web analytics
May 25, 2015 / 7 Sivan, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’

Obama: ‘Deal Ensures Iran Won’t Have Nuclear Weapons, Will Keep Israel Safe’

Tuesday, April 7th, 2015

Leopards do not change their spots and Iran’s radical Islamist government is not likely to stop sponsoring terrorism either. U.S. President Barack Obama apparently does, in fact, know that — he just doesn’t think it’s important enough to stop the U.S. from closing a deal on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Why? Because he says he believes it’s the best way to keep everyone, including Israel, safe.

Actually, Obama believes the world powers led by the United States should close that deal precisely because the Iranian government is not likely to stop sponsoring terrorism. At least, that is the way Obama explained his reasoning in an interview Monday with NPR’s Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep. In the exclusive interview, he also said Israelis are right not to trust Iran, but that they can always trust America to be there to help protect them.

The interview was focused in its entirety on the issue of the nuclear deal worked out between U.S.-led world powers and Iran last week, and how it affects the rest of the world, particularly Israel.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been especially critical of what he has called, from the start, a ‘bad deal” repeatedly urging the “P5+1” world powers to reconsider, and reformat the agreement into a “different, better deal.”

Netanyahu this week expressed his deep concern over the enhanced ability of Iran to promote its terror agenda with newly-increased funds earned when international sanctions are dropped as a result of the agreement.

But Obama told NPR he believes it is more important to keep the focus on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – via the current agreement – than dealing with anything else Tehran is doing.

“I’ve been very forceful in saying that our differences with Iran don’t change if we make sure that they don’t have a nuclear weapon,” Obama said.

“They’re still going to be financing Hezbollah, they’re still supporting Assad dropping barrel bombs on children, they are still sending arms to the Houthis in Yemen that have helped destabilize the country.

“There are obvious differences in how we are approaching fighting ISIL (ISIS) in Iraq, despite the fact that there’s a common enemy there.

“So there’s still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran — and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti-Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime.

“But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment,” he said.

“The — I want to return to this point. We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can’t bank on the nature of the regime changing. That’s exactly why we don’t want [Iran] to have nuclear weapons. If suddenly Iran transformed itself into Germany or Sweden or France, there would be a different set of conversations about their nuclear infrastructure.

“So, you know, the key here is not to somehow expect that Iran changes — although it is something that may end up being an important byproduct of this deal — but rather it is to make sure that we have a verifiable deal that takes off the table what would be a game-changer for them if in fact they possess nuclear weapons.

NPR: The demand that’s being made there, of course, underlies a broader concern that Israelis have. You’re suggesting implying through this nuclear that Israel must live another 10 or 15 years and longer with a country that is fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel. How should Israelis think about Iran in the years to come?

Hezbollah Arsenal and Terrorists Caught in Nigeria

Thursday, May 30th, 2013

Nigerian authorities raided a Hezbollah terror hideout, confiscated a huge amount of weapons and arrested four terrorists intending to attack Israelis and Westerners.

The raid was carried out in home, used as a warehouse, in the northern city of Kano. Nigeria’s security services director Bassey Etang told reporters, “These weapons were brought into this country by a foreign terrorist organization called Hezbollah. Their target is to attack Israeli and Western interests. We’re not going to allow that.”

The arsenal of weapons was hidden in a bunker under a bedroom, and the raid netted 11 60 mm anti-tank weapons, four anti-tank landmines, two rounds of ammunition for a 122 mm artillery gun, 21 rocket-propelled grenades, 17 AK-47 assault rifles with more than 11,000 bullets and dynamite.

The raid and arrests coincided with growing pressure on the European Union to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but the initiative is limited to Hezbollah military wing. Any terrorist designation of Hezbollah by the EU would not include its political party and echelon, which gives the orders for attacks.

The three terrorists who were arrested are Lebanese, and all of them have confessed

Like other Muslim countries, Nigeria is threatened by Islamic fundamentalists. The rebel group in the country is called Boko Haram, which means “Western education is a sin.” There is no evidence that Hezbollah and Boko Haram were working together.

State Security Services director Etang said, “You can also be sure that if a group like this is existing, then it may even lend support to some of the local terrorists we have on the ground.”

The Spring of Islamic Fundamentalism

Thursday, August 2nd, 2012

The ability of the American media to ignore a “politically incorrect” event, regardless of its importance, is familiar. One of the best examples is the invitation issued by President Obama to the President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, to pay an official visit to the United States during the September session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The most frequently asked question in the immediate aftermath of the presidential elections in Egypt is: To what extent should an Islamic leader be trusted when he proclaims his intention to act in keeping with all the requirements of a democratic political system? Also, how much should an Islamic leader be trusted when he promises to respect the principles of religious and political freedom?

What, for instance, is the value of the following statement: “Islamic clerics will help lead the Revolution but then they step aside to let others rule”? Or: “Criticism of the Islamic Government will be tolerated.”?

Oops..! Sorry for the mistake! Those were not the words of the newly elected President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi. These encouraging thoughts were expressed by Ayatollah Khomeini on September 25, 1978, just four months before his triumphant return to Teheran. What Khomeini then did is well known; there is no need to repeat it here. On August 18, 1979, however — less than a year after his pro-democracy statements — the thoughts of the powerful dictator of Iran had acquired a different direction. When he addressed the participants in the demonstrations of some disappointed former young supporters, the angry cleric issued the following warning: “I repeat for the last time: “Abstain from holding meetings, from blaspheming, from public protests. Otherwise I will break your teeth.”

On February 2, 2011, The American Thinker published an article by this author, exploring the similarities and differences between developments in Egypt and Iran. While the mainstream media was elated by what seemed a sunrise of democracy over the Nile, the article stated: “[T]he demonstrations shaking Tehran at the time and Cairo now have a clearly visible violent and Islamic component.” It also emphasized the prominent role the actions of President Obama’s administration were about to play in shaping the future political system of the most important Arab country.

As President-Elect, Mohammed Morsi promised to establish a “civil and democratic state in Egypt.” He also said he would appoint as Vice Presidents both a woman and a Christian, and assured Egyptian journalists that there would be no Islamization of the cultural life of the country. Morsi added, however, that those journalists who had published articles supporting the peace treaty with Israel would not be allowed to practice their profession.

If one again compares the Egyptian developments with the Iranian precedents, Mohamed Morsi currently is using Khomeini’s vocabulary from September of 1978. The question is: What kind of statement will he make if he reaches the degree of power Khomeini was enjoying in August of 1979?

Secretary of State Clinton proudly declared in Cairo that the United States did not have any preferences regarding the participants in the Egyptian elections. Although her announcement followed a well-established pattern of political correctness, at the same time it reflected the completely wrong strategy of the Obama administration. That policy is based on the absurd premise that by exposing Islamic Fundamentalism as the main enemy of democracy and Western civilization, American policymakers are endangering the United States more than are the actions of the Jihadists. It was this “strategy” that contributed immensely to the electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood. Twenty-Five million out of eighty million Egyptians preferred not to vote at all; the rest of the votes were almost split between Mohamed Morsi and his main rival – General Ahmed Shafik, a close associate of former President Hosni Mubarak.

American diplomacy had a better path to follow. A definite assurance should have been given to the effect that the United States would respect the choice of the Egyptian people. At the same time, if the new Government tried to change Egypt’s political system by imposing an ideology, that discriminated against women and minorities, and that violated its peace treaty with Israel, it should not expect any support from the United States.

One of the many questions Secretary Clinton could have asked President-Elect Morsi was: “If the Brotherhood has so tightly embraced the ideals of political democracy, how is it possible that such a crucial change did not in any way affect the ideology of the organization?”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/the-spring-of-islamic-fundamentalism/2012/08/02/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: