London ‘more Islamic’ than Muslim world: Pakistan-born Islamic scholar.

London[istan] ‘more Islamic’ than Muslim world: Pakistan-born Islamic scholar. (ET).

The cleric, who was brought up in Birmingham and is president of the Majlis Ulama-e-Shia which represents South Asian Shia mosques and scholars, according to the Daily Mail, continued,

“Because that is what Islam is all about, respecting and giving to others … if in one line I could say what Islam is all about, it is all about love and justice.”





The scholar was speaking alongside Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis at the annual Benedict XVI Lecture, an interfaith discussion event in London.


The three leaders discussed how members of their own faiths had, in different ways, lived as “creative minorities”.

Maulana Rizvi also said that unlike their “Jewish and Christian brothers”, Muslims in Britain were a new community, established for decades rather than centuries, and had a “lot to learn” from other religious groups.

According to Daily Mail, Cardinal Vincent Nichols warned that definitions of extremism could become “far too embracing of simply the current social consensus.”

He cited the example of teachers contacting police about pupils suspected of extremism. This ‘can do immense damage’ to levels of trust, he said.

“There is no doubt that the threat of active terror is real. But my impression is that we are at a very delicate point at which the defining of extremism could go quite seriously wrong,” he added.

Iran, EU[Rabia] Agree to Begin High-Level Talks on Energy, Human Rights.

Iran, EU[Rabia] Agree to Begin High-Level Talks on Energy, Human Rights. (SP).

Iran and the European Union are determined to begin high-level talks to discuss various issues, including energy, human rights issues, and other topics, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif said Tuesday.

“There are several topics related to the future of relations between Iran and Europe, including human rights, transportation, environment, energy, and the fight against drugs and other cooperation in various fields between Iran and the European Union,” Zarif said. Hmmmm....What a joke the EU Would sell their whole family to obtain deals and cheap gas from Iran and Turkey. Second ARAB (Islamic) Human rights are not the same as Human rights for the rest of the World...stop the pretending.

Source.

Kenyan president rebukes Pres Hussein Obama’s gay rights message.

Kenyan president rebukes Pres Hussein Obama’s gay rights message. (TheHill).


President Obama on Saturday made an personal plea for gay rights during his visit to Kenya, warning that “bad things happen” when countries discriminate against certain groups of people.

“As an African-American in the United States, I am painfully aware of the history of what happens when people are treated differently under the law,” Obama added during a joint press conference with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta. “I’m unequivocal on this.”

But Obama’s call for universal gay rights was quickly dismissed by Kenyatta, who described the issue as something “our culture, our society does not accept.”

“For Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue. We want to focus on other areas that are day-to-day living for our people,” he said, citing heath concerns and women’s rights.

“This issue is not really an issue that is on the foremost of mind for Kenyans, and that is a fact," he said to some applause.

Obama made clear before his trip that he planned to raise the issue of gay rights with African government officials.

Still, Obama said he recognized that “there may be people who may have different religious or cultural beliefs.” Hmmmm.......Like? Islam?.

Identifying Islam with terror is a mistake that should be avoided - 'Islamist' Turkey’s EU minister

Identifying Islam with terror is a mistake that should be avoided - 'Islamist' Turkey’s EU minister.(Taz).

Identifying Islam with terror is a mistake that should be avoided, Turkey’s EU minister told an anti-terrorism meeting in Brussels on Saturday.

The terms like Islamic terrorism and Islamic state are offending Muslims and should not be used, Volkan Bozkir said at the German Marshall Fund's 2015 Brussels Forum session on "Countering the New Wave of Terrorism at Home and Abroad.”

"Using the terminology Islamic state or Islamic terrorism, I do not think is the correct thing to do, because then we are naming something in a wrong way and causing the rest of the Islamic world to feel bad," said Bozkir.

Regarding the criticism on Turkey that the country allows volunteers from Europe to reach terrorist groups, Bozkir said: “We have 39 million tourists coming to Turkey; we cannot check who is a terrorist, who is tourist, who is coming there for academic life.

"We stopped 12,500 persons, not all of them from Europe but from all over the world, to enter into Turkey and we have captured 1,200 people who are already in Turkey thanks to intelligence sharing."

Turkey is often criticized for not being able to control its more than 800-kilometer-long border with Syria, sometimes referred to as a “highway to terrorism.”


Rejecting the criticism, Bozkir said Turkey is doing its part, and added: "Turkey has never worked with Daesh and never will."   Hmmmm.....So we should rename the Islamic state in the Amish state ?

Terror's Virus on the Northern Border.

Terror's Virus on the Northern Border. by David B. Harris.Special to IPT News.

Ever since full-blown cases of the disease hit the United States, Canadians have dreaded the contagion's arrival north of the 49^th parallel.

Its effects: blindness and a deadly incapacity to recognize and adapt to reality.

The malady? The White House's refusal to identify the leading terrorist enemy by name and combatant doctrine.

President Obama began his administration by avoiding counterterror language likely to link Islam with violence. This reflected a civilized and practical impulse to avoid alienating Muslims at home and abroad.

But perhaps influenced by the demonstrable fact that President Obama, as former terror prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy put it, "made Islamic supremacists key administration advisors," this effort quickly got out of control.

Now the White House fetishizes and enforces on its security agencies, a refusal to identify the doctrine underlying the bulk of the world's terrorism woes: radical Islamism.
Remarkable, considering that Muslims sounded the alarm years ago.

"Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims," wrote Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed in a 2004 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat article flagged by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

So it was that, three years ago, the Canadian government published the first of its annual series of public threat reports. This straight-talking assessment pinpointed "Sunni Islamist extremism" as a primary menace to Canadians.

But, tragically, the D.C. disease had overtaken Canada's security bureaucracy by the time August brought the 2014 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat to Canada. This report expunges all direct references to Islamists, other than in terror-organization names.

Take, for example, the latest report's warning about Canadians joining terror outfits abroad. Gone are terms like "Islamist extremists" and even "violent jihad."

The report's authors – apparently burdened by "advice" from misguided outreach to Canadian Islamists – slavishly substituted generic terms like "extremist travellers" for language revealing the religious claims, affiliations, motivations and doctrines of our enemies. "Extremist travellers" appears dozens of times to the exclusion of meaningful nomenclature – an editing embarrassment, on top of a national-security one. From the 2014 report:

Europol estimates that between 1,200 and 2,000 European extremist travellers took part in the conflict in Syria in 2013. There appears to be an increase in extremist travellers. This suggests that the threat posed to Europe by returning extremist travellers may be more significant than the threat facing North America because greater numbers of extremist travellers are leaving, then returning to Europe, than are leaving and later returning to North America. This difference between Canada and Europe in numbers of extremist travellers can be attributed to a variety of factors. Regardless, Europe and Canada face a common, interconnected threat from extremist travellers. [Emphasis added.]

In just one paragraph, Canada's self-censoring report says that many Europeans are "fighting abroad as extremist travellers"; "they attract extremist travellers … and continue to draw European extremist travellers"; there were "European extremist travellers in Syria and other conflict zones"; the "influx of these extremist travellers into Syria" increases the European terror risk; "an extremist traveller who returned from Syria" allegedly slaughtered several Belgians. (Emphasis added.)
This doubletalk undermines public awareness, public confidence in authorities and the ability of officials and citizens alike to recognize, assess and confront terrorist and subversive enemies and their doctrine.

We saw the absurd far reaches of this self-blinding mentality a few years ago when Canadian police officers at a terrorism news conference thanked "the community" for facilitating an Islamist terrorist take-down. When a journalist asked which community they meant, the officers – not daring to say "Muslim" – all but froze, thawing only enough to become caricatures of stymied stumbling. Because paralyzing PC protocols banned the M-word, the conference ended without the officers having been able explicitly to thank the deserving "Muslim community."

How has Canada come to this?

Among other sources, Canadian security officials get advice from their federal government's Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security. Prominent member Hussein Hamdani reportedly campaigned to drop language implicating things "Islamic."

Meanwhile, Hamdani, the subject of a just-released report by Canada's Point de Bascule counter extremist research organization, remains vice-chair of the North American Spiritual Revival (NASR) organization.

On its website, NASR boasts – as it has done for years – of sponsoring an appearance in Canada by U.S. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, frequently tagged a radical and a 1993 World Trade Center bombing unindicted co-conspirator.

Fellow American Muslim Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, once said of Wahhaj: "He's the No. 1 advocate of radical Islamic ideology among African-Americans. His stuff is very appealing to young Muslims who are on a radical path."

Hamdani's NASR also brought American Imam Ziad Shakir to Canada. His disturbing ideology, as I've written elsewhere, "was condemned by moderate American Muslim leader and retired U.S. naval Lt. Cmdr Zuhdi Jasser, and by the American Anti-Defamation League." Some have other concerns about Hamdani.

Now comes word that Hamdani, squired by Angus Smith, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) analyst sometimes linked to the censorship policy, will appear on a Montgomery County, Md. panel tomorrow to enlighten Americans about radicalism and the ISIS terror threat.

THE RCMP JOINS FORCES

This isn't the least of it. Days before the scheduled visit, it was discovered that RCMP outreachers inconceivably had collaborated for months with the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) in producing "United Against Terrorism," an erstwhile counter-radicalization handbook.

Inconceivably, because NCCM is the renamed Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), the Canadian chapter of CAIR, a Saudi-funded U.S. unindicted co-conspirator group. (In its July 2013 name-change announcement, NCCM admitted, with respect to CAIR-CAN, that "We remain the same organization," leading to suspicions that the adjustment was a cosmetic attempt to kick over documented CAIR-CAN traces to radicalism.)

As for CAIR-CAN/NCCM's U.S. mother organization: "The [US] Government has produced ample evidence," concluded the relevant U.S. district court's decision, "to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT …with Hamas."

In addition, several senior CAIR staffers and affiliated persons – including CAIR's former national civil liberties coordinator – have done pen-time for terrorism-related offenses. But the Canadian chapter has yet to condemn publicly and by name the U.S. organization and these convicts, or reveal fully the nature of past or present financial and other dealings with CAIR.

The Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA), led by Shahina Siddiqui, joins the NCCM and RCMP in authorship on the handbook's cover. Canada's outreach counter-radicalization world seems to be a small, if not inbred, one, for Siddiqui happens also to be a member of both the NCCM's board, and the RCMP's national and Manitoba "diversity" committees.

Another curiosity of authorship involves the only named RCMP official identified in the book's "Consultants & Contributors" section: "TASLEEM BUDHWANI, PHD, C.PSYCH, Federal Policing Strategy, RCMP." A profile has this psychologist busy "enhancing partnerships between law enforcement and various sectors including NGOs … in the prevention of individual radicalization to violence." It is not known what Budhwani's views would be about national police force involvement with NGOs of the NCCM sort.

As for the handbook, it would ban all the usual terms, even declaring verboten the expression "moderate Muslims," because, said the authors, the expression is meant to imply that Muslims are not uniformly moderate.

Parents are warned to be on the lookout for "External and overt expression of hyper-religiosity that is uncharacteristic of family culture," although one can only guess what to do, should this hyper-religiosity be altogether characteristic "of family culture."

Elsewhere, the handbook seems a bit too eager to divorce radicalism and intense religiosity from the risk of religious violence.

There was also rather too much emphasis, for some tastes, on Muslims' legal right to avoid cooperating with the RCMP. Readers would also recognize a continuation of the hallmarked NCCM/CAIR-CAN and CAIR campaign to push the generally unconvincing – and increasingly alienating and dangerous – Muslim victimhood narrative.

This came replete with familiar attempts to propagate the word "Islamophobia," a term condemned by moderate Muslims as too-often wielded by Islamists to silence debate.

As Tarek Fatah, a well-known Pakistani-Canadian moderate, wrote, a few years ago:

Canada is a country where Muslims are respected and accommodated like in no other land on Earth, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is immoral for the Islamists to slander my country with the slur of Islamophobia. As Statistics Canada has shown, incidents of racism in Canada are far more likely to affect Christian black Canadians and Jewish Canadians than Muslims. …

"However," he concluded, "truth is the first casualty in this propaganda war being waged against Canada by its own Islamists."


For all this, the NCCM-ISSA-RCMP handbook then managed to go one better.

"Whom do we consult to gain an accurate understanding of our faith?" it asked. The answer was a list of scholar-interpreters of Islam who could apparently be relied upon in the delicate counter-radicalization context. The list reveals that it is not merely in the censorship department that Islamists have put one over on unduly compliant – and perhaps intimidated – RCMP outreach officers.

Among the recommended scholars, there's the startlingly hardline Ingrid Mattson (name misspelled in the handbook), former head of the Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator organization that was connected by the already-mentioned district court to Hamas.

Mattson's Islamic chair at Huron University College, Ontario, notoriously benefits from significant radical-Islamic endowments. The scholar was last seen fending off complaints from a student claiming to have been jettisoned from Mattson's tax-funded classroom because he was non-Muslim.

Then there's the distinguished Imam Siraj Wahhaj, of the World Trade Center Wahhajs. His patchwork record involves alternately condemning violence and appearing to lust after it. Plus, the unappetizing Ziad Shakir.

Not to mention the inevitable Jamal Badawi, former long-time CAIR-CAN/NCCM official. He's an unindicted co-conspirator his own right, someone who sat on ISNA's executive board (majlis).

Badawi advocates light physical sharia discipline for errant wives. It remains unclear how the Badawi matrimonial approach aligns with the high-thinking and good works of handbooker Shahina Siddiqui and her Islamic Social Services Association.

Such are the moderate sherpas who guide the perplexed up counter-radicalization's gentle slopes.
No wonder many members of the public reacted with disbelief and disgust to the handbook fiasco. Or that RCMP ranks fell into a mass of post-publication panic and confusion.

The day after the handbook's roll-out, a blushed-out RCMP, getting desperate enquiries from Canada's now-mortified Office of the Minister of Public Safety, scrambled out a news release.

It said that the force was responsible for only one (benign) section of the handbook, and claimed improbably that the "tone" of some of the publication had caused the RCMP to pull out of the project at the last minute. Awfully "last minute," considering it was the day after launch that the RCMP news release emerged.

Thus, Mountie supremos regard bad "tone" as the actionable offense, rather than content prescribing self-hobbling wartime censorship and jihad-happy fire-breathers as counter-radical consultants. And no explanation why, days later, the handbook still bears the horsemen's name and logo. Or why the force hadn't publicly threatened legal action to have their name removed from it. Nor was there a commitment that RCMP HQ would at long last heed warnings, quit self-defeating, hardline-Islamist outreach, and publicly condemn the NCCM and its ilk – in the same way the Canadian prime minister's own director of communications had condemned NCCM for alleged Hamas-type connections, in January.

Especially in light of the contretemps between the prime minister's office and NCCM, there is floating over the handbook the unmistakable odor of a settling of accounts, an odor that might make the RCMP commissioner and his boss, the Public Safety minister, queasy about their continuing government employability.

It was, after all, their diligence-free outreach that gave NCCM and ISSA the chance to make a fool out of the Prime Minister of Canada. For deep within the little handbook (p.34), comes a warning that law enforcement should never use the term "Islamicism."

In Canada, this ungainly word – never in common use elsewhere, "Islamism" instead prevailing – is almost exclusively associated with a remark by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, one that was condemned by Islamists. 

"[T]he major threat," said Harper, in a headline-making 2011 CBC television interview, "is still Islamicism." The Islamists were riled up by Harper's effrontery, at the time, and so seem to have incorporated a touch of revenge in the handbook.

This would not be the first RCMP outreach-driven embarrassment for a Canadian government, including a mess-up that may have involved an Iranian government operative.

In any event, the more nasty of observers looked at the RCMP's follow-on news release and wondered. Why, given the embarrassment and damage – and knuckle-rapping insult to their prime minister – did the release pull so many punches? Could this restraint mean that certain senior officials, compromised by outré outreach, were now scared to bear down? Was there a belief that Islamist "partners" should not be alienated, lest they be tempted to expose details of years of misguided interaction upon which certain RCMP executives had built careers?

The answer remains a mystery. But skeptical interpretations became more plausible to some, when the force's non-condemnatory news release came out more or less simultaneously with an NCCM release saluting RCMP cooperation with the Islamist group. Had all the loose liaising achieved the ultimate inversion, with the RCMP – and through it, the government – being turned into strange victims in a counter-radicalization Stockholm syndrome? Why, for that matter, are reliably moderate Canadian Muslim organizations like Muslims Facing Tomorrow and the Muslim Canadian Congress, enjoying hardly a fraction of the reinforcing, and capacity-building attentions splashed all over Islamists?

So, did the RCMP realize that it would be taken to the cleaners, and wind up helping NCCM and ISSA launder language and radicals via a counter-radicalization handbook? Maybe. But perhaps self-stifling in national security is now so internalized in the United States and Canada that it never occurs to some that certain people are radicals, and that radicals are not always our friends. Or the best guides to counter radicalization.

Burgeoning threats mean that citizens must press Washington and Ottawa to return to good sense, and put a stop to the deadly contagion of self-censorship and self-deceit – and worse – now hazarding national security and public safety.

Americans and Canadians must defeat the disease by curing their thinking.Read the full story here.

A lawyer with 30 years' experience in intelligence affairs, David B. Harris is director of the International Intelligence Program, INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc, Ottawa, Canada. The author is not responsible for the accuracy of, or views conveyed in, material in the links provided.

Video - Christian Arab woman reveals the truth about the 'War on Christianity' in the Holy land

Christian Arab woman reveals the truth about the 'War on Christianity' in the Holy land.HT: Camera.

In 2012, CBS aired a notoriously dishonest “60 Minutes” segment about Christians in the Holy Land. In the segment, prominent Palestinian Christians tried to dismiss legitimate concern about the suffering of Christians in Muslim-majority Palestinian society as a “great selling point.”

Now, one of the sources who appeared in the segment, Christy Anastas, has stepped into the spotlight to reveal the truth about the suffering endured by Christians living under the Palestinian Authority, a truth that is completely at odds with the “60 Minutes” story.

Anastas, who appeared in the 60 Minutes segment along with her mother came forward earlier this month in a talk she gave at Uppsala University in Sweden and which is now posted on Youtube.

During her talk, which can be seen here, Christy directly contradicts the story told by Bob Simon in the “60 Minutes” segment on Christians in Bethlehem that aired in 2012.

After speaking in defense of Israel’s right to exist with her fellow Palestinians, Christy reports she was threatened by one of her own family members – who said he would put a bullet in her head if she didn’t stop talking in defense of Israel. The explanation for the threat was that she was putting her family in danger by speaking out in Israel’s defense.

During her talk in Sweden, Christy also described how one of her uncles was shot in the head and blinded for his refusal to pay protection money, or “al-jizyah,” to Muslim extremists in the West Bank.

His life was only saved by the treatment he received in an Israeli hospital. She also describes how Palestinian judges have colluded with the theft of land from Christians in Palestinian society.

After her talk was published on YouTube by the Jerusalem Institute for Justice (JIJ), she was threatened and her has been harassed.

The video was taken down for a few days and then reposted (with a new introduction and a new ending) by the Emmaus Group, a Christian group in the United Kingdom that draws attention to the mistreatment of Christians in Muslim-majority settings.

The video attracted the attention of people in her hometown of Bethlehem. Her own father has denounced her for telling her story in a Palestinian newspaper.

Guess What? Iran’s parliament calls uranium surplus report inaccurate.

Guess What? Iran’s parliament calls uranium surplus report inaccurate.(Taz).

The Public Relations Department of the Iran's Parliament called inaccurate the claims about Iran's surplus of enriched uranium which are attributed to Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, ICANA News agency reported.

"Parts of Larijani's interview with Associated Press, where it had been emphasized that Iran had more enriched uranium than needed and intended to use it as a winning card in next week's negotiations in Geneva, are false and fundamentally inaccurate," the report said.

According to the Associated Press report, during his interview on Wednesday Larijani said that Iran has more enriched uranium than it needs and plans to use that as a bargaining chip at nuclear talks in Geneva next week.
"But we have some surplus, you know, the amount that we don't need. We may have some discussions about it," he said, referring to next week's talks with Western powers.

Larijani said the surplus of uranium would be discussed with Western powers in the context of possibly of halting its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, which has been a key concession sought in the negotiations, the report added.

Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -Russia, China, France, UK and the US - plus Germany known as the P5+1 group will hold a fresh round of talks in Geneva on October 15-16.
Foreign ministers of Iran and the six countries held talks at the United Nations headquarters in New York on September 26, with the main focus being on Tehran's nuclear energy program.Hmmmm......Not a surprise at all......Al-Taqiyya.

Some states use religion for wars, says Vatican representative in İstanbul.

Some states use religion for wars, says Vatican representative in İstanbul.(TZ).

Speaking at the Dialogue Symposium held in İstanbul on Friday, the representative of the Vatican in İstanbul and the spiritual leader of the Latin Catholic Community, Louis Pelatre, said that some states abuse religion for wars although all religions prohibit killing and war.“We have to fight against prejudices in order to prevent the use of religion in wars,” said Pelatre as he commended the interfaith dialogue efforts of Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen.

The Intercultural Dialogue Platform (KADİP) of the Journalists and Writers Foundation (GYV) organized the symposium together with the Turkish Catholic Christian Community in the guesthouse of the St. Etienne Church in Yeşilköy.As participants agreed that all religions prohibit killing, GYV Vice President Cemal Uşak said religions have become a source of conflict throughout history while they should be the guarantor of peace and tranquility in terms of their essence. 

According to him, some people focus on differences and lead to conflicts based on religion. Instead, Uşak suggested people focus on the common points among people and faiths. Noting that he found the symposium very meaningful, Uşak said, “If our faiths and work on interfaith dialogue do not help to ease the pain, we have to question our faiths.”

The theme of the symposium was “Being concerned about the other” this year. In the previous years, issues such as similarities and common values in Islam and Christianity, “Being a Pilgrim” and “Being a Foreigner” had been debated by the participants.

The head of KADİP, Professor Suat Yıldırım; the former mufti of İstanbul, Professor Mustafa Çağrıcı; and a member of the French Institute for Anatolian Studies (IFEA), Dr. Alberto Ambrosio, were some of the participants in the symposium.Delivering the opening speech of the symposium, Professor Yıldırım said people suffer from a lack of communication despite living side by side.

Referring to the first initiative of Islamic scholar Gülen in 1993 to promote interfaith dialogue, Yıldırım said KADİP was also established with a similar aim. “For almost 20 years we have been acting towards this end and serving peace,” he said.

Stating that Gülen was criticized and that certain rumors about him were circulated in Turkey when he first initiated interfaith dialogue, Yıldırım said that “great leaders are people who do useful things by taking risks, and Gülen did what his religion required him to do.”Providing examples from the accusations hurled against Gülen during the Feb. 28, 1997 coup era, Yıldırım said that when Gülen was tried on the grounds that he had established a terrorist organization, the then-representative of the Vatican in İstanbul, Monsignor George Maroviç went to the court as a witness.

According to Yıldırım, this incident is a rare example in which a minority in Turkey showed the courage [to defend Gülen]. Maroviç said they got to know the smiling face of Islam through Gülen. According to him, Maroviç's testimony was one of the greatest examples of being concerned about another.

Hmmmm..... “Violence does not build up the kingdom of God, the kingdom of humanity. On the contrary, it is a favorite instrument of the Antichrist, however idealistic its religious motivation may be,” Pope Benedict XVI........I wonder which religion he had in mind? :)

Obama 'Buddy' Karzai: "Mullah Omar can run for president in Afghan elections."

Obama 'Buddy' Karzai: "Mullah Omar can run for president in Afghan elections'.(ET).KABUL: Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar can run for president in the elections next year, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told a German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung on Tuesday.

In the interview at the Kabul presidential palace, Karzai said Mullah Omar could become a presidential candidate, giving the Afghans the opportunity to “vote for or against him.”

“The Afghan constitution is valid for all Afghans and the Taliban should also benefit from it,” Karzai said in the interview.

Mullah Muhammad Omar is an Afghan Taliban supreme commander. Reclusive Omar had a $10 million bounty on his head from the US and is a talismanic figure for insurgents in the 10-year war against foreign and Afghan troops.

Karzai had visited Qatar on Sunday to discuss the issue. The Afghan government recently allowed the Taliban to open an office in Qatar on the condition that the outfit breaks association with al Qaeda and abandoning terrorism.

The Afghan president further added that the real problem in the fight against terrorism lies in Pakistan and had not been addressed as yet.

Talking about the polls in Afghanistan, Karzai said that 2014 represents a turning point for Afghanistan — a year in which the West will pull its combat troops from Afghanistan.

The report added that when Karzai’s term comes to an end, he will not be able to compete in the elections, according to the constitution. It added that chances of a peace agreement with the Taliban over the withdrawal of the Western troops are now low.Hmmmmm......Obama: If We Work Hard, Afghanistan Could Be a Success...Like Iraq!yeah.......Right!First give them an office in Qatar next make them president?Read the full story here.

Egyptian Coptic activists declare creation of Christian Brotherhood to 'counter' Muslim Brotherhood.

Egyptian Coptic activists declare creation of Christian Brotherhood to 'counter' Muslim Brotherhood.(AA).A group of Coptic activists in Egypt announced the establishment of the Christian Brotherhood to counter the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood especially after their candidate Mohammed Mursi won the presidential elections. The idea was first initiated in 2005 by lawyer Mamdouh Nakhla, head of al-Kalema Center for Human Rights, and political analyst Michel Fahmi. It was then adopted by Amir Ayad, member of the Maspero Youths Union for Free Copts, the group established after clashes with military forces in front of the TV building in the Cairo district of Maspero left more than 20 Copts dead.
The Christian Brotherhood has branches in 16 governorates in Egypt as well as four branches outside Egypt, three in Europe and one in Australia. “The idea started in 2005 with the rise of Islamist groups, but it had not been put to action since then,” Michel Fahmi told Al Arabiya in a phone interview. Fahmi explained that it was the victory of Muslim Brotherhood candidate presidential elections that necessitated taking steps towards creating the new Brotherhood. “It was then important to establish a body that can resist the Islamist tide.” Fahmi stated that he has no problem calling the Christian Brotherhood a sectarian group since the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood is also sectarian. “We created our group to create a balance in the Egyptian political scene.”
The new group, Fahmi pointed out, is not meant to compete with Muslims but with the rise of political Islam and its members are not after power. “Muslims are something and Islamists are something else and it is not true that we wanted to a Copt to take part in presidential elections.” According to Amir Ayad, members of the group decided to put their ideas into action when they felt that the hope of having a civilian state was gone.“With Mohammed Mursi’s victory, we felt that Egypt is about to turn into a religious state so we decided to create the group as a means of peaceful resistance against Islamist powers,” Ayad was quoted as saying by the Egyptian newspaper al-Youm al-Sabea. This resistance, which Ayad likens to that adopted by Mahatma Gandhi, will be basically through chronicling all sorts of violations and discriminatory acts committed against Copts across Egypt. “We will then use all available legal channels to make sure the perpetrators of these actions do not get away with them.”Hmmmm.....Read the full story here.

What to expect from Egypt's Morsi.

What to expect from Egypt's Morsi.(MiddleEastForum).By Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi.  Ha'aretz .June 29, 2012.

What to make of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi's election as president of Egypt? What seems to be the most likely outcome is something analogous to the "constitutional settlements" of the early Roman Empire. That is, the military, like the Emperor Augustus in antiquity, will entrust to itself management of foreign policy, while granting Morsi (and a parliament, if new elections are allowed) - akin to the Senate in Rome - considerable autonomy with regards to the direction of domestic affairs, even as the military has assumed control over the drafting of the constitution.
Indeed, such a settlement would work well for the military, because, despite its extensive control of the economy, the burden of resolving the economic crisis would ultimately rest in Morsi's hands. Currently, as Reuters reports, the country's depleted foreign reserves can only cover "three months of import coverage," while the local currency debt has increased to 600 billion Egyptian pounds ($99 billion), up from 500 billion before the unrest began in January 2011.
The International Monetary Fund has indicated that a $3.2 billion loan will only be granted if the country gets its finances in order, but the prospects of such a resolution appear to be bleak. Having Morsi take responsibility, therefore, can prove useful in directing potential civilian anger away from the military. On the other hand, the perception of a settlement between the military and the president could help to attract foreign investment.
With the military managing foreign policy, the chances of a full-blown war between Egypt and Israel are slim, despite bellicose rhetoric emanating from some quarters of the Muslim Brotherhood calling for the liberation of Jerusalem and establishment of a "United Arab States." For one thing, Egypt lacks the means to launch and sustain a war against Israel. At the same time, however, one should not expect Egyptian firmness in dealing with rocket fire against the Jewish state or militant activity in the Sinai Peninsula.
In fact, one could well see the military adopt an approach toward militancy not dissimilar to the methods of the Pakistani security forces: that is, targeting those perceived to pose a direct threat to Egypt's stability, while lacking resolve at best, and at worst playing a double game with other militants in order to continue receiving U.S. aid.
As for the domestic scene, it is probable that the Islamization trend that has been apparent over the past five or so decades will not only continue but could also accelerate. When the likes of Hosni Mubarak were in charge, the arrangement was such that Islamist ideology was allowed to disseminate at ground level. Now that Egypt has an elected Islamist president, it is to be expected that sentiments on the ground will only become more hard-line.
Although it is easy to dismiss outlandish claims that Morsi wants to reinstate the discriminatory jizya poll tax - essentially the equivalent of a Mafia protection racket - on Christians (the report is an uncorroborated rumor that can be traced to one obscure Arabic website), there is evidence that he would like to restrict the rights of non-Muslim minorities and women. Just under half of voters chose Ahmed Shafiq, but that will not act as a firm barrier against a gradualist approach to implementing Islamic law that many in the Brotherhood see as the ideal strategy to adopt.
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine last year, Morsi made it clear that neither he nor the Brotherhood could tolerate the idea of a Christian or woman running for the presidency of Egypt.
While much has been made of a recent announcement by an advisor to Morsi that there are plans to appoint a Copt and a woman as vice-presidents, it should be appreciated that such positions are likely to be no more than symbolic. 
In fact, problems of discrimination against non-Muslims and women will in all likelihood only worsen under Morsi's presidency. Further, the spike in Salafist mob attacks on Coptic churches since the ousting of Mubarak - attacks usually sparked by the flimsiest rumors and trivialities - is unlikely to subside, and the authorities will probably continue to do nothing about it.
In the long run, chaos and instability are most likely to dominate the country's future. Unlike Iran, which has, since the mid-1980s, implemented a major family planning program that has dramatically slowed population growth, Egypt's population (83 million as of October 2011) continues to grow. It could reach 100 million by 2020, with more than 99 percent of the population living on an area of land around the Nile only 2.5 times the size of Israel.
Even assuming Egypt can escape from its current economic crisis, there is no sign its economy can keep up with the pace of population growth even to sustain present standards of living. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists have on past occasions denounced family planning as a Western conspiracy to keep the number of Muslims in the world in check. They have shown no intention of implementing a program to reduce the birth rate.
Egypt is unlikely to become a "Somalia on the Nile" as economist and columnist David P. Goldman has predicted, but in the long-term, internal stability is a remote possibility.
Update from June 29, 2012: Concerning Egypt's economy and the Muslim Brotherhood's plans, Martin Kramer summarizes the situation well:

The Muslim Brotherhood is in a bind, because it has to deliver. For the masses of people who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, the revolution wasn't about democracy and freedom. It was about bread and social justice.
The Brotherhood has a so-called "Renaissance" plan for the overhaul of the Egyptian economy. I won't pretend to judge its feasibility. Could modernization of tax collection double or triple tax revenues? Can Egypt double the number of arriving tourists, even while contemplating limits on alcohol and bikinis? Can a renovation of the Suez Canal raise transit revenues from $6 billion a year to $100 billion? Can Egypt's economy surpass the economies of Turkey and Malaysia within seven years? These are all claims made at various times by the economic thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood, who trumpet Egypt's supposed potential for self-sufficiency.

To these big promises, one can add Morsi's pledge to tackle congestion problems within the first 100 days of his time in office.
Kramer goes on to suggest that the Brotherhood will try to solicit aid from Gulf Arabs and the West, drawing attention to remarks made by Khairat El-Shater, the deputy supreme guide of the Brotherhood, back in February, when he "strongly" advised Europeans and Americans to "support Egypt during this critical period as compensation for the many years they supported a brutal dictatorship."
However, the question of the Brotherhood's relations with the U.S. and the West at large is a tricky issue. It should not be forgotten that the Islamists have spent the past thirty years attacking Mubarak and the establishment for supposedly being too close to the U.S. and the West, and the popular sentiment in Egypt is deeply anti-American.
That the military will continue to receive Western aid is almost certain, but Kramer correctly notes that the Brotherhood is trumpeting an image of self-reliance. A perception of economic dependence on America and the West could backfire on the Brotherhood. This is not like the North Korean regime that has a philosophy of autarky but can portray its reliance on foreign aid as tribute to the greatness of the nation.
As for the Gulf Arabs, let's just say that they have frequently proven themselves to be remarkably stingy when it comes to helping Muslim brothers in need. Saudi Arabia in particular is still angered by the 'betrayal' of Mubarak (hence its uncompromising stance on Bahrain).
* * *
Fawaz A. Gerges appears to agree with my idea of a "constitutional settlement" along the lines of the early Principate but with unfounded optimism proclaims:

After decades of persecution and incarceration, what is unfolding today clearly shows the weight and influence of the Muslim Brothers, most of whom are centrist and modernist and accept democratic values, in shaping the political future of their society…Arab Islamists are traveling a similar path as did the Christian fundamentalists and later the Christian Democrats and Euro-communists in Western Europe who in the 20th century subordinated ideology to interests and political constituencies.

As Jonathan Schanzer aptly comments on Twitter: "Fawaz Gerges just slobbers all over the Brotherhood here. Behold, the personification of MidEast studies failures today."

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Hillary Clinton to be first foreign official to visit Egypt’s new President.

Hillary Clinton to be first foreign official to visit Egypt’s new President.(Shoebat).(BarrackNow).Looks like Hillary Clinton will be the first foreign official to visit Mohammed Mursi. In light of current discoveries and events, the question that needs to be asked is, why?
Via TheHill.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the first foreign official to visit Egypt’s President-elect Mohamed Morsi, sources at Cairo International Airport told the Al-Ahram Arabic language news website Wednesday.
The sources said Clinton, along with other US officials, would discuss the future of US-Egyptian relations, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and urge respect for the socio-religious rights of Coptic Christians under Islamist rule.
Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi beat Mubarak’s last premier Ahmed Shafiq in the election runoff on 16-17 June to become Egypt’s first democratically elected president.
President Barack Obama on Sunday called Morsi to congratulate him on his victory and offer continued US support for Egypt’s transition to democracy. 

The revelation that Saleha Abedin – the mother of Hillary Clinton’s closest aide (Huma Abedin) – is a close colleague of Egypt’s new first lady makes this a little more interesting than it otherwise would be.
On June 26th, Rush Limbaugh spent a couple of minutes reporting on the story Shoebat broke on June 24th, that further exposes the familial ties of Huma Abedin - Hillary Clinton's closest advisor - to the Muslim Brotherhood. 
Specifically, the point of interest for Rush is the news that Huma's mother and Egypt's new first lady are close colleagues as leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood.
Keep checking Shoebat.com because they have an explosive follow-up piece to this story coming that you will not want to miss.Read the full story here and here.

George Galloway Secretly Converted to Islam 10 Years Ago.

George Galloway Secretly Converted to Islam 10 Years Ago.(NS).Jemima Khan, in an interview with the Bradford MP, reveals the background to his Muslim conversion. George Galloway, MP for Bradford West, is a Muslim. He converted more than ten years ago in a ceremony at a hotel in Kilburn, north-west London, attended by members of the Muslim Association of Great Britain. Those close to him know this. The rest of the world, including his Muslim constituents, does not. Over a halal, alcohol-free lunch at a cafe on Bradford’s main high street, Khan tells Galloway: “I know someone who attended your shahadah [the Muslim conversion ceremony].”
Update:  George Galloway has released a statement about the interview. The New Statesman responds:
“It is notable that Galloway does not deny being a Muslim convert – and he did not deny it when it was put to him at the time of the interview, which is on tape. Contrary to his press release, nor did he deny that the ceremony took place when it was put to him during the interview. This is also on tape. Furthermore, he failed to clarify how, by his own admission, he had a "nikah" (a Muslim marriage ceremony), despite the fact that a non-Muslim man cannot marry a Muslim woman under Islamic law. As for calling his “secretary” his “special adviser”, this is how she asked to be described in an email to Jemima Khan." Read the full story here.

Islamic or Islamist: Will the difference really matter?

Islamic or Islamist: Will the difference really matter?(VOC).By Dr Ashraf Ramelah.Standing up to the Islamist point of view which receives much of its funding from foreign entities to cry victim in America, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) showed up at1 Police Plaza in NYC one morning recently to support the NYPD in an act of solidarity with American law enforcement. Encouraging them on were several high profile names thatare well respected voices in the battle against terrorism along with many non-Muslim freedom-fighters. The newly formed AILC is opposed to the theocratic Islamists who bow only to Allah’s will and instead represents moderate Muslim religious believers who separate mosque from state, advocate human rights, give thanks for a free democracy and support the U.S. Constitution.
The organization is comprised of reputable, moderate, even-handed spokespersons, scholars, and leaders from acrossNorth America and led by the well-known Muslim moderate, Dr. Zhudi Jasser, often seen on Fox News. In the words of an AILC spokesperson, they wish “to bring forth a profoundly spiritual, practical and beneficial manifestation of Islamic life and teachings.” The culture of freedom and comfort of American society renders it possible to conceive and build a movement of such scope – the transformation of a 1400 year old religion deeply entrenched in societies all over the world. Muslims who adhere to Islamic ideology, totalitarian and political in nature, as opposed to Muslims who believe in Islamic ideology in its spiritual aspect only represent a significant ideological rift, and significantly, the latter contradicts the scholars of the orthodox community. The totality of the AILC endeavor constitutes a battle on a grand scale within the house of Islam, and this is the difficult path ahead for the coalition. In a private interview (stated in a March 7th update article in PJ Media entitled, The Anti-Islamist Voice by Dr. Phyllis Chesler), Manda Zand-Ervin, an Iranian women’s rights activist and founding member of AILC, is quoted as saying, “No person or organization can ever claim representation of American Muslims,” yet the AILC claims just that in giving voice to this “silent majority,” and we hope their calculation is correct. The intent is noble and not to be discouraged however daunting the task. For Americans who believe all Muslims are citizens trying to live a decent life and assimilate like any other minority, the AILC, a faith-based organization, is welcomed as normal and long overdue in condemning terrorists. For those who are already embittered by past silences and see Muslims in general as a threatto the freedom of our nation, the words of the AILC are heard with skepticism, as anotherattempt to whitewash America – we’ve heard “religion of peace” before. Some will miss the uniqueness of AILC’s ambitious goal, and some will care enough to query whatseems to be an inconsistency in an Islamic group with Islam in their name raising the banner of Islam while considering itself to be anti-Islamist. This distinction will only become clear when the distinction is no more and the AILC position becomes the sole defining and prevailing notion of Islam around the world. But would that be Islam anymore? From the outside, Islamic groups (Islamic and Islamist) carry the same message – peace-loving, charitable, freedom-loving and democratic – and many non-Muslims predisposed to this message accept it as the wholesale truth.
The fact we must face is thatIslamists have been exploiting freedom and human rights rhetoric for a very long time and will use the English language convincingly in lockstep with the anti-Islamists, even though their goals and ideas diverge. Islamists also have the momentum. They have been in the race a lot longer and have the infrastructure – as in the GOP primary contest, the guy you voted for is vying against the other one who has been running for a long time, has all the money, and is winning in large part because of it. Finally, for students of Arabic, Islam and the Koran, the goal of the AILC gives rise to concerns over theological issues out of sync with their valiant attempt to define a non-political Islam. How will it successfully lead on this important effort if unable to eradicate sacred verses or expunge fear-provoking doctrine Muslims believe are sealed in heaven? Will it simply promote misreading? In her article of February 29 in www.nypost.com entitled, Islam and the NYP: Why we should cheer cops’ work, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, author of In the Land of Invisible Women, uses a Koran verse to justify Muslim support of the NYPD and authority in general within a Western host country. She cites verse 59 from sura 4 (An-nisa) which states, “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority from among you.” Unfortunately, the verse contradicts what Dr. Ahmed intends to prove because this verse precludes infidel authority. The final four words, “authority from among you,” means authorities among “ye who believe” in Allah and obey Allah and obey His Messenger, and thus signifies Muslims obeying authority held by Muslims only, ideally the Caliphate, although not explicitly stated. Herein portrays the difficult challenge facing the AILC. 
Moreover, how will Koran verses instructing the use of deception in sura 16:106, sura 2:225, sura 3:54, and sura 8:30 be discounted, and on the issue of the universally accepted concept of abrogation in sura 2:106 which addresses one Koran verse superseding another according to chronology where violent verses negate and take the place of peaceful verses, how will this handled? The journey of the AILC is a necessarily a long one, entailing re-education of an entire population of Muslims with a new interpretation of Islam to perhaps justify what’s already deep within the hearts of many now living free in America. Based upon the AILC mission statement, its mandate must be to cut away the Koran verses pointing without mercy toward infidels and Muslim apostates, the political doctrine which experts say make up as much as eighty percent of the Koran, and begin to re-program an entire faith. The job of de-politicizing Islam, dealing with vast pages of Islam’s history, dogma, and religious edicts (fatwas), awaits them. We applaud the AILC for denouncing CAIR and ISNA as the voice of Muslims in politics, education, and national security and for offering its service to our government in their place. We thank them for speaking tough to the MSA (Muslim Student Association) and Muslim Brotherhood and are grateful for their defense of equality before the law, an American principle, and stating opposition to a caliphate. We can only hope the AILC is punching above its weight with a game plan to cope with the range and power of its heavyweight opponents – their fellow believers.Read the full story here.

Video - Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel.

IQ:

America's Muslim President.By. "al Rassooli".
Even if one listens to the first five minutes one will come to the conclusion that:

1. Obama is a closeted Muslim.
2. His understanding of the REAL Muslim mindset is negligible.
3. He knows even less about how the Arabs think.
4. He has no understanding or true knowledge of the history of the Jews.
5. He has betrayed each and every friend of the USA among the Arabs.
6. He commands no respect among Muslims (my field of expertise).
7. He has caused more damage to America Economically, Politically and Militarily than any president including Carter.
8. In summation, if he is re elected, it will be the end of America and freedom all over the world. 
9. Anyone disagreeing with my analysis I would appreciate your comments."al Rassooli" ..

Why is Obama in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Why is Obama in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood? “Obama is anti-Western, anti-Christian and antisemitic”(DocsTalk).(IsraPundit).By Ted Belman.
Dr. Essam Abdallah, an Egyptian liberal intellectual, in an article published last October in the leading liberal pan Arab, Elaph, refers to certain reports coming out of Washington:
“These reports reveal the depth of the below-the-surface coordination between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya and Jordan. This bloc of regimes and organizations is now becoming the greatest Islamist radical lobby ever to penetrate and infiltrate the White House, Congress, the State Department and the main decision making centers of the US government. All of this is happening at a time when the US government is going through its most strategically dangerous period in modern times because of its need to confront the Iranian Mullahs regime, which is expanding in the Middle East, as well as penetrating the United States, via powerful and influential allies.”“the popular revolts in the Arab world – and the Obama Administration’s position towards them – were determined by political battles between various pressure groups in Washington.”
He followed up with another article this month in which he asks,
“why isn’t the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?”
Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism said of this article, “This is one of the most important articles I have read in years.” He then made allegations of his own:

“It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed “offensive.” The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered “offensive” but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered “anti-Islam” by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”
This comes as no surprise to me. On August 2011, after making the case, I wrote, “To my mind, the alliance between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is the cornerstone of Obama’s New Middle East policy.”.
The most damning bit of evidence was reported by Herb London in his article U.S. Betrays Syria’s Opposition:
“In an effort to understand and placate Syrian opposition groups, Secretary Clinton invited them to a meeting in Washington. Most of those invited, however, have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Missing from the invitations are Kurdish leaders, Sunni liberals, Assyrians and Christian spokesmen. According to various reports the State Department made a deal with Turkey and Muslim Brotherhood representatives either to share power with Assad to stabilize the government, or replace him if this effort fails. One organization, the Syrian Democracy Council (SDC), an opposition group composed of diverse ethnic and religious organizations, including Alawis, Aramaic Christians, Druze and Assyrians was conspicuously — and no coincidentally — omitted from the invitation list.”
Caroline Glick wrote in August of last year:  “What these observers fail to recognize is that Erdogan’s interests in a post-Assad Syria have little in common with US interests. Erdogan will seek to ensure the continued disenfranchisement of Syria’s Kurdish minority. And he will work towards the Islamification of Syria through the Muslim Brotherhood. “Today there is a coalition of Syrian opposition figures that include all ethnic groups in Syria. Their representatives have been banging the doors of the corridors of power in Washington and beyond. Yet the same Western leaders who were so eager to recognize the Libyan opposition despite the presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the opposition tent have refused to publicly embrace Syrian regime opponents that seek a democratic, federal Syria that will live at peace with Israel and embrace liberal policies.
“This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a private meeting with these brave democrats. Why didn’t she hold a public meeting? Why hasn’t Obama welcomed them to the White House?
“By refusing to embrace liberal, multi-ethnic regime opponents, the administration is all but ensuring the success of the Turkish bid to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power if Assad is overthrown.”
The Syrian Democratic Coalition (SDC) above mentioned, is self-described as:
“The Syrian Democratic Coalition (SDC) is an emerging coalition of diverse Syrian organizations coming together to help bring an end to the Assad regime and promote the transformation of Syria into a secular democracy based in liberty. The coalition is founded upon a belief in the separation of religion from state and is dedicated to establishing a new constitution and transparent federal republic in Syria, based in reason that equally protects minority rights, promotes gender equality, and embraces the rights and liberties of every individual as enumerated in the United Nations Declaration for Human Rights.
This growing coalition crosses all ethnic, religious and tribal lines to represent all Syrians. It currently includes members of Save Syria Now!, the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, the Union of Syrian Arab Tribes and the Syrian Christian Democratic Movement.”
Sherkoh Abbas is Secretary General of the Syria Democracy Council and President of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria. I first met him when he invited me to be a Director of the American Kurdish Friendship League some 5 years ago.
Recently, he confided in me that in all his dealings with the State Department over the last two years, no interest was shown in his coalition and instead he was continually pressed to support the Syrian National Council made up of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists and Arabists. He believes that the U.S. is working with Salafi groups, and the Turkish government, to create an opposition in Syria that is strictly Islamist, and will thus serve Turkish economic interests in Syria, and keep the Kurdish issue as dormant in Turkey as well as in Syria.
For the last six months at least Obama has been cultivating a relationship with PM Erdogan of Turkey. The budding relationship prompted Barry Rubin to ask, Why Is an Anti-American Islamist, Obama’s Favorite ME Leader? According to Sherkoh Abbas, one faction of the SDC had family connections in various Gulf States at the highest level and went to them for financial support. They were turned down as Obama had instructed them to only give money to the SNC. Nevertheless the SDC is gaining traction amongst the Kurds, Druze, Sunnis, Christians and even the Alawites. This is so because these various minorities are beginning to think of a post Assad Syria and they all want a region of their own. They have expressed their willingness to be secular, democratic and a friend of Israel and will be asked to commit to this in writing. They don’t want Islamism or Arabism. They prefer peace, freedom and prosperity. So why isn’t Obama embracing them?
The Obama administration is totally in sync with the Muslim Brotherhood.
At the renowned Herzlia Conference this year, I met Salman Shalkh, one of the speakers from Qatar. We had a long conversation in which he kept pushing for the Saudi Plan to be embraced by Israel. This is the plan that Obama is committed to, i.e., ’67 borders with mutually agreed swaps. He argued that Israel should talk to Hamas and I countered, “What’s the point, we have nothing to offer to them”. He was also an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. These arguments should be expected from someone from Qatar. Unfortunately, the same arguments are being made by the White House.
It is instructive to note that he is Director of Brookings Doha, Center, in Qatar, the Arab offshoot of the Brookings Institute that has so much influence with the State Department.
He told me that he was one of the people who drafted the Roadmap on behalf of the State Department. I told him that it didn’t surprise me and suggested that he probably drafted the Saudi Peace Plan for them, as well.
What is going on now in American Foreign Policy is not so much a product of the Islamist Lobby fueled by both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Gulf States as it is a product of a strategic alliance that has existed between the US and the Gulf States lead by Saudi Arabia since before Israel declared her independence. Unfortunately, President Obama with his overt embrace of Islam, Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood, has taken it to another level. It would appear that the ideas expressed by Mearsheimer and Walt in their book, The Israel Lobby, are being embraced by both the State Department and the White House. These ideas include the idea that the Israel Lobby is too strong for America’s good and that Israel is a liability to America.
But the truth is otherwise, as John R. MacArthur pointed out in 2007, in The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby:
“Somehow, though, I can’t shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn’t all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can’t see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house, led by King Abdullah.” This article is a classic and should be read in full.
Obama has decidedly moved from an alliance with Israel to an alliance with the Islamists.
MK Aryeh Eldad in a speech he gave in the fall in the US, when Israel was intending to act against Iran militarily, said word came down from the White House that “if you act alone, you will remain alone”.
Because Israel is so dependent on the US for resupply of weapons and munitions in a prolonged war, this threat changed the calculus immediately. It is true that when Mahmoud Abbas was threatening to go to the UN for recognition, the Obama administration lobbied around the world for negative votes. But at the same time, Obama threatened Netanyahu that he would withhold his veto if Israel took punitive action against the PA by annexing some of the territories or by withholding funds. Finally he used the same threat to get Israel to instruct AIPAC to lobby Congress not to punish the PA by withholding US funds. Over the last six months, Israel has been warned by a succession of senior military and administration officials not to attack Iran, at this time, all in the name of giving sanctions a chance. But who believes that sanctions will stop Iran. And who believes that that the US will in the end attack Iran to stop them.
So while Obama is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, he is keeping Israel under his thumb.
Isi Leibler takes exception to all this and reminds everyone that:
“this organization [The Muslim Brotherhood] represents one of the most fanatical and dangerous of the radical Islamist groups in the region, with a dark record of violence and terrorism imbedded in its DNA. It is rabidly anti-Western, anti-Christian, antisemitic, committed to imposing sharia law and a global Caliphate – and willing to employ any means to further its objectives.”
Many would argue that Obama is also “anti-Western, anti-Christian [and] antisemitic”. Judging by his policies, they would be right.Read the full story here.