Friday, December 30, 2011

AILC: Muslims around the world must unite to condemn attacks on Christians




NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA CONTACT:           
Gregg Edgar
Gordon C. James Public Relations
602-690-7977


Also posted on Radio Koocheh, independent Persian media: http://radiokoocheh.com/article/141574


Muslims around the world must unite to condemn attacks on Christians
Washington, DC (December 31, 2011) – The American Islamic Leadership Coalition, a group of diverse American Muslim leaders released the following statement regarding the awful tragedy that struck Christian communities in Nigeria on Christmas Day.
The radical Islamist organization Boko Haram, which murdered and maimed innocent Nigerian Christians on Christmas Day, does not represent the majority of Muslims around the world.  Boko Haram is a radical Islamist group (“boko haram” means "Western Education is Sinful") that attacked churches last year as well and has vowed similar attacks in the future. Their actions should be condemned by all Muslims, especially by Muslim leaders


Islamist groups like Boko Haram want to create an Islamic state based on their interpretations of shariah (Islamic jurisprudence).  The Christian presence in Nigeria is perceived as a great impediment to this mission (48 % of the Nigerian population is Christian). The choice Christmas Day to perpetrate their wanton violence illustrates the hateful fascistic sectarian state Boko Haram seeks to impose upon the Nigerian people.

Boko Haram is guided by militant Islamism and its medieval notions of society. For them, full citizenship is limited to those who share their religious beliefs and affiliation, and their Christmas Day act demonstrates the depravity to which they will stoop in realizing that grim vision. The Nigerian government has thus far been unsuccessful in preventing attacks on its Christian citizens, despite a crackdown against the militant group by paramilitary agencies.

The Vatican and secular Western leaders have rightly condemned the attacks on Nigeria’s Christians as heinous, evil, and cowardly.  We would like to hear unequivocal denunciations of Boko Haram and other radical Islamist groups terrorizing Christian and other minority communities from every respectable Muslim leader in the free world.  Muslim scholars, activists, politicians, and community leaders must respond forcefully to the murderous and supremacist tendencies of Muslim extremist groups, and support the enforcement of the rule of law against such groups. The world must not tolerate or excuse carnage against fellow citizens on any day in any country. All Muslims, and all civilized governments around the world, must put an end to the madness and hatred expressed in brutal acts such as the Christmas attacks in Nigeria.

We hereby declare our total condemnation against the supremacist Islamism  which feeds groups like Boko Haram, and call upon all our Muslim brothers and sisters to stand for pluralism, freedom, and the unyielding and equal respect of universal human rights for all people, especially in Muslim majority nations.”

About the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC)
The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) is a diverse coalition of liberty-minded, North American Muslim leaders and organizations. AILC’s mission advocates for defending the US Constitution, upholding religious pluralism, protecting American security and cherishing genuine diversity in the faith and practice of Islam. AILC provides a stark alternative to the Islamist organizations that claim to speak for what are diverse American Muslim communities. For more information on AILC, please visit our website at http://www.americanislamicleadership.org/.
AILC Coalition Signatories
Golam Akhter
Bangladesh-USA Human Rights Coalition Inc.
Washington, DC

Bahman Batmanghelidj
Founding Member
Alliance for Democracy in Iran
Virginia, USA

Abdirizak Bihi
Somalian Community Activist

Manda Zand Ervin
President
Maryland, USA

Tarek Fatah
Founder
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Farid Ghadry
President
Reform Party of Syria
Washington, DC

Jamal Hasan
Baltimore, MD

Past President
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Arif Humayun
Circle of Peace
Vancouver, Washington

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.
President
Phoenix, AZ

Member, Advisory Board
Free Muslim Coalition
Dallas, TX

Racquel Evita Saraswati
Activist and Journalist

Behrooz Sarshar
Virginia, USA

Jalal Zuberi, MD
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Atlanta, GA

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Of Pharaohs, Kings and Generals: What about the Egyptian People?


By Michael Granger
Radnor Geopolitical Report
Chicago, December 2011

On February 11, 2011, after the Egyptian Military turned the barrels of their guns away from the protesters in Tahrir Square, Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down as president of Egypt and the world was moved by the restraint shown by the military. It was seen as a gesture of love of country and respect for the Egyptian people and not a ploy to wrest control of the revolution from the intrepid protesters. There was a universal feeling that Egypt had crossed the Rubicon, away from dictatorship and rule by force to that of the people through the rule of law.

Instead, they were changing the figurehead of what essentially remains a military dictatorship. Less than a year later, the junta installed to transition Egypt to the democracy the people were desperate for has broken the promise and has betrayed the trust. Instead, and once again, the cries of the Egyptian people for democracy have been met with brutality.

It must be difficult for a country with such a rich history, reaching back 5000 years, a pioneer in agriculture, architecture, mathematics and even the first known treaty, to shift its paradigm of governing from dictatorship to democracy, away from being ruled by pharaohs, kings and generals, to the rule of the people. It is truly amazing how tone deaf the generals have been to the will of the people. They have betrayed the sacred trust of the revolution and it is doubtful that the current leadership can ever be trusted to be shepherds to take their citizens to a new Egypt. It seems that democracy is not in their DNA.

It is quite disappointing to see Egypt’s military leadership behave this way. How can they possibly ask their people to return to the past and reject the self-evident truths that form the basis for democracy: All men are created equal and are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, once tasted, leave an unquenchable thirst in the human spirit. This thirst cannot be quenched but is rather increased by dictatorship and despotism.

In the age of its primacy, long before the birth of Christ and preceding the rise of the Greeks and the Romans, Egypt was a center of enlightenment. We all desire to visit the pyramids and to marvel at the great examples of human advancement Egypt showed the world. Dictatorial leadership in the age of democracy is at best a throttle on that kind of progress.

Like any other difficult situation, there is a positive side, however short-term, to the military being in charge. It is that they are the best equipped by experience to manage relationships with allies like the United States and Europe without injecting sectarian politics into the equation. This, however, cannot long prevail over the necessity of bringing Egypt to democracy.

The question now is that given the broken trust, can the various parties work out their differences without bloodshed. Because if the military turns its guns on Egypt’s citizens in a wholesale fashion, the society will forever be scarred. When a government turns its guns on citizens who express legitimate yearnings for democracy, it changes into a totally different animal. It becomes a retched, despotic regime unworthy of governing.

Much of life is about choices and the military junta in Egypt has a choice to make. They must choose between a democratic Egypt and a discredited Egypt.

The Egypt we hope and pray for is the former. The Egypt we dread is the latter.



Egyptian security forces raid human rights & democracy organizations



Please see headlines, press release and footage below. Seven (7) of the seventeen (17) American and Egyptian entities include:

- Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary (Nasser Amin, Chair and rights lawyer)
- Budgetary and Human Rights Observatory
- Future Center for Judicial Studies
Konrad Adenauer Foundation (German think tank, affiliated to Chancellor Angela Merkel's party)
- International Republican Institute
- National Democratic Institute
- Freedom House

Related organizations receiving similar allegations:

- al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya Association (conservative Islamic Salafi movement)


Video: Egypt authorities raid foreign-funded NGOs - EuroNews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsgTFJh0nGI



Video: Egyptian security forces seize computers and files
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFtiySV1rmI




Press Release: Freedom House Condemns Raids of NGOs in Egypt
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1544


Report: US 'Deeply Concerned' After Egyptian Police Raid Offices of US Rights Groups - FoxNews
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/29/us-deeply-concerned-after-egyptian-police-raid-offices-us-rights-groups/#ixzz1hy9pQcOT


Report: Egypt police raid offices of human rights groups in Cairo - Guardian UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/29/egypt-police-raid-human-rights-groups


Report: Egypt security forces storm NGO offices - AlJazeera
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/20111229152611424630.html


Report: Egypts Democracy Activists Fear Wider Clampdown





Right-wing, Palestinians brainstorm at Ariel parley


By Oren Kessler
Jerusalem Post
December 27, 2011
"Palestinians and settlers are potential allies," Jerusalem-born attorney Kamal Nawash tells ‘Post' after improbable confab.


The Ariel University Center of Samaria was the unlikely setting Monday for an even unlikelier assemblage of participants in the second “Best Plans for a Peaceful Israel/Palestine” conference.

The event featured three Israeli and three Palestinian speakers, each of whom made his case for an alternative formula to the 18-year Oslo peace process that has brought neither a diplomatic nor a security solution to the conflict. The conference was scheduled as a follow-up to last month’s first “Best Plans” conference at east Jerusalem’s Ambassador Hotel.

Most of the attendees at Monday’s event were students at Ariel University Center (AUC), many wearing skullcaps and most expressing opinions that placed them on the Right. Also in attendance, however, were a smattering of Israeli Arab students at AUC and some two dozen Palestinians who had traveled from the West Bank.

“Some of our visitors were surprised to see we have hundreds of Arab students here from both sides of the Green Line,” said AUC Chancellor Yigal Cohen-Orgad. “We hope to have many more.”

AUC was founded in 1982 as the College of Judea and Samaria, a branch of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan.

Since then it has grown into Israel’s largest public college, with an enrollment of 14,000 students (by comparison, Ariel’s entire population is 17,000). In 2004 it broke with Bar-Ilan and tried to receive certification as a university, but its initial accreditation by the Council of Higher Education was later overturned and remains an unresolved issue.

AUC has also been a flashpoint of controversy for Israelis opposed to settlements over the pre-1967 Green Line, and early this year close to 150 Israeli academics announced they were boycotting the institution, whose very existence they described as an impediment to peace.

The star of Monday’s event was Kamal Nawash, a Jerusalem-born, New Orleans-raised attorney who founded the organization Free Muslims Coalition in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Based in Washington, the coalition is an anti-extremist organization dedicated to strengthening Muslim voices against terrorism. Much of its recent work, however, has focused not on Islamic extremism per se but on the loaded political issue emanating from the Middle East: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Monday, Nawash took the podium sporting a keffiyeh-patterned scarf bearing an emblem of Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock and an outline of Mandatory Palestine.

“I’m going to put this on because it’s part of my identity,” he told the crowd to scattered applause. “I hope you can feel comfortable with that.”

Nawash then proceeded to outline his peace plan, which forgoes partition in favor of an Israel-Palestine confederation as two provinces within a single state.

Nawash said Israelis and Palestinians need to be honest with one another if they ever hope to achieve peace.

“For many of you, Israel includes not only the lands of 1948, but what you call Judea and Samaria and we call the West Bank,” he said. “For the vast majority of Palestinians, Palestine includes all the lands of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.”

Nawash said he understands Jews have a historical, spiritual and emotional connection to the Land of Israel.

“I can understand you love this place,” he said. “But you have to accept my right to live anywhere in Israel-Palestine just like I accept yours.”

Nawash said his plan is predicated on the free movement of labor and people.

“All settlements stay where they are, and Jews can even build more of them – as long as you buy the land and don’t just take it. Palestinians will be able to do the same,” he said. “Jerusalem becomes no big deal because its the capital of the country. Jews would be able to build anywhere in the city; same with Palestinians.”

Audience reaction was mixed, with some applauding at the idea of unrestricted Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. Others, however, accused Nawash of either deliberate obfuscation or naivete in whitewashing historical Arab hostility to any Jewish presence whatsoever in the Holy Land.

Tsvi Misinai is an Israeli researcher who espouses the controversial view that most Palestinians are actually descendants of Jews from the Second Temple period. Palestinians, he said, should be educated on their own Jewish history and assimilated into the Jewish nation-state.

The remarks were met with derision by the Palestinians in attendance – most of whom had sat impassively for much of the event. One female Israeli Arab student lashed out at Misinai for what she dismissed as baseless conclusions.

At the end of the event a vote was held to select which of the proposals the audience deemed most practicable.

Surprisingly, two plans – those offered by the settlement activist David Ish- Shalom and architect Yosseph Harel Naim – appeared to win a majority of support among both Israelis and Palestinians (voters were asked simply whether the plans were preferable to the status quo or not).

Ish-Shalom – a prominent left-wing activist in the 1970s and ’80s who shifted to the Right after the outbreak of the second intifada – argued for a Jewish state from the Jordan River to Mediterranean Sea in which Arabs professing loyalty would be given citizenship after an unspecified amount of time.

Naim’s plan envisioned a two-state confederation of Israel and Palestine with Jerusalem as a shared capital.

“Most people see us as natural enemies, but I see Palestinians and settlers in the West Bank as potentially the best allies,” Nawash told The Jerusalem Post on the conference sidelines. “We know what settlers want – they want to stay here. The Palestinians want equality and a better life.

“I’m saying to settlers, ‘You love this place? That’s fine, I do, too,” he said. “You fight for my right over all of Israel-Palestine and I’ll fight for yours over all of Palestine-Israel – it’s that simple.”





Kamal Nawash, Esq. is President of the Washington DC based Free Muslims Coalition: www.freemuslims.org

A PhD in Torture: Why is Rafsanjani’s son studying at Oxford?


By Emanuele Ottolenghi
The Weekly Standard
December 26, 2011



When NATO planes launched their air campaign over Libya’s skies last spring and Western leaders said that Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi had to go, the first regime to change was at the London School of Economics. Its director, Sir Howard Davies, resigned following embarrassing dis-closures about LSE’s financial links to Libya and sizable donations from Qaddafi’s anointed heir, his son Saif al-Islam, who’d been awarded a doctoral degree from LSE. It seems that British academic institutions have yet to learn the lesson. For now it’s the United Kingdom’s oldest and most distinguished university, Oxford, that has brought scandal upon itself by giving a place to a Middle Eastern despot’s son—a scion of the Islamic Republic of Iran who has already distinguished himself as a human rights abuser and a torturer.

Mehdi Hashemi Bahramani Rafsanjani


Oxford University’s Wolfson College, which the late Sir Isaiah Berlin helped establish, is now the academic home of 42-year-old Mehdi Hashemi Bahramani Rafsanjani, the fourth child of former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. These days, Rafsanjani the elder styles himself a champion of Iran’s reformists. But having tied the family fortune and its connections to the cause of challenging current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not make Rafsanjani a liberal democrat. In addition to the violence and repression he is responsible for inside Iran, he has also been one of the Islamic Republic’s chief exporters of terrorism. As president, Rafsanjani dispatched Iranian hitmen to kill Iranian exiles across Europe. There is an arrest warrant against him from Argentinian prosecutors for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people. The son it seems has followed in his father’s path.

When Rafsanjani was president, he lent a hand to his youngest boy, Mehdi, who was trying to make a living in the oil industry. In 1992, a former Iranian oil ministry official, Houshang Bouzari, managed to line up a $1.8 billion contract for the exploration and development of Iran’s offshore natural gas resources in South Pars field, and Mehdi wanted a cut. He approached Bouzari and demanded $50 million in exchange for his services—presumably, access to the sitting president of Iran. Bouzari turned the offer down and found himself thrown into jail in June 1993. He spent several months at Evin prison where he was tortured. He was released after his family paid ransom and the state had taken away his contract. Eventually, Bouzari managed to flee the country and, after taking up residence in Canada, sued Iran for damages in an Ontario court. According to the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment in the case Bouzari v. Iran, 

In the summer of 1993, the National Iranian Oil Company cancelled the contract it had with the consortium. Iran then incorporated the Iran Offshore Engineering Construction Company, appointed the president’s son as its managing director and caused the new company to enter into a contract with the consortium for the South Pars project that was identical to the one that Mr. Bouzari had obtained. Not surprisingly, he was entirely excluded from the new arrangement.

Although Bouzari failed to get a favorable judgment in this first round, Ontario judges accepted the facts of his circumstances and dismissed the case only because state immunity laws applied to a foreign government. Neither Iran nor Mehdi ever contested the case. Bouzari did not give up, and eventually his efforts bore fruit. In August 2011, Ontario’s Superior Court handed down a default judgment for torture against Mehdi, with an order to pay damages of around $6 million, plus interest at 5 percent from 1994. Mehdi dismissed the judgment and indicated it was so ludicrous he did not plan to fight it. If unchallenged, the judgment is final—which is to say that Oxford University is educating a torturer to whom it may one day wind up granting a doctoral degree.

How Mehdi ended up parked in one of the world’s most prestigious universities not only highlights the moral torpor of British academe, but also offers a window onto the dark universe of Iranian political backstabbing.

During the 2009 presidential election, Rafsanjani backed Mir Hussein Moussavi, which gave President Ahmadinejad cause to retaliate. Unable to go after the much too powerful father directly, Ahmadinejad targeted his proxies, family included. Mehdi was a natural choice. He ran an electoral center at Islamic Azad University, a giant academic institution offering affordable higher education across the country and at campuses abroad to over 1.5 million students. It trains the future cadres of the Republic and can mobilize student protests. Rafsanjani is one of the founders of Azad University and currently a governor. Recently, Azad has served as a battleground pitting Rafsanjani’s camp against Ahmadinejad, who tried to snatch it from his adversary’s control. Eventually, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told both sides to back off.

Ahmadinejad had other means. He had already targeted many Rafsanjani loyalists and an institution considered Rafsanjani’s personal think tank, the Center for Strategic Research. Now he zeroed in on Mehdi, whose judicial problems began in August 2009. Accused of economic malpractice, corruption, and embezzlement, Mehdi skipped town before the head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani (brother of Ali Larijani, the current speaker of the parliament), could get his hands on him. 

Having engineered the show trial of the late Ayatollah Montazeri’s son-in-law in the 1980s, Rafsanjani is familiar with the practice of going after an adversary’s close relatives. He found a convenient excuse for his son to leave the country. Mehdi was made an external inspector for Azad University and sent to tour campuses in faraway places, like Eynsham, a sleepy hamlet in the Cotswolds, just up the street from Oxford University. It did not take long before rumblings began to make their way into Iran’s public sphere. What was taking the younger Rafsanjani so long that he had to stay in the United Kingdom for months? Rafsanjani the elder put the matter to rest on December 5, 2009, when he told an audience in Tehran that his son was still traveling world campuses, adding that he had advised him to get a Ph.D. Soon after, Mehdi applied for a DPhil at Oxford.

Mehdi Hashemi was not in the Cotswolds for a prolonged inspection, then, but was actually staying for a doctoral degree. His focus was “the Iranian constitution,” a peculiar subject of inquiry for a man who tortured a recalcitrant business partner, and a vague topic for an Oxford doctoral dissertation. But in British academe, it appears, nothing can stand in the way of the son of a powerful Middle East notable. For mortals wanting to study at Oxford, there are some stringent qualifying criteria. Candidates must speak good English. They must complete an application process that includes submitting a résumé, three written references, transcripts, and other proof of proficiency in their subject, and their research must be their own original work. None of this, it appears, applied to Mehdi, who allegedly benefited from waivers, discounts, and solicitous help from some of his father’s loyal lieutenants. 

First, Mehdi’s English: Ali Reza Sheikholeslami, a retired Oxford professor of Persian studies, wrote in a sworn affidavit that “Mr. Hashemi Bahremani did not have the minimum requisite level of English mandated at Oxford.” Mehdi contends that he had studied English in Australia, at “Canberra’s State University”—an institution that does not exist. 

Next, his three referees are all Rafsanjani loyalists. According to Sheikholeslami, the three academics are: Nasser Hadian, formerly director of the political development program at the Center for Strategic Research, the Rafjsanjani-affiliated think tank; Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif, a former Ministry of Intelligence operative who was deputy foreign minister during Rafsanjani’s presidency, later became Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. thanks to Rafsanjani’s patronage, and is now the vice president for international relations at Azad University; and Hossein Seif-zadeh, a professor at University of Tehran. It is doubtful that any of his referees would be familiar with Mehdi’s scholarly skills since he holds a degree in engineering, not in political science. As Sheikholeslami pointed out, “Mr. Hashemi Bahremani’s academic background and his university degrees had no relevance to his proposed field of study and on this ground alone he was not a suitable candidate for admission.”

Most important, it is alleged that someone else wrote Mehdi’s research proposal. Sheikholeslami noted in his affidavit that the current Persian instructor at the faculty of Oriental Studies, Mohammad Javad Ardalan, “had been asked by my successor, Edmund Herzig, to help Mr. Hashemi with his application.” When I queried Professor Herzig, he refused to comment. Ardalan, according to Sheikholeslami, met Mehdi in Oxford’s poshest hotel—the Randolph—where over tea they negotiated his fee and the nature of his services. Ardalan replied to my queries through Oxford University’s press office by denying the allegations.

When these accusations surfaced, the university launched an investigation and appointed a former vice-chancellor of the university, Sir Peter North, to head it. University authorities have not released its findings to the public. According to Oxford’s press office, “The university does not publish investigations relating to individuals.” Asked if, based on the North report, they considered Sheikholeslami’s sworn affidavit to be false, the press office did not rebut his accusations, but only said,

To the extent that we have made ‘claims’ and ‘assertions’, they go no further than this: Sir Peter North investigated allegations made about the admission of a postgraduate student and found no evidence to support claims that he paid someone to assist with his application. The investigation also found no evidence of impropriety on the part of the admitting tutor.

Mehdi Hashemi is enrolled at Wolfson and at the Faculty of Oriental Studies not with his father’s city-of-origin name, Rafsanjani, but with the family’s village-of-origin name, Bahramani. Perhaps Oxford University’s admission offices, as well as British visa authorities, may be able to plead ignorance concerning the provenance of Iranian names. Less certain is Professor Homayoun Katouzian’s claim that he did not know of Bahramani’s pedigree. Katouzian, who alongside Herzig evaluated and approved Mehdi’s application, is the Iran Heritage Foundation research fellow at St. Antony’s College, and a member of the Iran Heritage Foundation’s academic council. Katouzian has published extensively on 19th- and 20th-century Iranian history and is a fluent Farsi speaker. Not knowing the identity of his prospective tutee is inconsistent with Katouzian’s encyclopedic knowledge of Iran and his academic stature. The same goes for Herzig, a professor of Persian studies at Oxford and is Medhi’s thesis supervisor. How could they be fooled?

In the middle of November 2011, Oxford’s student paper, the Oxford Student, reported Mehdi’s problems with the law and challenged Katouzian’s claim that he did not know Mehdi Bahramani was a Rafsanjani. The paper also discussed a possible link between Katouzian and Rafsanjani allies and interests. It argued that Katouzian may have been asked to fix up something for a friend, namely Vahid Alaghband, the chair of the board of trustees of the Iran Heritage Foundation, which supports Katouzian’s research at Oxford. Alaghband is also the chairman of the Balli Group, a British-based business conglomerate with a vast international presence, reaching even the United States. Balli’s portfolio includes Balli Aviation, which in 2007 leased three Boeing 747 airplanes through an intermediary to Mahan Air, a private Iranian carrier linked to Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and accused by U.S. authorities of being a vector for Iranian proliferation and terror activities. 

To some, the links suggest that Rafsanjani leveraged his Balli Group connections to find shelter for his fugitive son at Oxford. In any case, this is no longer simply a matter of doing a favor for the privileged son of a blood-soaked official from a faraway dictatorship, where the boy is wanted for some white-collar crimes, probably on trumped-up charges. The judgment of the Ontario court makes plain that the son himself is a criminal. Why would Oxford University admit a torturer?

As Robin Simcox documented in a 2009 report for the Centre for Social Cohesion entitled “A Degree of Influence”: “The U.K.’s finest universities are taking money from some of the world’s worst dictatorships—Iran, Saudi Arabia and China, all nations with appalling human rights records, are significant contributors to venerable U.K. institutions.” 

Money usually comes with strings attached. As the Simcox report’s most significant and disturbing findings indicate, “There is clear evidence that, at some universities, the choice of teaching materials, the subject areas, the degrees offered, the recruitment of staff, the composition of advisory boards and even the selection of students are now subject to influence from donors. These problems are heightened by the undemocratic nature of certain donor governments.”

Academic institutions often bend their ethical code to accommodate the dumb children of rich princes in exchange for a generous donation. There is no evidence of Oxford profiting financially by enrolling Mehdi—and yet the fact is that it is not just greed that numbs the judgment of those who bow before tyrants. In many cases, it is something equally or even more sinister. It is the morbid fascination with dictatorial regimes, one that is especially strong in Middle East Studies departments, where a peculiar blend of postcolonial rage against the West and a grievance-driven pseudo-scholarship cloaked in the language and footnotes of the late Edward Said has taken hold of scholars and their pupils. This angry worldview, in turn, has offered the moral pretext for getting sanctimonious about Western governments’ mistakes and imperfections while getting cozy with tyrants, dictators, satraps, and their prodigal, violent children.

As Dennis Hayes, the founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, told Simcox, “British universities are funded by a government that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that make their funding suspect or a dangerous influence?” This is a convenient way to suggest a moral equivalence, and an argument designed to quell the consciences of those who are tutoring torturers.


Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of The Pasdaran: Inside Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (FDD Press, September 2011).

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

PolitiZoid: Raiders of the Lost Mubarak








Also posted on Tea Party Tribune


http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/12/13/politizoid-raiders-of-the-lost-mubarak/

Phares to Arab media: "Strategically the US lost to Iran in Iraq"

December 12, 2011
Washington DC 

Also on Radio Koocheh, independent Iranian radio: http://radiokoocheh.com/article/139038





In a series of interviews on Arab media, Professor Walid Phares, a Congressional advisor and the author of The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East said "in the big geopolitical picture in the region the United States lost to Iran's regime as a result of its strategically abrupt withdrawal from Iraq." Phares who was interviewed by an Iraq TV crew which accompanying Prime Minister al Maliki said "many in Washington and in other capitals wonders if the Iraqi Government can have the will to oppose Tehran's influence over Iraq's Foreign Policy. If Baghdad's central Government would resist Iran's regime, the US and the West will stand by its side, but if it allows the Iranian Khomeinists to use Iraq as a basis for regional expansion, then Iraq would have shifted its strategic choice."


pastedGraphic.pdf

Dr Phares on Iraq TV

Phares was interviewed by a number of Arabic media including the BBC TV Arabic, Radio Monte Carlo Arabic, US funded Radio SAWA, BBC Radio in Arabic, France 24 Arabic as well as Saudi Arabic TV Channel One and Iraq TV. "The Obama Administration hopes to see the Maliki Government in Iraq insure American remaining presence in the country, but that is not a real strategic goal. To protect diplomatic and economic installations is an obligation under international law, not a major achievement. The real measurement of success of the post withdrawal Iraq is the capacity and the will of the Baghdad Government to maintain national security on the inside, and block Iranian attempts to use Iraqi territories or institutions to assist the Assad regime in Syria or Hezbollah in Lebanon." 

In his interview with Radio Monte Carlo Arabic, Phares said "the Obama Administration considers the ending of US presence in Iraq as a victory, but many in Congress and in the opposition feel Iran will be making inroads in Iraq and thus defeating US purposes." He added that "Iran's influence in Maliki's Government is a fact not a speculation." Speaking on BBC TV Arabic, Phares said "Iraq won't be a Japan or a Germany after WWII in their affiliation with the Western alliance. We haven't seen Japanese and West German chiefs of staff visiting Moscow to coordinate with the Soviet command. But we've seen the chief of staff of the Iraqi Army visiting Tehran and meeting with the Padaran commanders (Iranian Revolutionary Guards). It is clear that the dominant powers in Iraq aren't strategic allies of the United States even though they will continue to request technical assistance from Washington. The Obama Administration may display Iraqi acceptance of cooperation as a sign of alliance, but we all know that Baghdad's Government cannot and will not move outside the guidelines of the Iranian leadership regarding defense and regional questions." 


PastedGraphic-2.pdf

Map presented by Dr Phares to Congress in 2006 on Iran plan for Iraq after US withdrawal


In his interview with France 24 Arabic TV Phares said "the Iraqi armed forces can and will crack down on crime and smuggling and they will try to maintain order against minor challenges to Government. But the jury is still out regarding their ability to maintain national security if there is an internal strife of a large nature. Time will tell on Iraqi capacity to maintaining order. That is not the issue. The real challenge is the ability of the Iraqi Government of Mr Maliki to oppose Iran's influence. Surely in their statements Iraqi politicians will say they defend Iraqi policy, but the question is who will define that policy and would it be defined against the interests of the Iranian regime, hardly so." Phares said "in the end one has to admit that, despite military victories on the ground over the past few years, strategically the US lost to Iran in Iraq. And more precisely the Obama Administration strategically allowed Iran's regime to win the day in Iraq, for now." 



Thursday, December 8, 2011

Save Syria Now!: "Walters interview betrays the Syrian people..."


Walters interview betrays the Syrian people, the Syrian opposition and gives stage to a sociopath


ABC’s engagement of Assad continues its bizarre tour of Despots with no moral value and shameless voyeurism


MEDIA CONTACTS:      
Gregg Edgar
Gordon C. James Public Relations
602-690-7977

PHOENIX (December 8, 2011) – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the co-founder of the Save Syria Now! issued the following statement regarding the outrageous interview of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by ABC News’ Barbara Walters:

“Barbara Walters’ irresponsible and disgusting interview of President Bashar al-Assad was a direct betrayal of the people of Syria who have sacrificed everything in hopes of attaining their freedom.  ABC’s decision to send Walters’ to Damascus and continue their tour of the Middle East’s leading despots demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of just who these assassins are and what they have done to their own people. Walters’ post interview analysis goes as far as giving Assad the perception of being disconnected from what is happening at the hands of his military. Instead of seeing the broad abuse that is taking place hourly in Syria, ABC viewers were subjected to a litany of insane denials.  It was as if Assad was laying the groundwork for the day he will face a tribunal in The Hague by separating himself from his actions.

As if Walter’s interview was not enough, the U.S. State Department has the unmitigated gall to offensively chime in with Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner stating just from what happened or what took place in the interview, he appeared utterly disconnected with the reality that’s going on in his country and the brutal repression that’s being carried out against the Syrian people.’ Toner may as well have been testifying on behalf of Assad.  Toner’s statement continues to demonstrate this Administration’s incomprehensible strategy in dealing with this regime.  Its inconsistency of one day calling Assad illegitimate and the next recognizing the validity of his government by returning Ambassador Ford to Damascus is allowing this sociopath to continue his tyranny and reign of terror over the Syrian people. Is it any wonder the Syrian people have no faith in the United States effectively siding with them.

ABC, Barbara Walters and the Obama Administration’s actions exhibit a lack of moral clarity.  If ABC and Barbara Walters’ wanted to bring attention to what is happening in Syria they should have focused their attention on its people and not given a dictator an opportunity to deny what even the UN has recognized as human rights violations. There is a profound journalistic hypocrisy of sitting down with the brutal thug and giving him a platform of denial while real journalism in Syria is rendered impossible by virtue of Assad’s exclusion of any reporting of the crimes against humanity for which he is responsible.  This hypocrisy was laid bare on ABC and is a blight on the principles for which America stands and will be Barbara Walter’s legacy for the Syrian people.

If the Obama Administration wants to make a difference in the lives of the Syrian people, they need to develop the moral courage to stand for freedom, to stand for the principles that built this country and not facilitate the brutal repression that Assad is directly responsible for despite his denials and obfuscation. ”


About Save Syria Now!
Save Syria Now! is a group of Americans of Syrian descent organizing to put pressure on the United States to call for immediate action to be taken against the regime of Bashar Assad of Syria and to bring true liberty to the people of Syria.  We stand with the Syrians protesting in the streets to end the tyranny of the Assad family.  For more information please visit our website at http://www.savesyrianow.org/.

####

Islamist lobbies war in Washington on Arab and Muslim liberals

By Dr Essam Abdallah
December 8, 2011
Original Post on Elaph (Arabic):

Posted also on Tea Party Tribune (English): 
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/12/08/islamist-lobbies-war-in-washington-on-arab-and-muslim-seculars/   


One of the most dramatic oppression against the region's civil societies and the Arab spring is not fought by weapons in the Middle East, it is not led by Gaddafi, Mubarak, Bin Ali, Saleh or Assad. It is led by the powerful Islamist lobby or should I say lobbies in Washington DC. People may find my words curious if not provocative. But my arguments are sharp and well understood by many Arab and middle eastern liberals and freedom fighters. Indeed, we in the region, who are struggling for real democracy, not for the one time election type of democracy have been asking ourselves since January 2011 as the winds of Arab spring started blowing, why isn't the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces? 

Months into the Arab Spring we realized that the Western powers, and the Obama Administration have put their support behind the new authoritarians, those who are claiming they will be brought to power via the votes of the people. Well, it is not quite so. The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Nahda of Tunisia, the Justice Party of Morocco and the Islamist militias in Libya's TNC have been systematically supported by Washington at the expense of real liberal and secular forces. We saw day by day how the White House guided carefully the statements and the actions of the US and the State Department followed through to give all the chances to the Islamists and almost no chances to the secular and revolutionary youth. We will come back to detail these diplomatic and financial maneuvers which are giving victory to the fundamentalists while the seculars and progressives are going to be smashed by the forthcoming regimes.

In the US, there are interests that determine foreign policy. And there are lobbies that put pressure to get their objectives met in foreign policy. One of the most powerful lobbies in America under the Obama Administration is the Muslim Brotherhood greater lobby, which has been in action for many years. This lobby has secured many operatives inside the Administration and has been successful in directing US policy towards the Arab world. Among the leading advisors sympathetic to the Ikhwan is Daliah Mogahed (Mujahid) and her associate Georgetown Professor John Esposito. As shocking there is also a pro-Iranian lobby that has been influencing US policy towards Iran and Hezbollah in the region. 

One of the most important activities of the Islamist lobby in the US is to wage political and media wars on the liberal Arabs and Middle Eastern figures and groups in America. This battlefield is among the most important in influencing Washington's policies in the Arab world. If you strike at the liberal and democratic Middle Eastern groups in Washington who are trying to gain support for civil societies in the region, you actually win a major battle. You will be able to influence the resources of the US Government to support the Islamists in the Middle East and not the weak democrats. This huge war waged by the Islamist lobbies in America started at the end of the Cold war and continued all the way till the Arab spring. The two main forces of this lobby are the Muslim Brotherhood fronts and the Iranian fronts. According to research available in the US, the Ikhwan fronts such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic relations), led by Hamas supporter Nihad Awad, as well as MPAC, ISNA and others waged their political war to block the representatives of Arab liberals and Muslim moderates from making their case to the American public. The Iranian lobby such as NIAC led by Trita Parsi, (National Iranian American Committee) has been hitting at Iranian exiles.

Since the 1990s CAIR and its allies attacked Copts, Southern Sudanese, Lebanese, Syrian reformers, Assyrians and Chaldeans and Muslim dissidents in the United States. The Ikhwan of America demonized any publication, book, article or interview in the national media or local press raising the issue of secular freedoms in the Middle East. The Islamists wanted to eliminate the liberal cause in the Arab world and replace it with the cause of the Islamists. What is also shocking is that CAIR and its allies stood by the oppressive regimes and visited them claiming they speak on behalf of the peoples. CAIR and the Brotherhood fronts in America destroyed systematically every project that would have defended the seculars and liberals originating from the Middle East. No book, documentary or show on the liberals in Arab civil societies was allowed to see the light by the notorious and well funded Islamists of the US. 

Thanks to this powerful lobbying campaign the American public was not given a chance to learn about the deep feelings on the youth in the region. Americans were led to believe that all Muslims, all Arabs and all Middle Eastern were a strange species of humans who cannot appreciate freedom. Instead the American Islamists, helped by apologists on the petrodollars payrolls, convinced the mainstream media that the Arab world has authoritarians and Islamists only. 

I recall when Dr Shawki Karas, the President of the American Coptic Association told me in the late 1990s how he was harassed by Islamist activists for speaking up against the Mubarak regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He was threatened to lose his job at the college where he taught. Reverend Keith Roderick who has assembled a coalition of more than 50 group rights from the Muslim world was severely attacked by the Islamists and he was threatened to be cut off his Church's position. Muslim American leaders who are conservative and seculars such as Dr Zuhdi Jasser were crucified by CAIR and the Brotherhood mafia for daring to challeng the Party line of the Islamists in America and claiming that the Jihadists are the problem in the region. Muslim liberal Dissidents such as Somali Ayan Hirsi Ali, Saudi Ali al Yammi, Syrian Farid Ghadri, Iranian Manda Ervin, and many others were trashed by the Islamist lobbies to block them from defending the causes of secular liberty in the US. Egyptian liberals as well as seculars and democracy activists from Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and other countries have been attacked by CAIR and allies. The pro-Iranian lobby targeted most Iranian-American groups and tried to discredit them, particularly with the rise of the Green Revolution in Iran. By smearing the Muslim liberal exiles, the Islamists were trying to destroy their causes in the mother countries. In the 1990s and the years that followed 9/11 the region's dictators supported the efforts by Islamist lobbies to crush the liberal exiles. The Mubarak, Bashir, Gaddafi, Assad and Khomeinist regimes fully supported the so-called Islamophobia campaign waged by CAIR and its Iranian counterpart NIAC against dissidents for calling for secular democracy in the region. The dissidents were accused of being pro Western by both the Islamists and the dictators. 

The Islamist lobbies also severely attacked members of the US Congress such as Democrats Congressmen Tom Lantos, who passed away, Eliot Engel, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, Senator Joe Lieberman as well as Republican congressmen Frank Wolfe, Chris Smith, Trent Franks and Republican Senators John McCain, Rick Sentorum and Sam Brownback for their efforts in passing legislative acts in support for democracy and liberty in the Middle East. Brotherhood CAIR and pro-Iranian regime NIAC heavily savaged President Bush speeches on Freedom Forward in the Middle East deploying all the resources they have to block the US support to liberal democrats in the region. Islamist lobbies in Washington are directly responsible for killing any initiative in the US Government to support Darfur, southern Sudan, Lebanon, the Kurds, liberal women in the Muslim world, and true democrats in the Arab world and Muslim Africa. 

In the think tanks world CAIR and its allies aggressively attacked scholars who raised the issue of persecution against seculars or minorities in the Arab world and Iran. Among those attacked were Nina Shea and Paul Marshal from the Hudson Institute and the founder of anti-Slavery Group Dr Charles Jacobs who was exposing the Sudan regime for its atrocities. Last but not least is the Islamist relentless campaign to stirke at top scholars who advise Government and appear in the media to push for democratic liberation in the region. The vast and vicious attacks leveled against Professor Walid Phares initially by CAIR's Nihad Awad and then widened by pro-Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood operatives on internet has revealed to Arab and Middle Eastern liberal and seculars how ferocious is the battle for the Middle East in the US. Phares' books, particularly the latest one "The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East" (published in 2010) hit the Islamist agenda hard by predicting the civil society revolts in the Middle East and then predicting how the Islamists will try to control them. Phares was attacked by an army of Jihadist militia online like no author before him was, after Samuel Huntington in the 1990s. Phares as a freedom activist from the Middle East, Mustafa Geha, wrote, is a hero to Muslim liberals. Along with dissidents, lawmakers, experts and human rights activists Phares is a force driving for a strategic change in US Foreign Policy towards supporting secular democracies in the region. This explains why the Islamists of America are fighting the battle for the forthcoming regimes with all the means they have.


Dr Essam Abdallah is an Egyptian liberal intellectual who writes for leading Arab liberal publication Elaph. He teaches at Ain Shams University