WORLD NEWS TREND

Hana Levi Julian

The Homesh First activist organization bluntly denied a Palestinian Authority accusation Sunday that Jewish rights activists were behind the killing of a 19-year-old Bedouin shepherd in Samaria. Yihya Atta Bani Minya, a resident of the Jordan Valley town of Aqrabeh, was discovered shot to death Saturday night near the Jewish community of Gitit, also located in the Jordan Valley. His body was taken to the Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine in south Tel Aviv for further examination to determine the exact cause of death.

Police said it was difficult to determine the time and place of death, inasmuch as there were no signs of gunshots or spent bullet cartridges found in the area.

The PA government official responsible for the Shechem region, Ghassan Dajlas, told reporters that Bani Minya had been shot “execution style,” more than 20 times at point-blank range.

He also claimed that two Arab teens saw a white car “belonging to settlers” chasing Bani Minya late Saturday, and then heard shots.

The Homesh First activist group denied the PA Arab claims that “Jewish settlers” were the ones who shot and killed the Bedouin shepherd. The group’s members work to rebuild the northern Samaria Jewish community of Homesh, which was destroyed in the Disengagement of 2005.

In a somewhat bitter statement issued by the group, Homesh First declared causticly, “There is ‘no doubt’ that all ’settlers’ are responsible for the murder in the Valley. There is also ‘no doubt’ that all settlers planted the pipe bomb on Prof. Sternhell’s front door.”

Professor Ze’ev Sternhell was wounded last Thursday when a pipe bomb exploded at his front door as he was locking his gate in the wee hours of the morning. The 73-year-old Hebrew University political science academician, who was a winner of the Israel Prize, had received threats due to statements he had made which some people said appeared to legitimize terrorism. Political leaders across the spectrum condemned the attack. Left-wing extremists blamed the attack on rights activists in Judea and Samaria.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert referred to the attack Sunday at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting, saying that “an evil streak of radicalism, malice, hatred and disregard of State law is threatening Israeli democracy. One cannot help but see the resemblance between the murder of Emil Greenzweig (an extreme-left Peace Now activist who was killed in 1983 during a political march in Jerusalem –ed.), the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and the attack on the professor,” said Olmert.

“We will also take responsibility for all the Christian children who disappeared last Passover,” Homesh First continued in its statement. The reference was to the ancient anti-Semitic tradition of blood libels which accuse Jews of murdering Christian children in order to use their blood to prepare Passover matzoh.

“There is no need to believe every ridiculous accusation of the Palestinians,” the group concluded bluntly.

Hillel Fendel

In an exclusive New Year’s interview with Arutz-7, Netanyahu says the issue is “not how much of the Land of Israel we want, but how much the present government wants to give away.” Netanyahu, the leader of the Opposition in the Knesset and of the Likud Party, is currently overwhelmingly favored to win Israel’s next national elections - which could be held anytime between January 2009 and November 2010.

Who Really Attacked Sternhell?
Speaking with Uzi Baruch and Chizky Ezra of Arutz-7’s Hebrew newsmagazine on the eve of the Rosh HaShanah holiday, Netanyahu related to several issues on the public agenda. He strongly condemned the attack on radical left-wing Prof. Ze’ev Shternhell late last week, but said it is not clear who perpetrated it.

“It is now clear to anyone who considers himself a ‘State of Israel lover,’ and not just a ‘Land of Israel lover,’ that if we give away more territory, it will be taken over by Iran and its appendages.”

“The attack was criminal and dangerous,” Netanyahu said, “and those responsible must be put behind bars.” However, he added, “there are two dangers to democracy, both of which are present in this case: The use of violence to impose opinions, and the delegitimization of the opponent in order to suppress his freedom of speech - i.e., the attempt here to attribute this attack to the law-abiding public of the residents [and supporters] of Judea and Samaria.”

Greater Land of Israel
Netanyahu was asked about Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s recent eulogizing of the vision of the Greater Land of Israel. Olmert said at a Cabinet meeting two weeks ago, “The notion of a Greater Israel no longer exists, and anyone who still believes in it is deluding himself… I’ve come to realize that we have to share this land with the people who dwell here, if we don’t want to be a binational state.”

Netanyahu’s response: “The real debate is not about the Greater Land of Israel, but rather the little Land of Israel in which the Prime Minister and his people want to leave us. We’re not talking now about annexing Ramallah, but rather the fate of the Jordan Valley. That’s what the debate is about - about the abandonment of areas with no Palestinian presence. They [Olmert, Livni, et al - ed.] want to give up as much as possible, and we want to retain as much as possible in areas that are saturated with both historic significance and security significance for us.”

Giving Away Territory
“Today, in light of our abandonment of Gaza and the Hamas takeover there, it is clear to anyone who considers himself a ‘State of Israel lover,’ and not just a ‘Land of Israel lover,’ that if we give away more territory, it will be taken over by Iran and its appendages.”

“The retreat from Gush Katif turned the Gaza Strip into an Iranian base,” Netanyahu stated.

Reminded of the diplomatic processes he advanced with the Palestinian Authority when he was Prime Minister ten years ago - including the signing of the Hevron and Wye Plantation agreements - Netanyahu noted the difference between his approach and that of the present government: “Before I took office, the conception was to give away everything except for 2% [of Judea and Samaria], while I turned everything around and gave just 2% to [full control of] the Palestinian Authority.” He also gave additional percentages to Palestinian administrative control, while retaining Israeli military control - territory known in the Oslo Accords as Area B.

“Give - Get; Don’t Give - Don’t Get”
“I institutionalized the concept of reciprocity,” Netanyahu said - referring to the concept known as, ‘If they give, they’ll get; if they don’t give, they won’t get’ - “and without uprooting one Jew from his home. I halted the process of giving away land by demanding reciprocity. I did not destroy or evacuate any community, and no one had to leave his home when I was Prime Minister.”
“I don’t understand why natural growth is acceptable in Arab towns, but not for Jewish towns. There’s no reason why the existing communities should not be allowed to develop.”

“If I am elected Prime Minister,” he said, “I will not volunteer concessions and the removal of Jewish communities.”

Speaking with the Hebrew news site Walla, Netanyahu added, “I don’t understand why natural growth is acceptable in Arab towns, but not for Jewish towns. There’s no reason why the existing communities should not be allowed to develop.”

Whither the Likud?
The recent addition to the Likud, with Netanyahu’s enthusiastic blessing, of personalities whose opinions are not quite nationalist or right-wing, such as gen. (ret.) Uzi Dayan and former Police Commissioner Assaf Chefetz, has aroused some concern over the direction Netanyahu is taking the party. He told Arutz-7 that their joining does not prove the party is going leftward: “Perhaps they changed their ideas in the wake of Kadima’s failures… Don’t forget that they came to us; we didn’t bring them… The Likud’s political and economic approach has proven itself in the eyes of people like them, and that’s why they found their way to us.”

Be Firm!
Without getting into details, Netanyahu says Israel must be very firm in its contacts with the Palestinian Authority, both militarily and diplomatically: “Peace is made with an enemy,” he said, quoting a left-wing motto, “but he must stop being your enemy - and even then, the negotiations must be handled with firmness. Today we have no partner who will obligate himself to take action. The other side must recognize not only Israel’s existence, but also our right to exist, and must impose this recognition on his countrymen. These conditions do not currently exist, and therefore all the arguments are sterile.”

“The only relevant option at present is ‘economic peace,’” Netanyahu told Walla, “and afterwards, if it works, we can consider diplomatic options.”

‘The Public Must Choose’
Arutz-7’s Baruch and Ezra asked him about his immediate political plans, and he responded that he has absolutely no intention of joining a government headed by Kadima and its leader, former Likud member Tzipi Livni: “The Livni government will be a continuation of the Olmert government, which has agreed to divide Jerusalem and return, more or less, to the pre-1967 borders. We will present an alternative, and the public will have to choose between two different paths. I believe that the nation will choose us, and then we will form a government including all those who wish to join.”

Netanyahu added to Walla that it would be better “to end the government instability now and go to new elections quickly, instead of dragging it out for six or twelve months.”

Dinesh D’Souza
Monday, September 29, 2008

In his debate with John McCain, Barack Obama’s attempted to portray the Bush administration as a complete failure both in domestic and foreign policy. This argument, however, is running into one big problem: Bush’s Iraq policy appears to be succeeding. How embarrassing! Well, at least the Democrats can try to make sure that no one finds out about this. Obama attempted to change the subject by saying that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the central front of the war on terror. But Afghanistan was merely the launching pad for 9/11. The terrorists went to Afghanistan because they got rent-free terrorist training facilities. None of the hijackers or their planners actually came from Afghanistan. Every single one of them was from the Middle East, mostly Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Moreover, Afghanistan has only minor strategic significance compared to Iraq. Iraq’s neighbors include Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Islamic radicals, who have controlled Iran for a generation, fully understand the importance of winning a second major state in the Middle East. With Iran and Iraq in their control, they can then turn their sights to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. No wonder Bin Laden and his associates have declared Iraq the central front of the war on terror, the launching pad for a new world war. Obama, by contrast, still regards the Taliban as the vanguard of global jihad. This shows Obama as being both naïve and out of date.

During his foreign trip a few weeks ago, Obama tried to take advantage of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s statement that America should work out a withdrawal plan for Iraq. Obama triumphantly declared that now is the time for Iraqis to work out their own destiny. Obama failed to mention, however, that if he had been president, Iraq would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein. The only destiny that Obama would have consigned Iraq to is oppression, torture, and mass graves.

To understand what is going on in Iraq, we must distinguish between two approaches: the Bush doctrine and the Reagan doctrine. Unlike the Bush doctrine–which seemed to require invasion and occupation–the Reagan doctrine was one of assisted non-intervention. Reagan believed that people in foreign countries should fight for their own freedom. We do not fight for them. But if they are willing to fight, we are willing to help. And so in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Angola and to some extent in Ethiopia, Reagan supported rebels who sought liberation from Marxist tyranny. For intance, Reagan supplied Stinger missiles to the Afghani mujaheedin who were fighting to repel the Soviet invasion of that country. Reagan did not, however, send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan.

Now in Bush’s defense it should be said that the Reagan doctrine could not have worked in Iraq. Unlike in Afghanistan, which the mujaheedin turned into a Soviet “bleeding wound,” there was no Iraqi resistance that could substantially threaten Saddam Hussein. Bush’s choice was either for America to get rid of Hussein, or to leave Hussein in power. But from the beginning the administration understood that, even in Iraq, over time the Bush doctrine must metamorphose into the Reagan doctrine.

It has taken longer than expected. But that’s because Saddam’s Baathist minority–let’s call them the Saddamites–ran not only the government but the entire society. So it has been quite a process to train a Shia elected government to learn to govern a nation in which they were victimized for a quarter century. Slowly, however, the Iraqis have been rising to the task, assisted by able U.S. forces under the competent leadership of General Petraeus.

So now, finally, Iraqis are getting to the position where they can defend their own country and fight for their own freedom. This is what “success” means in Iraq: not the end of the insurgency, or the end of terrorism, but a situation in which Iraqis take the helm and America moves into a supporting role. Of course America is going to get out of Iraq. The only question is whether we will leave recklessly, precipitously, with the risk of escalating violence and chaos and perhaps even a return of the Saddamites. This seems to be the approach the Obama Democrats want. The other option is to leave cautiously, deliberately, in a way that leaves Iraq a self-governing society, the only pro-American Muslim democracy in the Middle East.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Syria, once considered one of region’s most stable states, increasingly vulnerable

Ronen Bergman
Israel Opinion

A car bomb blast in south Beirut on December 22, 1994 killed Fouad Mugniyah, Imad Mugniyah’s brother. Three other people were killed in the explosion. At least 15 people sustained serious wounds. mad Mugniyah, who thought that the fact someone bothered to kill his brother was suspicious, did not show up at the funeral. In Lebanon, the killing was attributed to Israel, which according to foreign sources hoped to kill Imad Mugniyah during the funeral.

Terror in Damascus
Syrian FM: Israel has most to gain from terror attack / Roee Nahmias
Walid Muallem says car bomb which killed 17 people does not indicate a security breach and could have happened anywhere. ‘Unfortunately, in the years following the American war on terror, terror has spread even further,’ he adds

One thing is certain: There is no dull moment for our northern neighbor. It turns out that the state once considered one of the most stable in the Middle East – where leaders always made sure to respond aggressively to any display of opposition, and where streets are replete with secret agents – is particularly vulnerable. And so, President Bashar Assad is losing more and more points in Arab and international public opinion and is being portrayed as someone unable to control developments on his own turf.

So who could have been behind the explosion? On the face of it, this appears to be some kind of mishap or work accident, as according to the reports at least it doesn’t seem like the blast was not aimed at a specific target. If we are indeed dealing with an accident, it might be a Syrian shipment (to Hizbullah, for example) that was handled negligently. This is a problematic assumption as there is no information about arms or ammunition depots in that area.

Syrian opposition sources claim this was a work accident by Syrian security authorities. They argue that the branch specializing in building car bombs packed the vehicle with explosives, but the car blew up because of a technical mishap en route to its destination.

Is al-Qaeda involved?

Various Arab sources immediately blamed Israel’s Mossad. On the face of it, this appears to be no more than a conditioned reflex. At the same time, the area where the explosion took place is a hub of Iranian activity: It is home to offices of Iranian agencies and organizations, including intelligence elements from Tehran.

Iran’s intelligence in Damascus is of immense importance, as it is responsible for part of the coordination with Hizbullah. We can assume that had Israeli intelligence paid attention to what goes on in Damascus, this area would merit special attention.

Another possibility is that this was an act perpetrated by Lebanese elements that object to the ongoing Syrian involvement in their country, despite the seeming withdrawal. A conspiracy theory presented on a global Jihad forum Saturday suggested that the Syrian government carried out the bombing in order to justify a Syrian operation in Lebanon against Syria’s rivals.

Yet another possibility is that we are dealing with a Syrian opposition group that sought to embarrass the regime or kill someone specific.

Who else may be behind the blast? The news of the latest blow to Assad’s prestige prompted great joy on websites affiliated with al-Qaeda that are very hostile to the regime in Damascus. Al-Qaeda has already proven its operational capabilities in the Syrian capital when it attempted to target the American embassy there in 2006.

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that it took Damascus a year to recover from the demolition of its plutonium project at El Kibar in northern Syria, but already the nuclear scientists and technicians who were to have been employed there have been hired for new projects. This time the installations are scattered in different parts of the country. North Korean nuclear experts are back too.

Our military sources describe rising tension between Syria and Israel in the wake of the car bomb explosion Saturday, Sept. 27, which killed 17 people and injured 14 outside a Syrian security installation at Sidi Kadad on the highway to Damascus airport. The victims were not officially identified.

Various Arab sources report that one was a Syrian brigadier who was not named. After the attack, DEBKAfile’s sources raised the possibility that it might have targeted people involved in Iranian/Syrian nuclear activity.

Damascus has been wary of accusing Israel of engineering the blast, but unofficial Syrian intelligence sources have indirectly pointed the finger at Israel claiming it was an attempt to spoil Syria’s improving relations with the West.

Western intelligence sources note that Syria has been hit in the past year with attacks associated with its clandestine nuclear activities.

The El Kibar reactor was knocked out on Sept. 6, 2007 while it was under construction. On Aug. 2, 2008, Gen. Muhammad Suleiman was shot dead by a sniper in Latakia. He was a key man in the Syrian nuclear program and acted as liaison officer for Damascus with Iran and North Korea.

If Saturday’s blast did indeed cause the death of a high Syrian officer involved in the program, it would have been the third consecutive operation against Damascus’ revived application to clandestine nuclear projects.

Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Alawsat

It appears that Mr. Nabih Berri is trying to shine the media spotlight on questions surrounding Saudi aid for the state of Lebanon, particularly the aid Riyadh gave to the Lebanese people after the July 2006 War against Israeli courtesy of Hezbollah. Mr. Berri claims that Saudi money has been withheld from Southern Lebanon, and instead was distributed in other areas, forcing the Information Office of the Lebanese Prime Minister to respond and correct Mr. Berri by quoting accurate official figures.

Let’s be clear, Saudi funds have gone to those who need it most, and not to media agencies engineering propaganda campaigns to humiliate the Lebanese. It’s strange that Mr. Berri is so concerned about Saudi aid, especially when you consider the words of his ally Hassan Nasrallah’s during the 2006 war when he stated ‘We do not need your money’ because we have secured ‘pure money’!

Despite all of this, Saudi aid went to villages in Southern Lebanon, as well as other areas that required it; this was explained clearly in a detailed report to the Lebanese government two days ago. There are two issues surrounding Mr. Berri’s claim that deserve to be discussed further. Firstly, it is normal for Saudi aid to Lebanon to be misrepresented in this manner for the simple reason that Saudi money goes to those who need it most, and not, as I said before, to the media, and certainly not on political poster campaigns in Beirut and its suburbs.

Mr. Berri claims that Kingdom withheld funds to Southern Lebanon, but in reality Saudi funds have been used to rebuild 220 villages out of 323 villages in all of Lebanon, and not just the ‘five villages more or less’ which he claims. And not to mention the funds used for building bridges and roads, in addition to Saudi Arabia fulfilling its normal international obligations to the country.

And remember this aid was delivered swiftly and without delay, since it did not have to pass Hassan Nasrallah’s “purity” test.

The Saudi aid is sincere, and has been from day one, for the support of all of Lebanon, there are those who believe the propaganda, and this is nothing but a pipe dream, and when we discuss this so-called ‘pure money’ bear in mind that the most that can come of it are buildings no stronger than a spider’s web.

The second issue regarding Mr. Nabih Berri’s claim that Saudi aid is being redirected from Southern Lebanon to other areas, which implies that the Lebanese government itself is preventing aid reaching the Shiites in the South, to the benefit of the Sunnis.

This particular conclusion is an attack on the ‘Sunni’ Lebanese government, and portrays Saudi Arabia as helping one sect at the expense of another, instead of helping Lebanon as a whole. This is a fabrication! Since the Taif agreement Riyadh has been even-handed with all sects, treating them equally, even those who, in my opinion, do not deserve it, particularly the Iranian Hezbollah!

When the late Prime Minister Rafik Al Hariri had good relations with Hezbollah before his assassination, Saudi Arabia neither blamed nor boycotted his administration, because it was eager for the unity of all of Lebanon. Of course Riyadh and Mr. Berri find themselves taking different positions on this issue, since Mr. Berri believes the “opposition” has a right to receive external support, and by this of course he means Iran’s support of Hezbollah.

And why not? Nasrallah is proud of his connection to the Iranian Wilayat Al Faqih!

The real wonder in all this are those who are critical of the Lebanese government’s distribution of foreign aid, but ignore the adventurers responsible for the death toll of 1200 Lebanese and five billion dollars in damages!

Al Jazeera is asking a global panel for their thoughts on the US presidential election and on the two candidates, Barack Obama, the Democratic hopeful, and his Republican rival, John McCain.

This week, with the first presidential debate between the two men dominated by foreign policy, we asked people how they thought each candidate performed and their thoughts on how the candidates’ policies would affect them. Awab Alvi, dentist, Pakistan

In recent terms Pakistan has come under an extensive scrutiny and was important enough to come into discussion during the first presidential debate.

McCain kicked off by offering a more soft and understandable approach. He suggested taking the people of Pakistan into confidence on the “war on terror” and moving forward hand-in-hand to eradicate the menace of terrorism.

“We’ve got to get the support of the people of Pakistan … he [Obama] said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan,” he said.

Obama quickly reacted: “Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. If the United States has al-Qaeda, bin Laden [and] top-level lieutenants in our sights - and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act - then we should take them out.”

McCain is definitely on the right track to talk about confidence building measures with the people of Pakistan, which at the moment is at its lowest in ages, but contrary to what he suggests, Bush administration has repeatedly failed to do exactly that in eight years, for which he must also accept responsibility.

Might we suspect these to be glamourous words just to win an election? I hope not, but eight years of uselessness will not salvage a sinking boat.

Committed to change?

Pakistan is at the centre of the US
“war on terror” [GALLO/GETTY]
Senator Obama on the other hand seems more committed to change, he suggests a strong hand to remove the terrormongers once in for all.

It took the Americans a few months to hunt down Saddam Hussein, but it’s been seven years and the mountains in Afghanistan have yet to cough up Osama Bin Ladin and his deputies only to now have them hiding in Pakistan.

If this was not gross mismanagement then I wonder what is.

It was good to see Obama lash out at McCain for supporting a dictator in Pakistan, saying “We had a 20th century mindset that said ‘well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator’ and as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan.”

McCain responded “I don’t think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when [former president Pervez] Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.”

This was a very lame response by McCain, as it definitely displayed the failures in the Bush administrations, failure to gauge the problem and the wrong decision to support the wrong individuals.

They continued to fork over billions of dollars without proper accountability and supported ‘their friend’ till he coughed up his last breath and succumbed to democracy.

No clear ‘victor’

I must admit that apart from picking apart a few statements from within the debate, I do not come forth with a clear victor in regards to the issues of Pakistan.

Only in an attempt to bring this presidential debate into a wider perspective for the people in Pakistan, one just feels there is a desperate need for change.

Pakistan stands at a fork in the road. If the same old policies are followed, with the same blind-sighted relationship maintained with crooks and dictators running our country, the menacing war on terror will only get worse.

Obama represents a fresh change, as per my neutral review of the debate, it is my understanding that if they both support approximately the same line of action for Pakistan, I would carefully put my eggs into Obama’s basket.

He talks with more commitment to the challenges ahead while simultaneously suggesting a “tough guy” approach on Pakistan.

Marco Arnez Cuellar, media producer, Bolivia

The first presidential debate showed no substantial changes in foreign policy beyond the expected.

Among disagreements about insurance, taxes policies, and other domestic issues, candidates showed the structural orthodoxies of American foreign policy.

Indeed, they skipped talk about Latin America. Since there is a financial crisis, and current South American governments are becoming more independent from Washington policies, it challenges United States (US) to deal with a changing context.

Morally, US foreign policy is compelled to shift from an open interventionist approach to a more dialogical, negotiated and diplomatic strategy, as suggested by Obama.

On the other hand, Senator McCain focused on strength security trough UN Security Council, and promoting the continuity of many foreign policies.

Shift to left

Not surprisingly, both candidates lack real change proposals. Since the US pretends to head worldwide politics, we can see only conservative reforms without changing the mainstream of its politics and economy.

“Since Latin America is shifting to the left, candidates must show themselves to be skillful to face this new scenario”

Marco Arnez Cuellar
I think neither McCain nor Obama are looking forward to readdress foreign affairs.

The US leadership consists of establishing relationships with worldwide democracies, but also defining what “democracy” is.

Ironically, a humourist said once: “The US is the main supporter of our current democracies …. as much as of our former dictatorships”

It is possible to foresee that after election the US new government will continue focussing on the main issues that ensures the preservation of power relationships over Latin America: terrorism, dugs control, immigration and trade.

But, since Latin America is shifting to the left, candidates must show themselves to be skillful to face this new scenario.

Indeed, US authority in economy is being challenged due to the breakdown of financial system.

Some Latin American governments as Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, have shown themselves as irreverent towards US policies.

The emergence of UNASUR (South American Nations Union) and the predictable end of unipolarity threats the historical leadership of the US.

I think what is looming is a conflictive scenario in foreign policy between United States and Latin America until the Washington government changes its paternalistic attitude to the world.

Mahardhika Sadjad, 22, student, Indonesia

I believe that there are two important issues that need to be addressed by America’s upcoming president.

The first is the fact non-state actors are playing a larger role in international affairs and thus, America must be able to embrace popular support, not only from governments, but also from individuals and groups around the world.

The next candidate must be the candidate with whom the world can relate to, and who can in return relate to the world.

In an interview with Time Obama said: “I work from a basis that there are some universal hopes and dreams and fear that people carry with them … we’ve got to be honest and mindful of the fact that different countries have different cultural histories.”

A ‘different face’

To many Indonesians who feel that the Western world has often imposed what it believes must be universal values, Obama’s background represents a face of America that acknowledges diversity and tolerates existing differences.

Second of all, the US’s unilateral actions during the “war on terror” have created doubts regarding US willingness to co-operate for a common interest.

Obama has fans in Indonesia, where
he lived as a child
Obama also represents a US that believes in diplomacy and multilateralism, two aspects missing in current US foreign policies.

As he emphasised during the presidential debate, Obama believes that we cannot deal with terrorism or rogue nations by attacking other states.

His view that the US needs to focus on diplomacy to raise support for better co-operation is a view that many all over the world share.

McCain on the other hand during the debate, when stating his views on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, expressed his belief that the US should continue to display its hard power with the hope that potential allies will follow suit.

Unlike Obama, McCain represents the current administration, and not the maverick he proclaims to be.

For too long, we have seen the US grasping on to a double standard when talking about democracy, peace and co-operation.

I believe the US needs to start listening to what the rest of the world has to say.

The US also needs to understand that while it has extensive influence across the globe, this also means that its interests can be affected by the changes from other places.

Lina Ejeilat, 24, student, Jordan/New York City

It doesn’t matter who the next president is; their policy towards the Middle East will be the same.

This was the comment I heard often in Amman months ago, when the wave of Obamamania was beginning to reside and the excitement of the primary season was beginning to wear off.

The unchanging policy towards the Middle East generally means unwavering support for Israel. That issue undoubtedly remains a key concern for many people in the Arab World.

I was a little child when I began hearing about the “lobby” and understanding that the US is always biased towards Israel. And even though I was often annoyed by conspiracy theorists and cynics, I often found that their arguments are not entirely unfounded.

Few ‘concrete answers’

I was not blown away by the performance of either, although everyone is saying that Obama did better overall.

“I realised that whether we like it or not, everything the US does affects the rest of the world tremendously”

Lina Ejeilat
It took some time before they finally started addressing each other directly and delivering more concrete answers on issues.

I liked what Obama said about the importance of improving things at home, giving people better education, better health insurance, and a stronger economy.

Obama was continuously focused on the American middle class even in a debate about foreign policy, and ultimately, it’s all connected.

You can’t but grow tired of McCain’s statements like “I know how to heal the wounds of war.”

Being here for the past two months got me thinking about things I didn’t pay attention to before - I started thinking about all the money the US government gives to my country and many others in aid while the US economy is crumbling down.

I was also thinking of how quick we were in Jordan to adopt the US business and financial model, and how scary it is to think of its proven flaws and their impacts.

Most importantly though, I realised that whether we like it or not, everything the US does affects the rest of the world tremendously.

We cannot say all US presidents will be the same for the Arab world because there’s a lot more support for Israel that tips the balance.

For someone like me, even though I’m increasingly interested in how domestic politics here are handled, I guess the most relevant aspects of what was said were inevitably the Iraq-related points, the attitude towards Iran, and oil.

I’m not sure Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan is in the best interest of the region at this point, I’m also not sure how to feel about Iran’s growing influence and his approach to it, but I think Obama can do the US image in the world a lot of good at this point.

Dhimmi Watch

Robert Davis’ book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 has actually been out for several years, but I keep getting sent the press release below about it, and since it contains valuable information that is largely forgotten amid all the historical whitewash, I thought it would be worth posting. I’m only sorry that Davis used the term “white slavery.” I understand that this is a common term, but it is misleading here: it must be understood that these people were enslaved because they were non-Muslims, not because they were white. The Qur’an sanctions slavery and Islam allows for the enslavement of prisoners of war, and it was under those auspices that these slaving operations were conducted.

“When Europeans Were Slaves: Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common Than Previously Believed,” from Ohio State Research, with thanks to all who sent this in:

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.

In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.

Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.

Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”

“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”

Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.

“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.

Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.

Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.

Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.

Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.

The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.

Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.

So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.

“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”

Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.

The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.

“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.

While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.

Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.

“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”

Robert Spencer

“In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?”Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem (which I hope to be attending).

The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

Written by Nick Grace & Abdiweli Ali, Ph.D.
Long War Journal

A tense standoff is underway in northeastern Somalia between pirates, Somali authorities, and Iran over a suspicious merchant vessel and its mysterious cargo. Hijacked late last month in the Gulf of Aden, the MV Iran Deyanat remains moored offshore in Somali waters and inaccessible for inspection. Its declared cargo consists of minerals and industrial products, however, Somali and regional officials directly involved in the negotiations over the ship and who spoke to The Long War Journal are convinced that it was heading to Eritrea to deliver small arms and chemical weapons to Somalia’s Islamist insurgents.

It was business as usual when speedboats surrounded the MV Iran Deyanat on August 21. The 44468 dead weight tonnage bulk carrier was pushing towards the Suez and had just entered the Gulf of Aden - dangerous waters where instability, greed and no-questions-asked ransom payments have led to a recent surge in piracy. Steaming past the Horn of Africa, 82 nautical miles southeast of al-Makalla in Yemen, the ship was a prize for the taking. It would bring hundreds of thousands of dollars - possibly millions - to the Somalia-based crime syndicate. The captain was defenseless against the 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades blocking his passage. He had little choice other than to turn his ship over to them. What the pirates were not banking on, however, was that this was no ordinary ship.

The MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) - a state-owned company run by the Iranian military that was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on September 10, shortly after the ship’s hijacking. According to the U.S. Government, the company regularly falsifies shipping documents in order to hide the identity of end users, uses generic terms to describe shipments to avoid the attention of shipping authorities, and employs the use of cover entities to circumvent United Nations sanctions to facilitate weapons proliferation for the Iranian Ministry of Defense.

The MV Iran Deyanat set sail from Nanjing, China, at the end of July and, according to its manifest, planned to travel to Rotterdam, where it would unload 42,500 tons of iron ore and “industrial products” purchased by a German client. Its arrival in the Gulf of Aden, Somali officials tell The Long War Journal, was suspiciously early. According to a publicly available status report on the IRISL Web site, the ship reached the Gulf on August 20 and was scheduled to reach the Suez Canal on August 27 - a seven day journey. “Depending on the speed of the ship,” Puntland Minister of Ports Ahmed Siad Nur said in a phone interview on Saturday, “it should take between 4 and 5 days to reach Suez.”

A hijacked bulk carrier looms in the horizon of the beach in Eyl. Photo from Garowe Online.

Suspicion has also been cast on the ship’s crew, half of which is almost entirely staffed by Iranians - a large percentage of Iranian nationals for a standard merchant vessel. Somali officials say that the ship has a crew of 29 men, including a Pakistani captain, an Iranian engineer, 13 other Iranians, 3 Indians, 2 Filipinos, and 10 Eastern Europeans, possibly Croatian.

The MV Iran Deyanat was brought to Eyl, a sleepy fishing village in northeastern Somalia, and was secured by a larger gang of pirates - 50 onboard and 50 onshore. Within days, pirates who had boarded the ship developed strange health complications, skin burns and loss of hair. Independent sources tell The Long War Journal that a number of pirates have also died. “Yes, some of them have died. I do not know exactly how many but the information that I am getting is that some of them have died,” Andrew Mwangura, Director of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Program, said Friday when reached by phone in Mombasa.

News about the illness and the toxic cargo quickly reached Garowe, seat of the government for the autonomous region of Puntland. Angered over the wave of piracy and suspicious about the Iranian ship, authorities dispatched a delegation led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman to investigate the situation on September 4. Osman also confirmed to The Long War Journal that during the six days he negotiated with the pirates members of the syndicate had become sick and died. “That ship is unusual,” he said. “It is not carrying a normal shipment.”

The delegation faced a tense situation in Eyl, Osman recounts. The syndicate had demanded a $9 million ransom for 10 ships that were in its possession and refused permission to inspect the Iranian vessel. At one point, he said, the pirates threatened to “blow up” the MV Iran Deyanat if authorities tried to inspect it with force. A committee of delegate members and Eyl city officials was formed to negotiate directly with the pirates in order to defuse the situation.

Once in direct contact, the pirates told Osman that they had attempted to inspect the ship’s seven cargo containers after they developed health complications but the containers were locked. The crew claimed that they did not have the “access codes” and could not open them. The delegation secured contact with the captain and the engineer by cell phone and demanded to know the nature of the cargo, however, Osman says that “they were saying different things to different people.” Initially they said that the cargo contained “crude oil” but then claimed it contained “minerals.”

“The secrecy is not clear to us,” Mwangura said about the cargo. “Our sources say it contains chemicals, dangerous chemicals.” IRISL has flatly denied the ship is carrying a “dangerous consignment” and has threatened legal action against Mwangura.

The syndicate set the ship’s ransom at $2 million and the Iranian government provided $200,000 to a local broker “to facilitate the exchange.” Iran refutes that it agreed to the price and has paid any money to the pirates. Nevertheless, after sanctions were applied to IRISL on September 10, Osman says, the Iranians told the pirates that the deal was off. “They told the pirates that they could not come because of the presence of the U.S. Navy.” The region is patrolled by the multinational Combined Taskforce 150, which includes ships from the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet.

In a strange twist, the Iranian press claims that the U.S. has offered to pay a $7 million bribe to the pirates to “receive entry permission and search the vessel.” Officials in the Pentagon and the Department of State approached for this story refused to comment on the situation. Somali officials would also not comment on any direct U.S. involvement but one high-level official in the Puntland government told The Long War Journal “I can say the ship is of interest to a lot of people, including Puntland.”

The exact nature of the cargo remains a mystery but officials in Puntland and Baidoa are convinced the ship was carrying weapons to Eritrea for Islamist insurgents. “We cannot inspect the cargo yet,” Osman said, “but we are sure that it is weapons.”

“Puntland requested the pirates two weeks ago to hand over this Iranian ship, saying that it is carrying weapons to Eritrea,” Puntland Fisheries Minister Abdulqadir Muse Yusuf told Reuters. “I have seen food and other odd items on the ship but I do not know what is hidden underneath.”

Iran’s involvement in the conflict in Somalia on behalf of Islamist insurgents is well documented. In 2006, Iran flouted arms embargos and provided sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), intelligence sources told The Long War Journal, including SA-7 Strella and SA-18 Igla MANPADS - shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles - as well as AT-3 Sagger antitank missiles.

A report issued by the United Nations in 2006 states that weapons were transferred to Somalia through Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which also absorbed a contingent of 700 Islamist fighters from Somalia during Hezbollah’s war with Israel. The report also states that Iran provided support for Islamist training camps inside Somalia and had sent two emissaries to negotiate with the ICU for access to Somalia’s uranium mines.