Tag: Global Jihad

NEVER FORGET: 9/11

Remembering a Hero, 15 Years After 9/11: Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2016 — What do I think about when I think about that day?

Coming Full Circle on 9/11: Ruthie Blum, Algemeiner, Sept. 9, 2016— Sunday will mark the 15th anniversary of 9/11.

Dangers Rise as America Retreats: Dick Cheney & Liz Cheney, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2016 — Fifteen years ago this Sunday, nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in the deadliest attack on the U.S. homeland in our history.

Hillary Clinton’s Health Just Became a Real Issue in the Presidential Campaign: Chris Cillizza, Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2016 — Hillary Clinton falling ill Sunday morning at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days.

 

On Topic Links

 

15 Years After 9/11, US Terror Threat is Now ‘Homegrown’: Paul Handley, Times of Israel, Sept. 9, 2016

Barack Obama and the Lessons of 9/11: John Bolton, Algemeiner, Sept. 12, 2016

Google’s Clever Plan to Stop Aspiring ISIS Recruits: Andy Greenberg, Wired, Aug. 7, 2016

With The Terror Threat Growing, Europe Changes Course: Abigail R. Esman, IPT News, Aug. 31, 2016

 

 

REMEMBERING A HERO, 15 YEARS AFTER 9/11

Peggy Noonan

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2016

 

What do I think about when I think about that day? The firemen who climbed “the stairway to Heaven” with 50, 60 pounds of gear. The people who called from Windows on the World and said: “I just want you to know I love you.” The men on the plane who tried to take the cockpit of Flight 93 before it went down in a Pennsylvania field: “Let’s roll.” And I think about Welles Crowther, the man in the red bandanna.

 

He was 24, from Nyack, N.Y. He played lacrosse at Boston College, graduated and got an internship at Sandler O’Neill, the investment bank. In two years he was a junior associate on the trading desk. He worked in the south tower of the World Trade Center, on the 104th floor. When United Flight 175 hit that tower at 9:03 a.m., it came in at a tilt, ripping through floors 78 through 84. Many of those who never got out were on those floors, or the ones above. Welles Crowther had already called his mother, Alison, and left a voicemail: “I want you to know that I’m OK.” Only one stairwell was clear. He found it. Most people would have run for their lives, but he started running for everyone else’s.

 

Welles was beloved—bright, joyous, grounded. Family was everything to him. He idolized his father, Jefferson, a banker and volunteer fireman. They went to the firehouse together when Welles was a child. Welles would clean the trucks, getting in close where no one else could fit. One Sunday when Welles was 7 or 8 his mother dressed him for church in his first suit. His father had a white handkerchief in his breast pocket. Could he have one? Jefferson put one in Welles’s front pocket and then took a colored one and put it in Welles’s back pocket. One’s for show, he said, the other’s for blow.

 

“Welles kept it with him, a connection to his father,” said Alison Crowther this week by phone. “He carried a red bandanna all his life.” It was a talisman but practical, too. It could clean up a mess. When he’d take it from his pocket at Sandler O’Neill they’d tease him. What are you, a farmer? That is from  Tom Rinaldi’s lovely book “The Red Bandanna,” which came out this week. He’d tease back: “With this bandanna I’m gonna change the world.”

 

As Welles went down the stairwell he saw what happened on the 78th floor sky lobby. People trying to escape had been waiting for elevators when the plane hit. It was carnage—fire, smoke, bodies everywhere. A woman named  Ling Young, a worker for the state tax department, sat on the floor, badly burned and in shock. From out of the murk she heard a man’s voice: “I found the stairs. Follow me.” “There was something she heard in the voice, an authority, compelling her to follow,” Mr. Rinaldi writes. Ms. Young stood, and followed. She saw that the man was carrying a woman. Eighteen floors down the air began to clear. He gently placed the woman down and told them both to continue walking down. Then he turned and went back upstairs to help others.

 

Judy Wein of  Aon  Corporation had also been in the 78th floor. She too was badly injured and she too heard the voice: “Everyone who can stand now, stand now. If you can help others, do so.” He guided her and others to the stairwell. Apparently Welles kept leading people down from the top floors to the lower ones, where they could make their way out. Then he’d go up to find more. No one knows how many. The fire department credits him with five saved lives.

 

He never made it home. His family hoped, grieved, filled out forms. On the Friday after 9/11 Alison stood up from her desk and suddenly she knew Welles was there, right behind her. She could feel his energy, his force; it was him. She didn’t turn. She just said: Thank you. She knew he was saying he was OK. After that she didn’t dare hope he’d be found alive because she knew he wouldn’t.  They found him six months later, in the lobby of the south tower. He’d made it all the way down. He was found in an area with many firefighters’ remains. It had been the FDNY command post. It was where assistant fire chief  Donald Burns was found. He and his men had probably helped evacuate thousands. Welles could have left and saved his own life—they all could have. But they’d all stayed. “He was helping,” said Alison.

 

The Crowthers never knew what he’d done until Memorial Day weekend 2002. The New York Times carried a minute-by-minute report of what happened in the towers after the planes hit. Near the end it said: “A mysterious man appeared at one point, his mouth and nose covered with a red handkerchief.” It mentioned Ms. Young and Ms. Wein. The Crowthers sent them pictures of Welles. That was him, they said. Ms. Wein had seen his face when he took the bandanna from his face as the air cleared on the lower floors. Ms. Young said: “He saved my life.”…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

 

Contents                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                       COMING FULL CIRCLE ON 9/11

                     Ruthie Blum

Algemeiner, Sept. 9, 2016

 

Sunday will mark the 15th anniversary of 9/11. On that fateful day in 2001, the “land of the free and home of the brave” was brutally violated on its own soil. Americans, previously insulated from war and terrorism within the confines of their country’s borders, were suddenly faced with the realization that their sense of security had been false for quite some time. This shock was not exclusive to citizens of the United States. The entire world watched the unfathomable footage of the collapse of the Twin Towers from television sets at home and in shop windows with amazement. Even those who celebrated the humiliation of the world’s only superpower at the hands of rogue actors were incredulous.

 

Indeed, for that moment in time, there was universal global consensus that a seismic shift had occurred in one fell swoop, and that life as we knew it would never be the same again. It was like witnessing a chapter – or prediction – of the Bible. But it was a very different book that became the focus of heated public debate, even before the dust in lower Manhattan had settled. Was the Quran behind such evil, or was it hijacked, like the planes-turned-bombs? Were all Muslims to be held accountable for the act of a few radicals, or would they join in the fight to root out their bad seeds?

 

Israelis were just as horrified as everyone else by the scale and scope of the mass murder. We also understood the significance of the targets of the meticulously planned atrocity — key symbols of American financial and military prowess. But we were not surprised by the event itself. Nor did we concern ourselves with the extent to which the tenets of Islam were to blame. We were in the throes of a suicide-bombing war, which had been launched against us a year earlier by the Palestinian Authority. The only casus belli for what came to be called the Second Intifada was our utter and repeated capitulation to the demands of arch-terrorist, PLO chief Yasser Arafat. The more we groveled, the more empowered the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, whose aim all along was to annihilate the Jewish state, became.

 

Yes, we Israelis were spending our days trying to calculate which buses might blow up on our way to school or work; which café, restaurant or discotheque was too risky to frequent; and what packages, backpacks and sidelong glances were suspicious. As heads were literally rolling in seas of Jewish blood on the streets, our concern was not with the Quran, but with our leaders’ ability to put a stop to the carnage perpetrated by enemies in our midst. We did not care whether Islam had been “hijacked.” We just wanted to eradicate the phenomenon – by any means necessary. Those naïve enough to have believed that the way to do this was through diplomacy were provided with a wake-up call, courtesy of Palestinians wearing and detonating explosive belts. The rest of us already knew that, in the language of Fatah and Hamas, “peace” is a codename for “death and destruction.”

 

In the decade and a half that has ensued, much has changed and even more has stayed the same. Most rational people today are unable to escape the conclusion that understanding the “gripes” of Islamic radicals does nothing but feed their bloodlust. Even willfully ignorant Europeans are being forced to remove their blindfolds. Nevertheless, the phenomenon is spreading, not receding. Which brings us back to America. In the past eight years, the administration in Washington – sitting in the very neighborhood of the 9/11 Pentagon bombing – has signaled to Islamists who believe it is their political and religious duty to subjugate, kill or maim all infidel Jews, Christians and Muslims that their path will not be hindered.

 

US President Barack Obama even put this in writing last year, when he signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the Iran nuclear deal. With each passing day, new details of the agreement itself and of off-the-record addenda emerge to indicate just how completely and purposefully the White House bowed down to the ayatollahs in Tehran. In so doing, Obama gave the regime the bright-green light to continue to serve as the greatest state sponsor of global terrorism – but with deadlier weapons of mass destruction.

 

Americans now can lie awake at night knowing that their tax dollars are paying for the slaughter of innocent people, just like those who went to work on the morning of 9/11 and never returned. What a way to come full circle on a crystal anniversary.‎

 

Contents           

DANGERS RISE AS AMERICA RETREATS

Dick Cheney & Liz Cheney

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2016

 

Fifteen years ago this Sunday, nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in the deadliest attack on the U.S. homeland in our history. A decade and a half later, we remain at war with Islamic terrorists. Winning this war will require an effort of greater scale and commitment than anything we have seen since World War II, calling on every element of our national power. Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies of Barack Obama. No American president has done more to weaken the U.S., hobble our defenses or aid our adversaries.

 

President Obama has been more dedicated to reducing America’s power than to defeating our enemies. He has enhanced the abilities, reach and finances of our adversaries, including the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, at the expense of our allies and our own national security. He has overseen a decline of our own military capabilities as our adversaries’ strength has grown.

 

Our Air Force today is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. In January 2015, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified that the Army was as unready as it had been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert testified similarly that, “Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years.” Nearly half of the Marine Corps’ non-deployed units—the ones that respond to unforeseen contingencies—are suffering shortfalls, according to the commandant of the Corps, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. For the first time in decades, American supremacy in key areas can no longer be assured.

 

The president who came into office promising to end wars has made war more likely by diminishing America’s strength and deterrence ability. He doesn’t seem to understand that the credible threat of military force gives substance and meaning to our diplomacy. By reducing the size and strength of our forces, he has ensured that future wars will be longer, and put more American lives at risk.

 

Meanwhile, the threat from global terrorist organizations has grown. Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the House Homeland Security Committee in July that, “As we approach 15 years since 9/11, the array of terrorist actors around the globe is broader, wider and deeper than it has been at any time since that day.” Despite Mr. Obama’s claim that ISIS has been diminished, John Brennan, Mr. Obama’s CIA director, told the Senate Intelligence Committee in June that, “Our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability or global reach.”

 

The president’s policies have contributed to our enemies’ advance. In his first days in office, Mr. Obama moved to take the nation off a war footing and return to the failed policies of the 1990s when terrorism was treated as a law-enforcement matter. It didn’t matter that the Enhanced Interrogation Program produced information that prevented attacks, saved American lives and, we now know, contributed to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. Mr. Obama ended the program, publicly revealed its techniques, and failed to put any effective terrorist-interrogation program in its place.

 

We are no longer interrogating terrorists in part because we are no longer capturing terrorists. Since taking office, the president has recklessly pursued his objective of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo by releasing current detainees—regardless of the likelihood they will return to the field of battle against us. Until recently, the head of recruitment for ISIS in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a former Guantanamo detainee, as is one of al Qaeda’s most senior leaders in the Arabian Peninsula. As he released terrorists to return to the field of battle, Mr. Obama was simultaneously withdrawing American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He calls this policy “ending wars.” Most reasonable people recognize this approach as losing wars.

 

When Mr. Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, Iraq was stable. Following the surge ordered by President Bush, al Qaeda in Iraq had largely been defeated, as had the Shiite militias. The situation was so good that Vice President Joe Biden predicted, “Iraq will be one of the great achievements of this administration.” Today, Iraq’s border with Syria has been erased by the most successful and dangerous terrorist organization in history. ISIS has established its “caliphate” across a large swath of territory in the heart of Syria and Iraq, from which it trains, recruits, plots and launches attacks.

 

On Aug. 20, 2012, Mr. Obama drew a red line making clear he would take military action if Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons. A year later, Mr. Assad launched a sarin-gas attack on his own people in the suburbs of Damascus. Mr. Obama did nothing—a failure that destroyed America’s credibility and strengthened the hand of our adversaries.

 

We now know that the president’s refusal to act came as the Iranians and the U.S. were engaged in secret talks about Iran’s nuclear program. In his new book, “The Iran Wars,” Wall Street Journal correspondent Jay Solomon writes that according to Iranian sources, “Tehran made it clear to the American delegation that the nuclear negotiations would be halted if the U.S. went ahead with its attack on Assad.” The Iranians were now in the driver’s seat, not just regarding their own policy in the Middle East, but in determining America’s.

 

President Obama and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were so concerned with pleasing Iran’s ruling mullahs that they were willing to overlook the American blood on Iranian hands and decades of Iran’s activities as the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. In pursuit of the nuclear deal, they made concession after dangerous concession. Every promise made to the American people about the Obama nuclear agreement has been broken. We were promised a “world-class” verification process. Instead, the Iranians are allowed in key instances to verify themselves.

 

We were promised the agreement would “block every pathway” to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Instead, the Obama-Clinton agreement virtually guarantees an Iranian nuclear weapon, gives them access to the latest in centrifuge technology and will likely usher in a nuclear arms race across the Middle East. We were promised that non-nuclear sanctions, including those that block Iran’s access to hard currency and our financial systems, would remain in place. Instead, the Obama administration has paid the mullahs at least $1.7 billion in cash, which includes at least $1.3 billion in U.S. taxpayer money, the first installment of which was ransom for the release of American hostages. In case there is any doubt that the regime will use these funds to support terror, Iran’s parliament recently passed Article 22 of its 2016-2017 budget, mandating that all such funds be transferred directly to the Iranian military. Fifteen years after 3,000 Americans were killed by Islamic terrorists, America’s commander in chief has become the money launderer in chief for the world’s leading state sponsor of terror…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

           

 

Contents                                   

             

HILLARY CLINTON’S HEALTH JUST BECAME A

REAL ISSUE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

                                 Chris Cillizza

                  Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2016

 

Hillary Clinton falling ill Sunday morning at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days. "Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen," spokesman Nick Merrill said. "During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter's apartment and is feeling much better."

 

What that statement leaves out is that a) it came 90 minutes after Clinton left the ceremony b) reporters — or even a reporter — were not allowed to follow her and c) the temperature in New York City at the time of Clinton's overheating was in the low 80s. (A heat wave over the eastern United States broke last night/this morning.) She later left her daughter's apartment, saying she was "feeling great" and waving at the crowd, per the Associated Press. Clinton was diagnosed Friday with pneumonia, according to her doctor, who ascribed her illness on Sunday to that ailment.

 

Whether Clinton likes it or not, her "overheating" episode comes at a very bad time for her campaign. Thanks to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and a small but vocal element of the Republican base, talk of her health had been bubbling over the past week — triggered by a coughing episode she experienced during a Labor Day rally. That talk was largely confined to Republicans convinced that Clinton has long been hiding some sort of serious illness. I wrote dismissively of that conspiracy theory in this space last week, noting that Clinton had been given an entirely clean bill of health by her doctors after an episode in which she fainted, suffered a concussion and then was found to have a blood clot in late 2012 and early 2013.

 

Coughing, I wrote, is simply not evidence enough of any sort of major illness that Clinton is assumed to be hiding. Neither, of course, is feeling "overheated." But those two things happening within six days of each other to a candidate who is 68 years old makes talk of Clinton's health no longer just the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Whereas Clinton and her campaign could laugh off questions about her health before today, the "overheating" episode makes it almost impossible for them to do so. Not only has it come at a time when there was growing chatter — with very little evidence — that her health was a problem but it also happened at a 9/11 memorial event — an incredibly high-profile moment with lots and lots of cameras and reporters around. Her campaign may well try to dismiss this story as nothing more than an isolated incident, meaning nothing. (Democrats were already pushing the story of George W. Bush fainting in 2002 after choking on a pretzel, via Twitter.)

 

But the issue is that Clinton kept reporters totally in the dark for 90 minutes after her abrupt departure from the 9/11 memorial service for a health-related matter. No reporter was allowed to follow her. (Clinton has resisted a protective pool for coverage because Donald Trump refuses to participate in one.) This is, yet again, the Clinton campaign asking everyone to just trust it. She got overheated! But she's fine now!

 

Clinton may well be totally fine — and I certainly hope she is. But we are 58 days away from choosing the person who will lead the country for the next four years, and she is one of the two candidates with a real chance of winning. Taking the Clinton team's word for it on her health — in light of the episode on Sunday morning — is no  longer enough. Reasonable people can — and will —  have real questions about her health. I wrote this on Tuesday morning: The simple fact is that there is zero evidence that anything is seriously wrong with Clinton. If suffering an occasional coughing fit is evidence of a major health problem, then 75 percent of the country must have that mystery illness. And I am one of them.

 

Well, that is no longer operative. Context matters. A coughing episode is almost always just a coughing episode. But when coupled with Clinton's "overheating" on Sunday morning — with temperatures something short of sweltering — Clinton and her team simply need to say something about what happened (and why the press was in the dark for so long.) And as the New York Times's Adam Nagourney tweeted on Sunday morning, now might be a good time for Clinton to release a fuller record of her medical history.

 

Contents                       

           

On Topic Links

 

15 Years After 9/11, US Terror Threat is Now ‘Homegrown’: Paul Handley, Times of Israel, Sept. 9, 2016—Fifteen years after the September 11 attacks, US anti-terror officials say the country is hardened against such well-developed plots but remains as vulnerable as ever to small and especially homegrown attacks.

Barack Obama and the Lessons of 9/11: John Bolton, Algemeiner, Sept. 12, 2016—Al Qaeda’s barbaric attacks on the United States 15 years ago caused a profound change in the way most Americans think about terrorism.

Google’s Clever Plan to Stop Aspiring ISIS Recruits: Andy Greenberg, Wired, Aug. 7, 2016—Google has built a half-trillion-dollar business out of divining what people want based on a few words they type into a search field.

With The Terror Threat Growing, Europe Changes Course: Abigail R. Esman, IPT News, Aug. 31, 2016—Sixteen years ago, when Dutch commentator Paul Scheffer published his "Multicultural Drama" declaring that multiculturalism in the Netherlands had failed, the response was swift and angry. Critics across Europe called him racist, bigoted, nationalistic. Others dismissed his views as mere rants and ramblings of a Leftist in search of a cause. Not anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARLIE HEBDO MASSACRE CONFIRMS THAT ISLAMIST ATTACKS ARE NOW REGULAR EVENTS IN FRANCE

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

Paris Attack Represents Islamist Hate That Knows No Boundaries: Barbara Kay, National Post, Jan. 7, 2015— It is a black day in France for loss of human life and — more important historically — a black day for democracy’s greatest gift to the world: the principle of freedom of speech.

France and the New Charismatic Jihad: Reuel Marc Gerecht, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 7, 2015 — The terrorist attack in Paris on Wednesday—with 12 people killed by masked men yelling Islamist slogans—has been a long time coming.

Europe's Year of the Jihadist: Abigail R. Esman, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Dec. 29, 2015— Among the trends of 2014 – "Gone, Girl," Lena Dunham, and $55,000 potato salad – was another the list-makers seem to have missed: it was also a very good year for Islamic jihad.

Whitewashing Islamic Terrorism: Charles Bybelezer, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 3, 2015— Three days before Christmas, one unsuspecting holiday shopper was killed and nine others wounded when a van plowed through a crowded market in Nantes, located in western France.

 

On Topic Links

 

The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders: George Packer, New Yorker, Jan. 7, 2015

Will We Ever Learn? Obama White House Can't Admit Paris Attacks 'Islamic Terrorism': Steven Emerson,  Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jan. 7, 2015

Jewish Cartoonist Among Victims of Paris Terror Attack: Ynet, Jan. 8, 2015

Muslims Segregated from French Society in Growing Islamist Mini-States:  Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, Jan. 7, 2014

Political Correctness and Islam: Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2015

 

                            

PARIS ATTACK REPRESENTS ISLAMIST

HATE THAT KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES                                                                                            

Barbara Kay                                    

National Post, Jan. 7, 2014

 

It is a black day in France for loss of human life and — more important historically — a black day for democracy’s greatest gift to the world: the principle of freedom of speech. Three masked Islamic terrorists, armed with Kalashnikov rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade, stormed the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, killing 12 and injuring about 20, four said to be in critical condition. There seems no doubt as to the motivation for the attack. According to a witness, the assailants cried out, “We will avenge the Prophet.” The gunmen shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) as shots rang out.

 

After a gun fight with police outside the building, in which two officers were killed, the gunmen fled in a car (stolen after they abandoned their projected getaway car). A manhunt is under way. Security levels, already amongst the highest in the world, are being raised, the French government affirmed. Authorities said several other threats having been averted in the last few weeks. A police representative said there was a good possibility of more to come. Emergency government meetings are underway. Foreign governments expressed their horror at the attack and their solidarity with France. President Obama condemned the attack in “the strongest possible terms.” Britain’s David Cameron said: “the murders are sickening. We stand with the French people in the fight against terror and defending the freedom of the press.” Fine words, small comfort.

 

Charlie Hebdo is a satiric magazine known for its bravado on touchy subjects, especially Islam, which it has frequently – and scathingly – satirized. One of the few publications with the courage to publish the infamous Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed, which sparked threats of violence in 2005, it is hardly surprising that it should find itself  in the crosshairs of Islamists. But an attack of this magnitude has staggered the imagination even of those accustomed to threats and hatred directed at iconoclasts. Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief Gerard Biard told France Inter: “I don’t understand how people can attack a newspaper with heavy weapons. A newspaper is not a weapon of war.” He is wrong. All totalitarian systems loathe mockery and punish those who ridicule their sacred monsters. Stalin purged writers who showed the slightest disrespect. The utopian vision of Islamists does not tolerate mockery. Did Mr. Biard think Islamist rage would be content forever with merely beating up Jews, burning synagogues and marching through the streets screaming “To the gas, Jews”? Whatever starts with anti-Semitism moves on to bigger fish. That is a lesson Europeans are learning, but too slowly.

 

On Charlie Hebdo’s Twitter account, the last tweet mocked Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the brutal, brutish self-declared Islamic State. Perhaps it was one poke at the hornet’s nest too many. The days of mere fatwas seem to be over. We’re dealing with grand-scale terrorism now: towers downed, kidnapping, rape, murder en masse. Whether or not these particular massacrists are devotees of al Qaeda or ISIS or are merely a cluster of self-organized lone wolves is irrelevant. They have taken their inspiration from a form of Islamism that knows no boundaries of geography or cruelty. Can we finally concede that the recent Islamist attacks make it clear they do not have the kind of “root causes” liberals brood over with such empathetic anguish. They aren’t fighting for a Palestinian state, or to protest the wealth gap. This particular group had planned ahead. They knew that on most days few of the writers and cartoonists actually came to the Charlie Hebdo offices. They struck on the day when it was customary to hold a group editorial meeting. They were able to obtain a grenade launcher. They had a car waiting, and appear to have been prepared for police.

 

What will happen now? The government will tighten its security, but who can now trust that it will be effective? Many knowledgable scholars of Islam and other careful observers have warned that this day was coming; the bien-pensants rolled their eyes at them and called them conspiracy theorists, alarmists, Islamophobes. But they were right and the bien-pensants were wrong. So now people will turn to the “alarmists” for their solutions: people like Dutch politician Geert Wilders, Nigel Farrage (leader of the UK Independence Party) and Martine Le Pen of France (president of the National Front). The mainstream politicians will make promises, but it will be too little too late. Paris is burning, but all of Europe is breathing the carbon monoxide of Islamism. Anyone who thinks it can’t happen here is a fool.         

 

Barbara Kay is a CIJR Academic Fellow

 

                                                           

Contents                                                                                                        

   

                            

FRANCE AND THE NEW CHARISMATIC JIHAD                                                                    

Reuel Marc Gerecht                                                                                                       

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 7, 2015

 

The terrorist attack in Paris on Wednesday—with 12 people killed by masked men yelling Islamist slogans—has been a long time coming. After the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Western counterterrorist experts probably feared European radical Muslims more than they did Islamic militants in the Middle East. Since the early 1990s, when Algeria’s savage war between the military junta and Islamists began to spill over into France, the French internal-security service, now known as the Direction Central du Renseignement Intérieur, or DCRI, began to ramp up its capacity to monitor Muslim militants. On Nov. 27, 2001, France’s premier counterterrorist magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguière, was pessimistic about “autonomous” jihadist cells in Europe and North America that “don’t need to receive orders to pass into action.” The Iraq War added to this widespread anxiety. Many believed that the Anglo-American invasion would provoke a maelstrom of holy warriors against the West. It didn’t happen then. But it may be happening now.

 

The lethal attack in Paris on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo —which has made a specialty of mocking both sides of the too-much-Islam-in-Europe debate, and in 2012 famously published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad —probably isn’t a lone-wolf affair. But it may represent what Mr. Bruguière feared: native jihadist cells that can act independently of foreign terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda or Islamic State, but may act in concert, and certainly in sympathy, with these groups. The DCRI, easily the most effective domestic-intelligence organization in Western Europe, has been sounding the alarm for over a year, warning that the Syrian insurrection against the Bashar Assad regime was becoming too bloody and too irresistibly magnetic for French Sunni Muslims. Several hundred of them have traveled to Syria and Iraq to fight under the banner of Islamic State and other radical groups. Hundreds of other European Muslims appear to have joined them. The French bastion against domestic terror appears to be cracking. This isn’t good news, because America’s dependence on the French service and Great Britain’s domestic-intelligence outfit, MI5, cannot be overstated. They are part of America’s front line in the war against Islamic holy warriors. Take away communications intercepts, an American forte, and Washington has effectively no unilateral capacity to monitor Islamic militants on European soil. Other Western European services are quick to confess that the British and French are their models and have been indispensable in their own efforts to understand and check Islamic radicalism in a continent that is now effectively without borders.

 

If the French, who have more policemen and security officers per capita than any other Western country, cannot monitor and check Muslim extremists at home, Islamic radicals in Europe and elsewhere will surely take note. The ability of Western European citizens to travel without visas offers enormous opportunities for jihadists whose dream target remains the U.S. There are now so many European Muslims it is impossible for American officials to identify suspect radicals without European assistance. Even random, targeted selections and entry denials, based on best guesses, could cause serious diplomatic problems with America’s European allies, who must protect the travel rights of their citizens. The Europeans carry the heavy load of American security in addition to their own. The rise of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq—the first time jihadism has successfully conquered and occupied any large territory—has introduced a historically evocative charisma into Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic charismatics are always bad news for Westerners, even if their primary targets are Shiites, Kurds and Yazidis. The spillover is unavoidable, given the anti-Western core of modern Islamic militancy.

 

Part of the problem for Europe is undeniably home-brewed. The alarming, so far unchecked rise of anti-Semitism and violence against European Jews that is practiced by both Muslim and non-Muslim Europeans isn’t coincidental to the increase of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Contrary to the bizarre contention of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry , Israel and the travails of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process had nothing to do with the rise of Islamic State and the birth of a new jihadism that is far more appealing than the less territorially successful jihadism of al Qaeda. Anti-Semitism has become inseparable from the gospel of a charged Islamic identity. (Western anti-Semitism, traditional Islamic suspicion of Jews, and anti-Zionism have congealed.) Anti-Semitism goes up in Europe as the appeal of a European identity to Muslims goes down. Anti-Semitism nourishes the radical Islamic vision of a humbled Europe, once the motherland of imperialism. It encourages the idea that Muslims can dictate the terms of European expression about Islam. Not that long ago, Muslims couldn’t have cared less what Europeans thought about them or their prophet. Christians and Jews were infidels, after all, benighted souls not worth bothering with. That has changed as Europe’s Muslim population has grown and radicalized, and as traditional Islamic injunctions from the homelands were imported into an ultra-tolerant, increasingly politically correct Europe.

 

The French identity, more open than most European identities, has appealed to millions of Muslim immigrants. Thoughtful French intellectuals just a decade ago hoped that “French Islam” might work. A decade of troubles, including large riots in predominantly Muslim suburbs, increasingly lethal anti-Semitism, and now terrorism have stirred serious doubts even among the most optimistic. Americans ought to hope that the French can get all of this right. If they can, then this horrible moment, too, shall pass. If they can’t—and it isn’t clear that the French can solve their worst counterterrorist problems unless Islamic State is demagnetized (pre-eminently an American military problem)—then the grim analysis in 2001 by Judge Bruguière may prove prescient.

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

             

                                      

EUROPE'S YEAR OF THE JIHADIST                                                                                

Abigail R. Esman                                                                                                        

Investigative Project on Terrorism, Dec. 29, 2014

 

Among the trends of 2014 – "Gone, Girl," Lena Dunham, and $55,000 potato salad – was another the list-makers seem to have missed: it was also a very good year for Islamic jihad. And while this was true on the battlefields of Syria and the cities and villages of Pakistan, it was true, too, in more subtle ways throughout the West – and especially in Europe. It was, for instance, the year of Mehdi Nemmouche's slaughter of four Jews at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. It was the year that Belgium itself was named a "terrorist recruiting hub" by the Wall Street Journal. And in Germany, France, England, and the Netherlands, pro-Islamic State demonstrations laid bare the growing support of terrorism and Islamic jihad among Europe's expanding Muslim population – all while politicians either stood back or even contributed to the praise.

 

Amsterdam, London and The Hague, and the establishment of "sharia zones" in London, Wupperthal, and elsewhere. True, such zones do not necessarily delineate areas in which sharia law, rather than state law, applies. But the term helps them define those largely-Muslim neighborhoods whose residents tend to be radical and who often support jihadist movements both at home and abroad. Combined, these events signal the increasing success of Islamists who are working to change Europe from within – sometimes through violence, but more often through strategies known as "stealth jihad" – a way of applying social and political pressures to transform the current culture. Take, for instance, the response of Josias van Aartsen, mayor of The Hague, to radical Muslims who called for the death of Dutch non-Muslims and Jews during pro-IS rallies in August: then on holiday, Van Aartsen declined to return home, ignoring even the throwing of stones at non-Muslims and the police. Only when a counter demonstration against IS was planned in the same, Muslim-majority neighborhood did Van Aartsen take action: he forbade it. "Too provocative," he said.

 

Or there are the recently-leaked intelligence briefs in France, as reported by the Gatestone Institute, that "Muslim students are effectively establishing an Islamic parallel society completely cut off from non-Muslim students," while "more than 1000 French supermarkets, including major chains such as Carrefour, have been selling Islamic books that openly call for jihad and the killing of non-Muslims." In England, an "Operation Trojan Horse" outlined plans to Islamize schools in Muslim neighborhoods. According to the Guardian, a government investigation of the program last summer found a "'sustained, coordinated agenda to impose segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline, politicised strain of Sunni Islam' on children in a number of Birmingham schools." Among those responsible for the "Operation" were the Association of Muslim Schools – UK and the Muslim Council of Britain – the same organization that, in 2011, declared that women who do not veil their faces "could be guilty of rejecting Islam." Ironically, it seems to have been England's own culture that allowed the rise of Islamist teachings in its schools to begin with. Even Britain's education secretary Nicky Morgan admitted to the New York Times that much of the operation's success could be attributed to public "fear of being accused of racism and anti-Islamic views." Not for nothing did former Obama advisor Lawrence Krauss declare the British "too polite" and "scared of offending 'vocal and aggressive Muslims.'"

 

The government's discovery of "Operation Trojan Horse" and immediate efforts to dismantle it are commendable, but it is difficult to assess the damage already done to Muslim children in the British schools. By some accounts, as many as 2,000 Britons have joined the (Sunni-led) jihad in Syria and Iraq. That includes the man known as "Jihadi John," who beheaded U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. And, experts warn, the number of so-called "junior jihadis" – children under 10 who have become radicalized – is on the rise. Not that such warnings are likely to do much good: The UK has, until recently, spent tremendous resources on programs aimed at preventing Muslim youth from joining militant groups, which have for the most part failed. "Having undertaken the 'most significant domestic program by any Western country to foster a moderate version of Islam and prevent radicalization, the UK has effectively given up trying to stop jihadists from being created," James Brandon, the former research director at one such program, told Reuters.

 

Despite such developments, European lawmakers have had a hard time figuring out how to deal with Muslim radicals, especially with returnees from Syria and Iraq. England is hardly the only place where politicians fear "offending" the sensibilities of Muslim groups. Although an estimated 450 Germans have joined the jihad in Syria, German Green Party domestic policy expert Irene Mihalic told the magazine Der Spiegel in September that tougher counterterrorism laws were unnecessary because "there are already 'sufficient levers available to impose bans and limitations' on terrorists and their supporters." Majority parties apparently disagreed. Later that month, Germany became the first country to fully outlaw IS, along with all expressions of support for the terrorist group, from banners and graffiti to public demonstrations and endorsements by local mosques…                                                                                                            

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.] 

                                                           

Contents                                                                                                

 

 

                                                             

WHITEWASHING ISLAMIC TERRORISM                                                                      

Charles Bybelezer                                                                                                                  

Jerusalem Post, Jan. 3, 2015

 

Three days before Christmas, one unsuspecting holiday shopper was killed and nine others wounded when a van plowed through a crowded market in Nantes, located in western France. The attack came a day after a man, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” rammed his car into crowds in the eastern city of Dijon, wounding 13 people; this, some 24 hours after an assailant stabbed and wounded three police officers in Joueles- Tours, central France, likewise while yelling “God is the greatest” in Arabic. A day after the Dijon attack, which the perpetrator dedicated to the children of “Palestine,” France’s interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, called on the public “to not draw hasty conclusions since… [the driver’s] motives have not been established.” Nevertheless, and despite the fact that “the investigation had barely begun,” Dijon’s public prosecutor, Marie-Christine Tarrare, made clear that the incident was “not a terrorist act at all.” It took the third attack before French Prime Minister Manuel Valls came closest to accepting reality, conceding that, “there is, as you know, a terrorist threat to France.”

Leaving aside the virtually unreported incidents that same week of the drive-by-shootings in Paris targeting the David Ben Ichay Synagogue, the Al Haeche kosher restaurant and a Jewish-owned publishing house, only a Kafkaesque willful blindness could suggest that citizens being run down on the streets constituted a mere threat of terrorism rather than a terrorist problem of the first order. The icing on the cake was an official French pronouncement that no link had been found between any of these events. For starters, how about Islam? Across the globe, residents of Sydney were still reeling from the surreal siege on a café, which left two civilians dead. During the 16-hour standoff, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott addressed the nation, asserting, “we don’t yet know the motivation of the [hostage-taker].” At that point, however, it was evident that the individual who would later be named as Man Haron Monis, an Iranian refugee and self-styled sheikh, was acting out of religious conviction; a black flag with clearly legible white Arabic writing had been forcibly held up by hostages against the restaurant’s front window.

 

Following the ordeal, once the extent of Monis’ extremism became public, Abbott had this to say: “These events do demonstrate that even a country as free, as open, as generous and as safe as ours is vulnerable to acts of politically motivated violence.” Politically motivated? How about religiously inspired?! How could it be, Australian officialdom pondered, that someone with such a long and checkered history was not under surveillance? The answer is that “sick and disturbed individual[s],” as Abbott described Monis, do not generally find their way onto terrorist watch lists, whereas radical Islamists might. Monis fell through the cracks because the threat he posed was incorrectly characterized. While authorities (and much of the media) were quick to describe him as a “lone wolf,” the fact of the matter is that there have been multiple events throughout Australia over the past few months pointing to an extensive network of terrorist collaborators…

 

While the denial of Islamic terrorism has long roots, it reached a post-9/11 turning point on November 5, 2009. On that day, 13 people were massacred by Nidal Malik Hasan at a military base in Ford Hood, Texas. A self-proclaimed “Soldier of Allah,” Hasan had been contacting al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki. He too shouted “Allahu Akbar” while gunning down dozens of people. Nevertheless, the White House worked overtime to ensure the mass killing was classified as “workplace violence.” In his initial response to the nation, US President Barack Obama stated, “We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing.” Certainly not Islam! Half a decade later, the families of Hasan’s victims are still fighting for combat-related benefits they would otherwise receive if their loved ones had been killed in a classified “terrorist attack.” By contrast, Hasan remained on the army’s payroll until his conviction in mid-2013, earning some $300,000 in the interim.

 

Under Obama, references to Islamic terrorism have been purged from law enforcement documents and lexicon. He is, after all, the man who embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, whose American front groups, mind you, were recently designated as terrorist organizations by Gulf States and Egypt. Obama is the Christian who played golf on December 25 with the Islamist leader of Malaysia, and who shares a special bond of trust with the Islamist dictator-in-progress of Turkey, a state-sponsor of Hamas. His outreach to the mullahs in Tehran confirms he is an equal opportunity (Sunni and Shi’ite) embracer of radical Muslims. Obama’s actions have set the tone for the current whitewashing of Islamic terrorism in most of the West; thankfully, though, north of the border in Canada there is a clear-eyed leader to offer a counter- example, one that needs to be followed. On October 20, Martin Couture- Rouleau, a Muslim convert and supporter of IS, rammed his car into two Canadian soldiers, killing one, just north of Montreal. Immediately thereafter, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defined the incident as a terrorist attack.

 

Two days later, another soldier was killed when Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a convert to Islam who openly professed his admiration for jihadists, attacked parliament in Ottawa. “I have been saying for a long time, we live in dangerous world,” Harper affirmed to lawmakers the next morning. “Terrorism has been here with us for a while…. [I draw] attention back to incidents such as the Toronto 18 [terror plot in 2006], the Via Rail conspiracy in 2013, and I could point to a number of others that most will never know about.” Harper not only labeled the two October attacks as terrorism, but also properly contextualized them as the latest in a long series of Islamic plots. Only by correctly defining a problem can one begin to effectively combat it: A Muslim who runs over a dozen people while shouting “Allahu Akbar” is not simply “mentally unstable, ” he is a terrorist. The delusional refusal in the West to accept this fact has contributed to the transformation of large swathes of Paris, Sydney and other urban centers into little Baghdads. And unless the confusion over “confused” Muslims killing people ceases, many Western countries can expect more dead bodies lining their streets in the future.

Charles Bybelezer is a Former CIJR Publications Chairman

 

Contents           

 

On Topic

 

The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders: George Packer, New Yorker, Jan. 7, 2015—The murders today in Paris are not a result of France’s failure to assimilate two generations of Muslim immigrants from its former colonies.

Will We Ever Learn? Obama White House Can't Admit Paris Attacks 'Islamic Terrorism': Steven Emerson,  Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jan. 7, 2015—They shouted in Arabic "Allahu Akbar" (Allah is Greatest) and "We are avenging the Prophet Mohammed" as they sprayed their victims with hundreds of bullets from their semi-automatic weapons.

Jewish Cartoonist Among Victims of Paris Terror Attack: Ynet, Jan. 8, 2014—Georges Wolinski, who was born in Tunisia to Jewish parents, discovered comic books from US soldiers stationed in his country; Israeli cartoonist Kichka: 'They were pioneers, had no restrictions or taboos'.

Muslims Segregated from French Society in Growing Islamist Mini-StatesRowan Scarborough, Washington Times, Jan. 7, 2014—A backdrop to the massacre in Paris on Wednesday by self-professed al Qaeda terrorists is that city officials have increasingly ceded control of heavily Muslim neighborhoods to Islamists, block by block.

Political Correctness and Islam: Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2015 —For much of the past 13 years, ever since al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the West has found itself confronting an increasingly dangerous foe in the form of jihadist terror.

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

CONTINUING KOBANE SIEGE IS BENEFITS FROM IMPASSE: OBAMA’S “AIR-WAR LIGHT” REINFORCES ERDOGAN’S ANTI-KURDISH REALPOLITIK

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

The War on ISIS: More Than One Battle: Max Boot, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 22, 2014 — On Jan. 21, 1968, North Vietnamese troops attacked the U.S. Marine garrison at Khe Sanh in South Vietnam near the border with Laos.

The Unserious Air War Against ISIS : Mark Gunzinger & John Stillion, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14, 2014 — Since U.S. planes first struck targets in Iraq on Aug. 8, a debate has raged over the effectiveness of the Obama administration’s air campaign against Islamic State.

Turkey’s Elusive Promised Land and the War on Islamic State: Amotz Asa-El, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 25, 2014— By sheer coincidence, the Syrian town of Kobani – where Kurdish and Islamic State fighters have been squaring off in recent weeks – happens to be tucked just west of Haran, the Turkish spot from which Abraham disembarked on his journey to the Promised Land.

Has Obama Realized the PKK Can Be Allies?: Michael Rubin, Commentary, Oct. 20, 2014 — Difficulties in the Turkish government’s relationship with Turkey’s Kurdish population continue to overshadow efforts to implement a coherent and comprehensive strategy to address the problem of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

On Topic Links

 

Turkey Sets Conditions for Helping West in Kobane Crisis in Syria: Colin Freeman, Telegraph, Oct. 28, 2014

John Cantlie, British Hostage, Seen in ISIS Video Apparently From Kobani: Alan Cowell, New York Times, Oct. 28, 2014

Oil Gives Kurds a Path to Independence, and Conflict With Baghdad: Azam Ahmed & Clifford Krauss, New York Times, Oct. 25, 2014

ISIS Boasts of Its Yazidi Slaves: Daniel Pipes, National Review, Oct. 16, 2014

Fight for Syrian City Strains Jihadists: Asa Fitch & Dion Nissenbaum, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 2014

Turkey Still Thinks This Guy Holding a Baby Bear is a Terrorist. Is He?: Ishaan Tharoor, Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2014

 

                             

THE WAR ON ISIS: MORE THAN ONE BATTLE                                                  

Max Boot                                                                                                             

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 22, 2014

 

On Jan. 21, 1968, North Vietnamese troops attacked the U.S. Marine garrison at Khe Sanh in South Vietnam near the border with Laos. A 77-day siege ensued, with the U.S. pouring in ever more firepower. The U.S. would drop 100,000 tons of bombs because Gen. William Westmoreland was determined that Khe Sanh not become another defeat like Dien Bien Phu, which had effectively ended France’s colonial presence in Vietnam 14 years earlier. And it didn’t. Eventually the siege was relieved and the attacking forces melted away, having suffered more than 5,000 fatalities (while the defenders lost about 350 men).

 

Today, no one except some veterans and military historians remembers Khe Sanh because in the end it had scant strategic significance: Even though the U.S. won the battle, it lost the war. Not long after having “liberated” Khe Sanh, the U.S. dismantled the base because it served little purpose. This history is worth mentioning because of the parallels, limited and inexact to be sure, between Khe Sanh and Kobani, a Kurdish town in northern Syria. Jihadist forces of Islamic State, also known as ISIS, have been besieging Kobani for weeks, and the U.S. has been ramping up efforts to prevent the town from falling. U.S. airstrikes have apparently taken a heavy toll, eliminating ISIS fighters, artillery, armored vehicles and other heavy weapons. Airstrikes have now been joined by airdrops of weapons and ammunition to the Kurdish defenders. Turkey, which had hitherto not lifted a finger to save Kobani, announced Monday that it would allow Iraqi Kurdish fighters to traverse Turkish territory to join in defending the town.

 

Kobani no longer looks to be in imminent danger of falling. It is even possible that ISIS will give up the fight and pull out. If this happens, it will certainly be good news. The remaining residents of Kobani would be saved from slaughter and their relief would give a moral boost to anti-ISIS efforts. But any celebration should be muted. Winning at Kobani will be no more devastating to ISIS than was the American victory at Khe Sanh to North Vietnam. The problem is that ISIS can readily replace the fighters it loses in Kobani, and heavy weapons are not essential to its guerrilla style of warfare. Even as ISIS is losing a little ground at Kobani, it is gaining strength elsewhere. Its fighters are advancing in Anbar Province with little resistance. They are poised on the outskirts of Baghdad; soon they may be within mortar range of Baghdad International Airport, whose closure would be a disaster. On Monday alone, its car bombs and suicide bombers in Baghdad and Karbala claimed at least 33 lives, a day after a suicide bomber in Baghdad killed at least 28 people in a Shiite mosque. The pattern is reminiscent of the terrorist atrocities perpetrated in 2006 by al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS’s predecessor, aimed at rallying Sunnis to the terrorists’ side by provoking a civil war with Shiites.

 

As in those dark days, Sunni extremism is provoking an equally extreme response from Iranian-backed Shiites. The replacement of Nouri al-Maliki as Iraq’s prime minister with Haidar al-Abadi, an apparently less sectarian Shiite, was a small step in the right direction for which the Obama administration deserves credit. But there is little reason to think the Iranian hold over a substantial portion of the Iraqi state has been broken. The Iraqi Parliament has approved ministers to run the two security ministries—Interior and Defense. While the Defense pick is Sunni technocrat Khalid al-Obedi, the Interior pick is far more worrisome: Mohammed Salem al-Ghabban is a member of the Badr Organization, one of the chief Iranian-backed Shiite militias that is further destabilizing Iraq with attacks on Sunni neighborhoods. The likelihood is that Mr. Ghabban will take orders from his ultimate sponsor, Gen. Qasem Suleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force.  This means that the Interior Ministry, in charge of Iraq’s police forces, will become, if it is not already, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Shiite militias and their Iranian string-pullers. This happened in 2006 when the Iraqi police became notorious for kidnapping and torturing Sunnis. This helped bring Iraq to the brink of all-out civil war and will do so again if not checked.

 

The only way to counteract the Iranian capture of the Interior Ministry is to bolster the Iraqi army as an independent fighting force, but there is little sign of this occurring. Shiite sectarians have also deeply penetrated the army and the U.S. has little ability to counteract this insidious development because President Obama will not send a large number of “embedded” advisers to work alongside army units that remain more professional and less politicized. Only 12 U.S. advisory teams have been deployed and only at the brigade level. The other 14 Iraqi brigades identified by the U.S. as “reliable partners” have no advisers at all. None of these advisers, moreover, is allowed to accompany Iraqi troops into combat, where they can be most effective. The U.S. also is not stepping in to offer direct assistance and training to the Sunnis of Anbar Province to allow them to fight back against ISIS, as they did against al Qaeda in Iraq in 2007-08.

 

In Syria the U.S. is also doing little to oppose the Assad dictatorship, leaving it free to continue attacks on areas held by moderate militias affiliated with the Free Syrian Army. This, too, is feeding the radicalization of Syria and Iraq by convincing many Sunnis, rightly or wrongly, that the U.S. is acquiescing to Iranian regional domination—and that ISIS is the only reliable defender that Sunnis have. That impression will be strengthened if the Obama administration reaches a deal with Iran next month that will allow Tehran to maintain its capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.

 

Through the limited application of air power—a mere handful of daily strikes—the U.S. may achieve tactical progress to blunt ISIS’s momentum. But Khe Sanh showed the limits of tactical military victories if they are not married to larger strategic gains—and those are elusive in Iraq and Syria today.

 

                                                                       

Contents             

                                                                                                                              

THE UNSERIOUS AIR WAR AGAINST ISIS                                                          

Mark Gunzinger & John Stillion                                                                                 

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14, 2014

 

Since U.S. planes first struck targets in Iraq on Aug. 8, a debate has raged over the effectiveness of the Obama administration’s air campaign against Islamic State. The war of words has so far focused on the need to deploy American boots on the ground to provide accurate intelligence and possibly force ISIS fighters to defend key infrastructure they have seized, such as oil facilities. But debate is now beginning to focus on the apparent failure of airstrikes to halt the terror group’s advances in Iraq and Syria—especially Islamic State’s pending seizure of Kobani on the Syrian border with Turkey.

 

While it is still too early to proclaim the air campaign against Islamic State a failure, it may be instructive to compare it with other campaigns conducted by the U.S. military since the end of the Cold War that were deemed successes. For instance, during the 43-day Desert Storm air campaign against Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1991, coalition fighters and bombers flew 48,224 strike sorties. This translates to roughly 1,100 sorties a day. Twelve years later, the 31-day air campaign that helped free Iraq from Saddam’s government averaged more than 800 offensive sorties a day. By contrast, over the past two months U.S. aircraft and a small number of partner forces have conducted 412 total strikes in Iraq and Syria—an average of seven strikes a day. With Islamic State in control of an area approaching 50,000 square miles, it is easy to see why this level of effort has not had much impact on its operations.

 

Of course, air operations during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were each supported by a massive coalition force on the ground. Thus it may be more appropriate to compare current operations against Islamic State with the 78-day air campaign against Serbian forces and their proxies in 1999, or the 75-day air campaign in Afghanistan that was instrumental in forcing the Taliban out of power in 2001. Both campaigns relied heavily on partner forces on the ground augmented by a small but significant number of U.S. troops. These air campaigns averaged 138 and 86 strike sorties a day respectively—orders of magnitude greater than the current tempo of operations against Islamic State.

 

Perhaps the small number of strikes in the air campaign against Islamic State is due to the lack of suitable ground targets. Yet representatives from the Pentagon have characterized forces fighting under Islamic State’s black banner as more of a conventional army than a highly dispersed, irregular force similar to today’s Taliban. Moreover, Islamic State fighters are using captured armored vehicles, artillery, mortars and other implements of modern land warfare to seize and hold terrain. These operations require a considerable amount of movement and resupply that can be detected by airborne surveillance. The low daily strike count could be the result of the Pentagon’s applying counterterrorism man-hunting operations over the past decade to the current crisis in Iraq and Syria. These operations generally rely on detailed knowledge of the “pattern of life” of specific small terrorist cells built up over days or weeks of persistent surveillance.

 

The resources required on the ground and in the air to generate such high-fidelity intelligence are considerable in terms of time, money, personnel and surveillance aircraft. While the low strike count appears to support this thesis, it is unlikely that the highly competent men and women in our nation’s military, many of whom are likely to have planned and executed previous successful air campaigns, would adopt such a half-measure approach to operations against ISIS forces. There’s another possibility: The moral imperative and strategic desire to avoid civilian casualties and gratuitous collateral damage may be constraining the coalition’s target-selection process. While these are important factors in any conflict, they must be balanced against the reality that allowing Islamic State fighters to continue their savage aggression nearly unchecked will result in far more civilian casualties and destruction than a more aggressive air campaign that uses precision weapons to rapidly destroy the group’s heavy weapons and troop concentrations.

 

Finally, the daily strike count suggests that the strategy underlying the air campaign may be influenced by a desire to apply the least amount of force possible while still claiming credit for doing something about Islamic State. This rationale would fit with the administration’s claims that degrading and eventually defeating ISIS is likely to take many years. It may reflect lingering doubts by some policy makers over how serious and far-reaching the threat of an Islamic State caliphate really is to our nation’s vital interests. Or it may be a simple reluctance to begin another open-ended military operation in the Middle East. In the end, no matter the reason, the timorous use of air power against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria is unlikely to reduce the territory under their control, curb the brutal murder of innocent civilians, or prevent the creation of a sanctuary for an enemy that has sworn to continue its fight on a more global scale.

                                                                                   

                                                                       

Contents    

                                                                                                                                               

TURKEY’S ELUSIVE PROMISED LAND

AND THE WAR ON ISLAMIC STATE                                                 

Amotz Asa-El                                                                                                     

Jerualsem Post, Oct. 25, 2014

 

By sheer coincidence, the Syrian town of Kobani – where Kurdish and Islamic State fighters have been squaring off in recent weeks – happens to be tucked just west of Haran, the Turkish spot from which Abraham disembarked on his journey to the Promised Land. The current confrontation’s many protagonists may have different ideas about their own promised land, but they all know its location and all carry a road map leading there. The Kurds want a state that will weld slivers of Turkey, Syria and Iraq; President Bashar Assad wants a Syria that will sprawl from the Anti-Lebanon to the Tigris; Iran wants to suspend a Shi’ite bridge between the thresholds of Afghanistan and Egypt; Saudi Arabia wants quiet outside its palaces’ gilded windows; and Islamic State’s jihadists want to drown the Middle East in blood and then, as their leader put it, march on Rome. One actor, however, seems increasingly disoriented and indecipherable: Turkey.

 

Hardly a mile from Kobani, Turkish officers were seen in recent weeks surveying pillars of smoke and listening to machine-gun staccatos from atop their American- made tanks this side of the border. Their failure to come to the rescue of the predominantly Kurdish town has brought to mind the Red Army’s two-week wait before storming Warsaw, a choice Poles say was designed to let the Nazis kill more Poles; as well as the Allies’ delay in launching D-Day, which Stalin saw as an Anglo-American ploy to let the Germans kill yet more Soviets before Germany’s defeat. The stakes in Kobani are different, as even on the eve of the Syrian civil war, the dusty town was inhabited by just 50,000; unlike Warsaw, it is a godforsaken frontier town. Even so, this is where the war on Islamic State reached Turkey’s doorstep, and where the Turkish response kept the whole world guessing just where Ankara stands, and what its war aims might be.

 

The analogies to wartime Germany and Russia have come to mind because of Turkey’s apparent abandonment of Syria’s Kurds to Islamic State’s devices. Like the Red Army at Warsaw’s gates, the mighty Turkish army, the world’s eighth-largest, can roll ahead and effortlessly scatter Islamic State’s black-clad fighters under a hailstorm of artillery, armor and fighter jet bombs. Convinced that Turkey was deliberately abandoning their brethren, Kurdish rioters took to the streets in early October in cities throughout Turkey, where police confronted them forcefully, leaving at least 30 dead and dozens wounded. The Kurdish aspect of the situation is particularly confusing because a mere 20 months ago, Turkey launched a peace process with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), its nemesis of 40 years, which in turn formally announced a ceasefire and also ordered its fighters to retreat beyond Turkish borders. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government saw in this deal a major accomplishment, leaving the impression that such a spirit of appeasement came more easily to a religious leadership that cared for nationalism less than its secular predecessors. Now, all this has unraveled. The Kurds canceled the cease-fire, and many among Turkey’s 20-percent Kurdish minority are ready to renew their struggle for independence.

 

Yet the Turks not only provoked the same Kurds they had previously courted and placated, they also thumbed their nose at US President Barack Obama – by refusing to allow US bombers to take off from Turkish airfields at Syria’s backdoor, compelling them to instead fly almost 2,000 km. from Arab bases in the Gulf. Subsequent reports that Ankara was retreating from its refusal to allow Kurdish units to cross into the battlefields, and ongoing complaints that Turkey was enabling foreigners’ entry into Syria along the so-called “jihadist highway,” intensified confusion over Turkey’s stance. Pundits and diplomats the world over scratched their heads: Is Turkey with the Kurds or against them? Is it with America or against it, with the jihadists or against them?

 

Turkey’s attitude toward the Arab world’s four-year period of turmoil has been driven by three sometimes contradictory sentiments: military caution, historic pretension and regional frustration. Thrusting the Turkish military into battle is not as simple as it sounds, for three reasons: First, the Turkish army has not fought a war since invading Cyprus 40 years ago. Second, following the entire general staff’s forced resignation three years ago in the wake of Erdogan’s assault on it, the army’s new leadership is not as confident and battle hungry as their predecessors might have been. And lastly, a fighting, and potentially victorious and glorified, army would constitute a political threat to Erdogan and his Islamist administration.

Since modern Turkey’s foundation 90 years ago, its generals’ involvement in politics had been blunt and at times violent, particularly when it came to imposing secularism – until the last decade, when Erdogan boxed the military and brought its politicking to an end. Turkish generals now won’t touch politics with a 10-foot pole, but they remain suspected closet secularists. War would empower them – and empowered generals would be, from Erdogan’s viewpoint, unpredictable. This caution also explains Erdogan’s demand that the US impose a no-fly zone on Syria, and support him in creating a buffer zone in northern Syria. Such measures would mean military impact, without military heroism.

 

Beside its lack of appetite for military invasion, Turkey has ideological reasons to avoid the war on Islamic State. Erdogan, and even more so Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, are driven by a sense of historic mission that does not sit well with joining a Western-led assault on Muslims. Turkish scholars now call the pair’s platform “pan-Islamism,” as opposed to the previously used “neo-Ottomanism.” One such scholar, Marmara University’s Behlul Ozkan, has studied some 300 articles Davutoglu penned as an academic before the Islamists’ rise to power, most of which have never been translated. His findings indicate that Davutoglu believes Turkey has a historic mission to revive and lead a Sunni triangle that would stretch from North Africa through the Balkans to Central Asia. In a sense, Islamic State’s vision of a caliphate has stolen Davutoglu’s thunder…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]            

 

                                                                                    Contents                                                     

                                                                  

HAS OBAMA REALIZED THE PKK CAN BE ALLIES?                                       

Michael Rubin                                                                                                     

Commentary, Oct. 20, 2014

 

Difficulties in the Turkish government’s relationship with Turkey’s Kurdish population continue to overshadow efforts to implement a coherent and comprehensive strategy to address the problem of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The problem is this: While to most American audiences the Kurds might simply be the Kurds, they are divided politically, linguistically, and culturally. In short, the United States now works closely with Iraqi Kurds, but labels the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) as a terrorist group. Herein lies the problem: Masud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq, may depict himself and may be considered by some American officials to be a Kurdish nationalist leader, but his popularity is largely limited to two Iraqi provinces: Duhok and Erbil. And even in Erbil, his popularity is tenuous.

 

The imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan remains the most popular figure among Turkey’s Kurds, enjoying the support of perhaps 90 percent of Syrian Kurds, whereas Barzani barely musters 10 percent popularity there. Whereas Turkey long sought to declare Öcalan irrelevant, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reconfirmed Öcalan as the paramount Kurdish leader in Turkey when he had his administration negotiate a ceasefire with the imprisoned Kurdish leader. This may not have been Erdoğan’s intention, but it was the result. The irony here for Turkish nationalists is that Erdoğan was likely never sincere about achieving peace with the Kurds, or at least with those Kurds who continued to embrace ethnicity rather than Sunni Islam as their predominant identity. After all, every Erdoğan outreach to the Kurds occurred in the months before elections, and was abandoned in the weeks following them, when Erdoğan no longer needed Kurdish electoral support.

 

Even as Erdoğan now acquiesces to some support for the besieged Kurds of Kobane, he seeks to limit the provision of that support to his allies among Barzani’s peshmerga, never mind that KDP peshmerga would be out of place in Syria and do not have the skill or dedication that the PKK’s Syrian peshmerga, the YPG, have exhibited. If Erdoğan thinks Barzani’s peshmerga can save him, he is kidding himself: As soon as those Kurdish fighters enter Syria, they will subordinate themselves to the YPG which know the ground and are, at this point, better motivated and more skilled. Erdoğan continues to insist that there is no difference in his mind between the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the PKK: To the Turkish President, they’re all terrorists. Evidently, however, the American position is shifting. Obama has insisted that he approve every military operation in Syria. This is why the recent airdrop of supplies to Kobane is so important: That airdrop directly assists the PYD, YPG, and the PKK. In effect, Obama is now aiding a group that his State Department still designates a terrorist group. In reality, that designation is probably long overdue for a review if not elimination. The PYD governs Syrian Kurdistan better than any other group which holds territory runs its government. Nowhere else in Syria can girls walk to school without escort (let alone attend school) or is there regularly scheduled municipal trash pick up. And the YPG, meanwhile, has been the most effective force fighting ISIS and the Nusra Front. Given a choice between ISIS and the PKK, the United States should choose the PKK. The group may not be perfect—it retains too much of a personality cult around Öcalan and internally could become more transparent and democratic—but in this, it is no different than Barzani’s KDP. Indeed, the only difference between the two is that the PKK has not indulged in the same sort of corruption that has transformed Barzani and his sons into billionaires.

 

The most interesting aspect of the U.S. airdrop to the Kurds of Kobane is how muted the reaction has been. Turkey might like to think the nearly 150 members of the Congressional Turkey Caucus would hold water for Ankara and object to the provision of arms and aid to a group Turkey’s president considers to be a terrorist entity, but its members recognize that most American officials now consider the Hamas-loving Erdoğan to be more of a threat to peace than the PKK. Indeed, perhaps with this airdrop, the change so long denied by diplomats is now apparent: The Emperor Erdoğan has no clothes. It is too early to suggest that Öcalan trumps Erdoğan in the American mind but thanks to more than a decade of Erdoğan’s rule, when deciding between Turkey and the PKK, American officials no longer will automatically side with Turkey.      

Contents                                               

 

On Topic

 

Turkey Sets Conditions for Helping West in Kobane Crisis in Syria: Colin Freeman, Telegraph, Oct. 28, 2014 —Turkey has named its price for co-operation in the West's fight to end the Islamic State's stranglehold on the Syrian border town of Kobane, saying the fight must be led by the Free Syrian Army rather than Kurdish "terrorists".

John Cantlie, British Hostage, Seen in ISIS Video Apparently From Kobani: Alan Cowell, New York Times, Oct. 28, 2014—A British hostage of the Islamic State has been shown in a video, apparently made in the beleaguered Syrian town of Kobani near the Turkish border, depicting him as a combat correspondent and forecasting that the town is about to fall to militants despite waves of American airstrikes.

Oil Gives Kurds a Path to Independence, and Conflict With Baghdad: Azam Ahmed & Clifford Krauss, New York Times, Oct. 25, 2014 —Roughly two dozen huge oil tankers are idly turning figure eights around the Mediterranean or on the high seas, loaded with oil pumped from wells in Iraqi Kurdistan but with nowhere to legally offload it.

ISIS Boasts of Its Yazidi Slaves: Daniel Pipes, National Review, Oct. 16, 2014 —That the Islamic State has enslaved Yazidi women and children it captured is an established fact.

Fight for Syrian City Strains Jihadists: Asa Fitch & Dion Nissenbaum, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 2014 —Islamic State’s protracted battle for the Syrian city of Kobani against an expanding U.S.-led military campaign and Kurdish militia is straining the insurgency, Syrian opposition activists, Kurdish politicians and U.S. officials said.

Turkey Still Thinks This Guy Holding a Baby Bear is a Terrorist. Is he?: Ishaan Tharoor, Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2014 —The photo above, of a Kurdish fighter nursing an orphaned baby bear, is a controversial one.

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

AFTER THE OTTAWA PARLIAMENT ATTACK: ISLAMIST VIOLENCE HERE & ABROAD REMINDS US: “ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING”

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

In the Shadow of a Young Corporal’s Death, Canada’s Greatness Shines Through: Rex Murphy, National Post, Oct. 25, 2014 — Out of this dark week there has come very much that is good.

Under Siege, Egypt Looks For Allies: Zvi Mazel, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2014— Over the weekend, 30 Egyptian soldiers were killed and 31 wounded in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the past year in northern Sinai.

Parliamentary Recognition of Palestine – Legally, Historically and Politically Questionable : Amb. Alan Baker, JCPA, Oct. 27, 2014

‘Ehr Daw’ — They’re Here: Rabbi Shalom Lewis, Frontpage, Oct. 7, 2014 — I thought that maybe I’d start with a rendition of Paul McCartney’s plaintive masterpiece “Yesterday”…

On Topic Links

 

Terrorism Defies Definition: Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2014

Egypt Cancels Israel-Hamas Talks, Shutters Rafah, Plans Anti-Smuggling Wall After Mass Car Bombing: Dave Bender, Algemeiner, Oct. 26, 2014

The Role of Hamas and Fatah in the Jerusalem Disturbances: Pinhas Inbari, JCPA, Oct. 26, 2014

MPs 'Encouraged Hamas Terrorism' by Voting for Palestinian State Says Israel: David Blair, Telegraph, Oct. 24, 2014

 

                  

IN THE SHADOW OF A YOUNG CORPORAL’S DEATH,

CANADA’S GREATNESS SHINES THROUGH                                             

Rex Murphy                                                                                                                  

National Post, Oct. 25, 2014

 

Out of this dark week there has come very much that is good. And I am not just pointing to the very welcome spirit of concord the three political parties have, up to now, manifested in the Commons and outside. Nor the address of our three main political leaders, though again, their talks both in tone and content offered much to be regarded. Rather I am thinking of the unofficial moments, captured on video or in photographs, showing people acting so well, in moments of great distress or at some levels of real peril to themselves. Even after three days,  the very early scene of passersby, earnestly trying to care for Corporal Nathan Cirillo — this was but mere instants after his being shot — shimmers in the mind.

 

Everyone has seen that image, the huddle of people bent over him, and, as we have learned from news stories, even to his last breath assuring him that “he was loved.” It was very much the parable of the Good Samaritan in real and present time, only in Ottawa Wednesday morning, it wasn’t one Samaritan. There were at least four. Such loving attention, at a time when the scene was still in chaos and it was unknown how many shooters there might be, said so much more than the thousands of words we have heard. Even in the shadow of the young corporal’s death, it is not too much to say that this was a very gratifying moment — a tragic moment, but one worth honouring. All Canadians immediately recognized the actions of the corporal’s final companions as an example of how people should act at such a time, how we would wish to have acted. And how, heaven forbid, we may wish to be treated if it was us laying on that sacred ground, breathing our last breaths. We are, in part, very much the people we choose to admire, and our national character can, in some measure, be limned by the actions we choose to esteem. Our age, hag-ridden by the tinsel fame of hollow celebrity, calls for the counterbalance of real worth and real achievement being given deeper regard, of holding up those who neither have fame nor are seeking it, acting in casual nobility and with real care.

 

Canadians light on special people from everyday life who act with selflessness, or associate themselves with issues of genuine need, and place them in a kind of unofficial pantheon. They are our moral heroes. The most vivid example is perhaps that of Terry Fox, who Canadians still hold fresh and high in their regard even 30 years after his magnificent odyssey in rain, snow and glorious sunlight across the country. The country took to him, not only because of his mighty endurance at the very crest of his illness — which was a blazon all its own —  but just as much so because of the utter selflessness with which he spent his last days.

 

I see very much of the same thing in how swiftly and intensely the modest and unassuming person of Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers has found immediate home in the hearts and minds of everyone across the country. Of his pure bravery, most of us stand in awe. Bravery, or courage, as was said of old, is the cardinal virtue, as without it none of the other virtues can or will be exercised. Canadians took to Kevin Vickers, however, for reasons beyond even his courage. It was so much his manner. Here is a man to whom duty — a word I feel sometimes has slipped out of the vocabulary of our glib days — was as his life. His self-possession in the heat of an absolutely sudden crisis, his instantaneous response in a time of danger, and his visible awkwardness the next day when he was showered by the thunder of applause and tribute, left us gaping with admiration and affection.

 

We are always wondering if the days of sacrifice and full generosity are behind us. Every generation sees the one previous as somehow more stern and stoic, less caught by the trivia of position or wealth or power, than our own. We yearn for purpose and examples of those who live by codes of honour and duty. But, as we have seen, great men and women, in the sense of great I am underlining here, are still with us. And they carry the same mien, speak in the same un-self-regarding accents, as the men and women of yesterday. I think of Captain Sullenberger, who landed an Airbus loaded with passengers on the flowing waters of the Hudson River. Of how even after that unbelievable, harrowing descent and landing, he was reported as going through the cabin of the plane making sure everyone had gotten safely off, before he left the jet. He was another of those quiet, unassuming gentlemen who so quietly perform with a self-possession that takes our breath away, and who is almost surprised — and certainly uncomfortable — when half the world takes him in their hearts as special. Our man Vickers is such a fellow, a gentleman, a man of duty. He makes us proud as Canadians that he is one of ours. And that is a good thing for this country, for we are all, in part, who we choose to admire.

 

Then, of course, there are the two soldiers, Cpl. Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was murdered in Quebec on Monday. Among our military their deaths have of course had special impact. And Canadians hold their military in a very special place. They are the institution we have chosen to admire. Cpl. Cirillo’s death, because of the whole drama of the day, and most particularly because of the symbolism of his place at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, has been the larger story. His youth, vitality and friendliness — which we see so vibrantly in the many online, newspaper and broadcast pictures of him — summoned the deepest response from all the country. One picture alone of his forlorn dogs, vainly awaiting his return, had more pathos than a thousand pages of Dickens. Cpl. Cirillo is now another enrolee in this country’s unofficial pantheon, the gallery of those very special individuals, we have chosen to stand as representatives of what, in an ideal world, we would all choose to be. To the most enduring question of ours — what does it mean to be Canadian? — the passersby who tended the soldier, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the young solider at the tomb, and WO Vincent, the career military man going about his business in the uniform he earned the right to wear, gives us the answer we need. It was a dark week, but one too that had more than its share of special light. We will remember our fallen, and the light that they shone.

 

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                                                      

UNDER SIEGE, EGYPT LOOKS FOR ALLIES                                                      

Zvi Mazel                                                                                                            

Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2014

 

Over the weekend, 30 Egyptian soldiers were killed and 31 wounded in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the past year in northern Sinai. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi reacted with a stark declaration, saying terrorism was an existential threat and that Egypt will fight it till it is eradicated. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is at the forefront of Jihadi groups grimly determined to throw the country into chaos. The army is making an all-out effort to eliminate all Islamist terrorist movements, and claims to have killed some 600 insurgents and to have destroyed many of their strongholds, seizing huge amounts of arms and explosives – last week it estimated the number of underground tunnels blown up or closed at 1,875.

 

Those were heavy blows to the terrorists, but they are securely entrenched among the population in the north of the peninsula, and they can depend on their extensive networks of Beduin in the area. Furthermore, they are being reinforced by a steady stream of men and material coming through all Egypt’s borders. It can be said that to a certain extent, Egypt is under siege, with the Gaza Strip functioning as the logistic hub. Gaza has the capacity to develop and produce weapons, to package explosives and to train terrorists before infiltrating them to the peninsula through the tunnels, of which there are always enough left for that purpose.

 

However, an ever-growing number of fighters and ammunition are coming in through the borders with Libya and Sudan. The border between Egypt and Libya runs across 1,200 km. of deserts and mountains, making monitoring near impossible, the more so since strife-torn Libya is no longer functioning as a sovereign state. Its capital city has been partially taken over by Islamic and tribal militias, its parliament and its government have fled to Tobruk, not far from the Egyptian border. Many jihadi terrorists, among them some who came from Syria and Iraq, can be found all along that border. Dozens of Egyptians soldiers have been killed in recent months in a number of clashes with insurgents infiltrating from Libya. And if that was not enough, more arms and more rebels are coming in from Sudan, through its 400-km.- long border with Libya.

 

There could also be Iranian weapons still reaching the Sinai Peninsula. Iran is intent on destabilizing Egypt, even if it entails aiding extremist Sunni movements as it did with al-Qaida in the past. During the Mubarak era, extensive smuggling networks were left to grow in Egypt as a whole and in the Sinai Peninsula, in the mistaken belief that it was a problem for Israel alone. It was a costly mistake, for which Egypt is paying dearly. Sisi was confident he could depend on America’s assistance to fight the threat of terror. However, instead of cooperating with Cairo, the White House, still smarting over the ouster of former president Muhammad Morsi and of the Muslim Brothers, declared an embargo on arms for Egypt. The recent visit of the Egyptian president to Washington and his meeting with his American counterpart did not bring a thaw. Obama allegedly quizzed Sisi over human rights in Egypt. The Egyptian president retaliated by saying he would join the coalition against Islamic State but would not send troops, since they were badly needed to defend his country against terror. Relations between the two countries are still fraught, though America is now grudgingly dispatching ten Apache helicopters that were meant to have been delivered a year ago.

 

Deprived of the support of his country’s former staunchest ally, Sisi had to look elsewhere. He is in the process of setting up his own coalition with North African countries facing the threat coming from Libya, such as Sudan and Algeria. He is in close contact with the legal government of Libya, whose prime minister, Abdullah al-Thani came to Cairo in mid-October and signed a cooperation agreement between the two armies. Egypt will help train Libyan security forces and police, there will be joint border control, and cooperation will extend to exchange of intelligence. This was followed by steps on the ground. “Unidentified” planes bombed Tripoli airfield, held by Islamic and tribal militias. Various groups accused Egypt, and the White House was prompt to condemn the raids. Cairo denied that its forces intervened beyond its borders. It appears likely that the attack was not carried out by the Egyptian army, but probably by Libyan pilots taking off from Egyptian air fields flying Egyptians planes and planes from the Emirates. The Libyan army has now launched an all-out offensive against the Islamists with the help of former renegade general Khalifa Haftar and has retaken Benghazi – it is moving to reconquer Tripoli and restore order…

[To Read the Full Article  Click the Following Link—Ed.]              

                                                                                   

                                                                       

Contents            

                                                                                                                              

PARLIAMENTARY RECOGNITION OF PALESTINE –          

LEGALLY, HISTORICALLY AND POLITICALLY QUESTIONABLE                                                                           

Amb. Alan Baker,                                                                                     

JCPA, Oct. 27, 2014

 

On October 13, 2014, the British Parliament, in its House of Commons, adopted a resolution by a majority of 274 votes, with 12 opposing votes, that states: “That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.” Proponents of this curious resolution claimed that “recognizing Palestine as a state would be a symbolically important step towards peace.” The Labour Party shadow foreign secretary Ian Lucas even opined that the resolution would “strengthen the moderate voices among the Palestinians who want to pursue the path of politics, not the path of violence.” He went on to claim that “this is not an alternative to negotiations.  It is a bridge for beginning them.”

 

However, former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind disagreed and suggested such a move should not be adopted because it would be purely symbolic: “For me the most important question is what practical benefit would passing this resolution make?” he asked. “It might make us feel good. But recognizing a state should only happen when the territory in question has the basic requirements of a state.  And through no fault of the Palestinians that is not true at the moment and it seems to me that the resolution before us is premature as we do not have a Palestinian government.” A similar vote by the Upper House of the Irish Parliament, known as the “Seanad Eireann,” adopted on October 23, 2014, stated: “Seanad Eireann calls on the government to formally recognize the state of Palestine and do everything it can at the international level to help secure a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” A similar position was put forward by the new prime minister of Sweden, Stefan Lofven, who stated in an inaugural address to the Swedish parliament on October 3, 2014: “The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be solved with a two-state solution, negotiated in accordance with international law.  A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful co-existence. Sweden will therefore recognize the state of Palestine.”

 

Analyzing these statements and votes logically, they would appear to be based on questionable legal, historic and political premises, as well as being in and of themselves self-contradictory and constituting, by their terms, a non-sequitor. As such, they would appear to be both ill-advised and based on a mistaken reading of the situation. The reference to the ultimate aim of a “negotiated two-state solution” correctly acknowledges the present legal situation in which the issue of final status of the territory is a distinct negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to which the UK, Ireland and Sweden, as part of the EU, are signatory as witness. However, in acknowledging this, it is clear that the issue of the permanent status of the territory remains an open negotiating issue, yet to be agreed-on, and one may assume that upon resumption of the negotiating process, it will be duly addressed by the parties as one of the central agenda items.

 

Accordingly, the British House of Commons, the Irish Upper House and the Swedish prime minister would appear to contradict themselves by recognizing that negotiations are still pending, but nevertheless at the same time prejudging the outcome of the very negotiation they purport to support, by calling for recognition of the state of Palestine. Clearly no such a Palestinian state or sovereign entity exists and thus cannot logically be recognized or acknowledged by the UK Parliament. Similarly, no international treaty, convention or binding international resolution or determination has ever been adopted or entered into, that determines that the territories in dispute are indeed Palestinian. In this context, the Palestinian leadership itself is committed, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to negotiate the issue of the permanent status of the territory.  Article V of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements signed by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on September 13, 1993 states as follows: “2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period, between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian people representatives. 3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.” Accordingly, the outcome of such negotiations and the ultimate status of the territory, whether as a Palestinian state or any other sovereign entity agreed-upon by the two sides, cannot be arbitrarily imposed by external parties, including the UK, Irish or Swedish parliaments, or the UN. It may only emanate from a bona-fide negotiating process as well as in accordance with accepted norms and requirements of international law regarding the characteristics of statehood. Such norms and requirements are set out in international law in article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States that clearly determines the attributes of statehood: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” The Palestinians clearly do not meet the requirements set out in this convention.

 

Since the issue of the permanent status of the disputed territory is an agreed-upon negotiating issue, as indeed acknowledged by the international community including the UK, Ireland and Sweden,  any resolution by the House of Commons, the Irish Upper House of Parliament or the Swedish prime minister calling for recognition of a Palestinian state in effect purports to pre-empt the outcome of that negotiation through a one-sided determination that totally ignores legitimate legal and historic claims to the territory by Israel, including those based on historic and legal commitments to which the United Kingdom itself is bound. They would thus appear to be intervening in a bona fide negotiating process by supporting one side only. This is far from constituting any “bridge” to negotiations, so described by shadow foreign minister Mr. Ian Lucas, or “morally right,” as stated by Mr. Nicholas Soames. To the contrary, rather than encouraging a return to negotiations, as claimed by the proponents of these resolutions, such one-sided and biased issuances emanating from European parliaments will only serve to impede any bona fide and genuine negotiation by encouraging the Palestinians to adopt arbitrary and uncompromising positions on the issues on the negotiating agenda, knowing that they have the support of those European countries.

 

While clearly it is the sovereign prerogative of the British, Irish or Swedish Parliaments to adopt whatever resolution they choose, one might assume that they would not want to be misled or manipulated, whether by narrow political interests, external political or economic pressures or any other cause, into adopting a resolution that is legally and politically ill-advised and mistaken. It would be legally and politically prudent were the UK House of Commons and the Irish Upper House, as well as the Prime Minister of Sweden, to reconsider such ill-advised resolutions or statements, which certainly do no credit to them nor to those MPs who advanced and supported them…

[To Read the Full Article, With Footnotes, Click the Following Link—Ed.]                       

 

                                                                                   

Contents                                    

                                                                         

EHR DAW’ — THEY’RE HERE                                                                      

Rabbi Shalom Lewis                                                                                            

Frontpage, Oct. 7, 2014

 

I thought that maybe I’d start with a rendition of Paul McCartney’s plaintive masterpiece “Yesterday”… “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks as though they’re here to stay, oh I believe in yesterday” – but then I thought, too romantic…And then I remembered Joseph Conrad’s sadly, cynical observation – – “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary. Men alone are quite capable of every wickedness,” and sadly it felt right.

 

And so, here were are in a place of unimagined chaos and cowardice, paralysis and brutality. The beast roams the earth; we are stymied, stunned and continue to fiddle. My friends, “Ehr Kumpt Part 2, the Sequel.” This is not a time for delicacy. For tiptoeing. It is not a time to parse words nor worry about offending someone with unfiltered vocabulary. Time is no longer a luxury we possess. Distance no longer provides protection. We are being threatened like no time before, by an enemy obsessed with an apocalyptic endgame that will bring only disaster. An enemy that worships savagery. An enemy that celebrates depravity. An enemy that glorifies the death of the young. There has been a seismic shift in our world. We feel it. We see it. We know it. We dare not deny it. Pick up any newspaper on any day, the first page, the second page, the third page, the fourth page and beyond – – most of the articles are about radical Muslims, not just ISIS, immersed in a vicious culture of blood and slaughter. Skip to the sports page or the crossword puzzle if you wish, but that doesn’t make the uncomfortable news go away. In fact, it brings joy to the jihadists who hope for our indifference. If we deny evil then we need not fight it. It doesn’t exist – just a few lunatics, thousands of miles away, pounding sand, blowing each other up and occasionally beheading an unlucky journalist. Not so bad. For years, we have been mercifully spared the ugliness and intimacy of war…But today, war has been redefined and relocated. Geneva is finished. We are all combatants in the cross hairs. We are all on the front lines, like it or not. The battlefield has no boundaries and the war, no rules. The enemy targets deliberately, fiendishly, any place of innocence. All are vulnerable and so we must recalculate our strategy, re-examine our tolerance, re-energize our resolve and unequivocally identify the evil doers. Let us not be silenced by fear, by feckless goodwill, by reckless hope, by meaningless rhetoric.

 

There are one billion Muslims in the world and authorities agree that 5% are committed Islamists who embrace terror and wish to see, by any means possible, the Muslim flag fly over every capital, on every continent. I was relieved when I heard only 5%. Thank God it’s only 5%. Now I could sleep soundly. But wait, let me figure this out, 5% of a billion is… 50 million Koran-waving, Allah Akbar-howling Muslim murderers out there planning to slit our throats, blow us up or forcibly convert us…But what disturbs me is, where are the other 950 million Muslims who are not terrorists? Who are not bomb-blasting, acid-throwing zealots? Where are the other 950 million Muslims who tuck their children in at night with a lullaby, who are okay with Christians and Jews, crave a peaceful world and wish nothing more than a tasty bowl of hummus and a friendly game of Shesh Besh with a neighbor? I want to believe they are out there, for their sake and for ours. I want to believe they weep in pain over the desecration of their faith. I want to believe that we have partners who dream the dreams we do and wish upon the same star. I want to believe – – but where are they? A silent partnership is no partnership. Sin is not just in the act of commission – it is also in the act of omission. Most Germans were not Nazis – but it did not matter. Most Russians were not Stalinists – but it did not matter. Most Muslims are not terrorists – but it does not matter. Stand up righteously or get out of the way. Perhaps in every mosque, in every midrassah, in every Muslim neighborhood, Edmund Burke’s powerful warning should be chiseled on a wall in Arabic, in Farsi, in Pashto, in Urdu, for all to read and heed. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.”…                                           

[To Read the Full Article  Click the Following Link—Ed.]                        

           

Contents                                               

 

On Topic

 

Terrorism Defies Definition: Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2014 —Defining terrorism has practical implications because formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist has important consequences in U.S. law.

Egypt Cancels Israel-Hamas Talks, Shutters Rafah, Plans Anti-Smuggling Wall After Mass Car Bombing: Dave Bender, Algemeiner, Oct. 26, 2014 —After a terror attack on Friday killed at least 30 Egyptian soldiers in the northern Sinai, Cairo has declared a state of emergency in the area, closed down the Rafah crossing from Gaza, canceled indirect cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas, and now says it will build a wall to block smuggling with the coastal enclave, Israel’s NRG News reported.

The Role of Hamas and Fatah in the Jerusalem Disturbances: Pinhas Inbari, JCPA, Oct. 26, 2014 —The deterioration of the security situation in Jerusalem cannot be understood only on the Israeli-Palestinian level…

MPs 'Encouraged Hamas Terrorism' by Voting for Palestinian State Says Israel: David Blair, Telegraph, Oct. 24, 2014 —Parliament was guilty of “encouraging terrorist attacks” and “giving up” on peace when MPs cast a “miserable” vote in favour of Palestinian statehood, according to an Israeli cabinet minister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

THE WEEK THAT WAS: TERRORIST ATTACKS, & “KLINGHOFFER” CONTROVERSY, REMIND US OF THE DEADLY THREAT OF ISLAMIST TERROR

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Now Belongs, in Part, to the Memory of one we Know: Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, Oct. 24, 2014 —I have been to the cenotaph many times to pray for our country and to honour our fallen.

The Allure of Radical Islam in Canada: David Frum, The Atlantic, Oct. 23, 2014 — Last year, the head of Canada’s security agency delivered a warning to the Canadian Senate.

‘The Death Of Klinghoffer’ Is An Injustice To Our Father’s Memory: Lisa & Ilsa Klinghoffer, Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014— On Oct. 8, 1985, our 69-year-old wheelchair-bound father, Leon Klinghoffer, was shot in the head by Palestinian hijackers on the Achille Lauro cruise ship.

Metropolitan Opera Stifles Free Exchange of Ideas about a Propaganda Opera: Alan M. Dershowitz, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 21, 2014 —On Monday night I went to the Metropolitan Opera. I went for two reasons: to see and hear John Adams' controversial opera, The Death of Klinghoffer; and to see and hear what those protesting the Met's judgment in presenting the opera had to say.

Quiet Heroes of the Second World War: Susan Schwartz, Montreal Gazette, Oct. 7, 2014— Nelly Trocmé Hewett, the daughter of two quiet heroes of the Second World War, will be in Montreal later this month to talk about her parents, Magda and André Trocmé, who inspired a network of resistance to the Vichy government’s deportation of thousands to concentration camps.

On Topic Links

 

Bruce MacKinnon’s War Memorial Cartoon Touches Hearts Worldwide: Mary Ellen Macintyre, Herald News, Oct. 23, 2014

Canada Mosque Teaches 4-Year-Olds How to Behead (Video): WND, Oct. 3, 2014
An Assault on the Heart of the Canadian State (Video): Mark Steyn, Steyn Online, Oct. 23, 2014

Brigitte Gabriel Keynote Speaker at United Nations (Video): Youtube, Sept. 9, 2014

Hebrew –English Bilingual School in Harlem (Video): Jerusalem Online, Oct. 24, 2014

Klinghoffer and the ‘Two Sides’ of Terrorism: Floyd Abrams, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2014

 

                                                                                                           

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER NOW BELONGS,

IN PART, TO THE MEMORY OF ONE WE KNOW                                    

Father Raymond J. de Souza                                                                                         National Post, Oct. 24, 2014

 

I have been to the cenotaph many times to pray for our country and to honour our fallen. Another visit is required now, because it has been consecrated anew. The blood of Corporal Nathan Cirillo has been shed. The tomb of the Unknown Soldier now belongs in part to the memory of one we know. Cpl. Cirillo was there because the National War Memorial had been desecrated in 2006 on Dominion Day. Some young hooligans relieved themselves on it, and in response a ceremonial guard was placed there, both to honour the dead and to keep vandals away. When shrines or sanctuaries are desecrated, they must be reconsecrated — whether it be the temple of Jerusalem in ancient times or the churches burned this summer in Nigeria.

 

The cenotaph, desecrated in 2006, was reconsecrated on Wednesday in the most dramatic way possible — set apart once again, made sacred once again. It was Lincoln who gave us the words at Gettysburg: “In a larger sense, we cannot dedicate ….we cannot consecrate … we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.” The National War Memorial — titled “The Response” — was dedicated in 1939 by King George VI to commemorate the Great War, just months before a war of even greater carnage would begin. In 1982 it was formally re-dedicated to honour the fallen of the Second World War and Korea, and in 2000 the remains of a soldier from Vimy were interred to make it the Canadian tomb of the Unknown Soldier. After Cpl. Cirillo was killed on site, there will be no need for another ceremony to include here the fallen of the wars against Islamist terror. That has been done in his blood.

 

Wednesday was intended by the assassin to be rich in symbols — an attack on the soldiers’ memorial, an attack on Parliament. So it was supremely fitting that he was stopped by a figure both symbolic and real, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, the mace-bearer who marches before the Speaker in the opening ceremonial of the Commons. Kevin Vickers is also the head of security on the Hill, which is why in addition to carrying the mace, he can fire a pistol. It is irreverent to imagine that he might have bludgeoned Michael Zehaf-Bibeau into submission with the mace itself, but that was symbolically the case. The mace represents the authority of the chamber conferred by the Crown (which is why it is draped in the presence of the sovereign herself). It is a fitting symbol of Parliament itself. In the person of its mace-bearer then, Parliament offered its own “Response” to the attempted attack on its peaceable assembly.

 

In the coming days I expect that both the cenotaph and Parliament Hill will be closed off to public access. I remember working on the Hill 25 years ago when it was possible to drive up to Parliament buildings freely and enter them with a simple indication of which office you wished to visit. It has not been like that for many years now, but as soon as possible the symbol of our national democracy — and the symbol of the fallen who have sacrificed their lives in its service — should return to being living symbols, signs that are not only signs, but which accomplish what they signify. Keep them open; do not let them become symbols instead of a free people held captive by liberty’s enemies. Perhaps this Remembrance Day, a variation on the usual ceremony could be added. Have the Sergeant-at-Arms carry the mace from the cenotaph back to the Commons in a public procession which honours the fallen at the memorial and makes it clear that the work they died to protect will continue — open and accessible, glorious and free, for on Wednesday in Canada, Nathan Cirillo and Kevin Vickers were standing on guard for thee.

 

                                                                  

Contents        

                                                                                 

THE ALLURE OF RADICAL ISLAM IN CANADA

David Frum                                                                                                                    

The Atlantic, Oct. 23, 2014

           

Last year, the head of Canada’s security agency delivered a warning to the Canadian Senate. “Five years ago we weren’t as worried about domestic terrorism as we are now,” said Richard Fadden. He explained why: In the 1990s and early 2000s, Islamic terrorism was perpetrated by structured organizations with lines of command—groups like al-Qaeda and Somalia’s al-Shabab. But the U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition had smashed the leadership of these groups, and left behind a motley bunch of autonomous freelancers whose plots were much “harder to get your hands on.” Western intelligence agencies were seeing far fewer large-scale plots like those that did so much damage in New York City, in Washington, in Bali, in Madrid, and in London in the early 2000s, Fadden continued, but they were collecting much more chatter about smaller-scale threats against less predictable targets.

 

Fadden’s prophecy has been all too tragically vindicated this week. On Monday, a French-Canadian convert to Islam drove his car at two Canadian soldiers in the small city of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, southeast of Montreal. One soldier was killed. The assailant was shot and killed by police after a high-speed car chase. Wednesday brought a spectacular attack on the National War Memorial and Parliament in Ottawa. Again, a soldier was killed, before the assailant himself was reportedly felled by the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. This attacker too was a Canadian-born Muslim convert, the son of a French-Canadian woman and (according to recent press reports) a Libyan man who had emigrated to Canada. The Saint-Jean hit-and-run driver, Martin Couture-Rouleau, appeared on a list of 90 persons monitored by Canadian police and had been identified as a “high-risk traveler”; He was arrested last summer when he tried to leave the country for the Middle East. Official sources have not said anything about whether Couture-Rouleau and the Ottawa shooter, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, were acquainted or connected in any way. Former Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, however, told The Daily Beast on Wednesday that the two men may have visited the same Internet chat rooms. ISIS has promoted using cars as weapons against Westerners, though it remains unclear whether Couture-Rouleau drew inspiration from the extremist group.

 

Since 2006, Canadian security has thwarted many localized plots—two in 2013 alone. At a July 1 Canada Day celebration in front of the British Columbia legislature, two Canadian-born converts to Islam intended to detonate homemade pressure-cooker bombs, police charge. Two non-citizens—one Palestinian, one Tunisian—were arrested in April 2013 for allegedly plotting to derail a passenger train. A lot of energy is wasted debating whether do-it-yourself jihadists should be called “terrorists.” The Obama administration notoriously insisted on describing the Ford Hood shooting of 2009 as an incident of “workplace violence,” not terrorism. The killer at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Malik Hassan, was perceived by colleagues as mentally troubled long before he opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 32 more. Judging by media reports, Zehaf-Bibeau likewise could be described, if one wished to eschew the T-word, as a troubled misfit with a long record of petty criminality. On the other hand, what kind of person would one expect jihadists to recruit from inside a Western society? In countries like Canada, Australia, Britain, and the United States, the call to Islamic holy war often appeals to more marginal people: the thwarted, the troubled, the angry. And yet even so, the Saint-Jean killer—Couture-Rouleau—reportedly had a clean police record and a reasonably stable personal life until his conversion to Islam. He owned a pressure-washing business and lived in a single family home with his father.

 

If you are alienated, angry, and attracted to violence, radical Islam provides a powerful ideology of justification. If you are lonely and purposeless, it offers redemptive self-sacrifice (one report claims that Couture-Rouleau persuaded “four or five” friends to convert to Islam with him). Until roughly 1960, French-speaking Quebec ranked as one of the most Catholic societies on earth. In the late 1950s, more than 80 percent of French Quebeckers could be found at Mass on Sundays, according to one famous estimate. Then, abruptly, in the short span of years from 1960 to 1980, religion seemed almost to vanish from the province. It’s been aptly said that from the point of view of religious observance, “centuries, not decades” separated the Quebec of the 1980s from the Quebec of the 1950s. Yet the hunger for meaning is always a part of the human spirit. In a different time, Couture-Rouleau might have vanished into a monastery. In the 21st century, he found a different and deadlier path. The alleged would-be British Columbian bombers might likewise have gravitated to Maoism in the 1960s or Nazism in the 1930s. But those ideologies too have lost their hold on the modern mind, leaving radical Islam as the strongest competitor for the credence of those who seek self-fulfillment through mass destruction…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

                                                                                   

                                                                       

Contents                    

                                                                                                

‘THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER’ IS AN INJUSTICE

TO OUR FATHER’S MEMORY                                                            

Lisa & Ilsa Klinghoffer                                                                                      

Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014

 

On Oct. 8, 1985, our 69-year-old wheelchair-bound father, Leon Klinghoffer, was shot in the head by Palestinian hijackers on the Achille Lauro cruise ship. The terrorists brutally and unceremoniously threw his body and wheelchair overboard into the Mediterranean. His body washed up on the Syrian shore a few days later. Beginning on Oct. 20 for eight performances, a baritone portraying “Leon Klinghoffer” is appearing on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera and singing the “Aria of the Falling Body” as he artfully falls into the sea. Competing choruses will highlight Jewish and Palestinian narratives of suffering and oppression, selectively presenting the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

The four terrorists responsible for his murder will be humanized by distinguished opera singers and given a back-story, an “explanation” for their brutal act of terror and violence. Opera-goers will see and hear a musical examination of terrorism, the Holocaust and Palestinian claims of dispossession – all in under three hours. Since the Met Opera’s decision to stage “The Death of Klinghoffer” by composer John Adams became public several months ago, much has been said and written about our father. Those opposed to the opera’s appearance in New York have elevated his murder at the hands of terrorists into a form of martyrdom. To cultural arbiters and music critics, meanwhile, his tragic story has been seen merely as a vehicle for what they perceive to be artistic brilliance. For us, the impact and message of the opera is much more deeply felt and tragically personal. Neither Mr. Adams nor librettist Alice Goodman reached out to us when creating the opera, so we didn’t know what to expect when we attended the American debut at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991. We were devastated by what we saw: the exploitation of the murder of our father as a vehicle for political commentary. Over the years we have been deeply distressed with each new production of “Klinghoffer.” Critical views of Israel permeate the opera, and the staging and props of various productions have only amplified that bias. To have it now produced in New York – in our own backyard – by the country’s most prestigious opera company is incredibly painful.

 

We have always been strong supporters of the arts, and believe they can play an important role in examining and understanding significant world events. “Klinghoffer” does no such thing. It presents false moral equivalencies without context and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew. The opera rationalizes, romanticizes, and legitimizes the terrorist murder of our father. Long ago we resolved never to let the last few minutes of Leon Klinghoffer’s life define who he was as a man, husband, and father. Opera patrons will only see Leon Klinghoffer presented as a victim – but he was so much more. Our father was an inventor who loved to work with his hands. After his stroke, he continued to use his one good arm to repair anything that needed fixing. Every Saturday night he and our mother, Marilyn, would get dressed up and go out dancing. Family and friends meant everything to him. He was on a cruise with our mother, celebrating their 36th anniversary with a group of lifelong friends who summered together on the Jersey shore, when terrorists took over the ship, announced a hijacking in progress, and separated the Jewish passengers from those on board. The terrorist thugs who murdered Leon Klinghoffer didn’t care about the good, sweet man our father was. To them he was just a Jew – an American in a wheelchair whose life they considered worthless.

 

As the years have passed, we have tried to ensure that his murder would not be forgotten or, worse, co-opted or exploited by those with an agenda. We believe his ordeal should continue to serve as a wake-up call to civilized society about the dangers of terrorism. We have dedicated our lives since the tragedy to educating people about terrorism, and putting a personal face on victims and their families through the Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer Memorial Foundation of the Anti-Defamation League. Our father was one of the first American victims of Middle Eastern terrorism. Today with the memory of 9/11, the reality of al Qaeda and ISIS, and countless other attacks and threats, Americans live under the deadly threat of terrorism each and every day. Terrorism is irrational. It should never be explained away or justified. Nor should the death of innocent civilians be misunderstood as an acceptable means for drawing attention to perceived political grievances. Unfortunately, “The Death of Klinghoffer” does all of this and sullies the memory of our father in the process.

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                        

 

METROPOLITAN OPERA STIFLES FREE EXCHANGE

OF IDEAS ABOUT A PROPAGANDA OPERA       

Alan M. Dershowitz                                                                                                        Gatestone Institute, Oct. 21, 2014

 

On Monday night I went to the Metropolitan Opera. I went for two reasons: to see and hear John Adams' controversial opera, The Death of Klinghoffer; and to see and hear what those protesting the Met's judgment in presenting the opera had to say. Peter Gelb, the head of the Met Opera, had advised people to see it for themselves and then decide. That's what I planned to do. Even though I had written critically of the opera—based on reading the libretto and listening to a recording—I was also critical of those who wanted to ban or censor it. I wanted personally to experience all sides of the controversy and then "decide." Lincoln Center made that difficult. After I bought my ticket, I decided to stand in the Plaza of Lincoln Center, across the street and in front of the protestors, so I could hear what they were saying and read what was on their signs. But Lincoln Center security refused to allow me to stand anywhere in the large plaza. They pushed me to the side and to the back, where I could barely make out the content of the protests. "Either go into the opera if you have a ticket or leave. No standing." When I asked why I couldn't remain in the large, open area between the protestors across the street and the opera house behind me, all I got were terse replies: "security," "Lincoln Center orders."

 

The end result was that the protestors were talking to and facing an empty plaza. It would be as if the Metropolitan Opera had agreed to produce The Death of Klinghoffer, but refused to allow anyone to sit in the orchestra, the boxes or the grand tier. "Family circle, upstairs, side views only." That's not freedom of expression, which requires not only that the speakers be allowed to express themselves, but that those who want to see and hear them be allowed to stand in an area in front of, and close to, the speakers, so that they can fully participate in the marketplace of ideas. That marketplace was needlessly restricted on the opening night of The Death of Klinghoffer. Unable to see or hear the content of the protest, I made my way to the opera house where I first registered a protest with the Met's media person and then sat down in my fourth row seat to listen and watch the opera. I'm an opera fanatic, having been to hundreds of Met performances since my high school years. This was my third opera since the beginning of the season, just a few weeks ago. I consider myself something of an opera aficionado and "maven." I always applaud, even flawed performances and mediocre operas. By any standard, The Death of Klinghoffer, is anything but the "masterpiece" its proponents are claiming it is. The music is uneven, with some lovely choruses—more on that coming—one decent aria, and lots of turgid recitatives. The libretto is awful. The drama is confused and rigid, especially the weak device of the captain looking back at the events several years later with the help of several silent passengers. There are silly and distracting arias from a British show girl who seems to have had a crush on one of the terrorists, as well as from a woman who hid in her cabin eating grapes and chocolate. They added neither to the drama nor the music of the opera.

 

Then there were the choruses. The two that open the opera are supposed to demonstrate the comparative suffering of the displaced Palestinians and the displaced Jews. The Palestinian chorus is beautifully composed musically, with some compelling words, sung rhythmically and sympathetically. The Jewish chorus is a mishmash of whining about money, sex, betrayal and assorted "Hasidism" protesting in front of movie theaters. It never mentions the six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, though the chorus is supposed to be sung by its survivors. The goal of that narrative chorus is to compare the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians—some of which was caused by Arab leaders urging them to leave and return victoriously after the Arabs murdered the Jews of Israel—with the systematic genocide of six million Jews. It was a moral abomination. And it got worse. The Palestinian murderer is played by a talented ballet dancer, who is portrayed sympathetically. A chorus of Palestinian women asks the audience to understand why he would be driven to terrorism. "We are not criminals," the terrorists assures us. One of the terrorists—played by the only Black lead singer—is portrayed as an overt anti-Semite, expressing hateful tropes against "the Jews". But he is not the killer. Nor, in this opera, is Klinghoffer selected for execution because he is a Jew. Instead, he is picked because he is a loudmouth who can't control his disdain for the Palestinian cause.

 

At bottom The Death of Klinghoffer—a title deliberately selected to sanitize his brutal murder—is more propaganda than art. It has some artistic moments but the dominant theme is to create a false moral equivalence between terrorism and its victims, between Israel and Palestinian terrorist groups, and between the Holocaust and the self-inflicted Nakba. It is a mediocre opera, by a good composer and very bad librettist. But you wouldn't know that from the raucous standing ovations received not only by the performers and chorus master, who deserved them, but also by the composer, who did not. The applause was not for the art. Indeed, during the intermission and on the way out, the word I heard most often was "boring." The over-the-top standing ovations were for the "courage" displayed by all those involved in the production. But it takes little courage to be anti-Israel these days, or to outrage Jews. There were, to be sure, a few brief expressions of negative opinion during the opera, one of which was briefly disruptive, as an audience member repeatedly shouted "Klinghoffer's murder will never be forgiven." He was arrested and removed. What would require courage would be for the Met to produce an opera that portrayed Mohammad, or even Yassir Arafat, in a negative way. The protests against such portrayals would not be limited to a few shouts, some wheelchairs and a few hundred distant demonstrators. Remember the murderous reaction to a few cartoons several years ago.

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                                

QUIET HEROES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR                                               

Susan Schwartz                                                                                                   

Montreal Gazette, Oct. 7, 2014

 

Nelly Trocmé Hewett, the daughter of two quiet heroes of the Second World War, will be in Montreal later this month to talk about her parents, Magda and André Trocmé, who inspired a network of resistance to the Vichy government’s deportation of thousands to concentration camps. A book of selected writings by the Trocmés, translated into English for the first time, was published this year by McGill-Queen’s Press: Magda and André Trocmé: Resistance Figures.

 

André Trocmé was a Protestant minister in the small Protestant farming village of Chambon-sur-Lignon in Vichy France, which was collaborating with the Nazis. He used his pulpit to encourage his congregation to shelter Jew fleeing Nazism; Magda Trocmé organized the operation. Other area ministers did the same; together, they helped to motivate several thousand citizens in Le Chambon and surrounding areas to give sanctuary to an estimated 3,500 Jews and 1,500 other refugees, mainly political dissidents, from across Europe. In 1942, when Trocmé was asked to turn over Jews to a Vichy official, he is reported to have said: “We don’t know what a Jew is. We only know men.” In what may well have been the war’s largest communal rescue effort, the people of Chambon, located in the mountains of south-central France, sheltered people in their homes and farms and in public institutions. Defying the Nazis and the French government collaborating with them was dangerous work, with the risk of death for anyone caught. A cousin of Rev. Trocmé, Daniel Trocmé, was sent to the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland, where he perished. Both André and Magda were recognized by Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial centre in Israel, as Righteous among the Nations. Le Chambon and its neighbouring communities are also honoured at Yad Vashem. Their daughter Trocmé Hewett, now 87, was a teenager during the war and later emigrated to the United States…There are two new books on Le Chambon: Caroline Moorehead’s Village of Secrets: Defying the Nazis in Vichy France, to be published Oct. 28, and Moorehead, and A Good Place to Hide: How One French Village Saved Thousands of Lives, by Peter Grose, due out next spring.

           

Contents                                               

On Topic

 

Bruce MacKinnon’s War Memorial Cartoon Touches Hearts Worldwide: Mary Ellen Macintyre, Herald News, Oct. 23, 2014 —After his powerful artistic response to tragic events in Ottawa, it seemed everyone wanted a piece of Herald cartoonist Bruce MacKinnon on Thursday.

Canada Mosque Teaches 4-Year-Olds How to Behead (Video): WND, Oct. 3, 2014
An Assault on the Heart of the Canadian State (Video): Mark Steyn, Steyn Online, Oct. 23, 2014

Brigitte Gabriel Keynote Speaker at United Nations (Video): Youtube, Sept. 9, 2014

Hebrew –English Bilingual School in Harlem (Video): Jerusalem Online, Oct. 24, 2014

Klinghoffer and the ‘Two Sides’ of Terrorism: Floyd Abrams, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2014—The Metropolitan Opera in New York on Monday will present John Adams ’s opera “The Death of Klinghoffer. ” The organization’s decision to mount the production has already spurred protests, with more to come.

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

IN MEMORIAM: OTTAWA & JERUSALEM MOURN TERRORIST VICTIMS: HARPER: “WE WILL NEVER BE INTIMIDATED”

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

Stephen Harper’s Speech on the Ottawa Shooting, Full Text: National Post, Oct. 22, 2014

Visibly Shaken Harper Proclaims ‘Canada Will Never be Intimidated’: John Ivison, National Post, Oct. 22, 2014— The goal of the coward who shot a reservist, providing ceremonial guard to the Tomb for the Unknown Soldier, was to cause shock and fear across this country.

Terrorists Don’t Have a Chance in this Country: Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail, Oct. 23, 2014 I was never prouder of my country than I was Wednesday.

Terrorist Kills Infant, Wounds Several, After Ramming Car Into Crowd in Jerusalem: Daniel K. Eisenbud, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 23, 2014— A three-month-old girl, identified by her grandfather as Chaya Zissel, was killed and several US citizens and Israelis were wounded Wednesday evening when a convicted Palestinian terrorist from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan rammed his vehicle into a crowd of people in the capital.

Israel Under Attack, Again: Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2014— In the capital of a U.S. ally, a terrorist drove his car into a crowd, injuring eight people, including a three-month old baby.

Unrest, Instability, Intifada — Whatever its  Name, it’s in Hamas’s Interest: Mitch Ginsberg, Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014—Whether the violence in Jerusalem since the gruesome murder of Muhammad Abu-Khdeir in July amounts to a Third Intifada will only be clear in hindsight.

On Topic Links

 

Krauthammer: Ottawa Gunman, Homegrown Threats Are ‘New Face Of Terrorism’ [VIDEO]: Daily Caller, Oct. 22, 2014

The Terrorism Threat to Canada: Jonathan D. Halevi, JCPA, Oct. 23, 2014

Terror Shouldn't Break Our Ties With Our Soldiers: David Bercuson, Globe & Mail, Oct. 22, 2014

Lieberman: Terror in Jerusalem and Ottawa Part of ‘Global Epidemic’: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014

Abbas’s Fatah Honors Jerusalem Hit-and-Run Terrorist: Elhanan Miller, Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014

                            

STEPHEN HARPER’S SPEECH ON THE OTTAWA SHOOTING,

FULL TEXT                                      

National Post, Oct. 22, 2014

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the nation on Wednesday to denounce the savage murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and declare: Canada will never be intimidated. Here is a transcript of his speech.

 

My fellow Canadians, for the second time this week there has been a brutal and violent attack on our soil. Today our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo of the Argyll and Sunderland Highlanders. Cpl. Cirillo was killed today, murdered in cold blood, as he provided a ceremonial honour guard at Canada’s National War Memorial, that sacred place that pays tribute to those who gave their lives so that we can live in a free, democratic and safe society. Likewise our thoughts and prayers remain also with the family and friends of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent who was killed earlier this week by an ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and Levant] inspired terrorist. Tonight we also pray for the speedy recovery of the others injured in these despicable attacks.

 

Fellow Canadians, we have also been reminded today of the compassionate and courageous nature of so many Canadians like those private citizens and first responders who came to provide aid to Corporal Cirillo as he fought for his life and, of course, the members of our security forces in the RCMP, the City of Ottawa Police and in Parliament who came quickly and at great risk to themselves to assist those of us who were close to the attack.

 

Fellow Canadians, in the days to come we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he many have had. But this week’s events are a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere around the world. We are also reminded that attacks on our security personnel and on our institutions of governance are by their very nature attacks on our country, on our values, on our society, on us Canadians as a free and democratic people who embrace human dignity for all.

 

But let there be no misunderstanding: we will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated. In fact, this will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts, and those of our national security agencies, to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats and keep Canada safe here at home. Just as it will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts to work with our allies around the world and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries with the hope of bringing their savagery to our shores. They will have no safe haven.

 

Well, today has been, without question, a difficult day. I have every confidence that Canadians will pull together with the kind of firm solidarity that has seen our country through many challenges. Together, we will remain vigilante against those at home or abroad who wish to harm us. For now, Laureen, Ben and Rachel and I join all Canadians in praying for those touched by today’s attack. May God bless them and keep our land glorious and free.

                                                                       

Contents              

                                                                            

                            

VISIBLY SHAKEN HARPER PROCLAIMS

‘CANADA WILL NEVER BE INTIMIDATED’

John Ivison                                                                                                           

National Post, Oct. 22, 2014

           

The goal of the coward who shot a reservist, providing ceremonial guard to the Tomb for the Unknown Soldier, was to cause shock and fear across this country. In one of the most important speeches of his political life, Stephen Harper said we will not be intimidated. “Canada will never be intimidated. It will strengthen our resolve to redouble our efforts,” he said. A visibly shaken Prime Minister said his government will take “all the necessary steps” to keep Canadians safe, without being specific about the measures he plans to take. He condemned the second “brutal and violent” attack this week, particularly the “cold-blooded murder” of Nathan Cirillo. He said the incidents were direct attacks on Canadian democracy, values and society.

 

It was a day of extraordinary feats of courage and compassion by Canadians like Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, who is understood to have shot the alleged assailant; by the four remarkable citizens of Ottawa who tended to a dying Cpl. Cirillo; by the caregivers forced to look after toddlers in the parliamentary daycare during more than 10 hours of lockdown; by all the soldiers, police and paramedics who put themselves in harm’s way to protect their fellow Canadians.

 

Ottawa is not a city that engenders warm feelings from the rest of the country. It is a city where it’s been said you can wander safe – but lonely. Neither of those descriptions was appropriate on a very black Wednesday in the capital. How could this not change us? The ceremonial guard at the War Memorial has already been cancelled. All of Canada’s military bases across the country have been closed. There are clear questions about the security arrangements at the front door of Centre Block, and whether they are sufficiently robust.

 

It has always surprised, and delighted, me that access into the Parliament Buildings is so straightforward. It has always worried me that a Mumbai-style attack would meet little in the way of resistance from the unarmed Hill security guards at the front door. That is not to take away from the heroism of security staff, who prevented a much more bloody incident. But we have always made a conscious tilt toward openness and access, and away from the kind of more intrusive security common in Washington and London.

 

We now have to ask ourselves whether we as a society are prepared to give up some of our freedoms in order to provide a little more protection. If we weren’t already aware — we are at war with an enemy that considers its way of life can only flourish if ours is extinguished. We are at war, whether we like it or not.

 

                                                                                   

Contents    

                                                                                                                  

TERRORISTS DON’T HAVE A CHANCE IN THIS COUNTRY                           

Margaret Wente                                                                                                  

Globe & Mail, Oct. 23, 2014

 

I was never prouder of my country than I was Wednesday. I learned that we are pretty cool people in a crisis. It’s easy to overreact when someone with a gun storms your seat of government and opens fire – especially when you suspect that person is a radicalized terrorist with an unknown number of accomplices. But we didn’t overreact.

 

What I saw was an institutional response that was professional, quick, efficient and calm. Nobody panicked. I saw our police and security forces handle an unprecedented emergency with great competence and a minimum of fuss. They sprang into action within minutes of the gunfire, and didn’t push any innocent civilians around. I saw the media report the story with care and restraint. No premature conclusions. No scare talk. The CBC reporters never turned a hair. The unflappable Peter Mansbridge is still the best quarterback in the business. The Globe’s astonishing Josh Wingrove had the fortitude to film the bullets spraying and duck for cover. His electrifying video was shown around the world. I saw half a dozen bystanders come to the aid of the soldier who’d been shot as he guarded the National War Memorial. One gave him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Clearly they weren’t thinking about themselves.

 

And I learned that I had woefully underestimated our quaint parliamentary traditions. I’d always thought our sergeant-at-arms was just some guy whose job was to re-enact one of our dustier traditions by dressing up in funny clothes and carrying around a mace (whatever that is). Who knew he was also a crack shot? But Kevin Vickers, who is 58 and looks it, reportedly can aim and fire with deadly precision when his nation is attacked, then go back into his office to reload. He’ll never brag about it, either. That would be un-Canadian.

 

Mr. Vickers is the reason why terrorism doesn’t have a chance in this country. He has made a career of reaching out to Muslims, Sikhs, First Nations, and others who haven’t always been included in this country. When the Idle No More movement marched on Parliament Hill, he formally exchanged tobacco with a First Nations chief and said, “I understand your frustration. I understand the conditions in which you people live and I also understand the importance of tobacco and what it means as not only a gift, but as a sign of respect for your people.” After the Quebec National Assembly banned the kirpan, he made sure the ceremonial dagger would be allowed in the House of Commons. As he told one gathering of Sikhs, he doesn’t like the word “tolerance.” “No,” he said. “As head of security, I am going to accept and embrace your symbol of faith within the Parliamentary Precinct.”

 

Did yesterday change everything? I don’t think so. The truth is that we’re still as safe (or not) as we were last week. In spite of the terrible, nerve-rattling tragedies of the past few days, we are no more vulnerable to terrorism than any other Western nation, and probably (because of geography) somewhat less. We’ll simply have to be on guard. We’ll find out much more in the days ahead – about the shooter, why he did it, whether there were lapses in security. We will debate whether our security forces need extra powers to do their jobs. As we do that, we should keep in mind the words of Kevin Vickers. “I told them that if they made me their sergeant-at-arms, there would be no walls built around Canada’s parliamentary buildings,” he said.

 

Parliament Hill, always open to all the people, will probably become less open than before, and that is a real loss. But I’m pretty sure people will be back next summer to do yoga on the grass. Soldiers will continue to wear their uniforms off base. We Canadians are steadfast and a bit phlegmatic. These are among our finest traits. We don’t get that excited, and we won’t be cowed into giving up our freedoms. Also, when necessary, we can shoot to kill. So long as we retain these virtues, the terrorists don’t have a chance.

 

                                                                       

Contents         

                                                                                                                                  

TERRORIST KILLS INFANT, WOUNDS SEVERAL,

AFTER RAMMING CAR INTO CROWD IN JERUSALEM                                   

Daniel K. Eisenbud                                                                                             

Jerusalem Post, Oct. 23, 2014

 

A three-month-old girl, identified by her grandfather as Chaya Zissel, was killed and several US citizens and Israelis were wounded Wednesday evening when a convicted Palestinian terrorist from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan rammed his vehicle into a crowd of people in the capital. The attack, which was captured by a security camera, took place at the Ammunition Hill light-rail stop a few hundred meters from Israel’s national police headquarters, situated across a densely traveled thoroughfare, shortly after 6 p.m., a senior police official said. The terrorist was shot by police and late Wednesday evening he died in hospital.

“The vehicle ran over a number of people, including several Americans, as they exited the train, and the suspect was shot when he attempted to flee the scene by foot,” the official said, requesting anonymity until the US State Department confirms the American casualties. “Nine people were injured, three seriously, including an American infant who died after sustaining critical injuries,” he continued. The official described the suspect as a convicted terrorist who served a recent prison sentence in Israel, but did not indicate whether he was released during the 2011 Gilad Schalit prisoner exchange or last year’s release of more than 70 convicted Palestinian terrorists during peace negotiations. All the victims of the attack were transported to area hospitals for treatment, he said.

Following the attack, US State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said she could not confirm or deny the citizenship of the victims and urged restraint while calling on all parties to “maintain calm” as US and Israeli officials continue to gather facts about the incident. The attack comes two days after nine Israeli families moved into the suspect’s Arab neighborhood amid ongoing Palestinian rioting and international condemnation. Meanwhile, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, whose administration has been beleaguered by chronic violence in the capital since June, issued a statement describing Wednesday’s murder as intolerable.
“We must restore peace and security in Jerusalem,” he said. “As I have said for months, the situation in Jerusalem is intolerable and we must act unequivocally against all violence taking place in the city. “Today, more than ever, it is clear that we must send police forces into neighborhoods where there are disturbances, placing them strategically and widely in significant numbers,” he continued. The mayor added that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given instructions to reinforce police units in east Jerusalem “to implement an operational action plan formulated to deal with riots, including the addition of personnel and special units, using technological means and increased intelligence.” “I will continue to be vigilant, and we will not rest until security is restored in Jerusalem,” Barkat said.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said rioting ensued in Isawiya and Silwan shortly after the terrorist attack. “Police units have been dispatched and have contained the rioting,” Rosenfeld said at 10 p.m., adding that no injuries were reported. Police issued a statement on Wednesday night saying that Police Insp.-Gen. Yohanan Danino had met earlier with the heads of the Jerusalem district police and all top police operational branches and ordered that a special security plan approved Wednesday morning for Jerusalem go into effect immediately. They added that police will deploy officers across the city at flash points and based on real-time intelligence, and that they will work together with all security agencies and do whatever it takes in order return peace and quiet to the city. They also vowed to find any other people involved in Wednesday’s attack. Chaya Zissel’s funeral was held on midnight on Wednesday in Jerusalem.

                                                                       

Contents                             

                                                                                                                      

ISRAEL UNDER ATTACK, AGAIN                                                                 

Jennifer Rubin                                                                                                    

Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2014

 

In the capital of a U.S. ally, a terrorist drove his car into a crowd, injuring eight people, including a three-month old baby. News reports indicate that the baby subsequently died. From the Jerusalem Post:     Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas encouraged violence against Jews in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said following the vehicular terror attack in Jerusalem Wednesday. “This is how Abbas’ partners in government [Hamas] act. This is the same Abbas who, only a few days ago, incited toward a terrorist attack in Jerusalem,” he said. Netanyahu ordered that security forces in Jerusalem be reinforced following the attack, consulting with Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Israel Police Commissioner Insp.-Gen. Yohanan Danino and Shin Bet Director Yoram Cohen.

 

According to other media reports, the driver was allegedly a Palestinian who previously was in prison. The Times of Israel reports: “Unconfirmed reports said the suspect was Abdelrahman al-Shaludi, a former Palestinian prisoner from the flashpoint neighborhood of Silwan. Police confirmed that the suspect, which it had yet to name, was from Silwan and had previously served in Israeli prison.”

 

Coincidentally the attack comes on the same day two U.S. senators — Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry about more than $150 million in assistance going to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) despite its track record during the recent Gaza war in storing terrorist weapons at its sites: Given UNRWA’s record and the absence of an independent investigation into its actions during the conflict, we were dumbfounded when, on October 12th, you reiterated, without any qualification, that the United States would provide more than $150 million to UNRWA programs in Gaza. This blind support sends the wrong message to an institution that has already become far too dependent on the largesse of the American taxpayer and repeatedly failed to ensure that its facilities and resources are not used by terrorists who wish to sow chaos and instability rather than aid the Palestinian people.

 

The United States should assist the people of Gaza as they rebuild after yet another Hamas-caused conflict. But this support cannot come at the expense of Israel’s security. We will not support the provision of future U.S. assistance to entities or projects in Gaza unless the State Department assures Congress that UNRWA or the relevant recipient entity has imposed independently audited accountability measures to verifiably prevent any U.S. assistance from aiding, directly or indirectly, extremists’ efforts to rearm or lay the groundwork for future attacks against Israel. What many in the West treat as “Oh, another attack in Israel,” should not be overlooked. It should be obvious who are friends are and who are enemies are. The latter are the ones who take aim at innocents to kill and wound them. Some moral clarity at the presidential level would be most welcomed.                                  

 

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                                                              

UNREST, INSTABILITY, INTIFADA —

WHATEVER ITS NAME, IT’S IN HAMAS’S INTEREST

Mitch Ginsberg                                                                                                  

 

Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014

 

Whether the violence in Jerusalem since the gruesome murder of Muhammad Abu-Khdeir in July amounts to a Third Intifada will only be clear in hindsight. But what the murder on Wednesday of Chaya Zissel Braun has shown, beyond the ruthlessness of the act and the enduring tension in Jerusalem, is the shrewdness of Hamas’s strategy of overthrowing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank by, of all things, persistently killing innocent Israelis.

 

That is one of the ways Israel should view the recent developments in Jerusalem. When Abdel Rahman al-Shaludi, a Hamas member and relative of a former head of the organization’s armed wing, turned his car into a lethal weapon on Wednesday, he was, whether by design or not, acting exactly according to the alleged Hamas coup plans exposed in August. At the time, the Shin Bet said that it had exposed a Hamas plan to “overthrow the Palestinian Authority and seize control of Judea and Samaria.”

 

Many pictured a coup: the surrounding of the Muqata and the deposing of the chairman of the Palestinian Authority. But what the Shin Bet actually uncovered was a plan, coordinated from Hamas headquarters in Turkey, to establish a loose network of terror cells, comprising a total of 93 operatives, which would “destabilize the security situation in the West Bank and carry out a string of grave attacks in Israel.” The Shin Bet left the rest unsaid: Israel, as happened in Gaza, would assign blame to the PA, seethe, and finally retaliate, weakening the PA to the point that Hamas could step in and finish it off.

 

And the reactions to the terror attack were, in fact, unusually harsh and directed squarely at PA President Mahmoud Abbas. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, speaking from Washington, said that “there is none, nor has there ever been, in the Palestinian Authority a culture of peace, but rather a culture of incitement and jihad against Jews.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assigned blame to Hamas, but also to Abbas, “who just a few days ago incited attacks on Jews in Jerusalem,” as he said in a statement. Hamas, of course, cannot take all of the credit for the roiling tension and constant drip of violence in the northern part of the city since the July murder. Other forces are at work, too – the friction on the Temple Mount and the status quo that leaves many Arab residents of East Jerusalem cut off from the West Bank and also unaffiliated, at least by citizenship, with Israel. Nonetheless, it is squarely within the organization’s interest to perpetuate instability so that even a random spark could light the fire of a third intifada.

 

“I say this and I repeat, I do not recognize an intifada,” Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch insisted Wednesday after the terror attack. Instead, he said, there was “a rise of incidents” of late but one that, with the help of an increased police presence in the capital, “we will overcome.” For Aharonovitch and the Israel Police, an organization beset by widespread malfeasance, that will be a tall order, and one hopefully achieved before the fire hops the fence and spreads to the West Bank.

           

Contents                                               

 

On Topic

 

The Terrorism Threat to Canada: Jonathan D. Halevi, JCPA, Oct. 23, 2014—On October 22, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, Canadian-born and a convert to Islam, shot dead a soldier and was killed after opening fire inside the Parliament in Ottawa

Krauthammer: Ottawa Gunman, Homegrown Threats Are ‘New Face Of Terrorism’ [VIDEO]: Daily Caller, Oct. 22, 2014—Appearing on “Special Report” Wednesday night, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer opined that individual attacks such as the shooting at Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday is “the new face of terrorism.” 

Terror Shouldn't Break Our Ties With Our Soldiers: David Bercuson, Globe & Mail, Oct. 22, 2014—Within 72 hours, two members of the Canadian Armed Forces were attacked and killed on the soil of Canada for no reason other than that they wore the uniform of the Canadian military. That has never happened before.

Lieberman: Terror in Jerusalem and Ottawa Part of ‘Global Epidemic’: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014—Wednesday’s terrorists attacks “almost at the same time in both ends of the world show that terror is a global epidemic,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote on his Facebook page.

Abbas’s Fatah Honors Jerusalem Hit-and-Run Terrorist: Elhanan Miller, Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014 —Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement published a poster Thursday celebrating Palestinian terrorist Abdel Rahman Al-Shaludi, who killed three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun and injured eight other Israelis in a hit-and-run car attack in Jerusalem the previous day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

TERRORIST I.S., AIDED BY WESTERN RECRUITS & APOLOGISTS, LEADS GLOBAL ISLAMIST JIHAD

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

As We Go to Press: SOLDIER DIES AFTER BEING RUN DOWN IN SUSPECTED TERROR ATTACK (Montreal) —The driver of a car who rammed two Canadian Forces members near Montreal before being shot dead by police was known to counter-terrorism authorities who believed he had become radicalized, the RCMP said on Monday as they continued to investigate the possible terrorist attack. The 25-year-old, known as Martin “Ahmad” Rouleau, allegedly hit two members of the Canadian Forces as they were walking in a strip mall just outside St-Jean-sur-Richelieu at about 11:30 a.m. Early Tuesday, one of two soldiers hit by the car died of his injuries. The second soldier’s injuries were described as less serious. A Twitter account under the name Ahmad Rouleau featured the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham, the terrorist group that last month called on its followers to kill Canadians because of Ottawa’s role in the anti-ISIS military coalition. “Islam is the only true religion. Anyone who want scientific proof of God that your terrorist Zionism Rothschild media hide, contact me or add me if you re open minded,” he commented beneath an online Time magazine article last May. (National Post, Oct. 20, 2014)  

 

Thank You, ISIS: David Horowitz, National Review, Oct. 9, 2014— Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us.

Is the Islamic State a Good Thing?: Raymond Ibrahim, Frontpage, Oct. 2, 2014— The Islamic State (IS) continues expanding its territory and influence through jihad

Western Civilization Must Rally Against the Threat of a New Medievalism: Tasha Kheiriddin, National Post, Sept. 4, 2014— The barbarians are not at the gates; they are inside them.

Radical Islam, Israel and Agitprop: Guy Millière, Gatestone Institute, Sept. 28, 2014— Understanding radical Islam requires going back to its roots.

               

On Topic Links

 

Canadian Jihadist Unmasked: Stewart Bell, National Post, Sept., 2014

The I-Word: Rex Murphy, National Post, Aug. 23, 2014

What The "Two State Solution" Has to Do with the Rise of Islamic Extremism: Zero: Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 20, 2014

You Can’t Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims: Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage, Oct. 21, 2014

                   

                                                 

THANK YOU, ISIS

David Horowitz                                                                                                              

National Review, Oct. 9, 2014

           

Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us. Yet despite the intentions of their perpetrators, they have had an unexpected utility. Their gruesome images have entered the living rooms and consciousness of ordinary Americans and waked them up. The barbarity of the Islamic movement for world domination has actually been evident for decades: in the suicide bombing of the Marine compound in Lebanon in 1982, in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the suicide attacks on Jews — men, women, and children — during the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000, in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, and in the beheadings perpetrated in Iraq by al-Qaeda’s Abu al-Zarqawi and the Salafist group known as Ansar al-Islam during the Iraq War.

 

Unfortunately, the response to these barbarities on the part of the Democratic party and the liberal elites has been to condemn and marginalize anyone who called them barbarous. In their eyes, it is racist to use the word “barbarism” to describe the acts of any Third World people. To associate Islam with the Islamists was Islamophobic. President Obama is still trapped in this time warp, denying in so many words that the Islamic State is Islamic. For America’s commander-in-chief to make such an obviously moronic statement about his country’s enemy in wartime reflects how deeply settled is the ideology of protecting the Islamists (and jeopardizing the innocent). Even Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, could not bring himself to describe the enemy as Islamic. Settling on “War on Terror” as a descriptive term was a way of eliding the fact that the savagery was motivated by not by nihilism but by Islamic faith. The Obama Democrats have gone even deeper into denial, eliminating “War on Terror” from the government vocabulary and replacing it with “overseas contingency operations.”

 

For more than a decade, a handful of conservatives, of whom I was one, tried to sound the alarm about the Islamist threat…In 2006 and 2007, I organized nearly 200 “teach-ins” on American campuses, which I called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” weeks. The idea was to legitimize the term “Islamo-fascist” as a description of the enemy confronting us. These demonstrations were attacked by the Muslim Students Association, which is a recruiting organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, and by Students for Justice in Palestine, a front for the terrorist party Hamas. They also inspired the contempt of the liberal Left… Resolutions denouncing critics of Islamic misogyny and terror as “Islamophobes” were unanimously passed by leftist-run student councils at UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, and a dozen other elite schools. Lengthy reports on the menace of Islamophobia targeted me and other speakers at our campus demonstrations, including Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes…

 

And then came ISIS. The horrific images of the beheadings, the reports of mass slaughters, and the threats to the American homeland have accomplished what our small contingent of beleaguered conservatives could never have achieved by ourselves. They brought images of these Islamic fanatics and savages into the living rooms of the American public, and suddenly the acceptable language for describing the enemy began to change. “Savages” and “barbarians” began to roll off the tongues of evening-news anchors and commentators who never would have dreamed of crossing that line before, for fear of offending the politically correct. Virtually every major Muslim organization in America is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of Islamic terror. Huma Abedin, who was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and is still Clinton’s confidante and principal aide), comes from a family of Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Yet legislators who have the power to investigate these matters are still intimidated from even raising them. Representative Michele Bachmann, who did raise them, was excoriated as a racist not only by the Left but also by John Boehner and John McCain.

 

Language is a weapon in the battle against the threat we face. We cannot fight a war effectively when we cannot name the enemy or describe his methods or examine his influence on our own policy. The Islamic State has created an opportunity for common sense and realism to prevail. The tragedy is that it has taken the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and the ongoing extermination of the Catholic presence in Iraq to begin to wake people up. And, unfortunately, the president is still asleep or, less charitably, is hostile to American purposes, is hostile to the military that defends us, and identifies more with the Islamic world that has produced these forces who would destroy us than with the country he is sworn to defend.

                                                                                   

Contents     

                                                                                

 

IS THE ISLAMIC STATE A GOOD THING?                                                          

Raymond Ibrahim                                                                                               

Frontpage, Oct. 2, 2014

 

The Islamic State (IS) continues expanding its territory and influence through jihad. Religious minorities that fall under its sway—at least the fortunate ones—continue to flee in droves, helping make the Islamic State what it strives to be: purely Islamic. Left unfettered, with only cosmetic airstrikes by an indecisive Obama administration to deal with, IS continues growing in strength and confidence, as Western powers again stand idly by. More and more Muslims around the world, impressed and inspired by what they see, become convinced that the Islamic State is in fact the new caliphate deserving of their allegiance.  Such Muslims—the most “radical” kind, who delight in the slaughter and subjugation of “infidels”—continue leaving Western nations and migrating to the Islamic State to wage jihad and live under Sharia. In other words, a sizable chunk of the world’s most radicalized/pious Muslims all become localized in one region.  There they openly and proudly display their anti-infidel supremacism.

 

Throughout, Western media have no choice but to report objectively—so thoroughly exposed for its barbarity has IS become that it is an insurmountable task to whitewash its atrocities.  The world has seen enough about IS to know that this is a savage, hostile, and supremacist state without excuse. Even Obama, after originally citing “grievances” as propelling the Islamic State’s successes, recently made an about face, saying “No grievance justifies these actions.” Put differently, the “Palestinian card” will not work here.  Western media, apologists, and talking heads cannot portray IS terror—including crucifying, beheading, and raping humans simply because they are “infidels”—as a product of “grievances” or “land disputes.” Indeed, the Islamic State itself, which is largely composed of foreigners, is the one invading other territories (Iraq, Syria), massacring and driving out their most indigenous inhabitants, from Christians to Yazidis.

 

In time, the Islamic State’s borders are fully consolidated and the “caliphate” is a fact of reality.  Its war on fellow Muslim “apostates”—its current excuse for not engaging the greatest of all “infidels” in the region, Israel—eventually comes to a close or stalemate. Then the inevitable happens: another conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas; Muslims around the word, including those under IS authority, drunk with power and feelings of superiority, demand that the time to wipe out the Jewish infidel has finally come; that the second phase of the caliphate is now or never—conquest of “original infidels.” As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently declared during his U.N. speech, “ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. ISIS and Hamas share a fanatical creed, which they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their control.” Thus the Islamic State will eventually be compelled to start saber rattling and worse against Israel.  After all, its entire legitimacy is founded on its namesake—that it is the “Islamic state,” the state that magnifies and protects Islam and Muslims.   It must eventually confront Israel or else be proven the greatest of all hypocrites or munafiqun—a term of great rebuke in the Koran, which some Muslim authorities are already applying to IS for not confronting Israel now.

 

Conflicts inevitably ensue between Israel and its neighboring Islamic State. But unlike the Jewish state’s war on Hamas—which the mainstream media can manipulate and portray as a war on innocent Palestinian women and children—world governments and media will find it exceedingly difficult to criticize Israel should any conflict between it and IS arise…Moreover, the argument habitually used against Israel—that its war on Hamas creates innocent Palestinian casualties—loses all legitimacy in any war on the Islamic State.

 

After all, IS, the state itself—not some terrorist organization ensconced within the state—is beheading, massacring, and enslaving humans solely on the basis of their religious identity.  Its citizens—who went there of their own accord, unlike “displaced” and “trapped” Palestinians—are fanatical, extremist Muslims, whose greatest aspiration is to decapitate an infidel. No one can apologize for this. The best that can be said is that this is not “true” Islam. This is why, even now, the pro-Islamic Obama administration is forced to condemn IS and even (if perfunctorily) militarily engage it. In short, conventional war becomes very justifiable against IS—especially because there is no longer any worry of accidentally killing this or that moderate or non-Muslim, as they have all been driven away, replaced by Islamic terrorists from around the world. And conventional war has traditionally been the bane of Islamists, who prefer terrorism, hiding among civilians, using them as shields, and playing the victim. Safe from international censure and pushed to the edge, Israel eventually obliterates the Islamic State, while even Islam’s greatest apologists in the West must hold their tongue or else be seen as defenders of the state responsible for the greatest atrocities—crucifixions, beheadings, rapes, slavery, and wholesale massacres—so far committed in the 21st century…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

                                                                       

Contents            

                                                                                                                               

WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST RALLY

AGAINST THE THREAT OF A NEW MEDIEVALISM                                         

Tasha Kheiriddin                                                                                                 

National Post, Sept. 4, 2014

 

The barbarians are not at the gates; they are inside them. In middle-class Canada, America and Britain, Islamic radicals scoop up young recruits to practice jihad against the countries that nurtured them. Others commit atrocities against those who do not share their faith, such as the horrific case of Muslim gangs in Rotherham, England, sexually abusing 1,400 non-Muslim schoolgirls over the past 16 years. Still others kill women and girls from their own faith community, for staining the family honour by daring to date a person of their own choosing, or leave an abusive husband.

 

The Western world is embroiled in a war of civilizations, not only overseas, but on its own soil. And right now, it is losing. It has become undone by the very quality that underpins its own religious morality: mercy. In modern times, mercy has morphed into political correctness. Turn the other cheek, even if it gets slapped repeatedly. Treat everyone as an equal, even if they think it’s acceptable to kill or abuse others in the name of one’s faith. But this type of extremism is not religion, naysayers retort: It’s culture. There is nothing in the Koran that mandates the beheading of infidels, the gang rape of children, the genital mutilation of girls, or even the wearing of burkas. Those are cultural perversions, and it’s wrong to tar Islam, and all Muslims, with one bloody brush. One can debate the texts of Islam ad nauseum: What matters are not the actual words, but the use to which they are put. It is true that there are many peaceful Muslims who reject these ideas. But there are many who do not. And more worrisome still, many of them come to their beliefs as young adults, radicalized by those who use the religion for their own purposes. Fear of being labelled “Islamophobic” prevents both discussion of and action against the problem. But the harsh truth is that the organizing principle of Islamic violence is Islam. Without it, there would be nothing to pervert in the first place. Without the call for the creation of an Islamic State, James Foley and Stephen Sotloff would still be alive. Without the belief that women, and non-Muslim women in particular, are second-class citizens, Rotherham would not have become a cesspool of child rape.

 

To be fair, Islam is not the only religion which has been used for violent ends. Catholicism provided the backdrop for the Spanish Inquisition, and Calvinism for the Salem Witch Trials. Christians treated women as inferior to men for centuries, based on the “word of God”; some modern-day religious sects, such as the polygamists of Bountiful, B.C., still do. But over time, mainstream Christianity changed. The Enlightenment spurred an evolution in Western thought. The value of personal freedom gained prominence, while church and state became increasingly separate entities. Over time, these changes begat rights for various social groups, including women, gays and lesbians, and racial minorities. You would think that the inheritors of the Enlightenment would be camped out on the White House lawn demanding that the Islamist threat to Western liberties be stopped. You would think that feminists would storm the gates of 10 Downing Street and demand that the police in Rotherham be jailed for failing to protect their girls. You would think that the LGBT community would realize that the real threat to equality is not the café down the street that doesn’t have transgendered washrooms, but the imam at the local mosque preaching that homosexuals are perverts and should be jailed. Don’t get me wrong: the answer to Allahu Akbar is not Deus vult. The West need not reenact a 21st-century version of the Crusades. But it must rally against the threat of a new medievalism. It cannot allow religious extremists of any faith to turn back the clock of civilization. Calling out crimes based in religion is not racist, but reality — and the first step to stopping them.

                                                                       

Contents               

                                                                                             

RADICAL ISLAM, ISRAEL AND AGITPROP                                                         

Guy Millière                                                                                                         

Gatestone Institute, Sept. 28, 2014

 

Understanding radical Islam requires going back to its roots. The Christian idea of rendering "unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" never existed in Islam. Its absence has had consequences, including, possibly, the decline of the Muslim civilization and the feeling of humiliation that resulted. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when Muslim clerics observed that the Islamic world was not keeping pace with the West and was on the verge of collapse, they may have decided they needed answers. Some of these clerics turned to the West, where they chose to study Western political ideas. They spoke of necessary reforms, and created secret societies and nationalist organizations. Other clerics chose dogmatic, strict readings of the Quran. They found inspiration in the writings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and in the established fundamentalist movements. Several secret societies gained strength and came to power: the Young Ottomans staged a coup d'état in 1876; the Young Turks ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 to 1918. Nationalist revolts took place: Colonel Ahmed Urabi led a mutiny in Egypt in 1879. A secret society, calling Arabs to recover their "lost vitality," was created in Beirut by Ibrahim al-Yaziji in the late 1870s. The House of Saud, led by Wahhabis, mounted military campaigns against other tribal rulers and the Ottomans in order to seize the Arabian Peninsula. From 1855-56 until his death in 1897, Sayyid Jamāl ad-Dīn al-Afghānī travelled throughout the Muslim world to call desperately for a return to the "original principles" of Islam.

 

But the decline did not stop and the collapse occurred. The First World War led to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, the emergence of modern Turkey, and the creation of kingdoms and Mandates in the Arab World. In 1923, the Ankara-based Turkish regime, founded by Mustafa Kemal Pasha [Atatürk], became the officially secular Republic of Turkey. Arab nationalists, whom Britain had used as a weapon against the Ottoman Empire, felt betrayed when Britain and France settled on the division of Arab territories and did not satisfy Arab demands. The leader of the Arab revolt, Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, for example, asked during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference in Versailles that, "the Arabic-speaking peoples of Asia" be recognized as "independent sovereign peoples," and that "no steps be taken inconsistent with the prospect of an eventual union" of Arab "areas under one sovereign government." As Arab nationalists grew bitter, pan-Arab nationalism emerged throughout the Arab world. The House of Saud united the kingdoms of the Hejaz and Nejd, and created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. Around the same time, radical Islam arose. The Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), established in 1928, quickly became the main radical movement.

 

Radical Islam soon took on a different color. Although it is sometimes described as a by-product of fundamentalism, it is really fundamentalism influenced by Western totalitarian dogmas: Marxism, Leninism, fascism, National-Socialism. The borders between radical Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, and Arab Nationalism have always been porous. Fundamentalist Islam "must have power in this world. It is the true religion—the religion of God—and its truth is manifest in its power…. [I]f Muslims now return to the original Islam, they can preserve and even restore their power." In the late 1950s, the political landscape of the Muslim world was relatively easy to describe. Saudi Arabia was fundamentalist. Some moderate kingdoms existed: Jordan, Morocco, Iran. Turkey was a secular republic. Lebanon was a "unitary confessionalist" Republic: a Republic resting on a power-sharing mechanism based on religious communities. Arab nationalists had taken power in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, and were about to take power in Algeria. The major Muslim countries in Asia — Pakistan and Indonesia — were not especially present in the news. Pakistan declared Islam as its state religion in 1949: most Pakistani Muslims belonged at the time to the Barelvi movement, much influenced by Sufism.[6] The Deobandi movement, inspired by Wahhabism, was not politically influential. And in Indonesia, the main Muslim groups — Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah — advocated religious moderation.

 

Meanwhile, radical Islam was growing in the shadows. In the 1960s, Arab nationalism was still gaining ground: Libya and Algeria were added to the list of countries ruled by people calling themselves Nationalists. In the 1970s, a civil war erupted in Lebanon. Palestinian militias were expelled from Jordan. They settled in South Lebanon and began fighting Christian militias. As central government authority quickly disintegrated, Shi'a militias that were beginning to form joined in the fighting. The great change occurred on April 1st 1979: Iran, with its version of radical Shi'a Islam, became an Islamic Republic. From then on, radical Islam spread rapidly. In 1985, various violent Lebanese Shi'a extremist groups founded Hezbollah, apparently in the hope of establishing an Islamic State in Lebanon. Two years later, in 1987, Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in Gaza City. Al-Qaeda, a radical Wahhabi movement calling for global jihad, was created in 1988-1989 by Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. In Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front started its bloody activities in 1989. Afghanistan became an Islamic State in 1992. The Taliban established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996. Countless more violent and deadly developments have taken place since. Radical Islam is now present on every continent. It has many names, various appearances, and is now a global threat.

 

In the meantime, as nationalism was on the rise all over the world and the idea of national liberation filled the atmosphere, Zionism emerged as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, urging Jews scattered all over the earth to come back to "the Land of Israel." The movement began during the collapse of the Muslim world. The First Aliyah [lit. "going up"] to Israel took place in 1881; the First Congress of the World Zionist organization took place in Basel, in 1897, and the Second Aliyah began in 1904. In the 1920s, as the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and the secret societies, nationalist organizations and fundamentalist movements rose in the Muslim world, Zionism also gained strength. In 1917, the Jewish Legion, a group of Zionist volunteers, assisted the British Army in Palestine (the name given to the land by Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D., to try to rid it of its Jewish roots). The same year, the Balfour Declaration confirmed support from the British government for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine to establish the "national home for the Jewish people." The official document explicitly states that "a recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine."

 

Zionism was compatible. It could coexist with moderate kingdoms, such as Morocco, with secular republics such as modern Turkey, and with republics such as Lebanon before its civil war. Islamic fundamentalism and Arab Nationalism, however, are not compatible with Zionism. In the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, Jews are ahl al-ḏimmah, people of the dimmah: inferiors who are allowed to survive in an Islamic-conquered land only if they accept being subjugated and deprived of any legal or human rights. Further, in fundamentalist Islam, the entire world is divided into either the Dar al-Islam [The House of Islam] or the Dar al-Harb [The House of War], where Islam does not yet dominate. In the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, therefore, every territory — whether Israel or Spain's al-Andalus — that has ever been under the rule of Islam must remain irreversibly under the rule of Islam — a waqf, or religious endowment, held in trust for Allah as part of his dar al-Islam [the House of Islam]. Originally, Arab nationalists wanted to end the Ottoman domination of Arab lands; then, after the Ottoman Empire was dissolved in 1918, they wanted the end of all Western presence in the Arab world…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

                                                           

Contents                                               

 

On Topic

 

Canadian Jihadist Unmasked: Stewart Bell, National Post, Sept., 2014—Adept at using social media and fluent in English, Abu Turaab is part of the new generation of jihadists who have stormed the Internet to spread the dark message of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham.

The I-Word: Rex Murphy, National Post, Aug. 23, 2014—“What’s in a name?” That famous question came from the mouth of Shakespeare’s Juliet Capulet while under her rhapsodic infatuation with Romeo Montague.

What The "Two State Solution" Has to Do with the Rise of Islamic Extremism: Zero: Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 20, 2014—U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that the lack of a "two-state solution" has fueled the rise of the Islamic State [IS] terrorist group reinforces how clueless the U.S. Administration is about what is happening in the Arab and Islamic countries.

You Can’t Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims: Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage, Oct. 21, 2014—Every few years the debate over reforming Islam bubbles up from the depths of a culture that largely censors any suggestion that Islam needs reforming.

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

Wednesday’s “News in Review” Round-Up

 

Contents: Media-ocrity of the Week | Weekly Quotes |  Short Takes |  On Topic Links

____________________________________________

 

Media-ocrity of the Week

 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is turning Israel into South Africa, opposition leader Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) said in his speech opening the Knesset’s winter session on Monday. “Stop trying to scare everyone and say we could turn into Greece or Spain,” Mofaz said. “I think you’re turning us into South Africa of last century.”  Mofaz did not specify whether he was calling Netanyahu’s policies apartheid-like or if he meant the prime minister is leading Israel to international isolation.

 

[A once leading Israeli politician provides ammunition to the forces of delegitimation, likening Israel to South Africa from the rostrum of the Knesset!! – Ed.] (Jerusalem Post, October 16, 2012)

_______________________________________________________

 

"Are you telling us that the day after the Benghazi attack you stood in the Rose Garden and called it an act of terror? Is that what you are saying? Let's get that on the record." —Mitt Romney to President Barak Obama in disbelief during the second presidential debates. (Newsday presidential debate transcript, October 17, 2012)

 

“And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.” —President Barak Obama’s heated response to Mitt Romney who said that “the president the day after [the assassination of the United States ambassador] flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for…another political event, I think these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance, and perhaps even material significance, in that you'd hoped that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We've read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.” (Newsday presidential debate transcript, October 17, 2012)

 

"We weren't told they wanted more security there, we did not know they wanted more security again." —US Vice President Joe Biden during the vice-presidential debate (Oct. 12). "The vice president directly contradicted the sworn testimony of State Department officials. He's doubling down on denial." candidate for president, Mitt Romney in response. (Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2012)

 

“The Global Jihad is stepping up its efforts to target us, and we will continue to interdict it with aggression and might, in terms of both response and pre-emption,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Israeli cabinet in Jerusalem on Sunday (Oct. 14) following increased Gaza rocket attacks from al-Qaeda linked terrorists against communities in southern Israel where two people were treated for shock. (Matzav, October 14, 2012)

 

“Iran has provided Hezbollah with the funds, training and advanced weapons to hijack the Lebanese state and turn it into an outpost of terror.” Israeli ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, in an address to the UN Security Council. “One does not need any further evidence that Hezbollah is a direct proxy of the Iranian Regime. Hezbollah’s continued provocations could have devastating consequences for the region.” In a clear reference to the European Union which refuses to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, he said: “…some countries around this table continue to define Hezbollah as a charitable and political group, not a terrorist organization. This is no less ridiculous than describing the Mafia as a gentlemen’s social club….It is time for all responsible nations to call Hezbollah exactly what it is: a global terrorist organization” (National Post, October 16, 2012)

 

"The Jews have…spread corruption on earth, spilled the blood of believers and in their actions profane holy places, including their own … [Badie called on Arabs to confront Israel] "…through Holy Jihad, high sacrifices and all forms of resistance. … Zionists only understand the language of force and will not relent without duress." — Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, in Egypt's Official Government-Owned Al Ahram Newspaper, October 11, 2012 (Simon Weisenthal Center, October 14, 2012)

 

“They have used violence, which now everyone has seen. They are worse than Mubarak.” —Alef el-Sayyed , 45, a liberal author and columnist who said Islamists had torn her shirt during a clash in Tahrir Square between opponents and supporters of Egypt’s president Mohammed Morsi.  Waleed Sayed, 22, returning to the square with his head bandaged and a bloody shirt in his hand, said an Islamist had hit him with a rock. “We did not do anything,” he said. “We were just protesting the situation in the country. We have no jobs. We have no money.” (New York Times, October 13, 2012)

 

“We were discussing a clause [proposed for the constitution] prohibiting forced labor and sex trafficking in women and children. I and some other members objected to this clause. We said that "trafficking in women" in the UN covenants refers to child marriage….Then they wanted to add an article protecting women from violence. With such a clause, you wouldn't be allowed to say anything to her, let alone touch her. And there were things worse still… If your wife claims that you were intimate with her without her consent, it will be considered rape according to the law. This is part of women's protection from violence. If you have full sexual relations with your wife against her will, she will be able to file a complaint against you. That's where things are headed.” Muhammad Saad Al-Azhari, a member of the Egyptian Constituent Assembly responsible for drafting the new Egyptian constitution, on an Egyptian TV talk show broadcast on Al-Nas TV, September 24, 2012. (Elder of Ziyon, MEMRI, September 24, 2012)

 

"The Nobel Peace Prize isn’t so much a peace prize as it is an appeasement prize. There is nothing that I can think of that would recommend giving this honor to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats sitting in Brussels. All too often, the EU’s foreign policy interventions have been marked by cowardice….[and] there is one policy dilemma that symbolizes the EU’s weakness better than any other: its refusal to designate the Lebanese Islamist organization Hezbollah as a terrorist group." —Ben Cohen commenting on the recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. (Algemeiner, October 15, 2012)

 

“There was great mirth on Friday of the “at least the Nobel committee did not give the European Union the economics prize” variety. Except that the use of the Nobel Peace Prize as a morale boost for Eurocrats struggling to contain a currency crisis is no laughing matter. It diminishes the prestige of the prize – and the achievements of those who truly deserve it. Worse, the pretext offered, that the EU gave Europe peace, is an insult to the role of Canadians and Americans in ending centuries of European bloodshed….Want to trace the origins of European peace? Read Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, which calls for members to settle international disputes “by peaceful means.” Article 2 committed members to maintain a “free” political system. This was backed up by military muscle…The year NATO should have been given the prize was 1991, when the West won the Cold War. Except that would have meant giving the Nobel Peace Prize to NATO militaries, with the U.S. military earning the biggest share in it, something the leftish Norwegian Nobel Committee could not countenance.” —Globe and Mail editorial. (Globe and Mail, October 13, 2012)

 

“This negligence [on the part of the United Nations concerning Bosnia] 20 years ago was explained by the international community being caught unprepared in dealing with the issues of the post-cold-war era,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan lashing out at the UN’s inaction vis-à-vis Syria, in a sign of escalating frustration in Turkey after days of cross-border shelling with Syria. “Well, how can the injustice and weakness displayed in the Syrian issue be explained today?” (New York Times, October 14, 2012)

 

“Human Rights Watch found that the authorities in Gaza have a broken justice system,” Bill Van Esveld, author of a Human Rights Watch report about Hamas justice in Gaza. “They are putting people in prison without warrants, denying people access to their lawyers while in detention, cases of abuse in detention are not being investigated and some people have been executed on the basis of confessions that were extracted under torture.” Mr. Van Esveld says at least 100 Palestinians said they had been tortured in 2011, although he believes the number to be much higher as many are afraid to speak out. “We were in Cairo,” Mr. Van Esveld said “and urged members of the Muslim Brotherhood to use their influence on Hamas,” which is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood. (National Post, October 12, 2012) (Top of Page)

_________________________________________________________

 

ROMNEY LEADS NATIONALLY BY 4 IN GALLUP POLL (Columbus, Ohio)A new Gallup national poll has Romney up among likely voters by 50-46 percent. Gallup’s daily tracking poll out [Tuesday] was the latest evidence of the Romney surge that began after the first presidential debate two weeks ago, giving the Republican a 4-point margin over his rival. And Gallup found the president’s lead among women — one of his key voting blocks — eroding to 6 points. In 2008, Obama won the election with a commanding 14 percent margin among women. Among men who are likely voters, Gallup showed Obama trailing by 14 points. In Obama’s race against John McCain four years ago, they split the male vote. Even college grads seemed to be fleeing the president, with Romney leading 61-39 when likely voters were counted. In 2008, Obama won this group by a 2-point margin. (New York Post, October 17, 2012)

 

CANDY CROWLEY’S BENGHAZI LIFELINE TO OBAMA (Hempstead, New York)

[T]he moderator [Candy Crowley, CNN] of  [Tuesday’s] hotly contested presidential debate uttered an untruth about President Obama’s deadly bungling in Libya after Obama overtly asked her on live television to support his dishonest version of it. During the debate, GOP candidate Mitt Romney stated –correctly— that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” After Romney’s statement, Obama interjected, “Get the transcript.” At that cue, Crowley cut off Romney, claiming that Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror” around the time it took place. “He did call it an act of terror,” [Crowley] said of the president.  Crowley also happens to be wrong.  In the White House’s Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama suggested that an anti-Islam video had provoked the attack. He then offered a throw-away line, making a general statement that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.” At no time did he say the events in Benghazi were instigated by terrorists. (Front Page Magazine, October 17, 2012)

 

NETANYAHU MOVES TO ADOPT ‘LEVY REPORT’ ON SETTLEMENTS (Jerusalem)

Israel Radio reported that Netanyahu was seeking to implement sections of the Levy Report, which recommends the legalization of unauthorized Jewish settlements in the West Bank and declares Israel’s presence in the territory legal under international law. In the report, Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy, former Israeli Ambassador to Canada Allan Baker, and retired justice Techiya Shapira wrote that ever since the 1917 Balfour Declaration, no sovereign state had formally annexed the West Bank territory and that, consequently, the Geneva Convention was not applicable. “A belligerent occupation is between two sovereigns,” Baker said. “We could not accept the definition that this is a classic occupation. That is the novelty of this report.” (Times of Israel, October 17, 2012)

 

FIGHTING ISRAEL HATERS WITH THE LAW (Netanya) Shurat HaDin's director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Esq., speaks at Netanya Academic College, during a conference titled "Countering Assaults on Israel's Legitimacy." In her remarks, she discusses the battle Shurat Hadin is waging against delegitimation and Arab lawfare against Israel.  To view the video click here: Shurat Hadin. (Israel Video Network, October 16  , 2012)

 

IAF KILLS TOP GAZA AL-QAEDA LEADER(Tel Aviv) Israel Air Force planes targeted a terrorist cell in the southern Gaza Strip that was preparing to launch a rocket into Israel, the Israel Defense Forces said. Two Gaza terrorists killed by Israel on Saturday (Oct. 13) were the most senior al-Qaeda affiliates in the Palestinian enclave, and one had links to jihadi networks in Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, (Matzav, October 14, 2012)

 

GAZANS FIRE FIRST ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILE AT IAF —(Gaza)Gaza terrorists fired shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles last week at Israeli aircraft, according to Yediot Aharonot. The missiles missed and no injuries or damage were reported. Sources said the missiles were probably the Strela-2/SA7, a Soviet-era shoulder mounted missile. This is the first time these missiles were used by Gaza terrorists, although there have been reports that Gaza groups had them for years. (Elder of Ziyon, October 17, 2012)

 

VIDEO SHOWS PALESTINIANS CUTTING DOWN OLIVE TREES(Shomron)A video entitled “Harvesting Incitement” released by the Shomron Regional Council on YouTube purports to show Palestinians and left-wing activists cutting down olive trees in a tactic meant to frame West Bank settlers as the perpetrators according to an unnamed witness in the video. “They cut down these trees to start a fire in the media or in their ovens. It’s suspicious because it comes close to the Jewish settlements.” the witness says. In all more than 450 trees were vandalized last week as the harvest began. This is not the first time that Palestinians have been accused of framing settlers. In 2010, Israeli news service Tazpit claimed to have documented the destruction of trees in an effort to accuse settlers. (Algemeiner, October 15, 2012)

 

NOBEL GIVES PEACE PRIZE TO CRISIS-RIDDEN EU(Oslo, Norway) Norway's Nobel Committee handed its 2012 Peace Prize to the European Union, even as the bloc faces its most serious crisis since it emerged from the ruins of two world wars, an award that served as both endorsement and warning. The committee, whose decision Europeans both celebrated and mocked, said the prize recognized more than six decades during which the conflict-ridden continent pulled together and became a harbinger of "peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights" at home and beyond. (Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2012)

 

EUROPEAN SATELLITE PROVIDER CUTS OFF IRANIAN TV (Paris)A top European satellite provider took 19 Iranian television and radio broadcasters off the air as a result of European Union sanctions aimed at punishing human rights abusers. Satellite provider Eutelsat agreed with media services company Arqiva to block the Irib channels as of Monday morning [Oct 15] because of "reinforced EU council sanctions" Eutelsat spokeswoman Vanessa O'Connor said. Critics have long argued that Iran’s state-run Press TV and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (Irib) are plagued by hatred of the West and contain anti-Semitic broadcasts denigrating Israel, Jews and Zionists. (Jerusalem Post, Honest Reporting, October 15, 2012)

 

AT BAR ILAN, 100 YIDDISH STUDENTS ARE – ARAB! (Tel Aviv) About a quarter of the 400 students studying Yiddish at Bar Ilan University are Arabs, says Ber Kotlerman, academic director of Bar Ilan’s Center for Yiddish Studies. According to Kotlerman, some of the Israeli Arabs are searching for a way to connect to the Jewish culture with which they must cope, and it is not easy for them. “Even Jews in the Diaspora search for this — a way to connect to the local culture — and it is wonderful that Yiddish can be a sort of ambassador, a bridge between nations and cultures,” he says. (Al Monitor, October 15, 2012)

THE HIDDEN HORROR OF ‘THE SCREAM’ (New York) Already under fire by heirs who claim their art was stolen during the Nazi era, the Museum of Modern Art plans to display what one man claims is another painting with a shady Nazi past — “The Scream.” MoMA will unveil an exhibit of the Edvard Munch masterpiece next week. But relatives of German-Jewish banker Hugo Simon, who owned the work in the 1920s and ’30s, came forward before a Sotheby’s auction this spring to contest its sale, and they say it’s wrong for the museum to display it without at least explaining its tragic history. Rafael Cardoso, a Brazilian curator and Simon’s great-grandson, says his forbear had to sell the treasure when he was declared an enemy of the state and driven from Germany after the Nazis came to power in 1933. The Nazis deemed it “degenerate” art and would have sold or destroyed it. (New York Post, October 14, 2012) (Top of Page)

____________________________________________________

 

A Presidency Squandered  :Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, October 16, 2012

The Obama narrative is that he inherited the worst mess in memory and has been stymied ever since by a partisan Congress — while everything from new ATM technology to the Japanese tsunami conspired against him. But how true are those claims?

 

How Will History Remember Obama’s ‘Cairo Speech’? : Mary Grabar, Front Page Magazine, October 16, 2012

Obama felt his words would heal the wounds inflicted by the United States before his tenure and therefore titled his speech “A New Beginning.”  By falsifying history, he built up the Middle East and Islam, while he disparaged the United States, the West, and, of course, President George W. Bush. 

 

Syrian refugees flocking to Turkey push the limit : Linda Gradstein, Jerusalem Post, October 17, 2012

For weeks now, the Ankara government has been saying that the number of 100,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey was a “psychological limit” – the point at which the border crossings would be closed.

____________________________________________________________________

 

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: ISRAZINE.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by fax and e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends and family to visit our website for more information on our Briefing series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, contact us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s Briefing series attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinion of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Institute.