WORLD NEWS TREND

Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Tuesday said it had approved up to $330 million in three separate arms deals for Israel, and sources tracking a much bigger deal for 25 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets said that agreement could be approved later this month.
Top Israeli and U.S. government officials also met in Washington on Tuesday for the most senior bilateral high technology dialogue ever between the two allies.

Co-chaired by U.S. Commerce Undersecretary Mario Mancuso and two senior Israeli officials, the three-day high tech forum is aimed at expanding secure high technology trade and investment across a wide-range of promising technology areas.

While U.S. and Israeli officials met in nearby Virginia, the Pentagon told Congress it had approved three arms deals for bombs, Patriot missile upgrades and anti-armor weapons. Lawmakers have 30 days to block the sales, but such action is rare.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees major arms sales, said it approved the sale of three kits to upgrade Israel’s Patriot missile defense system, a deal valued at up to $164 million if all options are exercised.

The kits, made by Raytheon Co, would help Israel develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability, the agency said.

It also approved the sale of 28,000 M72A7 66mm light anti-armor weapons, 60,000 training rockets, and other equipment, a deal valued at up to $89 million. The main contractor would be Talley Defense, based in Mesa Arizona.

Finally, the government approved the sale of 1,000 GBU-9 small diameter bombs made by Boeing Co, in a deal valued at up to $77 million if all options are exercised.

A separate agreement that would allow Lockheed to sell Israel 25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, plus an option for at least 50 more, was also nearing approval, according to two sources tracking the deal closely and a top defense analyst.

They said the DSCA hoped to notify Congress about the deal before lawmakers head back to their districts to campaign for the November 4 election, possibly by the end of September.

The Pentagon is solidly backing Israel’s request for the fighter jets, which are being designed by the United States and eight other countries to replace the F-16 fighter jet.

But the two sides are still working out the details of the exact configuration of the F-35 that Israel will receive, said Loren Thompson, analyst with the Lexington Institute.

“There is strong administration support for selling F-35s to Israel, however the government will need to determine which items are included in the Israeli version since the technology is very sensitive,” said Thompson.

Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, the Pentagon’s program chief for the F-35, last month told Reuters that Israel was getting the F-35 into its fleet “as quickly as we possibly can.”

Pinchas Buchris, director general of Israel’s defense ministry and one of the co-chairmen of the high-tech forum, told Reuters he would have a high-level meeting about the issue while in Washington this week.

But he said the two countries were still continuing “tough” discussions about various issues related to the F-35 sale, although he declined to give any details.

“We still have a long way to go,” Buchris said.

Mancuso said the forum, also attended by U.S. and Israel industry executives, marked a big step forward after tensions between Israel and the United States in the past over weapons sales.

He said Israel had made positive changes in recent years, including establishment of the Defense Export Controls Office, and enactment of a new law.

He said the United States would continue to maintain tough export controls where needed, but it also hoped to expand collaboration with Israel in many promising high tech areas.

“Our technical collaboration will continue to grow as our broader comfort on these issues grows,” Mancuso said.

Buchris said Israel had made many improvements in a drive to keep tighter control of defense exports, and said that those efforts had been closely coordinated with the United States.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Carol Bishopric)

.

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
What a difference a year makes. It was just one year ago this week that the IAF destroyed the North Korean built, Iranian financed nuclear reactor in Syria. The raid exposed Syria as a full partner in the Iranian-led jihadist axis. Its prolonged diplomatic isolation was a foregone conclusion.
But just one year later, Syria is being feted by France. It’s signing billion-dollar oil and gas deals with France’s oil giant Total. A triumphant President Bashar Assad is openly demanding that the US follow France’s lead and start licking his boots.

Syria has Israel to thank for its stunning reversal of fortunes. It opened the door that Assad gleefully walked through this week as he playacted the role of responsible international leader while remaining loyal to Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the terror militias in Iraq.

Israel opened the door by participating in Turkish-mediated talks with Syria regarding a surrender of the Golan Heights. Although both sides referred to the talks as “peace negotiations,” it was obvious that no peace would come from them.

Since the early 1990s, Syria has recognized that intermittent, fruitless discussions with Israel about the Golan Heights are the best means of maintaining or reestablishing its acceptability in the West. After Assad ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, he immediately turned to Israel to pull his fat from the fire by offering to renew negotiations regarding a surrender of the Golan Heights. Israel held out for two and a half years and during those years, Assad wasted away in international isolation. With even the UN breathing down his neck, Assad and his regime were hanging on for dear life.

But then suddenly, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert came to the rescue. Thanks to Olmert, Syria is back in the driver’s seat and as one could have expected, Assad’s first order of business was to throw Israel under the bus. No longer in need of its assistance, as he stood next to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Assad announced that the “peace talks” are suspended. And both Assad and Sarkozy blamed their suspension on Israel, whose “political instability” makes it impossible to proceed.

There is no doubt that the country will pay a price for Olmert’s decision. But it is also fairly clear that the next government - whether led by Kadima or the Likud - will be unlikely to repeat his mistake. Olmert’s political opponents warned him that his move would endanger Israel by legitimizing Syria and rewarding it for its strategic alliance with Iran. And his opponents’ view that Olmert was wrong to reach out to Assad is shared by a majority of the public and a fair amount of the media. Indeed, since Israel began negotiating the surrender of the Golan Heights in 1992, the consistent view of the majority has been that the country is better off with the Golan than without it, even if that means no peace treaty with Syria.

WHEREAS OLMERT’s Syrian gambit is unlikely to cause any irreparable damage and is unlikely to be repeated by his successors, the same cannot be said of his gambit with the Palestinians. There Olmert acts against little organized or coherent opposition. And his actions are openly supported by his colleagues in Kadima, who have to varying degrees all committed themselves to continue his policies.

Kadima was elected on a platform of unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. While it never disclaimed its intention to expel up to 100,000 Israelis from their homes in the areas and withdraw, after the Hamas takeover of Gaza and after the war with Hizbullah in 2006, the government claimed that it would only expel them after it signed a deal setting out the contours of a Palestinian state with Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. And in the interest of achieving just such a deal, the government has been carrying out negotiations for the past year.

As has been the case with the talks with Syria, the government has precluded public debate about the wisdom of a potential deal by hiding the details of its discussions and its intentions from the public. Backed by the Bush administration, which has championed the negotiations, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government has kept their content secret.

At the same time, it has quieted its opponents by loudly proclaiming that the chances that a deal will be concluded before President George W. Bush, Abbas and Olmert leave office are slim.

Moreover, in light of Hamas’s control of Gaza and its threat to Fatah in Judea and Samaria, both the government and the Bush administration have argued that the agreement being negotiated will not be implemented even if it is concluded. It will only be implemented after Palestinian society accepts Israel’s right to exist and agrees to live at peace with the Jewish state.

The agreement, they claim, will provide impetus to the Palestinians to accept Israel because it will commit all future governments to treat Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem as Palestinian territory and so offset any lingering doubts about Israel’s commitment to peace.

THE CONCERN has lately arisen that although the Palestinians will certainly not implement their side of the agreement, Israel will implement its pledged withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. This is the case for two reasons. First, unlike the situation with Syria, Olmert’s support of the deal with Fatah is shared by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is expected to succeed him, by Kadima and Labor and by the media. It is quite possible that they will argue that the existence of the agreement suffices to move ahead with their original intent to destroy Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and expel their residents.

The concern that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government or its successor is planning to withdraw has increased in recent weeks, as military and police authorities have begun abrogating the legal rights of residents of Judea and Samaria in a way they haven’t done since the expulsions from Gaza.

Two weeks ago, OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Gad Shamni issued orders evicting three residents of Samaria from the area for four months. No criminal charges were filed against the three; they are suspected of no crimes; they have been arrested for no crimes. Yet the IDF has decided to expel them from their homes and separate them from their families by arguing that they are “provocateurs.”

Last Tuesday, the men’s supporters and families decided to stage a protest outside Shamni’s house in Re’ut. The police had other ideas. A bus holding 50 protesters was stopped en route to the protest. Its passengers were arrested and brought to the police stations in Ramle and Modi’in and told they were being held due to suspicion that they were intending to attend an illegal demonstration.

There is of course, no crime on the books regarding a person’s “intention” to participate in a demonstration. And yet the would-be demonstrators were held until the middle of the night. The last time such draconian actions were taken against law abiding citizens was in 2005 in the lead-up to the expulsions from Gaza.

The fear that the government is planning to begin expelling Israelis intensified on Sunday when, in a surprise move, the government convened a discussion of a bill setting out the levels of restitution those who are forced to leave their homes in Judea and Samaria will receive. Why would the government debate such a bill if it doesn’t believe it is about to sign a deal with Abbas? And why would it debate such a bill if it truly intended to shelve its agreement until after the Palestinians eschewed their hopes for Israel’s destruction?

THE SECOND reason justifying concern that the government is planning to withdraw from Judea and Samaria is due to the contrast between how the public views a withdrawal from the Golan and how it views a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. Whereas the consistent majority view is that the country is more secure with the Golan Heights than without it, since 1993 there has been sustained majority support for the view that we will be better off without large swathes of Judea and Samaria. This view has been cultivated by leftist activists and their supporters in the media who claim that Israel’s chief strategic challenge is not the Iranian axis, but the presence of what they consider an unabsorbable Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria.

The belief that the Palestinians are the greatest strategic danger to the country is belied by reality. Putting aside the open question of whether they are truly incapable of integrating into Israel society or whether they challenge the country’s identity as a Jewish state, the fact is that Judea and Samaria today constitute the least dangerous front Israel faces. And this is so because the IDF controls the area. Iran, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are Israel’s primary concerns today. And Gaza and Lebanon are dangers precisely because Israel followed the left’s demographic and political arguments and surrendered them to Iranian proxies.

The fact that a majority has been convinced that the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria is a critical threat just because it exists means that the threat of a withdrawal will remain acute until the Kadima-Labor-Shas triumvirate is driven from power in a general election and replaced by a Likud-led government and even then it will not abate. The threat will only abate if a Likud-led government is able to lead a public discussion about an alternative strategic assessment of Judea and Samaria.

Such an assessment would necessarily begin with the following assertions: Israel should not be rewarding the Palestinians for their aggression and has a duty to secure areas necessary for its national security. Such assertions engender the conclusion that far from ceding its rights to Judea and Samaria, Israel should apply its law to the parts of them that are critical to its defense, including Gush Etzion, Gush Adumim, Gush Ariel and the Jordan Valley.

To a degree that exceeds the dangers of Olmert’s ill-advised talks with Assad, his talks with the Palestinians imperil the country by setting the conditions for disastrous withdrawals. Unfortunately, this danger will remain in place for as long as Israelis believe that our only viable option in Judea and Samaria is retreat.

caroline@carolineglick.com

.

Disney images adorn studio
while mass murderer glorified
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Palestinian Authority (Fatah) TV is using the universally beloved characters of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Winnie the Pooh and Piglet in an attempt to create a Disney-like studio — while teaching children to glorify a mass murderer whose victims included 12 children. In a new official PA TV studio built for a Ramadan children’s program, the smiling images of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Pooh and Piglet are the backdrop for a TV quiz that this week venerated a notorious terrorist.

The female terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, participated in the murders of 12 children and 25 adults in a 1978 bus attack in Israel. In this quiz, Mughrabi is idolized as the “beloved bride, daughter of Jaffa, jasmine flower,” while figures of Mickey and Minnie Mouse are prominent in the background — as if it were a Disney program.

In May 2007, PMW reported that the Hamas TV network was using a Mickey Mouse character to teach children to seek world Islamic domination. The widespread international outrage prompted Al Aqsa TV to get rid of the character (they showed him being beaten to death by an Israeli officer) and replace him with another animal host.

Now Fatah TV, controlled by the office of PA head Mahmoud Abbas, is airing a children’s show that glorifies a mass murderer of children while trying to create a Mickey Mouse Club atmosphere.

Last week the program taught children to deny the existence of Israel.

The world did not put up with Hamas’s use of the iconic Mickey Mouse to brainwash children. Will the same international pressure be brought upon Mahmud Abbas and the official Palestinian Authority to stop using these beloved characters to sell terror?

.

Hana Levi Julian

A group of North American Jewish students are planning a coast-to-coast demonstration to protest the Olmert plan and the silence of American Jewish leaders, specifically over the looming threat of a second Disengagement as well as the possibility that Israel may hand sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Palestinian Authority
Jewish students from the sixth grade through high school were urged in an e-mail flyer sent out Tuesday to “Stand Up to Prevent…” with a graphic photo of a lone Jewish pioneer attempting to ward off an onslaught of Yassam special police forces.

According to organizer Yosef Rabin, director of the United Jewish Student Council (UJSC) the protest is set for Thursday September 18 and is scheduled to take place 10 minutes before the first class, thus comprising the first lesson of the day.

The group also sent format suggestions for the student protestors, including a list of psalms for the protestors to say (chapters 121, 130, 142), shofar blowing, singing and dancing.

The attachment also includes the order of the special prayers for the nation and land of Israel compiled by former Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu.

The demonstration is expected to last approximately the length of one class period, or 45 minutes.

“We are striking in response to the silence of the Jewish leadership on the planned expulsion of 300,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria, division of Jerusalem and the abandonment of the holy Temple Mount,” Rabin said in an internet chat interview with Israel National News.

“Jewish students across North America are saying No! No expelling Jews. No dividing land. No abandoning Har HaBayit (Hebrew for Temple Mount),” he said.

Blessings and Warnings from Israeli Sanhedrin

According to Rabin, Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander, a leading rabbinical judge in the nascent Sanhedrin that formed in Jerusalem several years ago and continues to struggle for mainstream recognition, has given his blessing to the project.

“Rabbi Hollander wrote, ‘Shalom friends, Your plans are excellent, may HaShem bless you – and Am Yisrael – with your success…

‘Considering the behavior of the majority of the people of Israel in the Land of Israel, we have no Zchuss [right] to remain in the Land. The reasoning of Rabbi Kook [that the non-observant are doing the great mitzvah of building Eretz Israel] no longer applies: in his time they were building with the purpose of creating a Jewish State. Today the “elite” are building the for purpose of lining their pockets, and others with the purpose of destroying the Jewish identity of the State of the Jews.
Jews who do not want to stand up and support a political fight for our Jewish Birthright in the complete Holy Land of Israel right now should begin to work on the most likely result of their attitude: Millions of Jews looking for refuge.

‘….If Israel is not defended properly, there will surely be a catastrophe. The present “elite” are not capable of creating a deterrent which would stop the Iranians to try to A-bomb Israel. A reasonable estimate is that the people comprising the political leadership in Israel today will not use Israel’s capabilities even in retaliation….

‘…People – Jews – who do not want to stand up and support a political fight for our Jewish Birthright in the complete Holy Land of Israel right now should begin to work on the most likely result of their attitude: Millions of Jews looking for refuge.

‘First of all – political activity to ensure a place for the survivors. Secondly – funds for their physical deployment outside the Middle East, building homes, healthcare – physical and mental healthcare, retraining facilities for adults, schooling for children – all these necessities should begin to be taken care of NOW by those who do not support a fight NOW.

‘In the hopefull [sic] case when these funds are not needed, that should be used to ensure schooling in a Jewish Day School for all Jewish children. This would be the best way to prevent marrying non-Jews.

Fear Stalks the Students – ‘This is Not the 60’s’

Although the idea of a coast-to-coast strike itself is popular, and many students expressed interest, Rabin also noted that “many of them are very scared.”

Many of the students, he said, are afraid of suspension or even being expelled from their schools, and have sent letters saying they “really want to do this but are a little nervous.” Rabin added that almost every letter ended with the writer promising to try and organize something anyway, despite the fear.

“You have to remember that children in America have not known activism, unlike Israeli children, especially those living in Yesha [Gaza, Judea and Samaria –ed.],” he said. “They have never been exposed to this type of activism so the first time it is a daunting task.”

In a twist completely opposite from that of the 60’s, the group is counting on the older generation to get involved. “We are going to be working hard to bring parents and grandparents to strike with the students,” he said, noting that this was the generation of the activism and protests of the 1960’s and 1970’s. “This will soften the attitude of the schools toward the kids and help calm the fears of the students.

“This is not the 60s or 70s. Boy, have times changed,” he commented ruefully.

One school director wanted to commit his entire student body to the cause, he noted – but the Rosh Yeshiva nixed the plan, saying, “If the Torah U’Mesorah were to come out with the recommendation that all of these Jewish school children should take certain action, then we would certainly be involved.” Without the endorsement of the national umbrella, however, the Rosh Yeshiva was unwilling to take a stand on his own.

Nationalists Form Pact to Fight Expulsion II in Israel

Residents of Judea and Samaria have formed the Samaria Pact to fight Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Vice Prime Minister Chaim Ramon’s attempt to offer people money to leave their houses.

Leaders of the movement met on Monday to form a new agreement against what they called the “continuation of disgrace that took place in Gush Katif, which only brought more tragedy upon us.”

Gush Emunim co-founder Benny Katzover said the group is preparing to fight against evacuations and will not wait until the last minute to fight expulsions. Yossi Dagan of Homesh First explained, “We are going from defense to offense. We will continue to build and expand.”

.

Kirsten Powers

YESTERDAY’S Gallup poll had John McCain ahead of Barack Obama by an astonishing 10 points among likely voters. A Washington Post poll had that lead at only two points, but clearly showed a McCain surge - especially among women. This wasn’t what Democrats were expecting when they left Denver - yet they have nobody to blame but themselves. Obama’s toughest challenge has always been to connect with working-class swing voters. So attacking the poster child for small-town values, Sarah Palin, was a bad strategy.

No, Obama didn’t engage in the mass sneering at Palin - but he did fall into the trap of disrespecting her. When McCain chose her, the Obama campaign’s first response was to ridicule the size of her town. Then the candidate himself began referring to her as a “former mayor” when she is in fact a sitting governor.

When she retaliated (justifiably) by mocking his stint as a organizer, the Obama camp was clearly rattled. Obama himself actually began arguing about the importance of community organizing. His supporters amplified this cry - claiming Palin’s attack was a racist slur and passing around e-mails titled “Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

Meanwhile, the rest of the country was probably wondering what being a community organizer has to do with being president.

Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience - the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.

Meanwhile, the media lit up in all their cultural-elite splendor.

Alaska? they sneered. It has the population of Las Vegas! Funny how the coastal elite only sneers at red states with small populations. Howard Dean hailed from a blue state with almost the same population as Alaska and was a national phenomenon and front-runner for the presidency. Joe Biden’s Delaware has a similarly small population - but no mocking was forthcoming there.

Evangelicals will never vote for a woman who works! they declared. This from people who’ve likely never met an evangelical in their lives. They could barely contain themselves when they found out Gov. Palin’s daughter was pregnant, so sure were they that evangelicals would hang her from the highest tree. When evangelical leaders expressed support, there was a palpable disappointment that Palin or her daughter wasn’t branded with a scarlet letter.

They claimed that the Palin announcement was some desperate pick that came out of nowhere. Had they been doing their jobs, or even perusing The Weekly Standard or right-wing blogs, they’d have known that she was on the list.

Since they didn’t know anything about her, they started making things up. Anything that fit the caricature of a right-wing hypocrite was thrown up with, seemingly, no fact-checking.

They said she opposes contraception, when she said in a campaign debate that she is pro-contraception. They said she cut funding for pregnant teens, when she provided a massive funding hike.

They accused her of cutting funding for mentally disabled children, when she raised it 175 percent over the former administration. She was said to have been a member of the wacky Alaska Independence Party; The New York Times had to run a retraction.

Like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Palin has been deemed one of the GOP’s rising stars. Since it’s national reporters job to cover American politics, their ignorance of about her is distressing.

Most Americans think that the media are cheerleading for Obama, so they’ll punish him for the reporters’ and editors’ sins.

So now he is weighted down with more baggage as he works to convince an important voting bloc that he and his party don’t hold them in contempt.

The clock is ticking.
.

Today, a noticeable feature of the Western press (aside from the “anti-Israel” coverage of so many of the reporters in Western Europe who have found a socially acceptable outlet for antisemitism) is the indifference to, or even hostility to, Christianity. This includes the failure to recognize its significance in the history of Europe and of the West, and a hostile treatment of the activity of contemporary Christian figures. Look at how the Western press covered Pope Benedict’s 2006 Regensburg speech, and misreported consistently on it.

One is not impressed, either, with the endless television joking about groping priests and altar boys, which continues even as Muslims threaten the church frescoes in Bologna with destruction. And when it comes to Evangelicals, they are presented in vicious caricatures in European magazines as a key feature of the supercilious, and often nasty and quite comically inaccurate, coverage of the United States whenever the subject is other than economics (in such a magazine as “The Economist”). In such coverage, European audiences are treated to a spectacle of America, “too-religious” America, which invites comparison with splendidly advanced post-Christian Europe and suffers by the comparison. For here, in our benighted land, the Bible belt widens with the waistlines of those waddling Americans, those gun-toting (oh, there’s a machine gun in every pot, in America, don’t you know?), saliva-dripping, Bible-quoting, table-thumping, troglodytic because still Christian, Americans, with their honor saved only, here and there, by the odd (very odd) Chomsky or two.

No, neither Judaism and its adherents (or those assigned to it by antisemites), for a very long time in the history of the West, nor Christianity, especially in the “post-Christian” and “post-modern” Western Europe and in much of the American press, can be described as having been covered fairly. One waits for the international media to take note of the killings of Christians in the southern Sudan, in the southern Philippines, in the Moluccas, in northern Nigeria, in Egypt (those pesky Copts who keep managing to get in the news each time one is killed or tortured), and so on and so predictably forth. Will any of that receive any attention? Any anguished comments on ABC, CBS, NBC? Will a single Senator speak about any of the attacks in Nigeria, the Philippines, the Moluccas?

One waits — but not with bated breath. The victims of Christianity matter less, to the international media, than the imagined activities of “Christianists” who will destroy the Constitution at the first available opportunity.

But it’s a different story with the coverage of Islam. The craziest assertions, the ones that are given the lie by the day’s news, every single day, that Islam is a “religion of peace” and of “tolerance,” or that Islam “contributed greatly to the development of Europe,” are stated without hesitation in the New Duranty Times, the Bandar Beacon, and all the lesser organs. Islam did not actually contribute, greatly or in any other way, to the development of Europe, save only by driving out scholars who, fleeing the Byzantine Empire to escape the advancing Seljuk and then the Ottoman Turks, arrived in Italy with their manuscripts and helped lead to a renewed interest in classical antiquity, and to what used to be called, when the Renaissance had not yet been replaced by the chronological desiccation of the course-catalogue time-line “Early Modern Period,” the Revival of Learning.

And merely by continuing to refer to Islam only as a “religion” (which confuses people, as it inaccurately describes what Islam is), many in the world’s media have, by ignoring or downplaying the politics and geopolitics of Islam, further contributed to the general confusion. They continue to pretend that Islam is a “religion” like any other instead of telling us, enlightening us, as to all the ways it is different, and to all the ways in which it is indeed, rather, a Total Belief-System that, had the tools available to the modern police-states of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia been available, would in the distant past have quite naturally assumed the aspect of, and been later recognized as, a form of modern totalitarianism. It is a form of totalitarianism because it meddles in, controls, and decides what is prohibited and what is commanded, in every single area of life. Yes, a totalitarianism avant la lettre.

Islamic law forbids Muslims to consume alcohol, and Muhammad cursed those who carry it as well. But up until this controversy in Minnesota — set off by the Muslim Brotherhood, the engine of the stealth jihad — Muslims did not attempt to impose this law upon non-Muslims in America. Another (temporary?) setback for the stealth jihad: “Muslim cabbies in Minn. lose round in court,” from Associated Press, September 9 (thanks to Nan):

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Muslim cabbies whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in court.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies’ attempt to block penalties for refusing service.

An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie’s license for 30 days for refusing a fare at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.

Cabbies have a right to appeal a suspension, with the penalty stayed until an administrative hearing officer issues a decision.

Nine men who own or operate taxis at the airport had appealed a district judge’s refusal to issue a temporary injunction blocking the commission from imposing the penalties. The men said their religious beliefs prohibit them from carrying alcohol.

The Appeals Court ruling Tuesday upholds the lower court’s decision. Both courts said that the respondents failed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if a temporary injunction was not granted. Both courts also noted the appeal process that allows cabbies to keep working while their case is pending.

Airports Commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said Tuesday that there have been only five refusals of service so far this year. All are in the appeals process, which can take several months to complete, he said. Between 2002 and 2007, there were nearly 5,000 refusals, he said.

There are almost 900 taxi drivers licensed to do business at the airport, Hogan said, and they provided more than 731,000 rides in the past year.

PAT PHEIFER

Posted
.

Here is the beginning of my post. However, the adherents of a religion that contains traditions about genocide ushering in the end times, and that has a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, cannot forever profess surprise and indignation whenever anyone suggests that such material might incite people to commit acts of violence.

Is this guy a Muslim? A jihadist? I have no idea, and I am not saying he is. But the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand when he chants “Allah” and mutters in Arabic while attacking a man he does not know with a hammer. In a sane society, government, media, and law enforcement would be calling upon American Muslim groups to do something about this — to face up to the capacity of Islamic texts and teachings to incite violence, and to institute comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against jihad violence and Islamic supremacism. But this is hardly at this point a sane society.

“Subway attack caught on tape,” by Dann Cuellar for 6ABC.com, September 8 (thanks to David):

PHILADELPHIA - September 8, 2008 - (WPVI) — Police are asking the public for help captured a hammer-wielding attacker, who seemed to assault his prey for no apparent reason.
On Monday night, police released the video of the attack, in the hopes that someone can identify the man.

The attack happened back on Thursday at 12:15 a.m. onboard the SEPTA northbound Broad Street line.

The victim, 20-year-old Dewayne Taylor is seen dozing in his seat, listening to his ipod.

In the doorway, the assailant is standing with a young boy, about three to five years old.

He tells the child to sit down.

Then, he pulls out a large hammer out of a black and yellow book bag, and proceeds to pummel the victim.

After striking Taylor a number of times, the attacker grabs Taylor by the shoes and pulls him down to the floor, where the attack continues.

Then, the man throws Taylor off the train, where they struggle some more before the attacker disappears out of sight.

“According to the victim, the male continued to assault him and tried to throw him into the track area,” said Det. Kenneth Roach of the Philadelphia Police Dept.

Taylor told Action News last week that all throughout the attack, the man kept chanting something, and he distinctly recalled the word “Allah.”…

Thanks Jihad Watch.

Isi Leibler
September 10, 2008
http://www.leibler.com/article/358

There are important lessons to be learned from the tragic Georgian imbroglio. The first should already have been engraved in our minds from our self-inflicted blunders during the botched Second Lebanon War: not to initiate an armed conflict in the absence of a clear understanding of the ultimate game plan. Like our Ehud Olmert, hotheaded Georgian President Mikhail Saaskashvili was utterly reckless in dispatching his army to regain control of the breakaway pro-Russian enclaves without considering the possible repercussions of such a brazen act. He merely provided the Russians with the pretext to bloody their “upstart” neighbor and demonstrate that they are still in control of the region.
The second lesson, also of considerable relevance to us, is that without the resources and power to mount a strong independent defense, it was folly of the Georgians to assume that a geographically distant allied superpower like America would intervene militarily to defend them.

The third lesson is that in contrast to the standards by which the world judges us, concepts like morality, proportionality or harming civilians are utterly irrelevant when great powers are involved. The Russians made no apologies for their brutal behavior, and were certainly not deterred by “humanitarian” considerations. On the contrary, they threatened to get even tougher if their neighbor failed to conform to their demands. One can visualize how they would have responded had the Georgians behaved like Palestinians and launched even a single missile at their territory.

For Israel, the repercussions from the Georgian conflict could be very grave. If US-Russian relations continue on a downward spiral and revert to a cold war, our bitter foes will once again be armed by the Russians with advanced weaponry. It may also have dire consequences for Jews still living in Russia. This explains why Israel is maintaining such a low profile in the conflict, even to the point of cutting off previously contracted arms deliveries to the Georgians.

This is also the context in which to view the recent rush visit to Moscow by Syria’s President Bashar Assad, pledging support for the Russians and seeking to obtain the latest missile systems. The call initiated by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to our prime minister declaring that any Syrian arms deal will not undermine our security is hardly reassuring, but may signal that the Russians have not yet decided to totally throw in their lot with our enemies.

Where the present differs from the past is that, in contrast to the Communist era, the Jewish factor no longer occupies a central role in Russian policy. I can testify from personal experience, based on extensive negotiations with the Soviets relating to Soviet Jewry, that crude anti-Semitism and Jewish pressure to emigrate were the dominant elements affecting the Israel-USSR relationship.

Not any more. Whereas anti-Semitism, ingrained into Russian culture from the time of the tsars to the end of the Soviet Union, remains a powerful factor among the people, the era of state-sponsored Jew baiting has ended. True, in recent years, for reasons of realpolitik, the Russians have tilted further toward the Arabs, especially their former ally Syria. But however imperfect our relations with the Russians may be, they are a far cry from the vicious hostility and the obsession to destroy us which prevailed during the Communist era. Indeed, one gains the impression that Russia’s strongman Vladimir Putin is entirely indifferent to Jews, and on occasion has even identified himself with Jewish objectives which he thought enhanced Russia’s global interests.

It is of course undeniable that the latest trends within Russia have been toward greater authoritarianism and suppression of human rights. But having said that, and without detracting from the brutal behavior of the current regime, the frequently expressed comparisons by pundits of Russian behavior today with Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia are exaggerated, as are suggestions that the autocratic Russia of today is comparable to the evil totalitarian system of the Soviet Union.

The fact is that the Russians are attempting to reclaim their superpower status and overcome the humiliation associated with their perception that the Americans are orchestrating a potentially hostile armed alliance within their sphere of influence. Much of Putin’s and Medvedev’s popularity over the invasion of Georgia can be attributed to their aggressive posturing against and resistance to NATO encroachments and Polish approval for the US to station a missile system on its territory.

This climaxed when their immediate neighbors, the Georgians, also sought to join NATO. The Russians not only responded brutally toward the Georgians, but also signaled a new hard-line approach to the West, especially the Americans, warning them that any effort to continue to promote NATO or impede their support of independence for the Georgian secessionist enclaves (a Kosovo in reverse) would intensify the tensions.

Under these circumstances, whereas Israel is only a minor player in this confrontation, it would be totally against our interests to take sides. In fact, to the extent that we have any say at all, our diplomacy should do all it can to avoid a revival of the Cold War.

Despite its oil wealth, which may be transitory, Russia remains a poorly developed state. But if the Russians become divorced from the international community, the damage they have already caused would be intensified and they could become spoilers in every area of global activity, effectively heading a new axis of evil. They could undermine Western interests in relation to Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela and the UN. They would also have the capacity to sabotage our global efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and substantially undermine our security. Ongoing polarization of relations between Russia and the West will also inevitably lead to a strengthening of the forces of Islamic fundamentalism and global terror.

This need not be. Russia shares a common interest with Western countries in containing Islamic terrorism, which poses a threat to us all. It is perhaps reminiscent of the pragmatic alliance between the Allies and the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis during World War II. It will be a diabolical balancing act to avoid polarizing the situation, and there are no guarantees that we can come to an accommodation with the Russians. But to discourage further polarization, instead of indulging in righteous indignation we should consider their real and perceived national sensitivities as well as their obsession to regain recognition as a major power.

Seeking to avoid a confrontation is neither appeasement nor an abdication of morality. For a little country like ours in the volatile neighborhood in which we live, we are obliged to concentrate on the menace from the barbarians at our gates, who threaten us and all civilized mankind.

Some may interpret this approach as unprincipled realpolitik. But morality in diplomacy ceases to be moral when it becomes self sacrificial by ignoring the overriding threat from Islamic fundamentalism, which would benefit enormously and become far more potent by a renewal of the Cold War.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1220802296039&pagename=JPost
.

Amir Taheri
Asharq Alawsat

Russia has just invented a new kind of state: one in which the land is supposedly independent but the inhabitants are citizens of another country.

Last week, Russia solemnly recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two autonomous republics that had been part of Georgia since the 1920 First, Russia tried to justify its military intervention by claiming it was trying to protect its own citizens there.

Using force to protect one’s citizens is nothing new in the history of nation-states. However, the normal process is to go into the hostile territory, rescue one’s citizens and brig them out- end of the story.

In this case, however, the Russians did not go in to bring their citizens out. They went in to give “independence” to Abkhazia and Ossetia.

The problem is that a majority of those living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia today are Russian citizens.

In Abkhazia, Russian passport holders account for 90 per cent of the estimated 200,000 inhabitants. Another five per cent are Georgians while Armenians ad other Caucasian peoples account for the remainder. In other words, in the newly independent Republic of Abkhazia there are no Abkhazians!

A similar situation obtains in South Ossetia where Russia passport holders account for 95 per cent of the 75,000 inhabitants. The remaining five per cent are Georgians, Chechens, Ingush, Kamlouks and Charkess. Again, there are no Ossetians!

This situation is a result of an earlier piece of Russian chicanery.

From 2000, Moscow has been issuing Russian passports to anyone who demanded it in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The sole criterion was that the applicant spoke Russian. That was not difficult because the Caucasus was part of the Soviet Union until 1991 and russified for two centuries.

Russia’s President Dmitri Medvedev claims that his armies entered Abkhazia and South Ossetia to support national liberation struggles. But which nations are we talking about? Since 2002, more than 90 per cent of the inhabitants of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been voting in all Russian elections, including the one that made Medvedev president.

Why did the Abkhaz and the Osset rush to get Russian passports?

The first reason is that they both hate the Georgians with whom they have a long history of enmity and violence more than they hate the Russians.

In 1991, Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhourdia abolished Abkhazia’s autonomous status and ordered the destruction of Abkhaz cultural centres and historic monuments. In the ensuing violence, more than 4000 Abkhaz were killed while tens of thousands fled to Russia.

Gamsakhourdia presided over a similar scenario in South Ossetia in 1990-92. More than 2000 Ossets were killed and many more forced out of their villages.

In both cases, the Abkhaz and the Ossets regarded Russian passports as an insurance policy against further massacre.

Nevertheless, it was only after 2006 that the Abkhaz and the Ossets rushed en masse to obtain Russian passports. The reason was the European Union’s decision to allow Russian passport holders to travel freely to Europe, a privilege that holders of Georgian passports did not enjoy.

But why is Russia embarking on a high-risk strategy in order to snatch two tiny enclaves from Georgia. (Abkhazia covers a territory of 8600 kilometers, smaller than Lebanon, while South Ossetia is even smaller with 3900 square kilometers.) The Russian move is all the more surprisingly because, in the previous 200 years, Russia had always sided with the Georgians against the Abkahz and the Ossets.

A Turkic People, the Abkhaz were regarded by Russia as pro-Ottoman and anti-Russian. The Ossets, an Iranic people, were distrusted because they had sided with Iran in the wars that led to Russia’s conquest of the Caucasus between 1801 and 1830.

There are three key reasons why Russia has acted the way she did.

The first is to signal her return as a major power that regards the Caucasus as part of its glacis.

The second reason is to punish Georgia because of its quest for a special relationship with the United States. Georgia, with a population of around four million, has sent more than 3000 troops to Iraq. It has applied to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is host to a huge American military mission. President Mikheil Sakaashvili has gone further by pressing for membership of the European Union.

Thirdly, Georgia has established itself as the key alternative route for oil and natural gas pipelines linking the resources of the Caspian Basin to world markets via the Black Sea.

This is in defiance of Russia’s strategy of controlling all pipelines to Europe.

By de-stabilizing Georgia, Moscow is telling Western investors to think twice before sinking their money into Georgian pipelines.

Finally, Russia’s lease of the port facilities at Sebastopol, in the Crimean Peninsula, runs out in 2017. There is little chance that the Ukraine, which owns the peninsula, would renew the lease. This would leave the Russian Black Sea fleet homeless and with difficult access to the warm waters, especially since Turkey, a NATO member, controls the Bosporus, under the Treaty of Montreux (1936).

One alternative to Sebastopol is the Syrian port of Lattaqiya, and speculation about its lease to the Russian navy has been going on for years. However, Moscow cannot be sure that the Syrian leadership will not switch sides, leaving the Black Sea fleet homeless.

By seizing Abkhazia, Russia could develop its deep-water harbors into a new home for its navy. Without such a base, the Russian navy would lose its blue-water status, becoming, in effect, a coastguard with limited reach.

What we have witnessed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a classical colonial land grab, facilitated by the naiveté of the Georgian leaders, the cowardice of the Western powers, and the weakness of Turkey and Iran, the two traditional powers that tried to counter-balance Russia in the Caucasus.

These days, however, colonial land grab is hard to sell. This is why the Russian operation is presented as a move to support self-determination in the two enclaves.