Analysis & Commentary
‘Missiles From the Sea’ Kill 16 AQAP Fighters in Zinjibar
Reports from Yemen indicate that "missiles fired from the sea" killed 16 AQAP fighters on the outskirts of Zinjibar. From Sky News: Missiles fired from the sea have slammed into al-Qaeda positions in the southern Yemeni city of Zinjibar, killing at least 16 suspected militants, a local official says.
‘Never Say Never’; The Ukrainian Revolution and the Renaissance of Democracy
Orange, rose, yellow. These are the colors not just of sunrise, but of a few of the many "people power" revolutions that over the past generation have been by increments changing the world. Yellow was the Philippines in 1986. Rose was the former Soviet republic of Georgia last year. Now we see an exuberant orange in Ukraine, where despite election fraud, poisoning and the displeasure of the Kremlin, democratic candidate Viktor Yushchenko looks poised to win a revote Dec. 26.
‘No substitute for US leadership on Syria’
Tony Badran – a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Washington think tank that organized the event – said neither the Arab League nor Turkey wield the necessary military or diplomatic clout
‘OPEC Can Be Broken By Making Oil The New Salt’
The only way to break the OPEC cartel of oil-producing nations is to figure out how to make the commodity as boring as salt, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Chairman and ex-CIA head James Woolsey said at the Herzliya Conference Wednesday.
‘Quiet’ Arab Coalition Supports Attack on Iran
“In the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, Arab countries said across the board that they were against the invasion, then one by one each crumbled and fell in behind the US,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
‘Representing’ Al-Qaeda
Bravely entering the lion’s den — delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, “pro bono” lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers — Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that “lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots.”
‘Retain Military Options Against Iran’
A military option should remain on the table to force Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Christian Democratic Union’s foreign policy spokesman in the Bundestag told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
‘Saudi Clerics Use Social Media to Spread Hate’
Saudi clerics have toned down calls for violence in the decade since the September 11 attacks, according to a new report on social media in the kingdom, but still regularly use web technology to disseminate religious rulings hostile to women.
‘The Truth’: A Simple Demand From the Lebanese and Oppressed People Everywhere
A friend was wondering the other day what frontiers are left to explore, now that scientists have pretty much mapped the planet. The answer, I'd suggest, lies less in the stars than along the frontiers of human freedom--which over the past few decades have been edging out dictatorships from Asia to Latin America to Eastern Europe. Today, sped along by President's Bush's bold move two years ago to break the despotic gridlock of the Middle East by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, that same push for freedom has arrived at the region's palace gates.
‘We Are All Israelis’
This afternoon I spoke to a rally in New York organized by Beth Gilinsky’s Action Alliance. The big crowd, despite miserable weather, filled the sidewalk on Second Avenue between 42nd and 43rd streets. Lots of terrific speakers spoke passionately about the need to support Israel against the shocking treatment from American leaders. Here are my prepared remarks:
‘We in MYC are Now Part of al Qaeda East Africa’
The Muslim Youth Center, Shabaab's affiliate in Kenya, said it has become "part of al Qaeda East Africa." The statement was made just one day after al Qaeda and Shabaab formalized their longstanding relationship and announced their merger [see LWJ report, Shabaab formally joins al Qaeda].
‘We Removed the Taliban’?
One aspect of President Obama’s speech last night — part of the “If it’s on my watch I did it, if it’s on Bush’s watch we did it” theme — is particularly grating.
‘We’re Not There Yet’
"Ever ready to meddle where it's least needed, the United Nations Human Rights Council recently dispatched its special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, to inspect the United States," PJMedia's Claudia Rosett reports:
... And Then There Are NON-Evolving Standards
Maybe today was not the best day for MEMRI to bring us this clip of Dr. Ahmad Al-Mub'i, a top Saudi marriage officiant, explaining: 'It is allowed to marry a girl at the age of one, if sex is postponed. The Prophet Muhammad, whose model we follow, married 'Aisha when she was six and had sex with her when she was nine....'
10 Questions for Adel al-Jubeir
EDITOR'S NOTE: Adel Al-Jubeir, foreign-policy adviser to Saudi's Crown Prince Abdullah and Kingdom spin doctor, has saturated U.S. media in recent days defending the Kingdom against accusations of collaboration with or funding of the 9/11 attacks on the United States and other terrorist activities, as he often does. Here, Stephen Schwartz, a critic of the Saudis, proposes ten questions al-Jubeir should be asked, but hasn't been, during his press tour.
100 Prominent Germans Call on Iran to Free Reporters
Critics also direct wrath at Teheran’s nuclear threats against Israel, say Germany's policy toward Iran has been too soft.
15 Hard Questions about the Cairo Speech
Perhaps the most challenging task for analysts and commentators to accomplish after having listen to President Obama's speech in Cairo (addressed to the "Muslim World") is to know how to read it, understand the links between the points he made, capture the arguments inserted by his speech writers and thus analyze the text as a major policy change since 9/11.
In short, I would recommend for readers to establish a "map of the speech" before venturing to its various exotic suggestions and hints. Evidently, each political constituency in America, the region and the international community has its priorities and will jump to the part it deems most pressing, either exciting or depressing. However, I suggest looking at the whole idea of addressing the "Muslim world" or as the President coined it often in his speech, "the Muslims" (two different things), and understand where Obama is coming from and going to. To help in this analytical task -- and to simplify what seems to be complex -- I propose to raise the following questions and address them separately in the debate before re-sowing them as a one bloc of ideas. Here are the ones I identify as building blocks of the Obama "Muslim platform" drawn from his speech
1. Is the equation of mending relations between a nation state, America, and a whole civilization, Islam, rational? Is it academically sound to put one country and fifty two other countries in one framework of relationships? Are all 52 Muslim countries in one basket and America in another? Who framed this equation?
2. The speech mentioned "violent extremists" several times as the foe to contain and isolate. Is there not a clearer explanation of what is "violent extremism" and who are the followers of such a behavior? Is about violence only? Are all those who practice violence, from household abuse, gangsterism to mass murder part of one group? Of course not. So what constitutes extremism? Do "violent extremists" have an ideology, a platform, goals, strategies? Are they the Jihadists that the whole world knows about? Why wouldn't President Obama simply name them as such?
3. The speech argued that Americans were "traumatized" because of 9/11 and thus their view of Islam changed. Why would their view of a religion change because of an attack perpetrated by 19 hijackers? Who is drawing this conclusion? In short, if indeed Americans had a change in perception after 9/11, what was their perception before? Is this reality or is it the framing of the war of ideas by the apologist elite? Why is there a complex of guilt forced on Americans?
4. The speech argued directly and indirectly that the US government -- because of 9/11 -- did things it was not supposed to do constitutionally (or ethically). Among these breaches Mr. Obama mentioned the opening of Guantanamo. The question is: Is opening a detention center in a state of war (even not declared officially) in which active elements of the armed opponents are detained is an act aimed against an entire religion? Who said so and who framed it as such?
5. The speech delved in the claim that Islam "has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." While it is perfectly legitimate for academics to engage in such research and draw the conclusions they wish, can an elected President in a liberal democracy make philosophical assertions in the field of controversial and debated conflicts -- not part of his or her national realm?
6. The speech -- rightly so -- praised the integration of Muslim-Americans in their own country. But did the President mention why a large number of American citizens fled many Muslim countries, including Muslim-American citizens?
7. The speech -- rightly so -- rejected stereotypes about Muslims and America. However who made these stereotypes, who propagated the narrative that they exist and who is indoctrinating segments of societies about the latter?
8. The President gladly (after significant messaging preceding the speech) mentioned Darfur. But he never called it genocide, why? Moreover, what is to be done about it? The speech was generous about what Israel and Hamas must do, and about U.S. forthcoming spending in the region, but left the audiences clueless about what to do about the first genocide of the 21st century. Why?
9. The speech called Iraq's war one of choice but stated that Iraqis are better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Doesn't this statement need more explanation? Is the conclusion that it is better to leave people under tyrannies even if they are subjected to mass killing? As for Afghanistan, the President didn't mention the Taliban once. Who are NATO, the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan facing off with? Is it normal that the one Jihadi force which protected al Qaeda as launched the 9/11 attacks and is on the offensive against democracies in two Muslim countries is not identified in the speech to the Muslim world?
10. The speech reasserted - logically -- a U.S. standing policy of supporting a two-states solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, if Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed on such principle already in 1993, who then is obstructing the process? Why wasn't the obstructing force, Hamas and Iran, named as such?
11. The speech granted Iran a right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, but who denied it to the Iranian people to begin with? The question is about the Iranian regime's expansionist agenda in the region not the type of technology. Nuclear capacities in the hands of a terror regime will become dangerous and armed. Is it not about the intentions of the regime?
12. The speech mentioned that there has been a controversy about democracy in the region, particularly because of the Iraq war. The question is: what is that controversy about, and thus where does the U.S. stand in this debate? Are there different values for different countries and cultures when it comes to freedom?What are they?
13. The speech advocated religious freedoms. The question is who is breaching them? The President mentioned the Maronites and the Copts but didn't explain who is causing them harm?
14. The speech addressed women's rights and the President rejected one Western position in the debate about Muslim women's freedom assessment, and asserted the rights of some women to wear the Hijab unquestioned. However why didn't he list the grievances of Muslim women who do not want to wear the Hijab and are forced to do so? The President argued that the real issue in women's status is education. But isn't their education a political and fundamental right? How can women practice the right to education if they cannot practice their freedom to choose it?
15. The speech announced - gladly -- that the United States will be spending money to help Muslim communities develop on multiple continents. But why didn't the President ask the rich elite in these countries to share the burden if not to assume it fully? Why would a nation in the northern part of the Western Hemisphere be footing the bill of development in remote regions where the financial establishment is buying shares of and controlling the American economy?
These are only few questions about a speech that will be studied and used by the current administration, its opposition, future administrations, regimes in the region, the Jihadists and dissidents alike for many years to come. It is essential that the students of such text focus on the essence and draw the proper conclusions. Indeed words matter, especially in the midst of a raging war of ideas, even if the author of the speech and the speech writers' main goal is precisely to end such a war.
Dr Walid Phares is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.
15 Years @ War
On the morning of February 26, 1993, Islamic militants steered a nondescript Ryder van through the winding darkness of the parking garage under the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />
Loaded into the van’s rear compartment was a 1,400-pound chemical bomb.
The explosive detonated at a few minutes after noon. The hyper-intensive shockwave bored a six-story canyon into the bowels of the complex. Seven people were killed (one of the six officially listed murder victims having been well along in her pregnancy), over a thousand were injured, and the structural damage would cost nearly a billion dollars to repair.
Amid the terror, the dark cloud that envelops us still 15 years later, was a silver lining. This time, the “battalion of Islam” — as the “blind sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, liked to refer to the cells in his emerging jihad army — had failed.
It had been the intention of the
More diabolically, not content with their sophisticated, powerfully combustible urea-nitrate mixture, the jihadists laced the compound with deadly sodium cyanide and attempted to boost the explosion with hydrogen tanks. The aim was a horror virtually unimaginable back then (though it is, today, an omnipresent fear): wide dispersal of a lethal, aerated chemical, killing the thousands too distant to be obliterated by the sheer force of the blast.
The battalion, however, miscalculated. They’d hoped to place the bomb close enough to primary support structures that one tower, in its decimation, might topple into the second. The van, though, had been parked many yards away from the ideal location. Added to this good fortune, the hydrogen tanks had been destroyed upon detonation, adding nothing but shards to the impact. And another break: The cyanide failed to vaporize — simply burning away like the rest of the bomb components.
So yes, the aftermath resembled the ninth ring of hell, but the devastation was orders of magnitude less than it could have been.
In hindsight, we now know the silver lining caused us to miss the ferocity and determination of our enemies.
Only a few weeks before the bombing, the blind sheikh, who had been in constant communication with his co-conspirators, had attracted a crowd of followers at a
The “enemies at the foremost of the work against Islam,” he declared, were “
15 Years @ War
On the morning of February 26, 1993, Islamic militants steered a nondescript Ryder van through the winding darkness of the parking garage under the World Trade Center. They had spent years planning this moment in secret meetings at mosques and jailhouses, in rural outposts that served as paramilitary camps, and in safehouses where explosive compounds were mixed in makeshift labs.
