FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

The midterm elections in the US made it clear that many Americans are unhappy with the performance of their leadership. Of course, most of the unhappiness is due to the poor economic situation. But not all of it.

I think that many of us believe that we haven’t come to grips with the challenge posed on 9/11. We are involved in two hugely expensive wars, seriously stressing our volunteer military, wars which are certain — because of the way they’ve been financed by borrowing — to cause further economic problems in the future. And the fact is that these wars have been inconclusive at best. After nine years, Osama bin Laden is still at large, Baghdad is in the throes of a violent terrorist attack as I write, and we appear to be looking for a way to surrender safely in Afghanistan.

The US is in full retreat from the Middle East, apparently unable to challenge Iran which every day moves closer to establishing its domination of the region. We’ve allowed Hizballah to rearm and Syria and Iran to subvert Lebanon. We’ve stood by and watched as one of the most powerful states in Middle East, Turkey, moved from being a Western ally to joining the Iranian axis.

It’s always dangerous to make historical comparisons, but the best analogy I can think of is the period of ideological competition, diplomatic maneuvering and vicious proxy wars that characterized the “Cold War” between the West and the Soviet Union. There is one major difference, though:

Today, our leaders refuse to name the conflict. This, I think, is because there is a religious dimension to it, and Americans are very uncomfortable with the idea of a religious war. Although our struggle is with radical Islamist ideology, not Islam, there seems to be a fear of and taboo against mentioning Islam in connection with our ideological — and increasingly military — enemies.

In the domestic arena, we see this hysterical blindness — that’s the best way to characterize it — playing out in our inability to understand that some of the organizations that speak for Islam in America are heavily influenced by radical Islamism, as I wrote yesterday.

Given all of this, I see an opportunity for a completely new approach, and candidates or parties that adopt it will be very appealing in 2012.  Here are some general principles for recognizing the conflict and responding effectively:

• We are in an ideological struggle for world domination not unlike the Cold War.
• This ideology is called ‘radical Islamism’, an expansionist political movement which seeks to subjugate societies throughout the world to Islamic law. This ideology is diametrically opposite to that of the Enlightenment, on which our Constitution is based.
• Radical Islamism and its sponsors are the enemy. The main sponsors are the Iranian regime and circles in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. We must make clear to the Saudis and Pakistanis that if they can’t control their hostile elements then we will treat the regimes as hostile. Turkey, too, will have to choose sides and accept the consequences.
• Iran must not be allowed to deploy nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s should be confiscated.
• We must ally ourselves with those countries that are on our side in the struggle, like Israel and India. We should stand behind those allies. During the Cold War we didn’t support Soviet claims in Eastern Europe, so why should we support Arab claims on East Jerusalem today?
• We must understand that Islamists do want to attack our way of life both by terrorism and subversion at home. While we must avoid religious prejudice, we can’t turn a blind eye to the activities of radical Islamists because we are afraid of being accused of it. Not every Muslim is an enemy — God forbid — but there is a connection between Islam and Islamism.

None of this is as simple as it appears and it certainly won’t be easy. But we can at least start describing it correctly. While Americans are unfamiliar with the idea of a religious war, they certainly understand an ideological one, which is what this is.

Future historians will probably use the date of September 11, 2001 to mark the beginning of the conflict. In recognition of this, I suggest that it be called “The 9/11 War.” The least that we can ask of our politicians is that they, too, agree on the nature of the struggle — and that their policies be designed so that we will be victorious in it.

Technorati Tags: radical Islamism, Cold War, US administration

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), a radical Sunni Islamist organization, was founded in 1928. Today it has several million members and branches all over the world, including the US. Although the Ikhwan’s goal is similar to that of other Islamist groups, calling for the establishment of a transnational caliphate and the application of Islamic law and principles to all aspects of society, it differs from al Qaeda because — at least officially — it opposes violence at the present time, in most circumstances. But there are exceptions, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hence it gave rise in 1987 to Hamas, its ‘Palestinian’ branch, which is open and explicit about its antisemitic and jihadist position. There is little or no daylight between the Ikhwan and Hamas, and Brotherhood-linked organizations around the world have played a large role in funding and supporting Hamas.

There is little doubt that some of the groups that claim to speak for Muslims in the US also have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The most widely-cited evidence is the “Holy Land Foundation” (HLF) case in which numerous individuals and groups were charged with material support for terrorism, conspiracy and money laundering in providing funds for Hamas and other jihadist groups. After a mistrial in 2007,  several individuals were convicted in 2008 and sentenced to long prison terms. The process gave rise to a list of unindicted co-conspirators which included the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Both were cited as belonging to the US Muslim Brotherhood.

Here is what the Investigative Project on Terrorism (headed by Steven Emerson) had to say about ISNA (more details about ISNA’s connection with the Brotherhood are here):

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is the largest and most influential Muslim advocacy group in the United States. Its annual conference draws tens of thousands of people and, in 2009, was honored with a speech by Valerie Jarrett, a top advisor to President Barack Obama.

President Ingrid Mattson is Director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Hartford Seminary and active in interfaith dialogue.

ISNA has a troubling history, however, and its leadership ranks beyond Mattson include people who date back to the group’s foundation by Muslim Brotherhood members. The organization grew out of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), which also was founded by Brotherhood members…

Its conferences have featured rhetoric in support of terrorist groups and other radicalism. This continued at the 2009 convention, where panelists expressed extreme anti-Semitism and support for the terrorist group Hizballah.

So it was very surprising when, in 2007, Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the Union for Reform Judaism announced a cooperative educational venture with ISNA. Rabbi Yoffie spoke at an ISNA convention, and several months later hosted ISNA’s President Ingrid Mattson of ISNA at URJ’s biennial convention. Yoffie said,

We chose ISNA as our partner because it is the closest equivalent to the Union within the American Muslim community. It has issued a strong and unequivocal condemnation of terror, including a specific condemnation of Hizbollah and Hamas terror against Jews and Israelis. It has also recognized Israel as a Jewish state and supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These statements provide the framework of common values that we believe are necessary for a fruitful dialogue to occur.

I had a hard time finding these statements. There are many condemning ‘terrorism’ and particular terrorist acts, but few that mention specific organizations. However, I finally found a press release issued by ISNA after the inconclusive end of the first HLF trial:

To be clear, ISNA remains consistent in its rejection of terrorism and violence. ISNA rejects all acts of terrorism, including those perpetrated by Hamas, Hizbullah and any other group that claims Islam as their inspiration. ISNA has encouraged and continues to encourage a just and fair settlement of disputes between Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbors through diplomacy and other peaceful means.

This is a very carefully crafted statement. It rejects ‘acts of terrorism’ perpetrated by Hamas and Hizballah. But it does not condemn those organizations themselves for their essential antisemitic nature.

The closest thing I can find to recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is ISNA’s approval of the ‘quartet conditions’, that is, that Hamas should recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept prior agreements between Israel and the PA. I doubt strongly that ISNA would agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state today anyway, since the PA itself rejects it. And ‘two-state solution’ is highly ambiguous.

In fact, a more accurate reflection of ISNA’s attitude toward Israel might be this press release,

ISNA Condemns Israeli Massacre On Board of Gaza Freedom Flotilla, Calls for End of Illegal Blockade

in which ISNA aligns itself perfectly with Hamas and the Turkish IHH in their attempt to spin the forced self-defense of Israelis on the Mavi Marmara as yet another phony ‘war crime’.

No, we can’t expect all (or any) Muslims to be Zionists. But Jewish organizations should choose their ‘partners’ from among their friends, not enemies.

Technorati Tags: ISNA, URJ, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, Ingrid Mattson

Israelis in general don’t read Ha’aretz — its circulation runs a poor third, after Yediot Aharonot and Ma’ariv.  It exists for its English Internet edition, which is apparently taken seriously by ‘important’ folks in Europe and the US, despite the fact that its extreme left-wing bias reflects the views of only a tiny minority of Israelis.

This makes it dangerous at worst, or annoying at best. Here’s an example of the latter, by Aluf Benn, Ha’aretz Editor at Large:

Netanyahu rejected Obama’s request for a two-month extension of the settlement freeze; the president had wanted quiet on the Middle East front while he concentrated on the midterm elections. For his part, Netanyahu explained that he needed to show “credibility and steadfastness” at home, and indeed the incentives promised by the U.S. president in exchange for the extension did not sway the prime minister. One can surmise that Netanyahu did not want to help Obama ahead of the U.S. elections, and thus annoy the president’s Republican rivals. [my italics]

Actually, one can’t surmise that at all, unless one is a fool — or, like Benn, is trying to make trouble. There are clear reasons having to do with Israeli, not American, politics that make it impossible for PM Netanyahu to extend the freeze any further, even if he wanted to.

For one thing, his centrist coalition would come apart as the parties on the Right fled. The general population, too, even those who are not normally called ‘pro-settlement’, understand that the freeze has not brought peace any closer and object to American interference in Israel’s sovereignty. And then there is the certainty that a renewed freeze would be met with massive disobedience, putting Netanyahu in the position of either ignoring it and getting attacked for being ‘anti-peace’, or putting it down by force. Not an appealing choice to have to make.

Not only are Israeli domestic issues overriding, the US connection doesn’t exist. Benn seems to suggest that Americans are concerned with the prospects of the ‘peace process’, but this is probably the least important issue in the minds of most, for whom domestic economic and social issues are paramount. My guess is that not one of a hundred million voters will say “hmm, Netanyahu didn’t extend the freeze, that means Obama’s a dork — I better vote Republican.”

Insofar as he actually believes what he says, Benn is displaying the egotism one often finds among peace processors, who don’t realize that most people — inside and outside of Israel — have understood at least since 2000 that the ‘process’ is wholly worthless and irrelevant.

If he doesn’t believe it, then he’s just trying to provide material for the NY Times editorial writers, administration and State Department personnel, European Parliament members and UN functionaries that comprise his audience, to help them sharpen the knives that they have had out for Mr. Netanyahu since his election.

Remember that President Obama tried to bring about regime change in Israel before, but had to hold off when he realized that too much pressure on Israel would be bad for relations with some important Democrats on election eve. He won’t have to worry about that after Tuesday, so this little jab from Benn at the ‘disloyal’ PM is an indication of the way things are going to go starting next week.

Update [1 Nov 0756 PDT]: Added link to the original Ha’aretz article.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama, Aluf Benn, settlement freeze

What's next?

News Item:

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) voted recently to officially declare Rachel’s Tomb to be a mosque. UNESCO director Irena Bokova had previously stated “concern” at Israel’s decision to treat the tomb as a heritage site.

The vote called for Rachel’s Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs – the burial site of the other Biblical Patriarchs and Matriarchs – to be removed from Israel’s National Heritage list.

The Palestinian Authority has claimed that Rachel’s Tomb is holy to Muslims as the site of a mosque called the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque. The PA [Palestinian Authority] demands control over both the tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, as well as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem….

Journalist Nadav Shragai, writing for Yisrael Hayom, noted that Muslims living in the land of Israel have historically referred to Rachel’s Tomb as “Kubat Rahel,” the Arabic term for “Rachel’s Tomb.” Under Ottoman rule, Rachel’s Tomb was a Jewish site. Only in 1996 did the PA begin to call the site the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque, he said.

The recent nature of the Muslim claim to the site is documented by Elder of Ziyon here. And here is a picture of it from the early 1860’s:

Rachel's tomb, around 1860

Technorati Tags: Rachel’s tomb, Israel, Palestinian Authority, UNESCO