WORLD NEWS TREND

Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The Palestinian media have stepped up their “Jerusalem campaign.” The intent is to generate fear and create the perception that Jerusalem, Jerusalem’s Arab character and the Al-Aqsa mosque are threatened on personal, national and religious fronts.

The Hamas owned “Al Aqsa” TV network aired a video clip last week that showed Israelis digging under the mosque in an attempt to topple it, while the Muslim and Arab world “slumbered.” The PA under Fatah, which has also been promoting such anti-Israeli propaganda for years, has recently increased the frequency and intensity of its messages. In these messages, the PA accuses Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and “Judaizing” Jerusalem. It accuses Israel of infesting Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem with super aggressive rats, and systematically distributing addictive street drugs to Jerusalem’s Arab residents.

This campaign aims to incite religious and national fury against Israel by presenting Israel as a threat to Islam’s holy site, with plans to topple the Al-Aqsa Mosque. To accomplish this, the PA does not hesitate to use vicious terminology and libels, and recruit religious leaders to deliver inflammatory sermons.

The following statements reflect these recent recurring themes:

“Israel is building a Jewish city underground.”

[Al Hayat Al-Jadida, July 18, 2008]

Israel is “putting up a bridge that can hold hundreds of soldiers, police officers and vehicles, strategically placed to allow Israeli forces to raid the Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 20, 2008]

Israel is “stationing missile launchers in the Old City in occupied Jerusalem” for the purpose of “bombarding Al-Aqsa mosque with missiles attacks.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 1, 2008]

As a result of these accusations, calls to the Arab and Muslim public to act against Israel and against Israelis are seen as a legitimate act of self-defense. The Palestinian leadership has been calling upon men, women and even children to rally together to combat “the situation in Jerusalem, which has reached a critical point and has crossed red lines.” [PA TV, June 22, 2008]

The message is straightforward: As an Arab and a Muslim, you are under attack. Retaliating against Israelis is your religious and personal duty. You must actively defend your children and your family, and serve the Arab and Muslim nation.

It is important to note that all of the recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem, including the two bulldozer attacks and the murders at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, were committed by residents of East Jerusalem who were not sent by Hamas or Fatah. The rampant hostility in this area is therefore a major issue that should not be ignored.

The following examples from PA-controlled news outlets illustrate the various facets of the “Jerusalem campaign:”

1. Claims that Israel is a “threat to the city of Jerusalem, its residents, and the Al-Aqsa mosque;

2. Dissemination of lies and libels about Israel;

3. Claims that Israel poses a threat to Islam and to world peace;

4. Invocations to join the struggle against Israel.

1. Israel is “a threat to the city of Jerusalem, its residents and the Al-Aqsa Mosque”

“Ahmed Abu-Halbiyyah said that Israel has a strategic purpose for attacking Al-Aqsa, that is ‘to destroy the mosque and to erect a Jewish temple in its stead. This is supported by the escalated and continuous efforts to Judaize the city and to expel its residents.’”

[Palestinian Congress Member, Acting Head of the Al-Quds Committee,

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 16, 2008]

Chief Mufti: … “The Zionist mentality is founded on the idea of emptying the land of its former owners…Nabil Mashour, a lawyer who heads the Arab Orthodox Council in Jerusalem, said that the purpose of Israeli law is to Judaize Jerusalem and empty it of its [Arab] residents in order to achieve a majority of Israelis in the city, and make Jerusalem’s [Arab] residents a minority.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 25, 2008]

“Israel has been acting incessantly… to fabricate the city’s culture and history, to remove and erase the city’s Arab, Islamic, and Christian historical monuments, and to Judaize the city’s religious symbols…”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 21, 2008]

“The occupation continues to pursue the excavations until it reaches its grand and dangerous goal of destroying the mosque.”

[Secretary General of the Islamic-Christian Front,

Dr. Hassan Khater, PA TV, Aug. 17, 2008]

“The Al-Aqsa Mosque and all the archaeological artifacts, religious structures and holy sites it houses are all under a serious threat of collapse at any moment.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 18, 2008]

Headline: “Institutes and public figures in Jerusalem are warning of an ethnic cleansing campaign in the holy city.”

“Institutes and public figures in Jerusalem warned yesterday that the Occupation plans to destroy several residential buildings in Jerusalem as an interlude into a lengthy and violent war against the property of Arab residents in the villages, towns and neighborhoods in the city.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 23, 2008]

2. Libels and lies about Israel, including accusations of rat infestations, building an underground city, plans to topple Al-Aqsa Mosque, distributing addictive street drugs, issuing unlawful police reports, etc.

“… The people in Jerusalem took seriously the threats published in the Israeli media against the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the worshipers. They mentioned the rocket launchers that were brought into the Old City of occupied Jerusalem by a group of Jewish extremists, and there is a possibility that Al-Aqsa will be shelled in an attempt to destroy it.

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sep. 1, 2008]

“What a most fascinating thing we read about this past month . . . the settlers come with large boxes and . . . and release them in the neighborhoods and streets of the Old City, where they multiply and become a big problem… the president’s attempts to deal with this problem have failed, especially in light of the fact that even the cats run away and avoid confronting these rats because they are so large and fierce… all customary means of killing them have failed, and it is widely believed that these rats are immune to poison… this forces Jerusalem’s residents to deal with the threat posed by the settlers and packs of rats!”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 18, 2008]

“One could say that Israel is building a Jewish city underground at the expense of the old city, and its historic and holy sites… an additional difficulty is that settlers have been moving into many Arab houses, where they live on the upper or lower floors and at times even in one of the rooms.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 18, 2008]

The “Chief Khadi of Palestine,” Al-Tamimi, said: “the latest development in the series has been the approval given by the “Jerusalem municipality” to build a bridge in Shaar Ha-Mugrabim in order to allow more than 5,000 soldiers in armored forces of the Israeli occupation to enter the platform of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in their failed attempts to look for their temple, which they falsely claim existed.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 30, 2008]

“The occupation authorities have unquestionably been disseminating drugs and promoting drug abuse, especially in Jerusalem.”

[PA TV, Dec. 2, 2007]

“The Occupation’s police patrols, which are spread throughout Jerusalem’s main streets, find dozens of Jerusalem car owners. The drivers claim the fines were given out of malice and vengeance.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 22, 2008]

Sheikh Ra’ed Salah, head of “the Islamic Movement in the parts of Palestine lost in 1948,” said: “They call destruction - refurbishing, the act of forgery - strengthening. What is the logic of this? They remove Islamic monuments in order to research what they gathered from legends and superstitions from the Talmud. Yet this is the oppressive Occupation that seeks to control everything.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 13, 2008]

3. “Israel poses a threat to Islam and to world peace”

“Hassan Khater, Secretary General of the Islamic-Christian Front for Defending Jerusalem and its Holy Sites, explained that Jerusalem is currently paralyzed and unable to fulfill its grand role of promoting love and peace and dialogue between people because it has been hijacked by The Occupation, who has closed the city’s gates to Muslims and Christians and is making the city into a Jewish stronghold.

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 7, 2008]

Hassan Khater, Secretary General of the Islamic-Christian Front for Defending Jerusalem and its Holy Sites: “…[Israel is working] to fan religious hatred … [Israel's actions of] taking over Jerusalem, walling it off, separating it, and preventing Muslims and Christians free access to Jerusalem and its holy sites amount to a declaration of war on the ideas of interfaith dialogue and rapprochement… if Israel truly believes in peace it should remove its hand from the city of love and peace and open its gates to all, so that the city may resume it historical place as a city of prayer, a stage for interfaith dialogue and a meeting place for different civilizations…”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 29, 2008]

4. Invocations to join the struggle against Israel.

“The National Action Council in the Rafah district in the Southern part of the Gaza Strip advocated to unite the efforts and the facilities and to direct them toward withstanding the Occupier’s aggression, and the plans of the Zionist terrorist organizations who aim to harm the Al-Aqsa Mosque and all the other holy sites in Palestine.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 21, 2008]

“The Mufti called upon the Arab states and the Islamic Council to get involved in order to put an end to these acts of aggression against the civilization and set of beliefs of the Islamic nation and the Palestinian people.”

[Al-Ayyam, Aug. 13, 2008]

“Al-Aqsa Institute, therefore, issued a call to the Palestinian residents of Israel [literally 'Palestine's internal residents'] and the residents of Al-Quds [Jerusalem], men, women and children, to continue attending the blessed Mosque every day, and to spend time in it and to defend it [Ribat], because continuous presence is considered the best and effective means for achieving the goal.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 22, 2008]

“Al-Aqsa Institute warned against escalated Israeli sanctions against the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. It said that the Israeli moves demand Palestinian, Arab and Islamic responses and both popular and official efforts to save the Mosque and thwart any aggression it is subject to.”

[Al-Ayyam, July 23, 2008]

“The Institute [The High Islamic Council in Jerusalem] appealed to our supporters, the Murabbites [struggling to maintain Muslim control under threat of non-Muslim conquest] of Jerusalem-Beit al-Makkdes and its surrounding areas, to pay a visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in order to protect the Mosque, which is threatened by greed. The institute, furthermore, called on the Arab and Muslim world to take on the responsibility for Jerusalem and its holy sites and to end Israeli occupation.

[Al-Ayyam, Aug. 20, 2008]

“Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi prompted Muslims to support Al-Quds [Jerusalem] by attending Al-Aqsa Mosque [prayer-services] starting next Friday in order to remove the blockade that the Occupation imposes on it with the intention of isolating Al-Quds from its Palestinian environs and isolating Al-Aqsa Mosque… Tamimi emphasized the Arab and Islamic character of Al-Quds, and that it is the eternal Palestinian religious and national State-Capital. Tamimi called upon the people, the leadership and institutions of the Arab and Islamic nations to support the Al-Aqsa Mosque, to defend the city of Al-Quds, and to support the steadfastness of Jerusalem’s residents in their efforts to thwart the Zionist plans of Judaizing Jerusalem and erasing its Arab and Islamic identity.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 5, 2008]

The Pentagon is studying ways of countering the threat of an electromagnetic pulse attack.

By Patrick Chisholm

http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=1185

Amid increasing reliance on computer networks and other electronic technology and the rise of new and technologically sophisticated potential adversaries, military officials are taking a renewed look at ways of countering the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. During the Cold War, the possibility of an EMP attack was a prominent concern for U.S. defense planners. In such an attack scenario, a nuclear bomb is exploded miles—typically hundreds of miles—above the target area. The explosion generates an EMP that disrupts or destroys electronic devices everywhere in the target area, which could include an area as large as the continental United States.

With the downfall of the Soviet Union, the threat of EMP from that part of the world has greatly receded. However, since the end of the Cold War, new EMP vulnerabilities have emerged, the most obvious of which is terrorism. As a 2004 report by a panel of experts warned, terrorists or other adversaries could launch an EMP attack without having a high level of sophistication, such as through a short-range Scud missile. Also of concern are non-nuclear, small-scale E-bombs that target localized areas. (See MIT, Volume 8, Issue 8, page 8.)

The EMP generated from nuclear and E-bombs could pass through protective cages that shield electronics and critical infrastructure against lightning and other electromagnetic interference (EMI). And a byproduct of EMPs is said to be huge magnetic fields that collapse, generating a massive power surge that would render many electronic devices inoperable.

Newly nuclear-armed nations pose another EMP threat. If countries such as Iran and North Korea do not already have nuclear weapons and E-bombs, they could be well on their way to acquiring them, analysts say. Iran has conducted flight tests of its Shahab III medium-range missile. The missiles reportedly were deliberately exploded at high altitude, and were deemed by the Iranian government as successful tests. One interpretation points to the possibility of plans for EMP.

A second major development since the end of the Cold War is the U.S. military’s widespread use of and dependency on computers and other electronics for weapons systems, command and control systems, and business process systems. The push toward network-centric warfare—from command centers stateside down to soldiers in the field—means that dependency on electronics will only intensify.

Military Standard

These new vulnerabilities to EMP raise the question of how well the Department of Defense is prepared for such an attack. The answer, observers say, is mixed and difficult to discern, because information regarding which U.S. military systems are hardened against EMP is classified. However, clues suggest that more resources could be devoted to EMP hardening than is currently the case. For example, many EMP testing facilities have been closed since the end of the Cold War, according to William A. Radasky, president of Metatech Corp. and an expert on protecting electronics from EMP.

In addition, the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory of the Army Corps of Engineers used to investigate materials and processes for EMP shielding applications. But, according to a spokesman, “All the money for that research dried up after the Berlin Wall came down.”

Literature warning about the dangers of EMP conveys the impression that an EMP would ruin every electronic device in the target area. It is less frequently pointed out, however, that most electronic components enjoy some built-in protection from electromagnetic interference, albeit not necessarily from EMP. Government standards require such protection.

To be sure, commercial EMI standards are probably too weak to protect against an EMP. But military standards are much stronger than commercial standards because of the more hazardous environments that military electronics are exposed to. Along with protecting against the various electromagnetic interferences that one encounters on the battlefield, some—but by no means all—military EMI standards are designed to withstand EMP as well. The most common EMI standard is Military Standard 461 (MIL-STD-461).

For military electronics, “We are typically trying to protect nearby radio communications or navigation receivers from being jammed by our equipment…. We are [also] trying to protect our own sensitive circuits against the fields from nearby radio or radar transmitters. “Shielding may also be needed for other threats, such as lightning or nuclear EMP,” according to Daryl Gerke and William Kimmel, principals at Kimmel Gerke Associates, an EMC consulting and training firm, writing in Interference Technology magazine.

They continued, “Military equipment may be subjected to very high levels of RF energy (radar and radio transmitters), lightning and nuclear EMP effects. MIL-STD-461E, the key military EMC specification, addresses these multiple environments through a matrix of recommended requirements. For example, an electronic device used in a submarine will have different requirements than a device used in a helicopter.”

A vulnerability arises, however, with the military’s increasing use of COTS devices in warfighting, C4I and business process systems. The key is to ensure either that those COTS items have been modified to comply with military EMI standards, or that, once those COTS items are acquired, they are housed in rooms or buildings that protect against EMP and other EMI.

EMI Shielding

If electronics are not designed correctly or shielded properly, they can jam reception of television, radio and other telecommunications. Therefore, as mentioned above, electronic gear cannot be sold without having to meet some sort of regulations controlling the electromagnetic noise coming out of the device. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets the regulations. Europe has even stronger regulations.

EMI shielding is designed to both keep electromagnetic radiation from escaping from the device, and from getting into it. “Most of the regulations are aimed at keeping whatever noise that the box generates, by virtue of its operation, from getting out and affecting somebody else’s box or licensed radio or TV,” said Joe Butler, new business development manager at Chomerics, which manufactures EMI shielding materials. “However, given that there are all types of sources of electromagnetic radiation in the air, if you want your box to operate properly, you have to build it so that it’s protected from noise getting into it. So the shielding works both ways.”

In EMI parlance, an electronic box may be anything from a cell phone housing, a laptop housing, a PC housing, or even housing for a large server rack.

To shield electronics from EMP or EMI, the equipment needs to be encased in a metal housing, often in the form of what is known as a Faraday cage. The openings to that housing would be sealed with electrically conductive gaskets. The housings can range from tiny, such as the metal soldered on printed circuit boards, to housings that are the size of rooms that protect critical electronic equipment inside.

The cables and/or wires entering the housing need to be shielded as well, because without such shielding, a cable or wire acts as an antenna that carries an EMP or other EMI directly into the device. The shielding of such cables typically consists of a wire mesh. conduit—the metal case through which wires and cables can be placed—may work as well, for facility-level shielding.

“It’s a lot cheaper sometimes to lay lots of cables in a cable conduit or cable box, rather than shielding each one. In military installations, they probably have a lot of that,” said Butler.

Protecting electronic equipment from EMI/EMP does not necessarily entail hardening the equipment itself, but rather the room in which the equipment resides, or even the entire building. There are EMI/EMP-hardened transportable tactical shelters as well.

Products or technologies used to harden electronics include metallic shielding; for tiny devices, this can take the form of a spray-on metal coating. Shielding and filter products also include gaskets and surge protectors.

EMI/EMP shielding can erode over time, so maintenance and testing should be done regularly.

The continued replacement of copper wire with fiber optic cable is a positive development with regard to EMP vulnerability, since fiber optic cable is not viewed as vulnerable to EMP.

In both the commercial and military sectors, general EMI shielding requirements have gotten more stringent over time, according to Butler. In the commercial world, European Union regulations, rather than FCC regulations, are the industry drivers for the most part. Most companies that make hardware wish to sell them worldwide, so they design their equipment to meet the toughest (commercial) regulations in the world. And the EU’s regulations are tougher than those of the U.S.

As electronics get smaller, they become less of an issue for EMP in one sense. The new, more sophisticated, smaller electronic devices that are becoming more available actually make EMI shielding easier, because as things get smaller, the effective “antenna” leading into that component gets smaller along with it. So the ability of such as device to broadcast or pick up signals that may interfere with other it or with other electronics is lessened.

On the flip side, however, is the fact that smaller sizes mean less energy is required to cause an upset, according to Dennis Friday and Perry Wilson of the Electromagnetics Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Antenna Systems

Nevertheless, commercial EMI standards are not designed to protect against EMP attacks. During such an event, therefore, there could be widespread disruption of electronics. Not all electronics would be affected, however, because in order to do so, they would need to be connected to some larger “antenna.”

For example, a turned-off computer without any cables or wires attached to it would likely avoid damage from an EMP, since the physical size of the computer may be small enough that it may not collect enough energy to cause a problem. But when it is plugged in, and/or when other cables are attached to it, it gets tied into a much larger network of wires, which form an antenna.

In the event of an EMP, that antenna system collects the signal and pumps it into the computer. Even then, however, because computers have some degree of protection, they only may temporarily go down, according to Butler. But it would depend on how powerful and/or close the EMP is. A powerful enough pulse could ruin a computer.

Butler says that in the civilian sector, critical infrastructure would not necessarily withstand an EMP attack. Power lines act as large antennas, and with an EMP, the pulse rides on those antennas to whatever is connected to them. If there are not sufficient surge suppression devices in place, some equipment could be burned out, or at least disrupted.

Current protection against lightning strikes would not be enough to protect against EMP. The rise time and pulse width of an EMP event is much faster and shorter than that of lightning, explained Butler. So, separate EMP suppressors would be needed, in addition to lightning suppressors.

The electronics in aircraft are subject to severe EMI associated with aviation, and therefore need robust shielding. So airplanes would be expected to escape severe damage from an EMP attack. Likewise, automobiles enjoy substantial shielding because of the EM hazards they often encounter on the roadways. “The roadways are a pretty ugly environment for electronics,” said Gerke. Moreover, the metal in and on the car could block out some of the EMP.

The extent to which vehicles, aircraft, power supplies, and other devices and equipment would survive an EMP attack remains unknown, however. In the civilian sector, while most items are tested for EMI, few if any items are tested against EMP. “It’s anyone’s guess, what would happen in the EMP event,” said Wilson of NIST.

It is possible to test for EMP using special simulators. But the main users of such simulators are military, not civilian. As indicated above, the number of such simulators is very few.

Effective protection against EMI/EMP entails testing. “At the end of the day, you have to verify the performance that you have actually achieved your goals,” said Friday, adding that since EMI shielding can degrade over time, testing has to take place periodically.

Of course, standard COTS equipment used by the military would not have EMP protection. Although some manufacturers make two versions of products—one with commercial standards and one with military standards—this frequently is not the case. But that does not mean the equipment cannot be protected. “The hardening could be done external to the equipment,” said Gerke. This includes hardening at the room level or even at the building level.

The Pentagon has a “Balanced Electromagnetic Hardening” program. According to a budget item justification sheet, the program “provides the science and technology to ensure protection and survival of military battlefield and civilian infrastructure electronic systems against multiple electromagnetic environments, including nuclear electromagnetic pulse, high-power microwaves, as well as WMD threats. Designs and develops innovative, low-cost, balanced EM protection and test technologies for weapon systems; C3; and supporting infrastructure systems to the CINCs, services and other DoD agencies.”

Although information on military EMI/EMP hardening is classified, Wilson suggested that DoD is paying attention to the issue. “It is not something they are ignoring,” he said.
Thanks Act for America

ANDREW WILSON
Opinion Journal
September 4, 2008

The Democratic Party Convention in Denver has been called political theater, but it was really a masquerade ball. Again and again, speakers invoked the language of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan — stressing the value of hard work and responsibility for self and family — while advancing a set of pro-union and collectivist economic policies. If today’s Democrats had their way, they would put the United States in the same approximate position as pre-Thatcher Britain, when the streets of London were choked with garbage because of a strike by sanitation workers and Britain was known around the world as “the sick man of Europe.”

The most overworked word at the Democratic Convention was “work” itself. Barack Obama used the word 35 times in his address. Joe Biden mentioned it 22 times. Both told stories of parents and grandparents who worked their fingers to the bone in realizing the American dream of building a better life. Mr. Biden’s speech included a touching vignette about his father, who told him, “Champ, when you get knocked down, get up. Get up.”

But the real thrust of the message that Mr. Obama and he gave to the cheering multitudes in Denver was: You are entitled to your job. If you are hit by a foreign competitor who is leaner and hungrier and less coddled than you, get down and stay down, and expect the government to put you back on your feet.

When Mrs. Thatcher became Britain’s prime minister in 1979, she assumed leadership of a country that had been devastated by several decades of ruinous economic and social policies. This was due to the same aversion to competition and international trade, and the same misplaced faith in the ability of government to act as the engine of progress and the guarantor of jobs.

In her speech to the Conservative Party in 1981, Mrs. Thatcher said: “We have to earn a living in a world that can choose between the goods that we produce and those of other countries. . . . And here let me say plainly to the trade union leaders: You are often your own worst enemies. Why isn’t there more? Because too often restrictive practices rob you of the one thing you have to sell — your productivity. . . . When two men insist on doing the work of one, there is only half as much for each.”

In his speech to the Democratic convention, Mr. Obama said: “I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.”

One has to wonder who Mr. Obama thinks he is to suppose he’d be able to make so many correct calls in directing investment flows in one industry after the next while sitting in the White House. But his presumptuousness is not unprecedented. The Labour Party politicians in Britain who came to power at the end of World War II shared the same enthusiasm for government direction and micromanagement of the economy.

Like the Democratic Party of today, the Labour Party of yesteryear was obsessed with the issue of job security and fearful of competition from abroad. However, by the mid 1970s, having seen the country’s fortunes decline for three consecutive decades, even the Labour Party could see the futility of its centralized, interventionist approach. Labour’s Jim Callaghan, the last prime minister before Mrs. Thatcher, admitted in Parliament: “Let me say that of course there has been a fall in peoples’ standard of life. It has fallen this year and will fall again next year.”

In revitalizing the British economy, Mrs. Thatcher lightened regulation, reduced trade barriers, privatized a raft of publicly owned companies, lowered taxes (especially for the most highly taxed, which is to say those at higher income levels), and went to battle against the powerful trade-union bosses in order to establish greater democracy within the unions. She outlawed the closed shop and required ballots before strikes and ballots in the election of trade-union leaders.

One thing she did not do was to set a goal of full employment — insisting that “jobs (in a free society) depend not on government but upon satisfying customers.” Contra Mr. Obama, she also stated: “The fact is that in a market economy government does not — and cannot — know where jobs will come from: If it did know, all those interventionist policies for ‘picking winners’ and ‘backing success’ would not have picked losers and compounded failure.”

Due to the success of the United Auto Workers in making unreasonable demands over an extended period of time, what the Iron Lady might drily refer to as “an increase in wages and benefits out of proportion to any increase in output or productivity” has clearly crippled today’s domestic U.S. auto makers. An Obama presidency would give a huge and unwarranted boost to union power and privileges.

The misnamed and undemocratic Employee Free Choice Act — co-sponsored by Mr. Obama and almost certain to pass into law if he becomes president — would go a long way in extending union power over a far greater number of private-sector companies by taking away the right to a secret ballot in union elections. It would give union organizers the time and opportunity to badger and intimidate workers who refused to sign union cards.

If, under an Obama presidency, the unions succeed in organizing Wal-Mart — now the biggest target in their sights — it will have one entirely predictable result: not the protection of jobs but the destruction of jobs by slowing or stopping Wal-Mart’s growth. Nor will it help U.S. consumers if Wal-Mart is forced to hang out new signs saying “Everyday High Prices.”

Mr. Wilson, an independent speechwriter based in St. Louis, was Business Week’s London bureau chief from 1981 to 1985.

Why have many Muslims in the UK resisted full integration into British society? The British government has been trying to address this issue for the last decade, mostly by using the discourse of “multiculturalism.” According to that line of thinking, solutions to alienation among Muslims include community outreach and empowerment programs, funding for youth groups and social networking sites, and large inter-faith conferences.

British Muslim leaders have largely supported these initiatives and helped generate the impression, at least in government circles, that everyone is working together to separate rogue extremists from the religious establishment. But Monday night, the Dispatches documentary series revealed a very different picture of what goes on in some of the UK’s flagship Muslim institutions.

The filmmakers went undercover at the London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park, one of the most prestigious in the country, to show the discord between what imams preached outwardly to the public and what they preached to their faithful in private. Many exalted interfaith dialogue to the government and mainstream media, but turned to teaching radical and isolationist doctrines once behind closed doors.

According to the documentary, they teach the faithful that God orders them to kill homosexuals and apostates; that they should curtail the freedom of women; and that they should view non-Muslims in a derogatory manner and limit contact with them. Many of these leaders are trained in Saudi Arabian Wahhabi philosophy, and use Saudi-approved textbooks and pedagogical materials to teach young students.

When the first installment of the series ran in January 2007 (Monday’s program was an update), it generated a Rev. Jeremiah Wright-style controversy. Liberals were shocked; right-wingers were fearful of the continuing influx of Muslim immigrants. The government redoubled its efforts at community outreach.

Some Muslims accused the filmmakers of showing a distorted view of the Muslim population, portraying the views of those who attend mosques as the views of all of Britain’s two million Muslims. Others, especially those who appeared in the film, said their words had been taken out of context and selectively edited. The complaints led to a police investigation into the program, but ended up with the police paying libel damages to the film company.

Still, the controversy missed the point of the filmmakers’ intentions, which were not only to highlight certain Muslim leaders’ hypocrisy, but also to expose Saudi Arabia’s role in disseminating hate-filled propaganda.

Saudi Arabia’s education and religious outreach programs, whether in the form of textbooks, library endowments or madrassah construction, constitute one of the largest aid programs in the world - roughly $4 billion a year - and introduces hundreds of millions of schoolchildren to radical Wahhabi doctrine via Saudi Embassy-run schools and educational programs in mosques.

Here’s my question: Let’s take a step back from the UK debate and look at the larger, hegemonic picture presented by Saudi ambitions. Why are the British government and others so uniformly focused on community outreach here, when the message being spread through these mosques has a very clear source?

Hana Levi Julian

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert plans to introduce an embryonic strategy for the next Disengagement, this one from Judea and Samaria, at the Cabinet meeting on Sunday.

A statement issued by Olmert’s office Wednesday night said he will present a plan “that has been coordinated by Vice Premier Chaim Ramon on the issue of voluntary relocation and compensation from Judea and Samaria.”

According to the statement, “The issue will be discussed but will not voted upon at this stage.” Olmert said he “intends to hear comments on the initiative; continued treatment of this issue will proceed accordingly.”

The exact same language was used prior to the expulsion of some 8,000 Jews from their homes in the Gush Katif region of Gaza and northern Samaria in the summer of 2005.

Outraged Response by MKs In and Out of Gov’t

The Shas party said bluntly that its ministers would oppose any discussion of Ramon’s initiative in the cabinet session on Sunday.

“This move lacks public, legal and human legitimacy,” declared Shas party leader and Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Eli Yishai. He vowed to block it, adding, “These delusional ideas present us not just as people with no backbone, but as actual invertebrates.”

Likud faction whip MK Gideon Saar was equally outraged, commenting, “Olmert continues his attempts to create facts on the ground in the spirit of the extreme Left, in his last days in office. Olmert did not have a majority in the Knesset to pass this delusional law before he resigned, and he will not have a majority now either.”

Even Olmert’s fellow Kadima party member, MK Otniel Schneller, said that “if the ‘expulsion compensation law’ passes, the government should be disbanded.”

Schneller, who lives in Maaleh Michmas in southern Shomron and is thus a potential candidate for expulsion, said “In a democratic country, boundaries are not drawn through government-sponsored bribery.”

Time is Running Out for the Prime Minister

Prime Minister Olmert may have lost his race to put some form of final status agreement into place with the Palestinian Authority and create the groundwork for an expulsion from Judea and Samaria, however.

Channel 10 television reported Wednesday evening that the prime minister might be indicted for suspected criminal offenses as early as Sunday, possibly pre-empting the Cabinet’s planned meeting on the nascent plan for Disengagement II.

Top police investigators were slated to meet Thursday to discuss whether to recommend indicting Olmert. According to the report, there is a general consensus among the investigators in favor of filing charges against the prime minister on at least three matters, known as the “cash-stuffed envelopes,” Rishon Tours and the Center for Investment.

The police are expected to recommend to the Attorney General to file the charges against Prime Minister Olmert on Sunday. Olmert has said that he would resign if he is indicted.

Jonathan Spyer
The Jerusalem Post
September 4, 2008

A series of recent developments point to Hamas’s increasingly solid position in the Palestinian and broader Arab political constellations. This process is of significance both for Arab politics itself, and for the likely direction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the coming period.In the past week, it was announced that Jordan’s Intelligence Department, led by Gen. Muhammad Dahabi, has opened a dialogue with Hamas. The renewal of contacts between Amman and Hamas reverses a decade of Jordanian policy since the Hamas leadership were expelled from Jordan in 1999.

The fraught nature of Jordan’s relations with Hamas was compounded in April 2006 with the arrest of 20 men suspected of being Hamas operatives. Three of the detainees were charged with maintaining a Hamas cell that surveilled Israeli targets in the kingdom in order to carry out terror attacks. The three were convicted two months ago.

Analysts are assuming that Amman is hoping to secure guarantees from Hamas against the movement’s planning further operations against Israel from Jordanian soil. Jordan is also understood to fear the possible ramifications for its internal affairs of Hamas’s election victory in January 2006 and its subsequent consolidation of power. In this regard, it should be noted that the main Jordanian opposition movement - the Islamic Action Front - is Hamas’s sister Muslim Brotherhood front organization east of the Jordan River. The Front is regarded as the most popular political movement in Jordan, and it is currently led by an individual with close ties to Hamas - Sheikh Zaki Bani Irsheid.

For Hamas, of course, the Jordanian move is welcome toward dialogue, since it seems to represent the gradual acceptance by the Arab political mainstream of its growing power among the Palestinians. This acceptance derives not from ideological factors or sentiment: pragmatic, pro-Western, monarchical Jordan and Islamist Hamas with its links to Iran could not be more natural adversaries. Rather, the move points to a de facto acceptance of the fact that Hamas’s rivals in the Palestinian camp are too weak to dislodge it, and that no one else seems keen to take on this task.

In Gaza, Hamas has created a functioning Sunni Islamist enclave. Recent moves to ban Ramallah-produced Fatah literature and to round up remaining mid-level Fatah activists were further confirmation of this. The movement is also quietly maintaining its strength in the West Bank. This is despite attempts by Mahmoud Abbas’s forces to hit at Hamas’s extensive social welfare structure - the basis of its long-term support. Should a large number of Hamas political prisoners be freed in a deal for the release of St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit, this is expected to further contribute to Hamas attempts to maintain and build its position in the West Bank.

Gaza, though armed to the teeth, is poverty stricken, and Hamas functionaries are proving by no means immune to corruption and nepotism. The situation in the Strip is hardly a shining advertisement for Palestinian Islamism. But in the simple, zero sum terms of Middle East power-brokering, there is no force currently both willing and able to deprive the movement of power. Jordan is therefore adjusting to accommodate to the facts on the ground.

The Jordanian move is reflected elsewhere. Egypt’s decision to open the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Sinai over the weekend - ostensibly as a goodwill gesture in the approach to Ramadan - may also be seen as an acknowledgement by Cairo that Hamas’s de facto power is not about to disappear.

The reverse side of Jordanian and Egyptian adjustment to new realities on the ground is the sense of the continued decline into irrelevance of Fatah and the West Bank Palestinian Authority. The Jordanians, from up close, observe the failure of the PA leadership to carry through on its promises to isolate Hamas in the West Bank. They observe with dismay the continued disarray, disunity and lack of direction within Fatah. From this point of view, the desire of the US administration and the Olmert government in their final months to attempt to reach an agreement of some kind with the Abbas administration seems detached from reality.

The cautious engagement of Jordan and Egypt with Hamas is of a piece with broader current developments in the neighborhood. The arrival of President Nicolas Sarkozy of France in Syria this week to formalize renewed ties between Paris and Damascus after three years of tension may be seen as part of the same process. There are even rumors going around that Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit met with Hizbullah representatives during a recent visit to Beirut.

From Israel’s point of view, these events signal the growing power of elements hostile to it to the north, south and east. However, they also signal an acknowledgment by regional powers of the stark realities on the ground - in contrast to the dance of the “peace process” still being performed by fading administrations in Washington, Jerusalem and Ramallah.

The old view of a closed Israeli-Palestinian system west of the Jordan is fading. Rather, Israel, Jordan and Egypt, each in their own way, are grappling with the shared reality of well-entrenched, hostile Islamist forces in their midst. Developing a coherent policy response to this reality will be a pressing task awaiting the new US and Israeli administrations expected to assume power in the first part of next year.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel.

The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150 Israel
Email: info@gloriacenter.org Phone: +972-9-960-2736 Fax: +972-9-956-8605

Larry Elder
Thursday, September 04, 2008

The John F. Kennedy legacy came up repeatedly during the Democratic National Convention. But today, would JFK even be a Democrat? Kennedy supported, in today’s lexicon, a George W. Bush-like “belligerent” approach to fighting the Cold War, and told CBS’ Walter Cronkite it would be “a great mistake” to withdraw the American presence from Vietnam. In his 1961 inaugural speech, Kennedy said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

How would such a man feel about fighting today’s global peril — Islamofascism?

Barack Obama likes to point to the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev summit to support his desire for meetings “without preconditions” with enemies such as Iran and North Korea.

But Kennedy’s secretary of State, Dean Rusk, urged against such a non-conditions-based summit. And later, Kennedy called the summit meeting the “roughest thing in my life. (Khrushchev) just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.” Indeed, Khrushchev thought Kennedy a weak amateur. Following the summit, Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall and placed missiles in Cuba, an action that led the world to the brink of nuclear conflict.

Kennedy believed in cutting taxes — deeply and dramatically. Before Kennedy’s tax cuts, the top marginal tax rate stood at over 90 percent, and Kennedy — albeit after his assassination — got it reduced to 70 percent, a much greater percentage reduction than did Bush. Kennedy, in a 1962 speech before the Economic Club of New York said, “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus.”

In January 1963, Kennedy addressed Congress: “Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased — not a reduced — flow of revenues to the federal government.” Several days later, JFK sent another message to Congress: “Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort — thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

In a televised national address just two months before his assassination, Kennedy broke it down: “A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

Kennedy, unlike Obama, opposed race-based preferences. In a 1963 interview, Kennedy expected blacks to resist a call for preferential treatment: “The Negro community did not want job quotas to compensate for past discrimination. What I think they would like is to see their children well educated, so that they could hold jobs … and have themselves accepted as equal members of the community. … I don’t think we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a decent education. We have to do the best we can now. That is what we are trying to do.”

Kennedy also objected to assigning positions or granting promotions based on what today’s advocates call underrepresentation: “I think it is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion or race — color — nationality. … On the other hand, I do think that we ought to make an effort to give a fair chance to everyone who is qualified — not through a quota — but just look over our employment rolls, look over our areas where we are hiring people and at least make sure we are giving everyone a fair chance. But not hard and fast quotas. … We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color.”

So when the haze disappears, what remains? A man of limited government, low taxes and strong national defense who rejected a government-led redistribution of wealth.

In other words, someone who would today fit very comfortably in the party — the Republican Party.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Alawsat

In the wake of the quartet summit that is being held in Syria, numerous rumors and political analyses began to overstate the summit. These rumors and analyses fall into two categories: the first states that the summit is like a presidential meeting of the Arab Summit, the European Union presidency and the GCC presidency. The other states that the importance of this meeting lies in the change to the map of key players in the region meaning that Damascus has shifted from a Syrian-Saudi-Egyptian axis in favor of another axis. Of course, both points are oversimplification rather than a realistic insight to the course of events and are mere rumors on some websites and media affiliated to the Syrians in an attempt to give off the impression that Damascus has been successful in breaking the isolation imposed upon it as a result of its erroneous policies.

Why? The answer follows: if everybody in attendance has a position then what is the role of the Turkish Prime Minister, who will preside over the summit, other than his part in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations?

If the Syrian president has turned away from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and Jordan of course, in addition to other Gulf States, then the question is who is representing the Arab Summit at the four-way summit in Damascus since the main Arab countries boycotted the last Arab Summit in Syria, headed by President Bashar al Assad? Who can guarantee that those in the Gulf agree with the issues of Iran and Syria?

Another question: do all Europeans agree with Sarkozy’s rapprochement with Syria, let alone accept the formation of an axis that includes France and Iran? Of course not all Europeans agree with the French, who continue to repeat that they are in the process of testing Damascus, especially that the Syrians are supporting the Russian invasion of Georgia whilst Europe is uniting against Moscow!

If Iran was part of this new axis it is likely that an invite would be extended to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend the Damascus Summit. But the question here is will the Iranian president accept the invitation and attend a summit that will include negotiations with Israel as part of its agenda? This could be a great Iranian coup!

It is evident that the Damascus summit is nothing but a photo opportunity, as they say in politics, and without doubt, it is a summit of contradictions as the participants agree on much less than what they disagree upon.

The French cannot offer what the Americans want from Syria and Iran and Turkey does not have what Israel wants from Syria. Above anything else, the guests of Damascus do not have what Syria itself wants, which is to restore relations with the United States, Egypt and Saudi Arabia…yes Riyadh and Cairo. Whoever has visited Damascus recently would be aware of the level of tension there is as a result of the lengthy severance of relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, has pledged to help find a peaceful solution to the nuclear dispute between the West and Iran, warning that any attack on Tehran would be a disaster. The Syrian leader’s comments came on Wednesday, after a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who is visiting Damascus - a move seen as improving ties between the two countries.

“Nobody in the world will be able to bear the consequences of any action that is not peaceful because it would not result in a solution but in a disaster,” al-Assad said after meeting.

“Obviously there is a lack of confidence between Iran and the countries involved in this issue,” he said.

“We will continue our efforts for dialogue.”

Sarkozy had called on al-Assad to urge Iran, which has ties with Syria, to urge Tehran to co-operate with Western powers over its nuclear programme.

Nuclear fears

The West has sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, fearing Iran could develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran, though, says its nuclear plans are for purely civilian purposes.

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action if the dispute cannot be resolved through diplomacy.

Sarkozy said: “Iran having the atom bomb is a threat to peace in the region and to peace in the world. Everyone must get the message across in their own way.”

Sarkozy’s visit to Damascus is the first by a Western head of state since the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, the Lebanese prime minsiter, five years ago. Syria’s critics accuse Damascus of being behind al-Hariri’s assassination, a charge Syria has denied.

Al-Assad said Sarkozy’s trip heralded a new era in relations between the two countries.

For his part, Sarkozy appears determined to bring Syria back into the international fold, despite hostility from other Western powers including the US.

Improving relations

Relations between Paris and Damascus have started to improve since Sarkozy hosted al-Assad in France in July.

France has promised al-Assad economic incentives in return for political progress.

Accompanying Sarkozy on his visit is Christophe de Margerie, the chief executive officer of French oil company Total, which is in talks to expand an oil licence in Syria.

During his visit Sarkozy is also expected to court Syrian co-operation on Lebanon.

Syria has long been involved in Lebanon, only withdrawing its troops there in 2005 following protests prompted by al-Harriri’s murder.

France has accused Syria of contributing to the crisis in Lebanon, which turned violent in May before a Qatari-brokered deal resulted in the formation of a national unity government in which the Hezbollah led-opposition has veto power.

“Anything concrete on Lebanon will be a triumph for Sarkozy. He needs something to justify to more sceptical Europeans that engagement with Syria works,” a diplomat in Damascus said.

Al-Assad and Sarkozy will join Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, and Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Qatar’s emir, on Thursday for talks on Lebanon and to disucss Syria’s talks with Israel, which are being mediated by Turkey.

The fifth round of the Turkey-brokered talks is expected to be held in Ankaram, the Turkish capital, on Sunday.

Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/2/2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Gregory Ross, the Director of Communications for Clarion Fund. Their mission is to educate America about the threat of radical Islam. They do this through their films, websites and on-campus college programs.

FP: Gregory Ross, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Ross: Thanks for having me on board. It’s a pleasure to speak with you. FP: I’d like to talk to you about the film “Obsession” today and how it is still being shown two years later. But first tell us a bit about the Clarion Fund.

Ross: Well, Clarion Fund is a non-profit group that was created in November 2006. One of the many things we do is create and distribute documentaries, one of which is “Obsession”.

FP: Remind us about “Obsession.”

Ross: “Obsession” was made specifically to educate Americans about the real threat of radical Islam, both inside our country and around the world. In the film we use actual footage to clearly depict the message of violent Jihad that is being taught by radical Imams and terrorist groups. Unfortunately they have been rather successful in their work and our task is to get people to wake up and realize that our way of life is at risk. Because in the film we focus on the root causes of terror, and not just individual acts, we’re able to allow people to see the larger game plan at hand; the worldview of a segment of Islam that seeks to dominate the entire world. And it’s not just us saying it, in our film we let the radicals speak for themselves.

FP: So, after 2 years since the film’s release, Obsession is still being shown and discussed. What is the significance of this?

Ross: The film remains relevant to this day because terrorist acts can come and go but the message of hate the terrorists spew has remained the same for centuries.

FP: Why, in your view, have Imams and terrorist groups been so successful in their work?

Ross: Mostly they know how to work the system. They take our nation’s laws, and the freedoms that our government and society provides, and use it against us. From frivolous lawsuits meant to intimidate, to using their minority status to prey upon our fears of us not being considered ‘multiculturalists’. They understand that they can’t go punch-for-punch with the U.S. defense forces, however they do know that America is very concerned about insulting anyone or seeming to be non-inclusionary. So they make demands that nibble away at our society.

FP: Give us an example.

Ross: Look at the recent incident at the Tyson Foods plant in Tennessee. The plant, mostly comprised of Muslim immigrant workers, decided that they would like to swap our national holiday, Labor Day, for one of their own holidays. On the surface one might say, well if everyone at the plant agrees with it, but this undermines the cohesiveness that a society needs to survive. If they’d like to take a vacation day or sick day for their holiday that is one thing, but to decide to exist in a vacuum in this country, and cry foul and sue if they don’t get there way, will only lead to the disintegration of American society and it’s culture and values over time.

Now some might think I’m over-reacting here, but one only need look at Europe to see where this can all lead. In England, even members of parliament are now beginning to talk about allowing certain Muslim-only sections of England rule themselves by Sharia law, instead of English Common Law.

FP: Why do people have to make a movie such as “Obsession” to wake people up and to realize that their way of life is at risk? Why is our society not clearly aware of this?

Ross: When People Magazine sells millions of copies and sporting events are watched by tens of millions of people, I think it’s clear that people would rather be entertained than face the hard reality that is upon us. We make films because that is a medium that people can easily digest – reading an entire book it seems is too arduous of a task in today’s busy lifestyle. Also, film allows us to show people the voices and faces of the radical Muslims that mean to do us harm, and that is a powerful image that can provoke action by the American people. The problem is that most people would rather look at the face of Jennifer Aniston (and who can blame them) than see the evil in the eyes of terrorists who are plotting to kill us. But whether we want to accept it or not, these people are out there and are actively planning our demise – the terrorists that is, not Jennifer.

FP: Did you get a lot of protests from Muslims and leftists about the movie?

Ross: The people in our organization and our donors span a wide political spectrum and we work with moderate Muslims as well. We figure that by being evenhanded and just sticking to the facts that the only enemies we’ll be making are those that mean to cause us harm, and quite honestly we’re not too concerned about whether we ‘insult’ them or not.

However, yes, like with all things in life you will get all types that disagree when confronted with the truth, and sometimes people can get quite angry and that can lead to protesting. We welcome all forms of peaceful discussion.

FP: You say that the film focuses on the root causes of terror. Expand for us a bit on these root causes.

Ross: The concept of Jihad as defined by the radical Imams and terrorists is not just one of personal struggle, but the struggle of a nation to determine its manifest destiny. These people clearly state that the goal of their actions is to dominate the entire world and defeat or subdue the infidel, wherever he or she may live. So even if the Iraq war never happened, nor the creation of Israel, nor any other event in all of human history that they deem to be wrong or an injustice, then we in Western Civilization would still be considered the infidel and would need to be killed or submit to the Sharia laws concerning the governing of non-Muslims.

Now, if that premise is taken, then when you see a bombing in Spain or India or somewhere in Africa, you can easily sift through the excuses some politicians will make that this is an isolated incident and that it was only due to our insensitivities in the particular situation, or to us imposing our ‘imperialist will’ upon their society. By knowing the root cause of terror, you can make the connection that this ‘isolated incident’ is actually part of a larger grand plan. But again, here comes that old multiculturalism creeping back in – everything is permissible, there are no right or wrongs, one society is as equal as the next even if they want to kill us. And that pervasive way of thinking in Western Civilization is the exact recipe for disaster.

The biggest problem we have is that the radical Islamists understand this clearly and are using it against us. And they also know that 98% of the world, if not more, is clueless as to how we’re digging our own graves by explaining away radical Islam as a bunch of people that are no different from ourselves and who would behave quite nicely if given a good job and home to live in. I guess these apologists never bothered to check how many millions Osama Bin Laden has in the bank.

FP: What are some ways that you think the West can effectively fight the Islamists and their agenda in our society?

Ross: The old saying ‘you have to know you are in jail before you can get out of it’ comes to mind. It all starts with educating the public so that they even know there is a problem, then by understanding the true nature of the conflict one can start to address the solutions. We are re-launching our website soon, www.radicalislam.com, that will teach people how to become activists. And one of the first things we let people know is that they can personally host screenings of our film and other films so that their friends and family can learn about the situation. awareness of the threat, coupled with fellowship and coordination amongst those spreading the anti-militant Islam message, is a very important component to winning this battle. We need to ban together and create a movement of concerned citizens. Another very effective technique to fight back is writing and calling politicians, as every letter and call gets logged and a report is sent to the elected official of all correspondence received. Politicians by nature follow more than they lead, and they are always looking over their shoulders to make sure they are representing the opinions of the people who vote in their district. So making sure they know how the public feels is very important in getting them to act properly. We’ll also be outlining more techniques on our website and allowing people to get connected, so stay tuned.

FP: What would be a good sequel to Obsession that you would like to see or help make?

Ross: Well, it’s funny you should ask, as we are just a few weeks from completely our next documentary, “The Third Jihad” - though it is not a sequel. This new film will take a look at radical Islam’s activities here in the U.S. We should be releasing the film in early October. So stay tuned.

FP: We’ll be staying tuned with much interest.

Gregory Ross, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Ross: Thank you for having me on board and I hope to chat with you again soon – perhaps once our new film is released.

FP: That’s a deal.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.