Monday, August 13, 2012

The IDF's Egyptian fiasco

By Caroline Glick 


“...today Morsy completed the Egyptian revolution. Egypt is now an Islamic state.” So Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt Mohamed Morsy just sacked the leaders of the military junta General Hussein Tantawi and the Egyptian Army's' Chief of Staff General Sami Enan. Morsy has also cancelled the constitutional protections that the Egyptian military has enjoyed and overturned their edicts circumscribing his control over foreign and military policy. That is, as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has declared, today Morsy completed the Egyptian revolution. Egypt is now an Islamic state. Its leaders drink from the same well as al Qaida, Hamas and all the rest. Egypt, with its US armed military has reemerged after 30 years as the greatest military threat that Israel has ever faced. According the Israel media, the IDF was surprised by Morsy's move. Clearly our esteemed generals believed reassurances they received from their Egyptian military counterparts that Israel had no reason to be concerned with the election of Hamas's big brother to Egypt's presidency. This reminds me of what former chief of the IDF's General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said at the Jerusalem Post's conference in New York on April 29. In his remarks Ashkenazi said that no one in the IDF foresaw Mubarak's overthrow during the anti-regime protests in Tahrir Square. I began my remarks by mentioning that I had foreseen his overthrow and replacement by the Muslim Brotherhood already back in 2004. And like me, everyone paying attention to the internal make-up of Egyptian society -- rather than to the empty promises of generals with no popular support -- recognized that Israel's peace with Egypt was not long for this world.  I am not saying this to rub Ashkenazi's nose in his massive errors. I mention it because the same general staff that failed to foresee what was going to happen in Egypt, and fails to this day to understand the strategic implications of the Muslim Brotherhood takeover for the IDF, is the IDF that insists today that Israel can trust Obama to take care of Iran for us. Sadly, perhaps even devastatingly, it is not possible for Netanyahu and Barak to pull a Morsy and fire the General Staff en masse. All of these leftist strategic failures enjoy the unstinting support of the leftist media. But still, their failure to understand Egypt speaks all the more strongly for the full justification and necessity of Barak and Netanyahu's current media campaign to force the IDF to fall in line on attacking Iran.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

In Egypt, New Attitudes To Terror


The funeral procession honoring the 16 victims of a terrorist attack on an Egyptian border checkpoint this week was a turning point for the Egyptian people. Television commentators went on and on about the heroic new shahids (martyrs), laid out in coffins wrapped with Egyptian flags. Throngs of people accompanied the victims' coffins on their final journey from Al-Rashdan mosque, through the Unknown Soldier Memorial, to their final resting place. The ceremonial procession, which featured countless Egyptian flags — but no Islamist flags — was led by the victims' families, Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, Prime Minister Hesham Kandil, other government ministers, public figures and sheikhs. Only Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi was conspicuously absent from the funerals. His security team was concerned for his safety following attacks on Kandil's vehicle by protesters. Let us recall that during his swearing-in ceremony, Morsi bared his chest and defiantly declared that he did not need to wear a flak jacket. In failing to show up to the funerals, Morsi elicited dismissive criticism from his opponents.
Despite the raw emotions and the displays of rage, this was a sensitive, stately funeral procession, unlike any of the agitated horror shows staged by Egyptian crowds in the town squares.
Listening to spokespersons and media commentators describe the event, it was very evident that something had changed. After all, throughout Egypt's history, the country's army has sustained losses far worse than this one, but this was a unifying national event that brought people together, reflecting a tremendous emotional burden. It was evident in the eulogies, in the vows of revenge, and in the style the commentators used to describe the funerals and the circumstances of the terrorist attack. The saintly status of the fighters who gave their lives to protect their country was given a lot of emphasis, as was the place in heaven reserved for them.
Special attention was paid on the fact that the Egyptian soldiers had been killed specifically as they sat down to break the Ramadan fast. The month of Ramadan is considered to be a holy month during which Muslims are not allowed to engage in battle. The climax of this religious drama was when the victims were described as having been trained by their commanders, namely Tantawi himself, to risk their lives fighting enemies on the front lines, but not to be killed at home by their brothers' swords stabbing them in the back — a treacherous Islamic sword.
Rallying public opinion
The deaths of the Egyptian soldiers, the funerals and the way the Egyptian media approached the terrorist attack, all prepared the ground for a military operation aimed at eliminating Islamist terror strongholds in Sinai. The Egyptian media reflected the sentiment that the army, which had already gained popularity points thanks to its restraint during the course of the Arab Spring protests, had now regained its position at the heart of the Egyptian consensus following the vicious attack by Islamist extremists on Egyptian soldiers in the city of Rafah.
The army's popularity only soared when faced with criticism over anti-democratic moves directed at Morsi's government. In fact, the latest series of events served to elevate the army in the context of Egyptian unity. The Egyptian people, faced with the intelligence failure that led to the deadly attack, and with the fact that Israel had warned the Egyptian authorities in advance, felt immensely frustrated. But that frustration is slowly beginning to dissipate as reports emerge of the blows that the army is dealing the Islamist terrorists both from the air and on land.
The media made sure to emphasize that despite the varying political views and the disparate social and economic statuses, the Egyptian people were one. The different spokespeople stressed the growing cooperation between Morsi and the army commander on the scene. Since the attack, all the Egyptian analysts that described it have agreed that the radical Islamist groups based in Sinai must be crushed. Before this attack, the kind of operation that the army launched in Sinai would have been impossible.
As expected, the lawless situation in Sinai was explained as a product of the discriminatory and tough attitude that deposed President Hosni Mubarak had taken toward the Sinai Bedouin. Mubarak's treatment of the Bedouin included torture, arrests and unwarranted abuse, which led to radicalization and the accumulation of weapons. It was mentioned further that it was the economic neglect that pushed the Bedouin to align themselves with Islamist terror organizations, motivated by foreign interests, against Egypt.
Egyptian media outlets interviewed excited residents of Sinai earnestly asking the authorities to restore order in the region. It is already obvious that Egyptian authorities will have to improve the quality of the manpower in Sinai. Currently, both the poor residents and the security personnel are vulnerable to recruitment by the various wealthy terror organizations. The power of the material temptations stem from the terrible poverty in the area, the alienation and the low wages paid to soldiers and military officers.
Who is the mastermind?
The harsh words that characterized the hours immediately following the deadly confrontation between soldiers and terrorists slowly dissipated. The waves of typically vicious accusations characterized, as usual, by the Islamist rhetoric coming from Morsi's movement — the Muslim Brotherhood — have continued, but have been reduced.
Already, there is growing fury and frustration over the Egyptian authorities' colossal intelligence and operational oversight. The anger is only intensifying as more details emerge from the attack, and more testimonies indicate involvement of Islamist terrorists from Gaza. As the bodies of the attackers are uncovered as well as their identities, the evidence suggests that radical Islamists and Sinai based groups were manipulated like marionettes, or cultivated like protégés, by Hamas.
The media commentators kept asking again and again, in shock, why the Egyptian soldiers had been targeted precisely during the breaking of the Ramadan fast; the questions reverberated over and over asking which country had orchestrated the attack; what was the agenda that prompted Islamist terrorists to kill Egyptian soldiers, commandeer military vehicles and attack Israel across the border in such a treacherous manner. Other questions were directed at the international forces deployed in Sinai — what is their true purpose? Are they doing their jobs properly?
The Egyptian media began collecting testimonies regarding the early warnings Israel issued: on the frustrating absence of Egyptian defense mechanisms; on the mortar fire targeting the Egyptian checkpoint prior to the attack coming from the Gaza side of Rafah — meant to provide backup to the terrorists coming into the checkpoint from the other side of the fence; on the movement of terrorists via underground tunnels from the Gaza Strip into Egypt as they were planning the attack. According to the various commentators' analyses, it is very clear that the timing, the location and the modus operandi of the attack were designed to draw Egypt into a conflict with Israel. The question is: Who is the mastermind?
Where is Egypt headed?
An Islamist Egypt is vulnerable to extensive weapons trafficking from within its territory to its neighbors. At any minute, another Khalid Islambouli (a radical Egyptian army officer who planned and participated in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981) could pop up and burn the house down from within. In light of the unstable economic and political arenas, especially following the attack, Morsi is now faced with a difficult dilemma.
Those who share Morsi's ideology, the members of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as the more extreme Salafi movement, expect his highness to implement the very ideology they have all been taught in that radical hothouse of theirs. Much to their embarrassment, it was the same Muslim ideology that motivated the terrorists who perpetrated this attack.
Hamas members were also pleased to see Morsi assume the presidency of Egypt, and to them, the vision of a liberated Palestine seems closer than ever. But the reality that has emerged indicates that there is an enormous gap between their vision and what is really happening, and this is a huge threat to Hamas. Egypt is dependent on America for funding and supplies, as well as Saudi aid. Egypt's diplomatic and security stability is a prerequisite for any economic advancement or foreign investment. So, from a geo-strategic perspective, Egypt's security is existentially linked to a Western agenda, dictated first and foremost by the U.S. The American agenda reflects that of most Western nations, including Israel and Turkey as well as the Sunni Arab nations in the Middle East. This Western coalition was formed mainly as a response to the Shiite coalition it opposes, which includes Iran — as it pursues nuclear weapons and eyes Arab oil and territory — Iraq, Syria and the Hezbollah satellite terror entity, all under a Chinese-Russian umbrella.
In this Cold War-style situation, Israel serves a key role. Morsi, almost against his will, has to choose the Egyptians' best interests and take action to combat Islamist terror, because he cannot support terrorist organizations that target the American coalition and its allies. Now that the Islamist terrorists have targeted Egypt itself, it will be easier for him to promote anti-terror policies both against Hamas and against the other terrorist organizations operating in Sinai under the auspices of Iran. Morsi can now do it under the guise of preserving Egyptian security without being suspected of cooperating with the enemy or being an "agent of American and Zionist imperialism."
The Hamas circus
The terror leadership of the "polite" Hamas rushed frantically to deny any involvement in the deadly incident: Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh convened a security coordination meeting between the Egyptian government and the Gaza leadership, and declared a halt to tunnel smuggling. All the signs indicated that Egyptian security officials were not going for the usual Hamas method of excuses — laying the blame on other Islamist front organizations (cultivated by Hamas) and distancing themselves from the said group despite the contact they maintain after attacks. This loathsome method is not even seen as a joke by the Egyptian intelligence establishment.
Following the attack, Haniyeh led an emotional solidarity demonstration in front of the Egyptian Embassy in Gaza. The threatening voices coming out of Egypt, however, have begun communicating to Hamas that it has been deluding itself into thinking that it could toy with Egypt's fate while advancing the narrow interests of the insolent Gaza group.
With overt criticism, Egyptian media spokespeople declared defiantly that it was unthinkable, within the framework of diplomacy, that a neighboring entity like the Gaza Strip, even if it is not a formal state, would maintain "criminal" relationships at the expense of its neighbor Egypt. It was unthinkable that Gaza would export terror into Egypt through underground tunnels full of guns, drugs and contraband, thus jeopardizing the public security of the nation.
The Egyptian media blamed the de facto Hamas government and insisted that Hamas knew of the terrorists' plans and did not warn Egyptian authorities. This stance assumes that the organization that rules the Gaza Strip is also responsible for what happens in its territory, and everything that comes out of it. These media spokespeople demanded that the Egyptian army obliterate the smuggling tunnels and institute instead above ground border crossings, under strict Egyptian supervision.
The "Israeli enemy"
Egyptian television conducted a marathon of interviews with scientists, military men and social experts. The editor of The Seventh Day newspaper in Egypt voiced deep dissatisfaction over the fact that a military analyst from the ranks of the "Israeli enemy" appeared on one of the television networks and spoke about the attack. "Who can you make peace with if not the enemy," innocently argued another interviewee, who was asked about how the attack would affect Israeli-Egyptian relations. "Israel is the enemy, but we will now have to make changes and renegotiate the peace treaty that Egypt signed with Israel at Camp David, while simultaneously bolstering cooperation on the security front," he added.
Despite all that, Israel was portrayed by the Egyptian media as a legitimate partner for a peace agreement. The Camp David Accords were presented as a product of a partnership that, though signed grudgingly, must be honored.
Most of the speakers in the media argued that the agreements in the treaty regarding the deployment of troops were mainly in favor of Israel, but that the necessary change in Sinai deployment, as well as the deployment in facing Gaza, must be done with Israel's blessing.
The Egyptians are taking the new reality very seriously. The media has been reporting air patrols and deployments coordinated with Israel. The Rafah checkpoint has been closed until further notice, and the Egyptian investigation of the incident revealed that the bodies of several of the terrorists showed them to be Gazans. Hamas is in for quite a few surprises along the route of the burned armored vehicle that the terrorists commandeered, deep into the terror tunnels.

...

Friday, August 10, 2012

Islam: A Religion Custom Made For Men

By Amil Amani


Muslims, by belief and practice, are the most blatant violators of human rights. We hardly need to detail here Muslims’ systemic cruel treatment of the unbelievers, women of all persuasions, and any and all minorities across the board. To Muslims, human rights have a different meaning, and its protective provisions are reserved strictly for Muslims—primarily for Muslim men. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.

Oppression of women, for one, is so systemic in Islam that to this day women are, at best, second-class citizens under Islamic law. Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islamdom, denies women the right to drive, vote or hold elective offices—the most basic rights of citizens in democratic societies. Arabs and Muslims are masters of double-acts. They do all things in private, yet the public display of morality, decorum, and even piety is something you wear as you would your Keffiyeh even under the sizzling sun.
In model Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, for instance, women do not dare complain about their Allah-decreed chattel status. If they protest in the least, they are beaten by their husbands. And if they dare to demonstrate in public for equal family rights with men, they get severe beatings by the police and are hauled to jails for additional indignities and violence.

One may wonder then why is it that millions of Muslim women meekly submit to their subservient rank and thank Allah for it. These women are virtually imprinted by their parents and the clergy from birth to adopt the gender inequality as well as the entire pathological Islamic ethos.

Islam can be a “forgiving” religion, specifically for the male. If you neglect to say your prayers or you simply don’t want to, you can hire someone, preferably an imam or a mullah, to pray on your behalf. Going to the Hajj is too onerous and takes you away from the pleasures and comforts of your life? You can deputize someone else to go in your stead. You have a few drinks of the forbidden brew and it is time to say your prayer? Simply rinse your mouth and go ahead with praying. But, always remember the will of Allah and serve him. Do your duties to vanquish the unbelievers, promote the rule of the Sharia, and make the earth Allah’s.

In Islamic societies, freedom of expression, worship, and assembly are taken away. Women are indeed treated as chattel. Young girls are subjected to barbaric genital mutilation to make them sex slaves and birth channels without the ability to enjoy intercourse. Minors are executed, adulterers are stoned to death, thieves have their limbs amputated, and much much more. Isn’t that everyone’s idea of paradise?

Women, by the very nature of their second-class status expressly stipulated in the Quran, are occasionally allowed a token high position in government, while non-Muslim minority citizens are virtually barred from securing any positions at all.

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.” Quran 4.34

This misogynist religion of Allah is custom-made for the savage male. A faithful follower of Allah is allowed to have as many as four permanent wives-and replace any of them at any time he wants-as well as an unlimited number of one night or one-hour-stands that he can afford to rent. But, woe unto a woman if she even has a single love affair with another man. Nothing less than death by stoning is her just punishment.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran and under the Islamic Sharia that became the unofficial law of the land, a religiously sanctioned ceremony immediately filled the void. Many mosques provided the service of Seeghe—temporary marriages—. Women interested or forced by circumstances beyond their control to seek this type of ‘marriage’ would register with a local Mullah. Men seeking a temporary wife would contact the Mullah and specify what kind of woman they desired and for how long. Depending on the marketability of the candidate woman, a fee is levied on the man and the Mullah pronounces them husband and wife for a stipulated duration. Once the patron satisfies his urges, the same Mullah simply annuls the marriage. Viola. No problems. The pair parts company and the Mullah, a replacement for the former pimp or madam, pockets his fee.

Thanks to Western technology, the Seeghe business has also joined the 21st century world. In some of the bigger cities and Tehran, a man can pick up a woman and call in for a Seeghe authorization which is granted over the phone and the fee is charged to the patron’s credit card. Islam is a custom-made religion for men. Well, as long as men rule and the rule serves them, the horrific plight of women plays out. It is a great deal for men.

What is incredible is the gall and audacity of Muslims in demanding that Western and other democracies legalize Sharia in their societies. Due to large populations of Muslims, mostly recent arrivals, in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden, these countries are experiencing the insistent demands by Muslims to have Sharia rule their Islamic communities. This is just the beginning and it may seem relatively harmless to the simpletons in our midst. Yet, once Sharia is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under Sharia, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman at will, automatically have custody of the children, and literally toss the wife out of “his” home with practically no compensation.

“Death to the Islamic Republic, Stop stoning women, Death to the Criminal Mullahs and Democracy for Iran, are the banners read almost routinely in most European countries by the Iranian ex-patriot sympathizers condemning the Islamic Republic’s brutality against women. They demand equal rights and treatments for the largest oppressed minority in the world.

As the world turns, we become convinced that the Islamic system is custom-made for men, by men and for the pleasure of men. And the men in power, the clergy, the prime beneficiary of the system, do not intend to voluntarily relinquish their privileged status.

There is a hope that Muslims themselves may leave this Bedouin slaveholder religion. Yet, the hope is slim. Islam has a stranglehold on its slaves and will neither let them go, nor do the Muslims seem to have the insight or the will to leave it in large numbers. But hope, as slim as it is, keeps me sounding the alarm before the fire of Islam engulfs us all.

Amil Imani is the author of the riveting book “Obama Meets Ahmadinejad”


Real Liberals Should Support Israel


With gay rights, green technology, and national health care, Israel should be a utopia to progressives.
At the end of my three-week stay in Israel, made possible by the generous folks at Eagles Wings Ministries’ Israel Experience program, I realized that Israel is a model of liberalism, a country that embodies progressive values and every cause American liberals champion.
The moment when this point hit me was when I was on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem, taking a break from enjoying the night life on a bench, when a loud group with flags marched past me and handed me a flier. The group, called the Coalition of Pink Communities, was rallying in support of equal rights for those with alternative lifestyles, with the flier specifically mentioning “lesbians, homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, queer, intersex.”
The fact that this even occurred, in the holy city of Jerusalem no less, is proof that such equal rights have been granted. The demonstrators were not harassed, attacked, or even approached in any way, despite the presence of Orthodox Jewish onlookers. This stands in sharp contrast to anywhere in the Palestinian territories or Arab world, where such actions would be met with brutality of the highest order. Israel, which stands alone as the country most derided by human rights advocates daring to call themselves liberals, has upheld freedom of speech and shown a tolerance of homosexual lifestyles in a way deserving of far-reaching liberal praise, allowing openly gay centers to operate and known homosexual soldiers to serve. This scenario alone should dispel the notion that Israel’s status as a Jewish state makes it theocratic, but this democratic country is still frequently referred to as “apartheid” on college campuses, an insult that denigrates the true victims of apartheid, both in the past in South Africa and those suffering from true oppression in the Arab world. Rarely is the gender apartheid in major parts of the Islamic world or the oppression of gays, dissenting political voices, non-Muslims (especially Jews), and Muslim minorities in such areas a cause for a fuss.
The apartheid comparison is so wrong on so many levels that using it should disqualify the users from being termed “academics” or “experts.” Few seem to know that twenty percent of Israeli citizens are Arabs, given the same rights as their fellow Jewish countrymen. They are provided with social services, serve in the military, and even are elected to the Knesset.
The security “wall,” 97% of which is chain-link fence, is often touted as proof of Israel’s racism, but it is not designed to separate Jewish and Palestinian communities. In fact, the barrier intrudes through Jewish communities as well and anyone passing through it can see Jew and Muslim alike having to pass through. Nor is it an act of oppression. It was erected in response to unrelenting, unacceptable attacks on innocent Israelis which resulted in necessary, retaliatory strikes that harmed Palestinians. Since its creation, suicide bombings have dramatically dropped by over 90%. This wall is far from an act of racism; it is an appropriate security measure that, while annoying to the Jews and Palestinians that have to travel through it, has allowed economic progress, security, and a better life for both sides.
Of particular interest to those on the Israel Experience trip was the Israeli concern for human rights. During a presentation by Joe Hyams of Honest Reporting, we saw videos of Israeli pilots redirecting missiles targeting Hamas operatives at the last moment to stop from killing civilians, even if those civilians were opening their doors to the terrorists. The Israelis also sent automated messages and text messages to areas before strikes during Operation Cast Lead in an attempt to get civilians to flee. The Israelis haven’t even cut off the Ashkelon power station that provides the Gaza Strip with 70% of its electricity. Hamas, on the other hand, has frequently targeted it with its missiles.
In academia, I’ve noticed that the discussion almost always centers on some sort of moral equivalence between the two sides, as if the conflict stems from both sides’ equal dose of hatred and unwillingness to compromise. Such discussion erases the Israeli handovers of territory to the Palestinians and fails to account for the lengths to which Israel goes to defend itself humanely, whereas Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and other terrorist groups see inhumanity as a weapon of war and diplomatic tool.
There will be haters no matter what, but on the Israeli side, such hatred is not mainstream or institutionalized. In every conversation I can remember I had with an Israeli, the suffering of the Palestinians was always mentioned as part of the equation. While discussing their own suffering, they’d always turn and say something along the lines of: “You know, the Palestinians don’t deserve what they’re going through either; it’s unacceptable.”
Israel has adopted virtually every liberal cause. The Jewish state has taken in 1,700 refugees from Darfur, giving Africa the attention Hollywood has demanded. Israel does not do so for recognition, as surely they know by now they will never get any, but because it’s simply the right thing to do.
Environmentalists should be hailing Israel as a model. Twenty percent of the water used by Israel will be desalinated by 2010 and, according to Israel @ 60, “Israel treats 92 percent of its wastewater and reuses 75 percent in agriculture, the highest rate in the world.” Israel stands nearly alone as having more trees today than at the beginning of the last century and “is one of two countries in the world in which deserts are shrinking rather than expanding.”
Investing in electric cars and other forms of alternative energy, bacteria that can dissolve oil spills, and other green technology, Israel is taking a leading role in helping the environment. With the current health care debate in the U.S. raging, liberals should also take notice that Israel provides national health insurance — or, as conservatives would say, socialized health care. When we visited a hospital, our guide articulately defended the concept and criticized the American health care system in a way that would have made any Democratic Party operative proud.
Whether it’s protecting and respecting human life or preserving the rights of citizens despite the highest temptation to restrict them, Israel is a bastion of liberalism and progressivism. For liberals to not support Israel is to not support the very issues they fight for at home.

Ryan Mauro is the national security analyst of RadicalIslam.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent guest on Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com
 
All Rights Reserved. v1.30 192.168.101.183
PJ Traffic Control

The Chomsky Hoax

The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky