Akunis - Lessons from the Golan

MK Ofir Akunis
Israel Hayom
11 December '11

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=993

Thirty years ago this week something happened in Israel: The Golan Heights legally became an inextricable part of our country. For years, the Golan Heights had been part of the Land of Israel, but on Dec. 14, 1981, it fell under "Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration." In other words, the Golan became an inseparable part of sovereign Israel.

Anyone who reads the fascinating minutes of the discussion and vote held that day in the Knesset would certainly not be able to discern between claims made back then and those voiced in today's Knesset. The rivalry between the Left and the Right was fierce. During the hearing, then Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who introduced the law, could not restrain himself, calling opposition MK Meir Vilner a "Stalinist."

Exactly 30 years later, what can we learn from that debate about contemporary public discourse?



First, with respect to "democracy and the destruction of democracy:" Begin's government put the Golan Heights Law on the Knesset's agenda in the morning and in less than 24 hours it was approved in three consecutive readings. Today, when the 18th Knesset attempts to accelerate the legislative process (i.e., tries to ratify laws in mere weeks), it is accused of "destroying democracy" and "recklessness." Was democracy damaged back then? Of course not! Nor is it today.

Second, with respect to "Menachem Begin's way of doing things:" Many modern-day politicians exploit Begin's name and present him as a great democrat. This may be true, but during his tenure people called Begin "the great fascist," "an inciter," and shortly after the law was ratified (and in the wake of Operation Peace for the Galilee), he was also called a "murderer." It is amusing, and perhaps even sad, to see people today referring to Begin's "way."

Third, regarding the "extreme steps that damage the prospects for peace:" The Israeli government back then did not hesitate to exhibit leadership and take a dramatic and just step that elicited international condemnation. The decision came just as the peace treaty with Egypt was being implemented, and just as a new president took office in the U.S. In response to the Knesset's decision, President Reagan decided to suspend the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding. None of this prevented the decision from being made. That is true leadership.

Fourth, regarding painful compromises and territorial concessions: Then, like today, there was the mistaken perception that "peace will be achieved if Israel returns the Golan Heights." The truth is that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s and Ehud Barak in 2000 offered to return the Golan Heignts, including the Sea of Galilee, to Hafez al-Assad. Thankfully, he refused. In doing so, he spared Israeli citizens from having Syrians (and not necessarily representatives of Assad's family) residing on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and firing at Israeli cities with exceptional ease. And if Syria falls to Islamic extremists? Iranians would be swimming in our sea.

Over the years, a national consensus has emerged regarding the Golan Heights. As the saying goes, the nation does indeed stand with the Golan. During times of uncertainty in the Middle East and with the alarming process of Islamization that is happening around us, it is important to note, 30 years after the decision to annex the Golan, how great it is to have the Heights in our hands.

http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2011/12/akunis-lessons-from-golan.html

Israel's Barak: Toppling of Assad Would Be 'Blessing'

VIENNA — Israel's defense minister urged the world on Sunday to apply "paralyzing" sanctions on Iran's energy sector and leadership, but didn't comment about whether his country is ready to strike Tehran to cripple its alleged efforts to make nuclear arms.

Ehud Barak also described the Arab Spring that has swept regional despots from power in the Mideast and Africa as an "extremely moving" manifestation of mass striving for democracy, and he predicted that Syrian President Bashar Assad would be toppled within weeks.

Barak spoke on the final day of the three-day World Policy Conference in Vienna, which also showed that relations between Turkey and Israel remain strained following last year's Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla that killed eight Turkish citizens and a Turkish-American.

The annual conference aims to bring together policymakers from different sectors to debate some of the world's more pressing concerns and attempt to advance solutions.

Regarding Assad's clique, Barak said during a question-and-answer session at the conference, "The falling down of this family is a blessing for the Middle East."

He said he expects Syria's relatively secular society to remain that way in any post-Assad scenario. At the same time, Barak said the Mideast turmoil over the short term could result in more influence for Islamic radicals, which would be "quite disturbing for the region."

The Arab region's democratic upheavals and Iran are among Israel's most pressing security concerns. The Jewish state is particularly keen to preserve an alliance with Egypt that is a cornerstone of Mideast stability, but relations between the two countries have become strained since a popular uprising toppled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February.

The storming of Israel's Cairo embassy in September and a strong showing by Islamist parties in Egypt's elections have fueled fears in Israel about future ties between the two countries.

Israel and Egypt signed a U.S.-brokered peace treaty in 1979, the first between Israel and an Arab state. The agreement has allowed Israel to divert resources to its volatile fronts with Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Egypt has benefited by receiving billions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Iran's nuclear progress — and fears that it is secretly working on atomic arms — is perhaps an even greater worry.

Israeli officials have recently toned down increasingly strident warnings that their country may be planning to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities in an attempt to cripple a program that can be used both for civilian and military purposes. But they say force remains an option, if diplomacy fails to end Tehran's nuclear defiance.

On Sunday, Barak avoided mentioning the military option, telling the meeting he thinks there still is "time for urgent, coherent, paralyzing sanctions" on Iran's leadership and its energy sector, effectively throttling exports and imports of oil and related products by Tehran.

Adding to Iran's burden of already existing U.N. and national sanctions, the U.S. and the European Community have been tightening the net of economic punishments targeting Tehran in recent weeks.

The European Union recently imposed sanctions on nearly 150 Iranian companies and dozens of individuals and is examining the feasibility of additional measures that could include restrictions on oil imports and gasoline exports to and from Iran.

Tehran denies seeking nuclear arms. But reflecting regional concerns, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal recently warned that his country could someday consider making its own atomic weapons, if stuck between nuclear arsenals in Iran and Israel.

Israel does not comment on the widely held presumption that it has such weapons, and Barak kept to that practice Sunday.

But he warned that an Iran with nuclear weapons "will start the countdown toward a terrible vision:" other nations in the region — and radicals like Hamas in Palestine or Hezbollah in Lebanon — acquiring their own arsenals.

Barak and Turkish President Abdullah Gul were the most prominent guests at the conference and they appeared to steer clear of each other, reflecting tensions between their nations.

Turkish media reported that Gul stayed away from the group photo session before the conference to avoid Barak.

In response, Barak walked out as Gul prepared to make his speech on Friday. Gul then boycotted the dinner given by Austrian president to avoid Barak again and instead he attended prayers at a mosque in Vienna.

Barak acknowledged the two nations remain unable "to iron out" their differences.

© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Israel's Barak: Toppling of Assad Would Be 'Blessing'
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/EU-Austria-World-Policy/2011/12/11/id/420577?

A PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD? A Disastous decision Already having an Impact

By   Mohammed Najib December 11, 2011, 6:57 pm

The Palestinian Authority's latest financial crisis — which Palestinians widely believe was punishment for President Mahmoud Abbas' request for statehood at the United Nations in late September — has seriously impacted various sectors within the Palestinian community, including both civil sector employees and West Bank security personnel. Israel's blockade of $200 million in taxes over two months forced the PA to borrow the amount needed to pay October salaries (stretched already by the feast holiday Eid Al-Adha) for 160,000 public employees in both the security and civilian sectors. These people feed about 800,000 family members. The PA's income depends mainly on three sources: foreign and Arab donations of about $1.6 billion a year ($130 million a month), taxes collected on the PA's behalf by Israel (another $100-120 million a month), and internal taxes at about $20-30 million monthly. Even though this is not the first financial crisis the PA has suffered, this one is more complicated and appears to be more serious. Senior Palestinian officials and some international observers in the West Bank have gone so far as to express their deep concern that its continuation will certainly lead to the collapse of the PA. To see how this would unfold, one most only observe that the financial crisis has already harmed Palestinian security. Fuel suppliers have warned the PA police that they will stop providing them with fuel unless they pay their more than NIS 5 million debt accrued over the past two months. This has forced the police force to reduce its patrols. Similarly, food suppliers have said they will not supply vegetables and fruit to the 8,500 policemen and 980 prisoners in PA police jails in the West Bank, unless their money is paid completely. As a result, the police force went for more than three weeks eating bread and canned meat bought previously and stored. The inability to pay salaries will weaken the discipline of these security officers, since their commanders cannot respond to their needs, confirms the chief of a Palestinian security branch. So far, it is merely the reason behind this financial crisis — Israel's political attitude — that keeps them loyal to the security institution that protects their homeland. These personnel can be expected to bear this crisis for three months in a row--but not more. Then they will become unable to feed their families and pay transportation to get to their work places. This has the makings of a serious threat to the PA security services and their performance of their duties. Surprisingly, main world donors such as the United States seem to care more about the PA security agencies than the rest of the PA. A senior US official met President Mahmoud Abbas at his headquarters in Ramallah following Abbas' return from the UN, informing him that the US intends to stop paying its annual contribution to the PA budget (around $670 million), except for the $150 million dedicated to the Palestinian security services. Abbas rejected that offer and told his US guest: either you pay for all or none, and I will not accept that security is given preference over the rest of PA bodies. While some Palestinians believe that the PA is being punished by a number of donor Arab states for the ongoing political division between factions Fateh and Hamas, other concerns were raised following Abbas' meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Cairo. The two leaders agreed to reactivate the reconciliation deal between the factions, and form a new national unity government excluding current PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. This, some fear, will force donor countries to sharply cut their finances to the PA. Thousands of PA employees have taken out bank loans to finance the purchase of apartments, vehicles, or business projects. A halt in salaries will render them incapable of paying their monthly installments or responding to their families' needs, broadly harming businesses and the economy. According to economists, Palestinians are classified into three groups. There are those who are directly and completely dependent on PA salaries in such a way that if the salaries stopped, they would not be able to pay their bills and loans and provide family needs. Even those who have some savings will quickly use that up. The second group provides services to the PA and its employees, including food and fuel suppliers. The third group works in the private sector and would not be harmed by a halt in the PA salaries or the ongoing PA financial crisis. Overall, because the PA has no control over 80 percent of its income, it will continue being easily affected by those providing donations or collecting its taxes. The PA's ability to loan the money is also limited — banks are not willing to extend much more credit if the crisis extends longer than a couple of months. Mohammed Najib is a correspondent for Jane's Defense Weekly. This commentary is published by DAILY NEWS EGYPT in collaboration with bitterlemons.org. http://thedailynewsegypt.com/global-views/a-palestinian-view-already-having-an-impact.html

"Egypt's Lost Jews"

Watch an investigative series by program participant Irene Moa'wad as she investigates the socio-political struggles of Jews living in Egypt.  This was apart of the International Center for Journalists' Virtual Newsroom project that trained 40 Egyptian journalists in investigative reporting skills through a unique hands-on/online mentoring program. The focus was to train journalists how to produce and disseminate investigative reports through computer- assisted reporting, and by linking to one another through a virtual newsroom online platform.

Egypt's Lost Jews Part 1

Egypt's Lost Jews Part 2

Egypt's Lost Jews Part 3

Tunisie : l'hiver islamiste après la révolution de jasmin ?

Manifestation de femmes tunisiennes

(photo Zoubeir Souissi, Reuters)

Nous allons revenir pour ma prochaine émission en Tunisie. Il y a en effet un an, le 17 décembre, un jeune marchand ambulant du nom de Mohamed Bouazizi s'immolait par le feu dans la région pauvre et oubliée de Sidi Bouzid, pour protester contre la persécution policière : en l'espace de quelques semaines, on allait voir quelque chose d'inouï, la première révolution populaire dans un pays arabe, révolution qui allait balayer en quelques semaines le régime dictatorial du président Ben Ali. Tous les observateurs, y compris la majorité des amis tunisiens avec qui j'ai conservé un contact continu, insistaient sur le caractère à la fois laïc, spontané et éloigné du spectre islamiste de cette révolution. Or quelques mois plus tard, à l'issue d'une période de transition finalement bien encadrée malgré quelques troubles, c'est le parti Ennahda (en arabe : "La Renaissance"), présenté aujourd'hui par les mêmes observateurs comme "islamiste modéré", qui a été le grand vainqueur des élections du 23 octobre, en obtenant environ 40 % des suffrages. Comment l'expliquer ? Pour en parler j'aurai le plaisir d'avoir mon invitée au téléphone depuis Tunis, il s'agira de Madame Shiraz Sayah. J'ai fait sa connaissance grâce à mon réseau FaceBook. Fille d'un ancien ministre connu du président Habib Bourguiba, elle faisait partie de l'opposition au régime de son successeur, et elle s'est réjouie de sa chute. Pourtant, dans un appel sous sa signature et que j'ai publié dans mon blog quelques jours après la fuite de Ben Ali, elle dénonçait déjà les intégristes, assimilés à l'extrême-droite, ainsi que l'extrême gauche, et elle disait : "Entre les deux, il y a cette majorité (silencieuse jusque là) démocrate, laïque, libérale, moderne qui est à l'origine de cette révolution. Cette révolution ne doit pas lui être usurpée." Que s'est-il passé ? 

Parmi les questions que je poserai à Shiraz Sayah :

- Plus de 100 partis politiques étaient en lice, or il était évident qu'avec un tel morcellement, les laïcs allaient être laminés face au mouvement Ennahda qui lui était très bien implanté. Résultat, les islamistes ont récupéré 90 sièges, seuls 3 autres partis en ont obtenu plus de 10, une quinzaine un seul siège et les autres aucun élu. Pourquoi cette division ? Etait-ce du aux égos inconciliables de leurs leaders ? Et comment interpréter le fait que la moitié des citoyens n'aient pas été voter ?

- On connait les deux partis qui sont près à travailler avec Ennahda. D'un côté il y a le Congrès pour la République, dont le leader M. Moncef Marzouki est présenté, souvent, comme l'héritier du courant youssefiste, panarabiste et donc opposant virulent à la ligne du président Habib Bouguiba . De l'autre côté, il y a le mouvement Ettakatol, qui serait un peu l'héritier du courant ancien de M. Mestiri, c'est à dire l'aile gauche de l'ancien néo-Destour. Comment expliquez vous que des personnalités en théorie progressistes acceptent de travailler avec un parti religieux ?

- La question de fond maintenant que Ennahda est arrivé au seuil du pouvoir, est de savoir si oui ou non ses leaders ont changé. Aujourd'hui, ils se présentent comme des "islamistes modérés", ils disent que leur modèle c'est l'AKP au pouvoir en Turquie. Alors on peut ressortir les déclarations anciennes de Rached Ghannouchi, rappeler par exemple qu'il réclamait la Charia comme constitution, ou qu'il se revendiquait de Sayed Qotb le théoricien des Frères Musulmans - d'ailleurs il a été accueilli triomphalement chez nous, en France, lors du meeting annuel de l'UOIF qui est une émanation des Frères Musulmans. Alors, qui croire ? Et avez-vous des exemples précis et récents démontrant qu'ils n'ont pas changé ?

- On a appris que les principaux partis politiques tunisiens avaient décidé l'interdiction dans la constitution de toute "normalisation des relations avec l'entité sioniste". Alors outre la phraséologie utilisée - qui nous ramène des décennies en arrière, car enfin la Ligue Arabe a accepté le principe d'une paix avec Israël sous certaines conditions - on se demande si, indépendamment de relations diplomatiques pleines et entière qui ne peuvent pas être établies en ce moment, la Tunisie n'est pas en train d'insulter l'avenir. En plus, les citoyens juifs tunisiens qui ont de la famille en Israël, ou leur propre familles là-bas qui revenait au pays pour des pèlerinages, vont avoir peur de se réunir : qu'en pensez-vous ?

http://rencontrejfm.blogspot.com/2011/01/tunisie-lhiver-islamiste-apres-la.html

Danny Ayalon's speech to the UNHCR

Thank you, Mr. High Commissioner.

I would like to congratulate the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the 60th anniversary of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Your office and the convention are vital tools in dealing with the global challenge of helping people in need who were forced for different reasons to leave their homeland and families and to find a better life somewhere else.

The State of Israel is a country that was established as a shelter for Jewish refugees from all over the world, including, survivors of the Holocaust and those forced from their homes in North Africa and the Middle East. Our society is a mosaic of people from around 100 countries who returned to their ancestral homeland escaping the horrors of persecutions and violence.

As a result of our experience, Israel was one of the initiators of the Refugees Convention and one of the first countries to join it. Israel is committed to all its articles.

In addition, we support the application of the general principles governing the treatment of refugees worldwide to apply universally, without exception, including those in the Palestinian context. While the UNHCR has found durable solutions for tens of millions of refugees, the agency created specifically for the Palestinian context has found durable solutions for no one.

This has meant that a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians remains further away. This is morally and politically unacceptable.

The refugee issue is a core element towards finding a solution to our conflict and in its broader context would have to address both the Palestinian and the Jewish refugees forced to flee from Arab lands. Jewish refugees also require redress.

Israel's unique history, core values and moral compass are the basis for our sympathy toward those who require shelter and refuge. During the 70's, Israel was among the first countries to accept "Boat People" from Vietnam and decades later we gave shelter to refugees who escaped the ravages in Darfur.

In recent years, for different reasons - climate change, lack of employment, conflicts and a general desire for a better standard of living, we are witnessing an increasing number of population movements from developing countries to the developed world. It is a global challenge and the international community should work together to find the most effective and humanitarian ways to deal with these challenges.

Israel, as a flourishing democracy with a contiguous land access from Africa is facing a growing number of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers arriving in its territory. In a small country such as Israel, it has severe implications on society, economy, demography and security. There is increased debate in Israel at all levels on this issue. The dilemmas are not simple and there are no easy solutions.

We cooperate in a full and transparent manner with UNHCR in trying to formulate the best solutions. The UNHCR has assisted us in training our RSD unit and in developing a unique voluntary-return program to South Sudan based on incentives and vocational training, which we are very proud of.

Israel is committed

• To continue expanding Government capacity and refugee status determination expertise;
• To assuming greater responsibility for refugee status determination;
• To reaffirm our commitment to the internationally recognized principle of non-refoulement;
• To provide the necessary assistance and medical care to victims of human trafficking, among them many women who, on their way to Israel, were kidnapped, tortured and raped.
• We are committed to continue our policy in encouraging voluntary-returns through incentives and professional training that will enable the returnees to rebuild their future and to start a new life with better tools at their disposal.

I am happy to report that Israel will increase our annual contribution to UNHCR.

And finally, we offer UNHCR the use of Israel's expertise and to work together, through MASHAV - Israel's International Development Agency, to create and implement professional and vocational training programs in mutually agreed locations of UNHCR's refugee camps around the world, with the aim of uplifting the refugees' standard of living and helping them to obtain a better future. We stand ready to start a dialogue with UNHCR on this matter as soon as possible.

Thank you.

(elder of ziyon)

Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America

 

When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the UnitedNations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians. It claimsto be the "collective voice of the Muslim world," i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the "Cairo Declaration ," which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah).

 

One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with "slander ," which is defined in shariah as saying "anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike." At the OIC's Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a "Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century." A key agenda item of that meeting was "the need to counter Islamophobia" by seeking to have the UN "…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments." The word "Islamophobia" is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.

 

Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how theUnited States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of "Resolution 16/18," that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.

 

The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and "blasphemy" against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about "combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief," the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama's Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.

 

Now, the OIC's Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above.

 

Events in the nation's capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned.

 

The Justice Department soon got on board the "Islamophobia" bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive.

 

No doubt much encouraged by national capitulation at such a level, Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamic organization that shares the jihadist agenda and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote an op-ed piece that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 19 October 2011. In his piece, Al-Marayati openly threatened the FBI with "collapse of a critical partnership with the Muslim American community." Later that same day, the Justice Department convened a meeting with Muslim shariah advocates at George Washington University in WDC, chaired by its civil rights division chief, Tom Perez. Dwight C. Holton , the U.S. Attorney in Oregon who was also present, announced that, after speaking with Attorney General Eric Holder, he wanted "to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated."

 

A phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to give warning of an ideology resolutely committed to eradication of free belief, expression, speech, and even thought. It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly. Further, collaboration in such an anti-freedom campaign represents abrogation of the professional oath of office of every federal official who has sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Silencing those who would warn of impending catastrophe only ensures victory to the enemy and loss of our most rare and precious inheritance: the American love of liberty.

 

 

Family Security Matters Contributor Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments. Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Sr. Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Vice President of the Intelligence Summit. She is also a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund.

http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10991/pub_detail.asp

 

Aux racines de l’islamisme européen

Sylvain Besson

Le journaliste américain Ian Johnson a découvert des détails révélateurs sur les protections dont a bénéficié Saïd Ramadan, haut dirigeant des Frères qui a fondé le Centre islamique de Genève et père des islamistes suisses Tariq et Hani Ramadan

VOS COMMENTAIRES

Lire tous les commentaires (0)

Ajouter un commentaire

On savait qu’à Munich, dans les années 1950, s’était formé le nucleus de la nébuleuse des Frères musulmans en Europe. Le journaliste américain Ian Johnson a poussé l’enquête plus loin, et découvert des détails révélateurs sur les protections dont a bénéficié Saïd Ramadan, haut dirigeant des Frères qui a fondé le Centre islamique de Genève et père des islamistes suisses Tariq et Hani Ramadan.

A Munich, Saïd Ramadan déployait ses activités sous le parapluie des Américains. Si le fait qu’il roulât en Cadillac – attesté par un témoin de l’époque – est anecdotique, ses relations étroites avec un certain Bob Dreher le sont beaucoup moins. Cet agent de la CIA, nudiste et coureur de jupons, était partisan d’une riposte agressive contre le communisme. Voyant dans le mouvement islamiste un allié potentiel contre l’URSS, il a notamment organisé un congrès musulman avec pour invité vedette Saïd Ramadan. Sans doute son soutien – surtout financier – ne s’arrêtait-il pas là, mais l’enquête atteint ici ses limites: les documents de la CIA concernant ce chapitre de l’histoire sont toujours classifiés.

«Plus les services de renseignement s’intéressaient à Ramadan, moins ils le comprenaient», écrit Ian Johnson. De fait, la CIA n’a jamais été capable de manipuler l’Egyptien. Les plus clairvoyants au sein de l’agence savaient que la tentative de gagner le cœur des Arabes en jouant de la fibre religieuse serait vaine tant que les Etats-Unis soutiendraient Israël. Les relations entre la CIA et Saïd Ramadan ont d’ailleurs cessé dès le début des années 1960.

Aujourd’hui, les relations entre les islamistes issus des Frères musulmans, descendants directs du berceau de Munich, et les gouvernements occidentaux sont devenues un enjeu brûlant. Face au terrorisme, les gouvernements cherchent des interlocuteurs musulmans pacifiques et crédibles, les «néo-Frères» – selon l’expression consacrée – veulent être reconnus par l’Etat comme représentants officiels de l’islam. Ce rapport ambigu, mélange de méfiance, voire de détestation, et d’un besoin mutuel de s’instrumentaliser, est magistralement décrit dans un ouvrage paru en 2010 et malheureusement non traduit en français, The new muslim brotherhood in the West, par Lorenzo Vidino*.

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/d17b6952-1158-11e1-86dc-0ae7bfa81742%7C0