that many of the environmental, social justice, anti-war, leftist, and Islamic groups have in common senior personnel, members of advisory and director boards and in some cases common supporters and funding including foundations and corporations. The organizations in many cases have interlinking of the boards. In many cases these organizations are the cosponsors of the rallies and protests we are seeing occur on a global scale. This is in no way to say that all supporters of some of these causes are not sincere in their desire for a better world. As a conservative environmentalist we all need to support environmental action that is also critical for your future. However, support of the organizations naively or otherwise can be contributing to support of organizations that are against liberty and freedom and seek to establish a global totalitarian government.
The war against the Islamists will not be won with military might and the war on terror; the battle must also be waged in the media, the schools, the NGOs, and the board rooms of corporations.
The Islmists are following the plan laid out by the Muslim Brotherhood as described and documented in numerous places. The West is falling into line with the plan and strategy.
Islamists Recognize the Value of Joining with the Leftist Movement
The Islmists recognized early on that alliance with these groups provided the grass root support and manpower locally in the West to impact the media, education, and ultimately political elections. Hence the Islamist slogan “from the schoolhouse to the White House.” The Islamist goal remains—world domination and the establishment of the totalitarian Islamic kingdom of God on Earth. It is this cabal, which I refer to as the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance which is making up the “The Axis of Appeasement.”
The “unholy alliance” of the leftist with the Islamists cannot last; liberalism cannot survive under the rule of a totalitarian regime imposing Shariah law. At some point one side will decide that this must end. Victor Davis Hanson in his article in National Review Online Hope Amid Despair? commented: In an amorphous war of self-induced Western restraint, like the present one, truth and moral clarity are as important as military force. This past month, the world of the fascist jihadist and those who tolerate him was once again on display for civilization to fathom. Even the most timid and prone to appeasement in the West are beginning to see that it is becoming a question of “the Islamists or us.”
The Islamist is willing to die for their cause. Many liberals may die because of the support of their cause.
The Cease-Fire in Lebanon is Reminisant of Munich in 1938
The perceived victory of the Hezbollah in Lebanon followed by the cease-fire agreement may be the pivotal moment in the creation of a new world order.
It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.
As reported in the article Iran praises Islam ‘victory’ August 17, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme religious authority to Hezbollah followers, in a message to Hezbollah head Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, described the militant group's clashes with Israel as a “victory” for Islam.
“Your unprecedented holy war and steadfastness are beyond the limits of my description. It's a divine victory. It is a victory of Islam,” Khamenei said in the message read by an announcer on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television.
Hezbollah is heavily financed and backed by Iran's Shiite Muslim theocracy.
“With God's help you were able to prove that military superiority is not (measured) in the number (of soldiers), planes, warships and tanks. Rather, it depends on the power of faith and holy war,” Khamenei said.
“You have ridiculed the myth that the Zionist army is invincible,” he said.
Khamenei said Israeli attacks that killed Lebanese civilians and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure have exposed “the real face of America and some European countries, side-by-side with the hated and repugnant Zionist face.”
“They (Israeli attacks) have also uncovered the level of falsehood surrounding the hollow slogans ... about human rights and democracy,” Khamenei said.
He lashed out at President Bush for declaring that the Israeli assault in Lebanon was self-defense and had defeated the Shiite guerrillas.
Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.
“We have passed an awful milestone in our history,” Winston Churchill said after the Munich agreement was signed. “Do not suppose this is the end… This is only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us year by year.” Despite the failure of appeasement, Churchill still believed the Western democracies would make the “supreme recovery” and take up the banner for freedom again.

The United States and the forces of democracy will recover from this debacle—even with a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic president in 2008. The reason will not be because Bush's opponents—“The Axis of Appeasement” have a better strategy, or a clearer vision, or even a Winston Churchill waiting in the wings. It will be because the Islamists will give us no choice.
Less than a year after Munich, Nazi panzers rolled into Poland. Instead of fighting a short, limited war over Czechoslovakia, the Western democracies ended up fighting a world war, the most destructive in history. The war with the Islamists is coming. It is only a question of whether it will be at a time or on a ground of our choosing, or theirs—and whether it is fought within the shadow of a mushroom cloud.
Without the background of history as a guide, it is difficult to understand the present.
Founding of the Green Party
In January of 2005, Germany's Greens, now the strongest Green Party in the world turned 25. There won't be any grand parties or brouhaha. They did a bit of that in 2004 to fete the unofficial 25-year anniversary. Since then, they have strayed from their sunflower-laced ideals, which over the years included pulling Germany out of NATO and instigating super high gas prices. Still, it is worth taking a moment to raise a glass to a party that began as a scruffy band of pacifist idealists and has evolved into one of Germany’s biggest power players. Many of the Greens' early devotees were members of the famous '68 generation, a group of left-wing radicals who wanted to change the world. Others were Trotskyites and Maoists. They sailed into the German conscience on the wave of post-World War II memories and experiences. That wave remains powerful even today and continues to influence the Greens' and other parties' policies.
How it all began
The founding of the Green Party was hardly done in a flurry to civilize the nation in 1968 and the years that followed, at the height of the Cold War, Berlin and other German cities saw pitched battles against police in protest against the Vietnam War and “Nazi” influences in postwar West Germany.
They, themselves, never thought of it that way. For them, the important thing was changing, not bettering, the system. They produced a newspaper called “APO Press” - APO standing for Extra-Parliamentary Opposition - to spread the '68ers revolutionary message: against war, against US “imperialism” and against the alleged “fascist” tendencies of West German politics, especially the police.
“People know that the Sixties changed Germany.” And the Sixties changed the world. In many cases it is the same players and political ideologies that are leading the “Axis of Appeasement.”
The '68 movement made a fatal mistake, when Ulrike Meinhof and Andreas Baader co-founded the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and sought to justify the use of terrorist methods to try to bring down the West German state.
“The resort to terrorism killed the protest movement.”
Today, it uses the media, the Internet, education and politics to change the world. The goal remains the same—political power to impose their ideology. The Islamists using the same techniques are gaining political power globally.
Success in the “War on Terror” may win a battle, but will not win the war against the Islamists. With the Leftists against the War on Terror as put forward in the Wall Street Journal article on August 16 by George Soros: A Self-Defeating War, the effort to even win the battle becomes more difficult. The article in the U.K based Socialist Worker further supports the position of George Soros: Who are the true terrorists? “The only way to stop Islamist terrorism is to end the domination of the Middle East by Western imperialism. This won’t happen overnight. But by continuing to build a united and dynamic mass movement against the “war on terrorism”, we can show that there is a better way of opposing the crimes committed by our government.” In the interview presented below of Jimmy Carter, the same theme is put forward about the crimes of the United States.
Fischer: A self-justification
Joschka Fischer attended lectures on Marxism at Frankfurt University, though he was not officially enrolled. The self-taught Marxist became a leading figure in a group called “Revolutionary Struggle”, getting a job in a car factory to stir up revolutionary ideas among the workers.
He has frankly acknowledged his mistake as a young man in succumbing then to the lure of revolutionary violence. But he firmly maintains that the '68 movement was essential to German democracy.
In a speech in London in January 2005, Fischer said the protest movement had given birth to his party, the Greens.
And that, he said, had brought about “the integration of radical left-wing groups - Leninist, Trotskykist, anarchist, feminist or whatever - into the democratic process.”
“It is very important,” he added, “to rethink the process of the '80s.” That was the decade when Fischer abandoned direct action and entered politics, and the Greens built up their support in preparation for their current role in government. His conclusion: “So it can be very productive.”
The creation of the Green Party did, however, manage to civilize one group of Germans –the scrappy band of disillusioned rebels—many of who were the children of bourgeois, the children of privilege or even Nazi families—who nonetheless gravitated to what they called “alternative scenes.” For many of these radicals, the Green Party came too late. For them, the best solution came in the form of the terrorist group the Red Army Faction, which was founded in the late 1960s and was dedicated to obliterating class differences through violence. At the height of its power in the 1970s, the RAF—founded by, among others, Ulrike Meinhof—was Europe's most feared terror organization and is responsible for the death of dozens. The RAF disbanded in 1998, the same year the Greens got their first taste of federal power. Hardly a coincidence.
Not that the Greens have similarity with the RAF. Naturally, oceans of difference separate the two and politically they have nothing in common. But many of their members began in the same idealistic place. In 1998, the split was complete: the political status of each group arrived at wholly different realities.
But will the Greens’ success continue or will they simply be a phenomenon of one generation? It's a question debated by many. No party better understands how to play the media game than the Greens. And no party leader does his job better than Joschka Fisher, the Moses of the movement. The use of the media has been key factor in promoting the agenda of both the Greens and the Islamists.
Abandoning the hard line of “boots on the ground” and combining with and the embracing of environmental movement with Leftist/Marxist ideologies and the anti-War ideologies provided a powerful base for the alliance with Islamists.
The Greens gained financial support and the willingness of a cadre of people willing to die for a cause and the Islamists gained the credibility and most important the access to the manpower and halls of power.
Al Qaeda Forges the links with the Leftist/Marxist Alliance
It was al Qaeda’s number two man—Aymen-al-Zawahiri—who first advocated a Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance against Western democracies. In August 2002, he urged al Qaeda sympathizers to seek alliance with “any movement that opposes America, even atheists.” The strategy of penetrating and joining existing organizations was put forward in “The Project,” to be discussed below.
Like Joschka Fischer before them, al Qaeda recognized that they could utilize the media and political action to accomplish their goals. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt followed the lead.
According to Susanne Koelbl writing on August 17 in Spiegel Online: Terrorists are becoming increasingly adept at producing high-quality videos. DVDs depicting bloody beheadings are now available at markets in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They're also on the Web.
That the Internet has become a communication platform for terrorists—as well as for their supporters and their adversaries—is nothing new. These days, though, a close monitoring of the Web reveals the increasing brutality of the international jihadist movement. The radicals' isolation and desperation is also on full display. The images, though, also document the vulnerability of Western armies in the remote mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Iraq, together with the challenges they face in dealing with the realities of the countries in which they operate.
Intelligence services believe that the Pakistani city of Quetta is home to what is probably the most professional media workshop of terror. The city, in the state of Beluchistan in the Pashtun border region, is considered a Taliban stronghold. And it plays host to al-Qaeda's propaganda headquarters, the “Foundation for Islamic Media Production,” or “Al-Sahab.”
The most important statements issued by the godfather of terror Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the head of al- Qaeda's Iraq division until he was killed in June, were edited and processed here. What began as an amateur operation producing poor-quality videos has since turned into a highly professional outfit.
Al-Qaeda Issues An ‘Invitation’
In February 2005, Jane's Defense Weekly wrote with concern about what it called “significant developments” in the composition of jihadist terror cells, including “an increase in the number of members who have 'joined' and were no longer 'recruited.'”
An Arabic pamphlet circulating on Islamist Web sites at about the same time, titled “How can I become a member of al- Qaeda?” seems to confirm that the path to al-Qaeda & Co. is growing ever shorter. The pamphlet's response to its own question, according to a translation provided by the Washington based institute SITE, is as follows:
Al-Qaida is no longer merely an organization fighting Jews and crusaders alone. Today the al-Qaeda issues an ‘invitation’ that asks all Muslims to rise up in support of God's religion. ... Whoever answers this call is seen as part of al-Qaeda, whether or not you wish this to happen. But if you are a true Muslim, you have no other choice but to heed this call.
With this approach, al-Qaeda is attracting instant mujahedeen who like the London bus and subway bombers, essentially recruit themselves within a breathtakingly short amount of time. As a result, they are far more unpredictable and difficult to recognize than Afghanistan veterans.
Complications on the Issue of Profiling
The debate over profiling airline passengers revived after the thwarted Islamist plot to bomb 10 airplanes in London on Aug. 10. The sad fact is, through inertia, denial, cowardice, and political correctness, Western airport security services — with the notable exception of Israel's — search primarily for the implements of terrorism, while largely ignoring passengers.
The profiling techniques such as Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, now operating in twelve U.S. airports did discover passengers with forged visas, fake IDs, stolen airline tickets, and various forms of contraband — its utility for counter-terrorism is dubious. Terrorists trained to answer questions convincingly, avoid sweating, and control stress should easily be able to evade the system.
The fact that the Muslims are recruiting themselves for al-Qaeda complicates the issue of profiling. As reported in a UPI article on August 16, a number of prominent persons such as the former Metropolitan Police Chief Lord John Stevens has lent his support to profiling at all airports, saying Islamic terrorism in the West has been 'universally carried out by young Muslim men,' usually traveling alone or in small groups.
Meanwhile Times of London columnist Martin Samuel scoffed at arguments that terrorists rarely fit a certain profile.
In the event of racial profiling, there will be no Mid-Surrey branch of al-Qaida forming on the hoof. As for cunning disguises, we know them. There are two looks: beard on and beard off,' he wrote.
Evidently neither Lord Stevens or Samuel have ever attended a meeting of the outlawed militant group al-Muhajiroun, which counts numerous young men, women and even children of white and black British descent among its members.
When this UPI journalist went undercover into a London meeting of the group last year, she was shocked to meet a significant number of white British converts to this radical interpretation of Islam, many of whom were young women from middle class families in rural counties such as Dorset, Somerset and yes, even Surrey.
Like their dark-skinned, bearded associates, they too swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden and pledged to raise their children to become suicide bombers, with no apparent concern that they did not fit the usual profile of a potential terrorist.
A similarly flagrant disregard for stereotypes was displayed by July 7 bomber Germaine Lindsay, of Jamaican origin, and the white British Muslim convert suspected in last week`s airline plot, from the genteel Buckinghamshire town of High Wycombe.
One can be sure that should Osama bin Laden get wind that airport officials are focusing their search on young men of Asian appearance, individuals like these will be the first he turns to carry out his next plot.
Likewise, the assumption that all citizens of the Arab and Muslim world are of one appearance is mistaken. Throughout the Middle East, particularly in countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Iran, there are millions of individuals with fair coloring who would be indistinguishable from their European or American counterparts.
As the Association of Chief Police Officers rightly warns, stereotyping terror suspects will 'create a gap' in policing for terrorists to exploit. Start looking for dark-haired individuals and one can be certain that Al Qaeda will put aside its contempt for western values and start reaching for the peroxide, if it furthers their cause.
Three conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, because Islamist terrorists are all Muslims, there does need to be a focus on Muslims. Second, such notions as "Muslim-only lines" at airports are infeasible; rather, intelligence must drive efforts to root out Muslims with an Islamist agenda.
Daniel pipes in his article Time to Profile Airline Passengers? in the New York Sun on August 22, commented: Noting the limited impact that losing 3,000 lives had in 2001 and building on my "education by murder" hypothesis — that people wake up to the problem of radical Islam only when blood is flowing in the streets — I predict that effective profiling will only come into effect when many more Western lives, say 100,000, have been lost.
Joe Lieberman vs. Ted Lamont
When antiwar activist and atheist Ned Lamont, the heir of the Lamont family fortune and its vast political clout announced he would seek to unseat an incumbent Democratic Senator, all of Lieberman's Democratic colleagues in the US Senate quickly distanced themselves from Joe, stating that it would not be right for them to side with either candidate during the August primary race, adding that—whichever one won—they would solidly support the winner of the August 9 primary. There was no doubt in the minds of any of them that the winner would be Ned Lamont. However, as election eve approached, Lieberman cut Lamont's double-digit lead of 13 points down to 6—51 to 46 and then, 4 points.
On the eve of the election, it was anyone's ball game. So, late in the 9th inning, Connecticut's senior Senator Christopher Dodd [D] showed up for a pre-balloting photo op with Lieberman. So did New York's Chuck Schumer [D]. So did Massachusetts' Edward Kennedy and so did Delaware's Joe Biden. None were 100% sure that Lamont would win. If Lieberman won the nomination, he would be reelected. If he was reelected, his colleagues within the Democratic Party needed to make sure Joe was not mad at the party—or those colleagues who would have to count on his vote. The night before the balloting it was clear that the election would be decided by voter turnout. But, the moment the count was tallied; all of them ran to embrace Lamont as the winner.
As the Lieberman Campaign worked to get voters to the polls, hackers stepped in. With the primary boiling down to how the candidates used the means at their disposal to provide transport for voters, or directions to polling places, the Lieberman camp discovered their website had been hacked and knocked out of cyberspace. Lieberman supporters who needed a ride to the polls could not access the Lieberman for US Senate website to contact the Campaign for ride share information. Lieberman told reporters that:
“...[s]omething outrageous happened to our website today. It's been hacked and sabotaged and knocked down. We don't know that it's my opponent's campaign—but who else would have the motivation to hack into and knock down our website on primary day?”
This showed the power of the Internet and its role in political movements. These events are not unnoticed by Al-Qaeda, as we will see below.
Lamont forces, of course, denied they had anything to do with the sabotage—and, they probably didn't. There were enough anti-war, anti-American George Soros MoveOn.org people around to do the dirty work. Asked by the media if his people sabotaged Lieberman's website, Lamont called it “just another scurrilous charge” by Lieberman as he denied tampering with the website. Lamont offered to send a technician to fix it. But having Lieberman's website down during peak voting hours may have given Lamont just the edge he needed to eek out a primary victory.
The anti-war contingent of the Axis of Appeasement plays a role in U.S. elections. Jon C. Ryter in his article When The Invisible Power Chooses To Be Seen commented: This is a significant and sad step in the Democrats’ transformation from serious political party to mouthpiece for the anti-war, anti-capitalist, “Blame America First” crowd. No longer merely the lunatic fringe, the far left—best represented by Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, various Hollywood half-wits, and MoveOn.org, funded by billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis—now openly control one of the two major political parties in America. This race has shown that there is no longer any place for moderation or alternative points of view in the party ranks. Though not all Democrat voters are left-wing radicals, not even in deep-blue Connecticut, any potential nominee for office must gain the approval of that group. Not even a long-time favorite like Joe Lieberman can represent the Democrats if he expresses a conflicting point of view on a major issue like Iraq.
This is the group the Islamists and their supporters have apparently hitched their wagon to—at least temporarily. The Internet is also the choice of the Islamists.
The Internet
Widely recognized as the indispensable tool of anti-war activists, the Internet has indeed revolutionized the organization of social movements in general. As a low cost, global tool for communicating and disseminating information, the Internet works below the radar of the mainstream media, providing a wide variety of information websites, on-line petitions, and up-to-date schedules of events.
MoveOn exemplifies the modern activist organization, skilled at Internet communication for the purposes of petition-signing, on-line fundraising, and gathering the masses for street protests. Founded to promote civic action and democracy, MoveOn has rapidly become one of the best-known Internet-based organizations involved in the Anti-War Movement. Wes Boyd, MoveOn founder, said his organization was designed to “connect with those who do not support the war but who aren’t always comfortable with showing their feelings by taking to the streets”. Following the October 2002 protests, MoveOn decided that the anti-war rally was “all over the map politically and not very appealing to a mainstream perspective”, so they discussed forming a more ‘mainstream, patriotic coalition’ that would be more “welcoming to mainstream constituencies”.
Since then, MoveOn has leveraged the Internet to create a new kind of organization with the ability to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and move tens of thousands of people to action within hours. On March 11, 2003, MoveOn delivered a petition to the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council with more than one million signatures collected from around the world in less than five days. In another effort, MoveOn collected more than $400 000 US to finance anti-war television advertisements. The money funded a re-made version of the “Daisy” ad, originally aired in the 1960s, which shows a girl plucking petals from a daisy, contrasted with a missile launch countdown and nuclear mushroom clouds. MoveOn’s most recent activities include the organization of a global candlelight vigil (vigils were organised in more than seven thousand communities around the world), as well as petitioning, emailing policy makers, raising and distributing money, as well as other forms of direct activism and grassroots media buying.
The organization currently has more than 750 000 members in the US alone, and is both active and supported worldwide. One of MoveOn’s organizers, Eli Pariser, suggests reasons for MoveOn’s success: “In a sense, part of MoveOn’s attraction is that it aims for normal people, not just activists, and it engages them successfully…Part of its appeal is that it serves as a ‘direct line to god’. There is no big bureaucracy. You make a contribution, you sign something, and you get immediate action.” MoveOn is also a member of the Win Without War coalition.
August 12, 2006 Anti-War Demonstrations
More then 30,000 demonstrators filled the streets around the White House chanting, “Stop the US-Israeli war against Lebanon and Palestine” in Washington, D.C. Similar demonstrations were held in other major cities across the country and worldwide. The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation and the National Council of Arab Americans initiated the demonstration.
As reported on the A.N.S.W.E.R website: “Speakers at the Washington D.C. demonstration included, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark; Mahdi Bray the Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation; Mara Verheyden-Hilliard an attorney and co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice; Brian Becker the National Coordinator of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition; Dr. Mounzer Sleiman of the National Council of Arab Americans; Osama Siblani Publisher at Arab American News; Peta Lindsay Howard University student and Coordinator ANSWER Student and Youth; and Dr. Clovis Maksoud the Former ambassador from the Arab League to the U.N, Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC), and others.”
To get some image of the Stop the US Israeli War rally in San Francisco, August 12, 2006, you may view the photos of the flags of the Hezbollah and Hamas.
The article posted on the ADL website: ANSWER, Antiwar Rallies and Support for Terror Organizations provides interesting background on the organization. The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition, which has organized scores of antiwar demonstrations in the U.S. since its founding by the New York-based International Action Center (IAC) in 2001, has played a key role in inserting anti-Israel sentiment into the antiwar movement.
ANSWER’s National Coordinator Brian Becker described the march as the first national protest against “the new U.S.-Israeli war” that is “killing the people of Lebanon and Palestine.” During a recent appearance on FOX News, Becker said, “The acts of the Israeli government, the Israeli Air Force, with U.S.-supplied weapons and U.S. taxpayer money are acts of terrorism against civilians.” He later added, “Do I consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization?” “The answer is no.”
Becker’s view of Hezbollah is no surprise. ANSWER, which considers Israel a capitalist outpost for Western powers, has supported anyone that counters the spread of capitalism around the world, including genocidal dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosovic. This worldview has been apparent at many ANSWER rallies that have included support of Palestinian terrorist leaders over the past few years.
The August 12 march follows many rallies organized by ANSWER, IAC and other anti-Israel groups across the country since the start of the current Middle East conflict in June. These rallies have promoted a very harsh and unapologetic message denouncing Israel and U.S. foreign policy. They have also included a proliferation of anti-Semitic _expression and support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
March 20, 2004: ANSWER organized major antiwar demonstrations in New York City and San Francisco to coincide with antiwar rallies against the war in Iraq across the United States and the world. Other antiwar groups led by United for Peace and Justice, the other major protest organizer, initially intended to focus solely on the situation in Iraq, but ANSWER organized a coalition of anti-Israel groups who petitioned United for Peace and Justice to include an anti-Zionist message at there events. United for Peace and Justice eventually acceded and anti-Israel messages pervaded the demonstrations.
Sojourners is a member organization of the Win Without War and United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalitions. Giving voice to Sojourners' intense anti-Americanism, Jim Wallis called the U.S. “… the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs.” Please note, as a coalition of organizations, UFPJ does not have individual members. Individuals are encouraged to join a local group in their community. For the list of national and international member groups see: United for Peace and Justice. Truly an astounding list brings together the Green Party, anti-war groups, Greenpeace, Code Pink and socialist and communist party organizations.
In New York, Al-Awda, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and other pro-Palestinian groups waved Palestinian flags, while some chanted “Intifada Intifada, Long Live the Intifada.” The anti-Israel presence was even more dominant at the nearly 10,000-strong rally in San Francisco. Signs and messages included “No blood for Israel,” “I want you to die for Israel. Israel Sings: Onward Christian Soldiers” and a model Israeli tank with dollars dripping blood and the sign, “Paid for with US tax dollars.” Another sign read, “I Love NYC even more without the World Trade Center.”
Many conspiracy theorists attended the New York City and San Francisco protests. A group called the 9/11 Truth Alliance [A member group of United for Peace and Justice.], which contends that the Bush administration staged the attacks, distributed signs saying “Stop the 9-11 Cover-Up” at both rallies. It also handed out “deception dollars,” large replicas of paper currency covered with links to conspiracy and also anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Web sites.
December 2003: At the Second International Cairo Conference, ANSWER representatives met with Hamas leader Osama Hamdan. Hamdan, who heads Hamas in Lebanon and openly supports suicide bombing, was invited to the conference by the event’s sponsors, the International Campaign Against U.S. and Zionist Occupations, a movement co-founded by the IAC. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who heads the IAC, co-director Sara Flounders, and Elias Rashmawi of ANSWER all served as organizers for the conference. This conference is described in my article The Origins of the Next Great War are Visible.
To understand the magnitude of impact of the Anti-War Movement and the list of the organizations interlinked it is suggested that you read: THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT WAGING PEACE ON THE BRINK OF WAR Geneva, March 2003 –Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations (CASIN).
The US and Israel Stand Alone
In the Spiegel Interview with Jimmy Carter on August 12, 2006, he is quoted as follows:
SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?
Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.
SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?
Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases – as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world – it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them – which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Role of Hezbollah in the Middle East
According to report on August 17, 2006 by the GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEF Strategic Forecasting, Inc. “Organizations like Hezbollah are needed in Egypt, Iraq and Jordan to assist Muslims in continuing their campaigns against Israel, leading Sunni religious scholar, Qatar-based Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi [Spiritual leader if Muslim Brotherhood.], said during a speech at Cairo University, Egyptian daily al-Masri al-Youm reported.”
Recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood has worldwide influence through its offshoots in the U.S. and on college campuses.
As reported by the AFP on August 17, 2006 Leading Islamist calls for holy war on Israel. The prominent Islamist preacher Sheikh Youssef Al Qaradawi has called for a holy war against Israel, an Egyptian newspaper reported Wednesday. [Note the parallel call: Ayatollah Ali Khamemenei also called for ‘holy war’.]
“Muslims must carry out jihad to liberate all the land of Islam. Palestine does not belong only to the Palestinians but to all Muslims,” Qaradawi was quoted as saying by the Al-Masri Al-Yom independent daily. [This is a very significant statement, thus promoting the concept of the ummah, the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth—one world without borders.]
The Egyptian-born cleric, best known for his regular appearances on the Qatari satellite channel, Al Jazeera, said that the Islamic world “needs men like those of Hezbollah: in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and everywhere.” [Qaradawi is bridging the gap between the Sunni and Shia—a common enemy is Israel and the U.S.]
“There isn't even an Arab willingness to fight Israel,” he complained at a seminar at the University of Cairo, adding: “The peace that the Arab leaders are calling for is in fact a capitulation.”
Qaradawi, who now lives in Qatar and has close links to the opposition Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said that Islamic law, or Shariah, dictated, “if a land of Islam is occupied, the entire population must resist and start jihad.”
The 78-year-old achieved star status with his appearances on Al Jazeera's weekly religious affairs program “Al Sharia wa Al Haya” (Islamic Law and Life) and has consistently defended Palestinian suicide attacks against Israel. Qaradawi is a brilliant and very influential scholar of Islam and has a huge following not only among Muslim countries, but throughout the world.
Islamist Sunni-Shia Convergence
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 From Ikhwan’s official website we learn of the Islamist Sunni-Shia convergence occurring in Lebanon: Lebanese Ikhwan announces it will join Hezbollah in reconstruction.
On August 21, 2006, President Bush pledges the United States will increase its humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Lebanon to $230 million to help the country recover after weeks of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.
Speaking at the White House August 21, Bush said the funds would help the Lebanese people return to their communities and rebuild their homes, restore infrastructure such as bridges and roads and rehabilitate schools in time for the beginning of the fall school year.
“Our nation is wasting no time in helping the people of Lebanon,” he said. “America is making a long-term commitment to help the people of Lebanon because we believe every person … deserves to live in a free, open society that respects the rights of all.”
Islamists have wasted no time moving in to gain support. In these critical first days after the war, Hezbollah and its financial backers in Tehran have seized the moment. They are appeasing those who might have been expected to denounce Hezbollah from the wreckage of their homes. And they are entrenching their support among a growing army of sympathizers.
Iran’s money is crucial. Estimates vary widely, but one Hezbollah source said as much as $1 billion had been made available by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president; another that the Iranian leader had placed no limit on the money pouring in.
After the UN-brokered ceasefire solidified, the Lebanese Islamists announced that they will be a partner in reconstruction operations. In an exclusive statement to Ikhwanweb, Deputy Chairman of the Lebanese Jama’a Islamia (The Muslim Brotherhood offshoot in Lebanon) said that the reconstruction process requires strenuous efforts especially financial ones to restore or rebuild the war ravaged areas.” The reconstruction process requires astronomical sums of money, and of course our group cannot afford such hefty funds, so we intend to share with our utmost financial and other relief works, especially that we took part in so many relief activities during the war, opening our institutes and schools before the displaced citizens and provided them with all available accommodation”, he said, adding that it is Hezbollah which has a plan for the reconstruction of the south. He quoted Hezbollah Chairman Hassan Nasrullah in his recent address as pledging to reconstruct the south and pay one -year rent for the war-hit families pending the end of the reconstruction plan and their return to their homes, adding that Iran could provide financial aid for the Hezbollah’s reconstruction plan
Following the Strategies Laid Out by The Muslim Brotherhood
On October 28, 2005, President George W. Bush denounced IslamoFascist movements that call for a “violent and political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.”
The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun) also known as the Ikhwan is a good example of what the President described and what he must protect us against.
The Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) organization describes itself as a political and social revolutionary movement; it was founded in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, who objected to Western influence and called for return to an original Islam.
The Brotherhood is an expansive and secretive society with followers in more than 70 countries, dedicated to creating a global Islamic order that would isolate women and punish nonbelievers. Its members and supporters founded al Qaeda, as well as one “of the largest college student groups in the United States.”
Quoting from my latest book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad - The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance.
Al-Banna had connections to Sufism, and he used the sufi-tariqa model for organizing the Brotherhood while rejecting Sufi “superstitions.” At first, the Muslim Brotherhood concentrated mainly on moral and social reforms, establishing educational and welfare programs. Then, following its rapid growth, it became more politically active and founded a secret military arm. It developed a tightly knit organization with a network of branches, subdivided into secret cell groups, with a missionary network that spread into Syria, Palestine and the Sudan. Members were recruited from rural and lower class backgrounds, as well as from the urban middle classes, and they received intensive ideological and physical training.
Al-Banna outlined a gradualist strategy in three stages: the Propaganda (preparation) Stage, the Organization Stage (aimed at educating the people), and finally, the Action Stage. While tactics might change, the strategic objectives of the Brotherhood remain unchanged: to receive explicit political recognition so as to be able to operate freely in the social, economic and political arena, and to implement Shariah in an Islamic state.
The strategy of al-Banna has and is being implemented today in Europe and the rest of the world. We are witnessing the effect of the final stages in Europe. He could only have dreamed of the success we are seeing today.
The Project and the Protocols of Zion
According to Sylvain Besson, an investigative journalist for the daily newspaper, Time, in Geneva, in his book of “La conquete de L’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes“ (The conquest of the occident: The secret project of the Islamists), Swiss authorities made a worrying discovery at the time of a searching carried out in the villa of Egyptian banker Youssef Nada in Lugano in November 2001. Swiss investigators discovered “The Project,” an ambitious strategy intended “to establish the kingdom of God over the whole world.”
“The Project” is a fourteen-page leaflet, dated December 1982, calling for the Muslim Brotherhood’s conquest of the world. It is a detailed roadmap to attain this objective. The Muslim Brothers must infiltrate existing institutions, rather than create their own. It calls for a guerilla war against Israel in the Palestinian territories and support to diverse armed Muslim groups from Bosnia to the Philippines. Swiss investigators confirm that the Project is the proof of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in supporting and inspiring the “worldwide jihad.”
Nada was the manager of the “Al-Taqwa” bank, suspected by the Americans of supporting terrorism. However, Nada, who has denied any ties with terrorism, has admitted being in the past one of the principal leaders of the international branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nada denied to have written “The Project,” as it was simply kept during twenty years. The Time article explained why “Islamic researchers” wrote this document, but it does not represent an official position of the Muslim Brotherhood. The identity of its author, for example, remains unknown. (al-Qaradawi was a director of Al-Taqwa bank and the intellectual guide of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.)
The document also recommends “to study the local and world centers of authority, and the possibilities of placing them under influence,” “to enter in contact with all new movements engaged in the jihad wherever that it is on planet, to create cells of the jihad in Palestine,” and “to nourish the feeling of rancor with regard to the Jews.” The document describes the strategy planned to ensure a growing influence of the Brotherhood on the Muslim world. It is stipulated there that the Muslim Brothers “should not act in the name of the Brotherhood, but infiltrate in the existing organizations. Their existence will not be located, and then neutralized.”
Accordingly, the Project could play a part in creation by the Muslim Brothers and their heirs to a network of religious, educational and charitable institutions in Europe and in the United States.
The Project indeed recommends “to build institutions—social, economic, scientific and medical, and to penetrate the field of the social services to be in liaison with the people.” Some of the most successful strategies leading to conversion and ultimate membership in jihadist organizations have been through social organizations, including daycare centers and nurseries.
The importance of the Project is due as much to its history, and that of the men who surround it, than with its contents. Its intellectual origins go back to the years 1960, when Sa’id Ramadan, the “theorist as a chief” of the Muslim Brotherhood, found refuge in Geneva. In September 1964, its newspaper, El Muslimoun, published a text inviting it to launch an “ideological war” against the Occident. It was then a question of answering the creation of the State of Israel, considered by the Islamists as an element of a vast plot against the Islamic religion and its faithful: “This is why we are convinced that this elaborate ideological plan must be countered by an ideological plan quite as elaborate, and that it is necessary to answer its ideological attacks, with its ideological war, by an ideological war.” The article explicitly refers to the “Protocol of Elders of Zion,” a document manufactured by the Tsarist police force that describes an alleged Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Although it is a forgery, this text’s anti-Semitism is taken seriously in the Islamist media.
In August 2004, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the “Protocol” was quoted during a recent meeting of he European Council for Fatwa and Research (CEFR). According to a participant in the meeting, the Protocol of the Elders showed the existence of a Jewish plot intended to destroy the values morals of the Muslim families. It is understood that to such ideas, the Islamists wanted to react by developing their own “Project.”
Al-Qaradawi’s ideas fall into line with some of the ideas of the Project. Thus, in a text published in 1990, the CEFR proposed to develop the presence of the Islamic Movement within the “groups of Jihad” in order “to eliminate all the foreign influences from the grounds of Islam, from Morocco to Indonesia.”
Just as a side, for most European secret services, Tariq Ramadan, the new advisor on terrorism to British Prime Minister Blair, is the unofficial head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. It looks as if the infiltration is working fine! It is not every day that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2004 revokes a visa issued to a Swiss-national scholar scheduled to teach at one of America’s premier universities. But this has just happened, and it is a good thing. The Swiss scholar is Tariq Ramadan. He is Islamist royalty—his maternal grandfather, Hasan al-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. Tariq is a Swiss citizen because his father, Sa‘id Ramadan, also a leading Islamist, fled from Egypt in 1954 following a crackdown on the Brotherhood. Sa‘id reached Geneva in 1958, where Tariq was born in 1962.
Thanks to his pedigree and his talents, Ramadan has emerged as a significant force in his own right. Symbolic of this, Time magazine in April 2004 named him one of the world’s top hundred scientists and thinkers. And so when Notre Dame University went looking for a Henry R. Luce professor of religion, conflict and peace-building, it unsurprisingly settled on Mr. Ramadan. As Lee Smith writes in The American Prospect, he is “a cold-blooded Islamist, whose cry of death to the West is a quieter and gentler jihad, but it’s still jihad.”
Al-Qaeda Book on Managing Savagery
Also contributing to the West’s understanding of the Islamist’s strategy for world domination is the book The Management of Savagery. Stephen Ulph describes the content of this book as the thinking of an al-Qaeda strategist on the next stages of the struggle. Posted on the al-Ikhlas jihadi forum [http://ekhlas.com/forum] the work is entitled Idarat al-Tawahhush, “The Management of Barbarism,” further defined as “the phase of transition to the Islamic state.” Due to the strategic importance of the document, Terrorism Focus of the Jamestown Foundation has undertaken an in-depth examination of the Arabic text.
Published by the Center of Islamic Studies and Research (an al-Qaeda affiliate), the 113-page work ‘Management of Barbarism’ aims to map out the progressive stages of establishing an Islamic state, from early beginnings in defined areas in the Arabian Peninsula, or Nigeria, Jordan, the Maghreb, Pakistan or Yemen, and its subsequent global expansion. The author is Abu Bakr Naji, a name familiar from his contributions to the Sawt al-Jihad online magazine (which are republished at the end of this book).
By “Management of Barbarism” the author refers to the period just after the collapse of a superpower, the period of “savage chaos”. It appears pointedly to be a method of not repeating the experience of Afghanistan prior to the rule of the Taliban, and of improving controls over the periods experienced, for instance, in Somalia after the fall of Siad Barre.
Jihadi strategy.
The ‘Path of Empowerment’ theme constitutes the strategy of the mujahideen. In this the author further sub-divides into three distinct phases:
1) The Disruption and Exhaustion phase
2) The Management of Barbarism [Savagery] phase
3) The Empowerment phase
In the first “Disruption and Exhaustion” phase, the mujahideen are to a) exhaust the enemy's forces by stretching them through dispersal of targets and b) “attract the youth through exemplary targeting such as occurred at Bali, Al-Muhayya and Djerba.”
At the “Management of Barbarism phase”, the mujahideen are to “establish internal security, ensure food and medical supplies, defend the zone from external attack, establish Shariah justice, an armed force, an intelligence service, provide economic sufficiency, defend against [public] hypocrisy and deviant opinions and ensure obedience, and the establishment of alliances with neighboring elements that are yet to give total conformity to the Management, and improve management structures.”
The “Empowerment” phase is an extension of the above. The policy is to continue Disruption and Exhaustion activities, at the same time establishing logistic links with the various Management zones. A conspicuous example of this phase is the series of events leading up to the September 11 attacks on the United States, which “destroyed the peoples' awe of America and of the lesser ranking Apostate armies.” The fall of Afghanistan, the author explains, was either planned to happen, or was due to happen even without the September 11 events, and had as the result the multiplication of jihadi groups bent on revenge.
[As shown above, the result of the Lebanon war was the destruction of awe of the Israeli military might.]
As for future targeting, this should be variegated “in all parts of the Islamic world and beyond it. For instance, in striking at tourist resorts frequented by Crusaders, all tourist resorts will have to be secured,” with all the dispersal of energy and costs [economic jihad] this involves. The same goes for Crusader banks in Turkey employing interest, or petrol installations near Aden, which will subsequently oblige security hikes for refineries, pipelines and shipping. “If two apostate authors are simultaneously liquidated in two different countries, it will require the security for thousands of writers in the Islamic world.” [The Islamist terrorist plot against the airlines in London resulting increased security and flight delays.]
An important feature of this phase is the attention to be given to media and propaganda strategy, both for winning support and recruitment, and for deterring opposition. [The extensive Iranian propaganda claiming victory for the Hezbollah in Lebanon, resulting in increased support for the Islamists throughout the region and possibly the world. Thus the events and subsequent cease-fire agreement empowered further the anti-war movement.] The media strategy should ‘target in depth middle ranking officers in the armed forces [of Muslim nations] to push them to join the jihad.’ It should ‘aim at every stage to justify operations to the populous legally and intellectually … given that, assuming that our long struggle will require half a million mujahideen, getting such a number from a nation of millions is easier than from the ranks of the Islamic movement.’ [Thus the linking with the leftist’s anti-war movement.]
Jihadi Tactic
The third theme, “The Most Important Principles and Policies,” gives details on tactics. After discussing the necessity of establishing a proper chain of command, in both the doctrinal and military fields, the author outlines important military principles (“striking with the heaviest force at the weakest point; a superior enemy is defeated by economic and military attrition”). He further suggests four major reference sources: “The Encyclopedia of Jihad (prepared by the mujahideen in Afghanistan) [The Encyclopedia of Jihad is now available on the web. See: AL-QAIDA'S ONLINE UNIVERSITY - Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists], the al-Battar magazine; the writings of Abu Ubayd al-Qurashi in the al-Ansar magazine, along with other works on the al-Uswa website; general works on military science, particularly on guerrilla warfare, provided the student rectifies the errors in them respective to Islamic law.
In the sub-section “The Application of Vehemence” subtitled “The Policy of Paying the Price,” Abu Bakr Naji warns against the dangers of anything other than maximum violence as a deterrent, or as a response, even if the response should take years. The response, the author states, “is best done by other groups and in other countries than those suffering the act of enmity … to give the enemy the sense of being surrounded and his interests exposed … and to confuse him.” An example of this method would be, say, in response to the Egyptians' imprisonment of mujahideen, an attack by mujahideen upon an Egyptian embassy in the Arabian Peninsula or the Maghreb, or the kidnapping of Egyptian diplomats, who should be “liquidated horrifically” if the mujahideen's demands are not met.
Stress is then laid upon the need to understand how international politics work. In the sub-section “Understanding the Rules of the Political Game” Abu Bakr Naji highlights how mujahid groups that refused to soil their hands with profane political calculations paid the price. The difficulty of reconciling Islamic legal propriety with pragmatic military interest is resolved, in the author's eyes, by recourse to the example set by [the 14th century jurist] Ibn Qayyim, who set Prophetic precedent as a preference, but not an obligation.
An important feature of this game, Naji illustrates, is the manipulation of the international media, and ensuring that the message gets through to the target, in its widest sense, and not just to the minority elite. “We must therefore set up an association whose purpose is to ensure the communication of our demands to people, even if this should expose them to dangers akin to the perils of combat … such as the taking of a hostage. After raising the hullabaloo concerning him we demand that media correspondents publish our demands in full in return for his release … Our demand might be a statement of warning or justification for an operation.” An effective response to government media's demonization of mujahid actions is to prepare the ground by first demonizing the target as something Islamically forbidden or serving the economic interests of the enemy. Naji then gives an imaginary scenario of an attempt to adjust oil prices in favor of the people where a deadline is issued and an oil engineer or manager or journalist is kidnapped to ensure that the demand is fully publicized.
Points of weakness
The fourth major theme in the work covers “The Most Pressing Difficulties and Obstacles” that will face the mujahideen. These are listed as the diminution in the numbers of believers as casualties in war, the lack of sufficiently trained administrators (and the relative social distance many of these have from the rank and file) and the problems caused by over-enthusiasm in the behavior of some. Naji also highlights the problems that will be faced with old loyalties to other Islamist groups impeding administration in the new Management phases, or the threat of schism.
The Underlying Cause Driving the Axis of Appeasement
It appears to be lack of moral values corresponding to the Judeo-Christian ideologies and seeking economic gain at any cost further drives it. Some of the Fellows at Hoover Institute have published recent articles about the subject but do not seem to have the answer to counter the influence. The ideologies seem to go back the lack of understanding the risks dating to the 1930’s as noted by Victor Davis Hanson in his article The Brink of Madness and Thomas Sowell in his article Pacifists versus peace. It appears that this may have coalesced into the “The Axis of Appeasement.”
Man Seeking Consensus
Man by nature seeks consensus. But the means he manipulates for this end do not always serve the purpose. Human history is full of momentous events whereby certain individuals or groups have endeavored to effect an agreement but the consequences of these events have far exceeded the innocence of their initiators. Religions or belief systems have always occupied a significant place in man’s struggle for consensus. Some contemporary intellectuals have stressed the importance of inter-religious communication to the degree that without a factual understanding between the adherents of various world religions, they claim, the future of mankind will remain under threat. In seeking this consensus we are witnessing the rise of the ‘Axis of Appeasement’. The name that is commonly used for this new era is postmodernism.
Following in the footsteps of the pre-postmodern Nietzsche – God is dead, the intellectuals that were the philosophers of the Frankfurt School developed philosophies known as “Critical Theory’ or ‘Cultural Marxism’ thus promoted postmodernism to go after the hearts and minds of the population. The intellectual ‘reformers’ of Islam are utilizing these same successful tactics used to create the Postmodern Era and are now utilizing ‘Critical Islam’ as the guideline - the strategic weapon for communication with the adherents of other religions. Thus one of their slogans is ‘From The Schoolhouse To The White House’.
The uniformity of fundamental beliefs among believers of the same religion is no longer in intact, due to exposition to various propaganda influences of different cultural orientations. Easy access to the knowledge of alien cultures has caused considerable polarization among co-religionists, so much that difference of opinion between two members of a religion on essential matters may become greater than that may exist between members of two different religions. A good example of this is the discrepancy in respect of worldview between a traditional Muslim and a secular one. The former may feel that a practicing Christian is nearer to him than the secular Muslim as far as the similarity between their respective fundamental (metaphysical) beliefs is concerned. In such a situation it would be more befitting for a Muslim that is anxious to propagate his belief, to start with his coreligionist: the so-called secular-minded Muslim, rather than attempting to convert a Christian. It is also this ‘Moral Trade Deficit’ within the Christian church that provides the vacuum being filled by postmodernism and ‘Critical Islam’.
As we witnessed following the 3/11 terrorists attacks on the trains in Spain during run up to the election in 2004, the terrorists were able to control the election. The populous were more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance. One more step toward achieving Osama bin Laden’s goal of returning Andalusia into the caliphate.
**David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, Xulon Press 2005. His next book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance will we released in spring 2006. He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations in the United States and Japan and with multilateral agencies that brought him to more that fifteen countries with significant or majority populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into the basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system. He became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract negotiation and personal encounter. Mr. Jonsson can be reached at: djonsson2000@yahoo.co.uk

Is the West Racist Toward Muslims and Arabs?"
The US should hold Arabs and Muslims to a universal standard
by Michael Rubin
Bitterlemons-International
August 31, 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/1001
Is the West racist toward Arabs and Muslims? In the United States, the answer is both no and yes. The United States is about the best place any Muslim, Christian or Jew can live. They can speak freely and worship freely. Despite the rhetoric of some groups that claim to represent American Muslims, there is very little discrimination. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's hate crimes report, in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 1,374 religious hate crimes. Of these, 954 were anti-Jewish, 95 anti-Christian and 156 anti-Muslim. All of these are still too many but, in a country of almost 300 million people, such figures underscore the safety of American society and the tolerance of the American public.
Whether Muslims are born in the United States or immigrate to it, there is little impediment to their full participation in society. Indeed, Muslims in the United States are more affluent than the average American. They enter the best schools, build successful businesses or practices and experience little if any glass ceiling.
Why, then, can the United States be considered racist toward Arabs and Muslims? Simply put, because Washington policymakers and the foreign policy elite do not hold Arab and Muslim governments to the same standards to which they hold countries like Denmark and Sweden. Why should US or European policymakers react any differently to the Iranian government's abuses against striking Vahed bus drivers than we would to striking Gdansk shipyard workers? Are Iranian laborers any less deserving of justice than European workers? Are Tunisians any less deserving of free speech than Frenchmen?
This hypocrisy is most often apparent in western policy toward the Arab world. To summarize what eminent historian Bernard Lewis said regarding the question of democracy in the Arab world, there are two points of view, one of which holds that "Arabs are incapable of democratic government.... Arabs are different from us and we must be more, shall we say, reasonable both in what we expect from them and in what they may expect from us. Whatever we do, these countries will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. The aim of foreign policy, therefore, should be to make sure that they are friendly tyrants." This, he said, is the traditional "pro-Arab" view. In an Orwellian reversal of logic, those who demand that Arabs and other Muslims be held to the same standards of human rights are often labeled anti-Arab.
Many pundits argue that the US government cannot impose democracy upon the Middle East. True. Democracy is not possible without civil society, political accountability and the buy-in of local citizens. This does not mean that democracy cannot take root. According to The Guardian, a paper seldom accused of sympathy to US foreign policy, more than one-in-six Iraqis fled their country during the rule of Saddam Hussein. When they settled in the West, they experienced no cultural impediments to democracy. This suggests that the problem in much of the Middle East is not democracy, but rather rule-of-law. That many professional diplomats and elite commentators belittle even the concept of democracy taking root in the Arab world and majority Muslim nations is a sign of the condescension and contempt with which so many treat Arabs. These officials would let terrorists win by excusing their atrocities or, worse yet, forcing compromises upon those suffering from but resisting terrorist violence.
Some put a scholarly patina on their condescension. They try to differentiate between democracy and Islamic democracy, or human rights and Islamic human rights. They equivocate about the importance of religious freedom. But qualification of such concepts as democracy, justice, or human rights with an adjective never expands rights; it only restricts them.
Within policymaking circles, fear of stigma becomes an excuse to hold Arabs, Iranians and Muslims to a lower standard. Too often, policymakers and academics argue that to fund civil society, assist organized labor or speak out on behalf of dissidents could undercut reform. Most recently, many have condemned the allocation of $75 million to support democracy and civil society in Iran. True, the Iranian government may still brand civil society activists traitors. And many oppositionists are charlatans, eager to defraud Uncle Sam of a buck. But that is what quality control is for. The US should not judge what is in the best interests of dissidents or activists bold enough to ignore such stigma. Arabs, Iranians, and other Muslim civil society activists are perfectly capable of deciding what is in their best interest; the State Department should not presuppose to do it for them.
The United States may still be a multicultural haven of equality. It is too bad, then, that US policymakers still embrace a doctrine of condescension and inequality when it comes to demanding the same human rights standards for Arabs and Muslims and behavior from their governments that they do for European, Latin American and many Asian nations.
**Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.

Hezbollah's Tactics and Capabilities in Southern Lebanon
By Andrew McGregor
With its attack on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Israel is fighting on terrain that has been prepared by the Shiite movement for six years since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers have described finding a network of concrete bunkers with modern communications equipment as deep as 40 meters along the border (Ynet News, July 23). The terrain is already well-suited for ambushes and hidden troop movements, consisting of mountains and woods in the east and scrub-covered hills to the west, all intersected by deep wadis (dry river beds). Broken rocks and numerous caves provide ample cover. Motorized infantry and armor can only cross the region with difficulty. Use of the few winding and unpaved roads invites mines and ambushes by Hezbollah's adaptable force of several thousand guerrillas (The Times [London], July 21).
Hezbollah emerged in 1985 with more enthusiasm than tactical sense, relying on wasteful frontal assaults and more effective suicide attacks on Israeli troops. With training provided by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah's highly-motivated military wing developed into a highly effective guerrilla force. Iran continues to provide specialized training, funds and weapons to Hezbollah through the Revolutionary Guards organization. Various reports suggest Iranian volunteers are being recruited and sent to Lebanon to assist Hezbollah, but these reports remain unconfirmed (Alborz News Agency, July 18; Mehr News Agency, July 17).
Hezbollah's military leadership has rethought much of the strategic and tactical doctrine that led to the repeated defeat of Arab regular forces by the IDF. The top-down command structure that inhibited initiative in junior ranks has been reversed. Hezbollah operates with a decentralized command structure that allows for rapid response to any situation by encouraging initiative and avoiding the need to consult with leaders in Beirut. The military wing nevertheless answers directly to Hezbollah's central council of clerics for direction.
The fighters are armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, typically assembling in small teams to avoid concentrations that would draw Israeli attention. The preparation of well-disguised explosive devices has become a specialty of Hezbollah. The uncertainty created by such weapons takes a heavy psychological toll on patrolling soldiers.
Hezbollah has improved its night-vision capabilities, although they do not compare with Israel's state-of-the-art equipment, which includes UAVs, helicopters and jet-fighters equipped for night warfare. Hezbollah fighters are well-trained in the use of complex weapons systems. Air defense units use SA-7 missiles and ZU-23 anti-aircraft guns on flatbed trucks.
The guerrillas rigorously examine the success or failure of each operation after completion. Tactics change constantly and new uses are sought for existing weapons. The use of mortars (81mm and 120mm) has been honed to near perfection. Hezbollah fighters have developed efficient assault tactics for use against armor, with their main anti-tank weapons being AT-3 Saggers and AT-4 Spigot missiles. Four tanks were destroyed in two weeks in 1997 using U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles (these missiles traveled from Israel to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra affair before being supplied to Hezbollah).
Hezbollah leaders believe that their fighters have a perspective on conflict losses that gives them an inherent advantage; according to Naim Kassem, deputy leader of Hezbollah, "[The Israeli] perspective is preservation of life, while our point of departure is preservation of principle and sacrifice. What is the value of a life of humiliation?" (Haaretz, December 15, 1996). With no hope of overwhelming Israel's well-supplied military, Hezbollah fighters concentrate on inflicting Israeli casualties, believing that an inability or unwillingness to absorb steady losses is Israel's strategic weakness.
Hezbollah has also mastered the field of information warfare, videotaping attacks on Israeli troops that are then shown in Israel and around the world, damaging public morale and degrading the myth of IDF invincibility.
Hezbollah is believed to have as many as 10,000, unguided 122mm Katyusha rockets (range 22 km) (Arutz Sheva, August 1). The Second World War-style Katyushas are easily obtained on the international arms market and inflict greater economic and psychological damage than physical damage. Their chief advantage is their portability; launchers can be easily mounted on a truck that can dash into position, fire its rockets and take off to a prepared refuge before a retaliatory strike can be launched. Sometimes automatic timers are used on the launchers, allowing the crew to escape well in advance.
The weapon used in an attack against an Israeli warship that killed four commandos was identified by the Israeli military as an Iranian-made C802 Noor radar-guided land-to-sea missile (range 95 km). Most other missiles used by Hezbollah are Iranian-made, including the Raad 2 and 3 models (used against Haifa), the Fajr-3 and 5 and, allegedly, the Zelzal-2, with a range of 200 km.
Hezbollah is unlikely to have used the most potent weapons in its arsenal. Hanging on to them provides both strategic and psychological advantage. It is typical Hezbollah strategy to view war as a progression, rather than to use everything it has in the early stages of a conflict. While Israel may have a timetable of several weeks for this campaign, Hezbollah is prepared for several years of fighting. Disengagement may prove more difficult for Israel than it assumes. At some point, however, Hezbollah may become short of weapons and supplies. Normal supply lines from Syria have already been cut and Hezbollah has no facilities capable of producing arms or ammunition.
Israel has never been able to get the upper hand in the intelligence war with Hezbollah. Hezbollah's military wing is not easily penetrated by outsiders, but has had great success in intelligence operations against Israel. Nearly the entire Shiite population of south Lebanon acts as eyes and ears for the fighters, so it is little surprise that Israel initially concentrated on eliminating regional communications systems and forcing the local population from their homes in the border region.
Israel's air strikes have revealed the limitations of conventional air power in coping with mobile forces with little in the way of fixed installations or strategic targets. The 18-year war against the Israeli occupation (1982-2000) has, on the other hand, given Hezbollah an intimate knowledge of Israeli tactics. While some 3,000-4,000 Israeli Air Force air-raids in the last few weeks have killed hundreds of civilians, Hezbollah admits to only a few dozen of its own fighters killed (although Israel claims it has killed 300 Hezbollah fighters).
According to Ali Fayyad, a member of Hezbollah's Central Council, the movement's strategy is "not to reveal all its cards, to impose its own pace in fighting the war and to prepare for a long war" (Bloomberg, July 27).