A Birmingham bookseller accused of "priming people for terrorism" had video footage of British hostage Ken Bigley being beheaded, a jury was told. Ahmed Faraz has been charged with 30 counts of possessing and distributing extremist material intended to radicalise Muslims around the world.
Footage of 81 beheadings were found in premises linked to the Sparkhill resident, the prosecution said.
The 32-year-old Islamic studies graduate denies the charges.
Prosecutor Max Hill QC said the DVDs and media files depicted "the murders by beheading of a number of individuals, including the British citizen Ken Bigley, who some will remember". Who MANY will remember.
The 12 jurors were then shown an excerpt of the film,
Now if we can just resist the temptation to go back in when the Sunni-Shia fighting starts. AP:
BAGHDAD—The U.S. is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline, The Associated Press has learned. The decision to pull out fully by January will effectively end more than eight years of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, despite ongoing concerns about its security forces and the potential for instability.
The decision ends months of hand-wringing by U.S. officials over whether to stick to a Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline that was set in 2008 or negotiate a new security agreement to ensure that gains made and more than 4,400 American military lives lost since March 2003 do not go to waste.
In recent months, Washington has been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces. A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday that no final decision has been reached about the U.S. training relationship with the Iraqi government.
But a senior Obama administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 active-duty soldiers attached to the U.S. Embassy.
Don't train them. Don't arm them. Let's leave that "ungrateful volcano" to its own devises and be happy with lessons learned. No more troops on the ground in Muslim countries. If we have to attack terror bases, then do it from the air with no re-building afterward.
"We have crossed into Somalia in pursuit of the Shehab, who are responsible for the kidnappings and attacks on our country," government spokesman Alfred Matua said. Reports from the border said large numbers of troops were on the move, while military planes and helicopters overhead.
Several witnesses reported heavy troop movement in Kenya's border regions, with truckloads of soldiers heading towards the frontier. The assault comes a day after Kenya's Internal Security Minister George Saitoti branded Somalia's Al-Qaeda-inspired Shebab rebels "the enemy" and vowed to attack them "wherever they will be."
In just over the past month, a British woman and a French woman have been abducted from beach resorts in two separate incidents, dealing a major blow to Kenya's tourism industry. On Thursday two female Spanish aid workers were seized from the Dadaab refugee camp, the world's largest and crowded with some 450,000 mainly Somali refugees
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Former ISNA President, Gets MB Endowed Appointment at Canadian College
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, former ISNA President
On Friday the Anglican Theology program of Huron University College (HUC) at Western Ontario University announced the appointment of former ISNA President, Dr. Ingrid Mattson to an endowed chair in Islamic Studies. The press release states that
“Dr. Mattson brings an incredible wealth of knowledge and expertise to this area of study and Huron is privileged to have a scholar of her caliber," said Dr. Stephen McClatchie, Principal of HUC. "We are honored that, with her pick of many positions around the world, Dr. Mattson has decided to return to Canada and accept our appointment to the London and Windsor Community Chair in Islamic Studies."
"It is an honor to be back in Canada and to accept this position at such a prestigious institution as HUC," said Dr. Mattson. "Huron has a remarkable history of critical inquiry and I look forward to building on this tradition by offering Huron students the opportunity to learn about a faith that more than 20 per cent of the world's population practices, in an open and liberal environment."
According to the HUC release, Dr. Mattson will occupy “the first endowed chair of Islamic Studies at a theology faculty in Canada.” Mattson will assume her academic duties at HUC in July, 2012.
As we will see the funding of the $2 million (Cdn.) endowed chair at HUC involved a match of $1 million in funds from the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) and local Mosques with an equivalent amount from the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) located in Northern Virginia’s, Wahhabi Valley. The IIIT is an MB front group funded by Saudi and Gulf emirate donors. The founder of IIIT was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of convicted felon, Sami al Arian, former computer science professor at the University of South Florida. Al-Arian was involved in funneling funds to the extremist Palestinian Islamic Jihad group in Gaza. The IIIT founder was also implicated in providing funds to Hamas. The source of funding for the HUC endowed chair and the presence of Canadian MAC leaders on the due diligence committee was objected to by HUC alumni and others.
Dr. Mattson, a former Catholic, and native of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, was the first woman convert to Islam to head the ISNA, a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) affiliate. She holds a Doctorate in Islamic Studies from the University of Chicago and is the Director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian Muslim Relations at the Hartford (Connecticut) Seminary (HS). She also headed one of three Pentagon programs for certification of Muslim military chaplains. That Muslim chaplaincy program was promoted by convicted felon, Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, now serving a term of 23 years in a Federal prison for laundering funds to an affiliate of al Qaeda.
Mattson is an avowed Wahhabist. In a 2001 interview, she described the Saudi fundamentalist sect with its intolerant dogma and derogation of women’s rights as akin to the Protestant Reformation. When the Federal Dallas Holy Land Foundation trial cited ISNA, one of several MB groups, as an unindicted co-conspirator. ISNA filed an appeal to expunge the designation from the trial record. The co-conspirator status was partially removed by a Fifth Circuit Court decision in October, 2010. Leaders of the Holy Land Foundation were convicted for funneling upwards of $35 million in Muslim charity funds or “Zakat” to Hamas, the MB in Palestine. She had been prominent during both the Bush and Obama Administrations as a ‘go to’ person on Muslim dialogue. She gave a prayer at an Interfaith Service in Washington’s National Cathedral during President Obama’s inauguration in January, 2009.
According to the pre-eminent Canadian counter-Jihad website, Point de Bascule, Dr. Mattson was a participant in a conference in 2008 held in Tripoli, Libya backed by then dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, the World Islamic Call Society (WICS). We shall see later that two of her supporters for the HUC chair were also participants in the WICS conferences in Chicago and Libya.
According to an investigative report in the Ottawa Citizen in May, 2010, the Harper Government revoked the registration of the Canadian branch of the WICS. A Canada Revenue investigation revealed that the Canadian branch of the WICS acted as a front for Gadaffi funneling funds to Trinidad-based radical group Jamaat al-Muslimeen (JAM) involved with a foiled bombing plot at JFK Airport in New York in 2007. JAM was also involved in an attempted armed overthrow of the Trinidad-Tobago government in 1990. The WICS’ Canadian branch is headquartered in London, Ontario.
A letter addressed to HUC Acting Principal Fulton in April, 2011, when the appointment and its funding was first disclosed, identified the endowment from MAC and the IIIT in Virginia.
. . . a local group of alumni, friends and faculty (present and former) of the University of Western Ontario [expresses] our alarm over the disclosure that two Islamist organizations -- the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) -- will provide most of the $2 million in funding for a new Chair in Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Theology at Huron University College. While we commend the College for undertaking to “make a substantive contribution to understanding of Islamic thought and Muslim identity in pluralistic societies” through the establishment of this Chair, we think it is extremely ill-advised of the College to accept funding from any organization implicated in violent jihad.
While leaders of the IIIT and the MAC insist that they are peaceful, moderate and democratic, these assurances cannot stand up to inquiry. Evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
MAC states on its website that its mission is: "To establish an Islamic presence in Canada, that is balanced, constructive and integrated.” For greater clarity, the statement adds: “We believe that, in the twentieth century, the approach of Imam Hassan Al-Banna best exemplifies this balanced, comprehensive understanding of Islam.”
Al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB was the creator of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). In the existing Covenant of the Islamic ResistanceMovement, Hamas quotes Al-Banna’s declamation: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
The IIIT is also an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Two examples of IIIT’s involvement with terror: In 2003, Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, a co-founder and former president of the IIIT, was cited as anun-indictedco-conspiratorin the trial of Sami al-Arian, an Islamist activist who served a 57-monthprisonsentencein the United States for conspiring to channel funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist group in the United States and Canada. In pleading guilty, al-Arian admitted that he knew that the PIJ engaged in suicide bombings and other “horrific and deadly acts of violence” against the people of Israel.
Jamal Barzinji, founding member and current vice-President of the IIIT, has likewise been implicated in funding for terrorists. In a sworn affidavit filed in 2003, a senior special agent with the United States Customs Service testified: “I believe that Barzinji is not only closely associated with PIJas evidenced by ties to Al-Arian..., but also with HAMAS.”
The letter to HUC Acting-Principal Fulton identified similar IIIT funding of Dr. Mattson’s current program at the HS:
Connecticut-based HS is deeply involved with the IIIT. Several IIIT academics are appointed to positions at the HS and a year ago it accepteda$1-milliongiftfrom the IIIT, despite the organization’s well-known radical links. Meanwhile, the Muslim studies courses and programs at the seminary are roiled in controversy. In an article published last month by the National Association of Scholars, Islamo-CorrectnessatHartfordSeminary, Andrew Bieszad, a Catholic who graduated from Hartford Seminary last year with a master’s degree in Islamic studies, relates his very unpleasant personal experience at HS. He concludes: “In Islamic studies at universities today it has become difficult to disagree with Islam and still maintain one’s credibility, safety, or ability to study in school. Academia has refused to question Islamic teachings, and has thus become a participant in promoting Islamic orthodoxy at the expense of academic integrity. I know this because I am a product of this environment.”
Noted Canadian counter-terrorism expert, David Harris expressed concerns about the Mattson appointment and funding in an email to this author:
Even those of us who'd been appalled by the background to the creation of the Islamic Chair at Huron University College -- an Anglican college affiliated with the University of Western Ontario -- were surprised by the brazenness of the Mattson appointment.
It is said that hardline Islamic lawyer Faisal Joseph, who is on the Executive Board of HUC played a part in whatever "due diligence" review led the HUC to agree to establish the Chair on the basis of the funding arrangements.
Joseph and Dr. Munir El-Kassem a dental surgeon and former Muslim Chaplain at the University of Western Ontario were heavily involved with the establishment of the HUC Chair on Islamic studies.
MAC infiltration in Canada has been emboldened by the HUC appointment of Dr. Mattson fueled by matching IIIT funds. The new version of the timeworn adage is in this case: “Money talks and dhimmis walk.”
California Governor Jerry Brown upgraded a tweet to a proclamation yesterday, officially declaring today as "Steve Jobs Day" across the state in a stronger capacity than a mere 140-character (or less) message could provide.
The full text of Brown's proclamation is below:
"In his life and work, Steve Jobs embodied the California dream. To call him influential would be an understatement. His innovations transformed an industry, and the products he conceived and shepherded to market have changed the way the entire world communicates. Most importantly, his vision helped put powerful technologies, once the exclusive domain of big business and government, in the hands of ordinary consumers. We have only just begun to see the outpouring of creativity and invention that this democratization of technology has made possible.
It is fitting that we mark this day to honor his life and achievements as a uniquely Californian visionary. He epitomized the spirit of a state that an eager world watches to see what will come next."
Today also marks the first larger-scale memorial for Jobs, Apple's co-founder, but it's not a service that just any member of the public will be allowed to attend – or even know about, for that matter. Invitations were sent out last week to members of Silicon Valley's "elite," as well as various connected executives in the greater technological circuit, for today's evening memorial at Stanford University. But the actual location of the memorial at Stanford, as well as its contents, has not been made public.
A recent tip from an undisclosed source interviewed by Reuters suggests that Lee Jae-Young, president and chief operating officer of Apple rival Samsung Electronics, will be in attendance for the event. Apple and Samsung have been battling one another in courtrooms worldwide over alleged patent infringements between Samsung's tablets and Apple's iPads.
One additional "public" memorial is also planned for this week. But the Wednesday morning gathering at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California is, like the Stanford event, not open to the actual public – only Apple employees will be convening outdoors at 10 a.m. to reminisce about Jobs' life.
That said, Jobs' death earlier this month hasn't gone without its share of public tribute. Apple stores worldwide have been bombarded with messages, flowers, candles, and geekier tributes to the late Apple CEO. Apple's homepage remains in tribute to the late co-founder, and fans are asked to send their stories and other notes to a [email protected] email address.
Winning in Iraq for the Americans (the "Iraqis" are quite another matter) should be defined as a result, or a situation, that weakens the Camp of Islam. Bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq, hopeless as that effort necessarily is, if that "freedom" is defined as anything like what the advanced Western democracies offer their citizens, and what was created over the centuries by successive generations of the progressively enlightened (their achievements largely under-appreciated, or even ignored, by the current inheritors of that political legacy) is an unattainable and pointless goal, unless it can be demonstrated that such "democracy" necessarily weakens the hold of Islam, politically and socially, on those in thrall to it.
But what would even a cursory glance at Islamic states reveal? It would reveal that those who were best at constraining Islam were despots, enlightened despots, but despots. They include Shah Reza Pahlevi of Iran, who greatly improved the treatment of non-Muslims in Iran, and who tried, fitfully, to emphasize the pre-Islamic past of Iran, so that even his self-celebration at Persepolis, that spectacle in which so many foreigners took part (the English director Peter Brook, I recall, may have been the guest metteur-en-scene), may be less deplored, for its extravagance, today, and seen as one more element in the attempt to excite the popular imagination with that pre-Islamic Persian past.
In Morocco, Mohammad V, as a Sherifian monarch (descendant of the Prophet), and as such did not have to prove his Muslim bonafides, and could afford not to be fervent in his faith. In Tunisia, the hero of the nationalist movement, Habib Bourguia, established his one-party rule -- the party being his creation, the determinedly secular Destour Party -- and his inheritors run what many do not realize is a police state, but a benign police state that makes Tunisia safe for advanced secular thought. Finally, the most successful of these despots determined to limit the power of Islam is, of course, Ataturk, who put in place a series of measures designed to systematically constrain Islam. His successors found it useful to create a Cult of Personality around Ataturk, and the figure of Ataturk clearly replaces Muhammad just as the cult of "the Turk" replaces, or acts as a brake on, full-throated and therefore dangerous Islam.
All of these cases were ignored by the Bush Administration, for sentimentality about "democracy" is a useful arrow in the quiver of those who are mostly, at home, defenders of privilege. That the Administration was prepared to ignore the demonstrated wishes of the Framers on the role of Congress in war-making, and to continue a war that is opposed by at least 70% of the public, in a runaway-train scenario (with Bush as engineer, stoking the engine, and intimidating Congress, preventing it from stopping him even as the very same misguided war, that in Iraq, prevents Bush from acting, as he should, on the matter of Iran's nuclear project).
The only result that constitutes "winning" in Iraq is that which will weaken the Camp of Islam. And the only way to obtain that result is to leave promptly. Forget all that stuff that the rulers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan keep prating about (the oil! the oil!). Of course they want the Americans to stay, and to shore up the Sunnis. Of course many of the Shi'a still want the Americans to stay as long as staying means more tens of billions in aid, and the likelihood that the Americans will leave behind all kinds of military equipment to be inherited by the Shi'a-dominated government of "Iraq." And of course the Kurds want the Americans to stay as long as possible, because ever since 1991 the Americans have protected the Kurds, and allowed their incipient state, now an autonomous and successful region, to flourish. But what this or that group of Muslims want, for their own obvious purposes, is not what a sensible Administration should want. The interest of the American people should be its only concern.
It should be thinking, everyone should be thinking: how do we weaken the forces of Jihad? How do we halt and reverse the demographic conquest, slow but speeding up, and if nothing is done inexorable, of the countries of Western Europe? How do we constrain the use of the Money Weapon, by Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, and other rich Arab oil states? How do we diminish the amounts available to be used to pay for Muslim propaganda, the buying-up of so many well-placed Western hirelings and apologists, the financing of so many Western academic "centers" like the infamous Esposito operation, the paying for mosques and madrasas everywhere, seen rightly as beachheads of conquest, as signs of increasing dominance, not merely as quiet places of private worship (the Western notion of "religion" does not fit Islam), the funding of lawyers to suppress or threaten or intimidate with lawsuits all who stand in the way of this well-financed Muslim effort, the campaigns of Da'wa that target the psychically and economically marginal, including the literally captive audiences of certain prison populations? All of this has nothing to do with the expensive effort, with its squandering of men, money, materiel, and morale, both civilian and military (for that is plummeting, and the results can be seen in the rates of re-enlistment, and the quality of the officers and men who leave, not to mention the loss of trust between the Army and its civilian soldiers who have been treated so badly, misused with such arrogance and such contempt by those who think they can take whatever advantage can be taken of people who had no idea of what, in joining the National Guard and the Reserves, how badly they would be misused and how indifferent was the Army to that misuse).
And yet here is Iraq, which offers on a platter two of the three great fissures in Islam: the Sectarian (Sunni and Shi'a), and the Ethnic (Arab and Non-Arab Muslim), and yet the Administration lacks the wit, and possibly the necessary intelligent ruthlessness, to see its opportunity and to take it. It need not do a thing for those fissures to grow and grow. It need only stop doing things, stop the squandering, stop the posturing, stop being so confused about Islam and the nature of this war. Yet those who prate about World War IV do not convince by their statements, when they immediately show, in their unshakeable enthusiasm for the war in Iraq, that they have not analyzed the problem, have decided that they will remain Bush loyalists and loyalists of a policy that does not makes sense, and that, if such policy were successful, if somehow Iraq could be held together and made the recipient of another 50 or 100 billion in what is so mistakenly called "reconstruction" aid by the long-suffering, unrepresented American taxpayer, who has no desire to shell out tens of billions for Iraq or other Muslims anywhere, it would do nothing to weaken the Camp of Islam.
The terminal stupidity of the Administration, and of the kagans and kristols who have a personal stake, the stake of careerists, "career conservatives," in pursuing this madness should now be clear to everyone, not least to those, perhaps especially to those, who are alarmed, and also well-informed, about the nature and permanent menace to Infidels everywhere, of Islam.
Bush and Rice and the Administration's loyalists in the so-called "conservative media" are not among them. They, you see, have too much at stake, because the size of the mistake that has been made is too colossal for them to own up as to how wrong they have been. They just can't do it. Their careers, you see. Their lecture fees, you see. Their everything, you see.
The Democrats may have tried desperately to derail the Iraq war but they haven't tried intelligently, which is a different thing.
What would be the "intelligent" way not to "derail" this war but rather, to slightly vary the metaphor, to stop this runaway train that a vote nearly five years ago permitted the engineer, a naif named Bush aided by other people equally ignorant of Islam and of Iraq, to pull out the throttle of old Engine 99 and start the train in motion that has become a runaway train, that apparently no one can stop?
There are two ways. The first is not to timidly attempt to use the power of the purse, but to openly declare that the continuation of this war, which is opposed by three-quarters of the population in every opinion poll, and was certainly opposed by those who voted in the 2006 election, is simply an unconstitutional violation of the Separation of Powers. It is not the President, who is Commander in Chief, to declare war, and it is not the President who should have the power to continue a war when it has lost the support of three-quarters of the population (at least, for some of the Bush loyalists also think the war folly, but are more consumed with scoring points against "leftists" and "traitors").
The most convincing summary of the War Powers and the Separation of Powers is by the Library of Congress expert in this area, Louis Fisher, in testimony he gave to Congress in January 2007. It should have been made much of at the time. It is a comprehensive summary, and includes what might be called the legislative intent of the Framers, for Madison, Jefferson, and others are quoted on their view of the War Powers, and who is to possess them, for what purposes. But apparently not everyone attended that hearing, or their aides failed to pass on to them Louis Fisher's detailed report, and no one -- not a single Democratic candidate, for example -- discussed Fisher's analysis. More inattention, more laziness.
And along with that, there is the timidity of the Democrats, their retreat in the face of being threatened as "disloyal" or "appeasers." But the war in Iraq is a war of appeasement. It is a war based on the notion that Islam itself is no threat, Islam itself can be "appeased" by Western actions, Islam itself only needs a dose of old-fashioned American "democracy" -- brought to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, by the long-suffering American troops, now virtually alone (a few thousand British troops, and a handful of others from small countries, each offering its Pentagon-extracted mite, to allow the Administration to keep talking, crazily, about some "Coalition") and just as the participation of various countries has helped bring down their otherwise very helpful governments, as with the regime of Aznar (and Gustavo de Aristegui) in Spain, and soon, possibly, the government of Howard in Australia will also fall because it insists on keeping troops in Iraq, and that government, full of people who appear to have a good sense of the menace of Islam, yet has tied its fortunes to the Iraq venture, when Australia too, an important ally, should not be clinging to Bush clinging to Tarbaby Iraq, but should pull back, see that the Iraq venture is pure stubborn folly, and the attainment (impossible in any case) of stated American goals in Iraq would not weaken, but strengthen, the Camp of Islam.
But the Democrats do not attack Bush's conduct of the "war on terror" in the right way. They do not say it is not intelligent enough, not ruthless enough, not farseeing enough, not based on a desire to exploit pre-existing fissures within the enemy camp. They do not use the word "Jihad." They do not refer to the ideology of Islam. They do not use the word "dhimmi." None of the Democratic candidates appear to think they need change the mixture as before, none of them have said that in the last six years it has become necessary to study Islam and the "threat of Jihad" and therefore the need to conduct an "intelligent war of self-defense, world-wide, against all those who are enrolled in the army of Jihad." (Yes, leave it thus: "enrolled in the army of Jihad." That will do the trick.)
Furthermore, the resolution about the Armenian genocide was not some kind of clever trick, designed to deliberately cut off supply routes from Turkey. In fact, everyone in Washington was surprised by the behavior of Turkey in March 2003, when it prevented the Americans from entering Iraq with a fourth division from the north. Bush was surprised, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were surprised. No one understood the nature of Turkey as an "ally," everyone thought Turkey would remain just as stoutly allied, under Erdogan, as it once was, during the Cold War, when Turkey was happy to take part, and be lavishly rewarded for taking part, in a war that could be seen as against not so much against Communism as against Turkey's historic enemy, Russia. Everyone thought that Turkey could remain unaffected by Islam. But Islam came back, or never really went away, and it is back in Turkey with a vengeance. Those who served as agents of Turkey just a few years ago --Richard Perle for example, who also introduced Erdogan at an A.E.I. event a few years ago, thus helping to legitimate him -- knew all about the Russians and Communism, but were old dogs who could not learn new tricks, and never studied Islam comme il faut, never studied the insecure position of Kemalism, and merely assumed that the Turkey they knew, from the kind of Turks they met in the Turkish Defense Ministry in Ankara, represented the "real" Turkey, nor did they realize that even behind that "real" Turkey there was something else, something that still lay in wait for those secularist Turks who assumed they could continue to control things: Islam.
As Youssef Ibrahim wrote in New York Sun, this episode shows us what Turkey is all about. It shows us that the replacement theology of Ataturk (for Muhammad) and of "the Turks" as the best of peoples (replacing the Arabs in Islam), offered a veneer, but that veneer is now peeling off, and the hysterical reaction of the Turkish people and state to this resolution shows just how thin is that "alliance" and of what little use Turkey is now, or can be as a member of NATO, if the new main enemy of NATO -- Islam's Jihad, and all of the instruments of that Jihad (Money Weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest) -- are intelligently recognized, and the ways to render them less potent and dangerous are to be discussed at NATO meetings. This can only be accomplished without Turkey as a member, for its presence can only inhibit candid discussion and intelligent planning, and the time for such discussion and such planning is now.
Dani Dayan: End The Farce, Annex Population Centers In Judea And Samaria
Preliminary comment: One objection to such annexation is it impliedly concedes that the Arabs should have full control over some territory in Judea and Samaria. Why? Why should any of that territory set aside in Western Palestine by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, especially given that all of Eastern Palestine was given to the Arabs, in defiance of the League's intentions, by Great Britain, be conceded to the local Arabs. All of the territroy in what the Jordanians renamed the "West Bank" should should have been swiftly, without any qualms, been annexed swiftly in June 1967. This, and negligently permitting the birth and then growth of that monstrous fiction, the "Palestinian people," are the two most colossal failures in the history of modern Israel. Dani Dayan does not go far enough; he apparently thinks that large parts of Judea and Samaria should be left to Arab sovereignty.
No. They should be allowed, within the State of Israel, to possess as much autonomy as is consistent with Israeli security. That is the correct formula. And once the government of Israel, and its many articulate supporters, start talking about what Islam inculcates, and about the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, and offer up as supporting evidence a long history of betrayal and breach by the Muslim Arabs (the Americans, now feeling the sting of betrayal by the Shi'a Arabs they rescued, at such great cost of all kinds, in Iraq, and the beyond-words meretriciousness of Muslim Pakistan, and the display by Egyptian Muslims, including murderous members of the army that the Americans have supported with tens of billiions of dollars, and all the other examples of a failure to grasp the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims, both outside and within Muslim countries, are at long last able to understand Israel's permanent plight, its living with its back perennially against the wall, for the Jihad against it has no end).
Once that is done, then all properly informed people -- save for the antisemities, who can never be expected to change their attitude toward Israel even if they dimly recognize, somehow, that their own fates are tied to whether Israel withstands, or succumbs, to the Jihad (what, for example, would be the condition of Jerusalem, and how would Muslims treat Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, given a triumphant Islam, having dispatched Israel, would be unlikely to wish to treat the Christians with anything but supreme contempt and open hostility)-- will support Israel's holding onto the territory it now possesses, as essential for its deterrent power. And deterrence, and Arab invocation of Darura, or necessity, is the only way to prevent another go-round of open warfare between Israel and its permanent Muslim enemies.
Here is Dani Dayan's piece;
No to statehood, yes to annexation
10/15/2011 By DANI DAYAN
The peace process is stuck, it is time for Israel to protect its citizens and interests by annexing its population centers in Judea and Samaria. [the "peace process" is not "stuck" because there is no "peace process" but, rather, an attempt by the Arabs to push Israel back through all possible means, including possibly a "treaty" that would be regarded as immediately to be breached, as Muhammad, the Great Exemplar, the Model of Conduct and the Perfect Man, would have wanted. This is clear to all those who have studied Islam. It is, therefore, entirely unclear to most of the people in the Western world who make policy about the Middle East, and most of the people who, like the egregious Friedmans and Kristofs, presume to dictate to Israel on the self-righteous theory, and a maddening one as it comes out of unshakeable ignorance, that they are "saving Israel in spite of itself.]
Photo by: Avi Katz
For months, the diplomatic events known by the buzzword “September” were described as an impending crisis.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. First and foremost, the Palestinian appeal to the UN presents Israel with an opportunity: an opportunity to put an end, once and for all, to the charade that has been continuing for 18 years, ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords. It is that charade which has kept us from achieving any progress in our relationships with the Palestinians.
Ever since Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat signed that pathetic agreement that was composed in secret in the Norwegian capital, the entire world has been playing a game of pretend. At the beginning, the game was innocent, like children who really do believe that they are creating a new world. But over the past few years, the game has turned cynical, as everyone knows that the game serves no purpose, but no one has been able to stop playing the game.
The Oslo Accords, the Road Map, the diplomatic process, two states for two peoples – all of these are synonyms for a situation that can never lead to an agreement or to peace. Then-prime minister Ehud Barak’s offers at Camp David, the Clinton parameters in Washington, former prime minister Ehud Olmert’s promises in Jerusalem – none of these have produced any agreements.
There’s always some retrospective explanation as to why nothing works. Yet the simple, obvious and correct explanation is pushed aside: The Israeli minimum and the Palestinian minimum simply do not overlap. When a mathematician encounters this type of equation, he may feel very frustrated, but he knows that even years of attempts will not bring him any solutions. It’s a waste of his time.
There is no solution to the system of equations in the Middle East, partly because the Palestinians will never give up the return of the refugees and because the Jews will never give up the Temple Mount, but primarily because the Palestinians want to establish a state without putting an end to the conflict. They want their state (like the Palestinian state in Gaza that has been in existence for some six years) to serve as a spring board for the ongoing destruction of the State of Israel.
The crude and highly publicized participation of Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi in the Palestinian delegation to the UN highlights just this point: the Palestinian state will act as the guardian of the Israeli Arabs and in their name, it will demand national – and not merely civil or personal – rights for Israeli Arabs.
To his credit, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands the situation and he made this clear at the UN General Assembly. He stated decisively and in fluent English that the Palestinians want to establish a state without peace. But, unfortunately, he did not reach the correct conclusion. Inviting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to meet with him immediately while they were both at the UN , or in Jerusalem or in Ramallah, was unnecessary.
Why bother? Why waste more years in fruitless discussions or in useless negotiations that merely provide income for the owners of five-star hotels and conference centers throughout the world? Why continue a process that has brought nothing but frustration and humiliation to US president after president? In the current constellation, the diplomatic process is not only useless – it’s counterproductive. If Israel, the Palestinians and the world were to free themselves from their obsession with the impossible and were to devote their energies and funds to the possible, both the Jews and the Palestinians would benefit. The refugee camps, for example, could be rebuilt.
If we could finally put an end to this unnecessary charade, if we could only admit the simple fact, which we all know in our hearts to be true – that there will not be a Palestinian state – then we would be left with three possibilities. The first – a unilateral Israeli withdrawal and tossing the keys to whoever catches them – died with disengagement. Any reasonable Israeli understands that this would mean suicide for Israel. The second – maintaining and enforcing the current status quo – is a possibility. In contrast to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s contentions that the status quo is not sustainable, the status quo could become, to use terminology taken from games theory, a stable equilibrium. But this would not be optimal for Israel.
In the final analysis, the Israeli interest and the interests of the entire region will best be served if Netanyahu takes the same action that his predecessor, Menachem Begin, took 30 years ago with regard to the Golan Heights. When Begin realized that there was no chance for an agreement with Syria, he decided that the Golan Heights would cease to be captive to Arab intransigence and extended Israeli law over them.
In short, option three is annexation. The area referred to as “Area C” in the Oslo Accords, the home of more than 350,000 Israelis and to only some 50,000 Palestinians, must become an integral part of the State of Israel.
There are times when Israel must take its fate into its own hands, even if this flies in the face of world public opinion. That is what David Ben-Gurion did when he declared the establishment of the State of Israel. That is what Levi Eshkol did when he decided on a preemptive strike in 1967. That is what Begin did when he destroyed the Iraqi atomic reactor.
That is what Benjamin Netanyahu must do now: He must extend Israeli sovereignty over most of Judea and Samaria.
Dani Dayan is chairman of the Judea and Samaria Council of Settlements.