"Joining" Obama's Coaltion Against ISIS, Qatar Pays $20 Million to Al-Nusra to Free 45 Fijian UN Peacekeepers

As reported by Ynetnews in an article entitled "Qatar paid ransom for release of Fijian peacekeepers" by Roi Kais:

"Syrian opposition sources said on Saturday that Qatar paid militants from the Nusra Front in Syria a ransom of $20 million in exchange for the release of the 45 Fijian UN peacekeepers, the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported.

The report comes a day after the Qatari Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that it had helped to secure the release of the peacekeepers following 'the request of the government of Fiji'."

How kind of Qatar, whose citizens have been financing the al-Nusra Front and ISIS, to pay this ransom directly to al-Nusra, a branch of al-Qaeda that has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

In July, the Obama administration agreed to sell Qatar $11 billion in advanced armaments, including Javelin anti-tank missiles. I can promise you that some of these missiles will find their way into the hands of the al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) and Hamas.

Of course, Qatar has agreed to participate in Obama's newly announced coalition to fight the Islamic State. As reported by The Guardian in an article entitled "Middle East countries sign up to Obama's coalition against Isis" by Spencer Ackerman (my emphasis in red):

"A day after Obama told the US public that the latest war in the skies above Iraq will soon cross the border into Syria, he received a major diplomatic boost from the leaders of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and the Gulf Cooperation Council - an alliance of the Sunni Arab Gulf nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – who pledged to 'stand united' against 'the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.'

In a document known as the Jeddah Communique, issued after intense diplomacy from US secretary of state John Kerry in the Saudi city, the signatories agreed to staunch Isis funding and influx of foreign fighters, critical priorities for Washington. They expressed openness to contributing directly to the war effort, saying they would be 'as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign' against Isis."

Qatar is going to stand in the way of funding for the Islamic State and contribute "as appropriate" to Obama's military campaign? Needless to say, John (Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry is blissfully unaware of the Islamic principles of taqiyya and kitman, which permit Muslims to lie to unbelievers.

What Does Saudi Arabia Think About Khamenei's Edict Against Nuclear Weapons?: "Taqqiya"

Everyone is familiar with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's disappointment with the recent decision in Istanbul by the P5 +1 to grant Iran another month and a half to pursue its nuclear weapons development program without interference: a "freebie" (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/16/world/meast/iran-nuclear/).

Obama, of course, took issue with Netanyahu's characterization and inanely declared, "But so far at least we haven't given away anything" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/obama-at-least-we-havent-given-away.html). You will also recall Obama's "secret" message to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, conveyed via Turkish Prime Erdoğan and premised upon Khamenei's purported "fatwa" (religious edict) against nuclear weapons (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/obama-sends-message-to-irans-supreme.html).

What does America's ally, Saudi Arabia, think of Khamenei's fatwa and this extension of time granted by the West to Iran to halt nuclear weapons development? The answer is to be found in an April 15, 2012 article entitled "The ‘Security Council’ for fatwas!" (http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article612854.ece?service=print), written by Tariq Alhomayed, who is the editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, which is tied to the Saudi family. Alhomayed writes:

"The problem with the Obama administration is that it wants to pursue policies that may be acceptable to the day-dreaming cultural elite, but not to regimes that are full of cunning and deceit, like the Iranian regime, whose primary objectives do not include development, openness, humanitarian values, the well-being of its citizens, or even religious tolerance; rather all that the Iranian regime — and the ideology behind it — cares about is expansion and infiltrating other countries, for sectarian motives. Since the world is ruled by international laws and conventions, as well as interests, it is absurd to talk about an Iranian fatwa when negotiating with Tehran, for countries — like individuals — have reputations and histories that cannot be ignored, therefore the reputation of a bad country, like the reputation of a bad individual, is not based on statements or fatwas, but rather past deeds! Therefore, when US Secretary of State Clinton talks about the Iranian fatwa, we can be certain that she has not heard about Iranian taqqiya) the practice of precautionary dissimulation emphasized in Shiite Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when under threat)!

. . . .


In reality, the claim that we can rely on a fatwa that prohibits the possession of nuclear weapons, reminds us of the famous Arab proverb: 'the thief was asked to swear (his innocence), and he swore (falsely) and said 'yes, this is the way out [of the predicament]!' If this fatwa is one of the merits of dialogue with Iran, then by God we are truly facing a disaster in the region!"

Or in short, Obama and Hillary Clinton are naifs, willing to be lulled into inaction by Khamenei's lies, which are permissable when dealing with infidels, i.e. the doctrine of "taqqiya."

Yes, the West is in deep trouble with Obama at the helm.

Nicholas Kristof, "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home": Another Useful Idiot

Walter Duranty was a journalist who served as the Moscow bureau chief of the New York Times from 1922 through 1936 and received a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his stories in 1931 on the Soviet Union. Exalting Stalin, Duranty denied the existence of famine in the Soviet Union, which resulted in the deaths of some 10 million people between 1931 and 1932.

Fast forward to 2009: Columnist Roger Cohen sought to indoctrinate New York Times readers that Iran is "not totalitarian" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02cohen.html).

Today, Nicholas Kristof wishes to convince us that the US has nothing to fear from Egypt's ascendant Muslim Brotherhood. In his latest New York Times opinion piece "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/kristof-joining-a-dinner-in-a-muslim-brotherhood-home.html?hp#comments), Kristof describes his chatter over dinner with an educated, 24-year-old hostess, who seeks to allay Western anxiety over the Brotherhood's goals. Kristof concludes:

"Revolutions are often messy, and it took Americans seven years from their victory in the American Revolution at Yorktown to get a ratified Constitution. Indonesia, after its 1998 revolution, felt very much like Egypt does today. It endured upheavals from a fundamentalist Islamic current, yet it pulled through.

So a bit of nervousness is fine, but let’s not overdo the hand-wringing — or lose perspective. What’s historic in Egypt today is not so much the rise of any one party as the apparent slow emergence of democracy in the heart of the Arab world."

Having read Kristof this morning, I am trying to keep my breakfast down.

Notwithstanding the assurances of Kristof's enchanting hostess, consider a June 8, 2011 interview published by the Egyptian daily Al-Shorouq (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/5404.htm), in which Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawy, a former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in the West, stated:

"There will be no contradictions. Our thinking and our affiliation are to the exalted Allah. Our affiliation is to Islam. The global state of Islam is our ideal."

Reflect upon a June 11, 2011 article on the Muslim Brotherhood's Website (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/5432.htm), which declared:

"[However,] we must not impose Islamic shari'a, forcing the people to adopt something about which they are ignorant and with which they are unfamiliar... If we do this, [various] ploys will be used to circumvent it, and there will be hypocrisy. [People] will exhibit Islamic [behavior] only outwardly...

. . . .

"There is no other way but gradual action, preparing the [people's] souls and setting an example, so that faith will enter their hearts... Gradual action does not impose Islam at once, but rather step by step, in order to facilitate understanding, studying, acceptance, and submission."

Listen to a February 7, 2011 interview with Kamal Al-Hilbawi, former speaker of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, on Al-Alam TV (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4990.htm), in which he says:

"We think highly of a country whose president is important, courageous, and has a vision, which he presents in the UN, in Geneva, and everywhere. We think highly of a country that has a wise government, a country that confronts Western hegemony, and is scientifically and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, these characteristics can be found only in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Chew over the January 30, 2011 interview with Muhammad Ghanem on Al-Alam TV (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4972.htm), during which the Muslim Brotherhood representative in London asserted:

"I am absolutely certain that this revolution will not die, and that the next step must be one of civil disobedience. This civil disobedience will generate strife among the Egyptians. This disobedience must include halting passage through the Suez Canal, stopping the supply of petroleum and natural gas to Israel, and preparing for war with Israel."

Dwell upon the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's political platform (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4970.htm):

"On our part, we believe that the burdens of presidency must not be placed on a woman's shoulders – any more than supervising and leading the army – since they contradict her nature and the rest of her social and humanitarian roles."

And contemplate the words from a 2010 sermon delivered by Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi' (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4650.htm):

"Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it. The peoples know well who is [carrying out] resistance and who has sold out the [Palestinian] cause and bargained over it. We say to our brothers the mujahideen in Gaza: be patient, persist in [your jihad], and know that Allah is with you..."

. . . .

The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise."

By now, you've probably got my drift. Kristof, however, doesn't understand that in the Muslim Middle East, prevarication, i.e. taqiyya (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/taqiyya-when-lying-is-ordained-from.html), is sanctioned from above when seeking to vanquish non-believers.

Yet another useful idiot. It's fast becoming a New York Times tradition . . .

Mahmoud Abbas's New York Times Op-Ed "The Long Overdue Palestinian State": Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Concerned over Netanyahu's forthcoming speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority, decided to weigh in with a New York Times guest op-ed entitled "The Long Overdue Palestinian State" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html?_r=1&ref=opinion). My good friend Mahmoud, whose term as president of the Palestinian Authority ended in 2009, but who unilaterally decided to remain in office, contends that Palestine is prepared to become an independent state:

"We have the capacity to enter into relations with other states and have embassies and missions in more than 100 countries. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union have indicated that our institutions are developed to the level where we are now prepared for statehood. Only the occupation of our land hinders us from reaching our full national potential; it does not impede United Nations recognition."

Like many other Israelis, I want nothing more than an independent Palestine, which will enable Palestinians to enjoy the fruits of liberty and determine their own destiny. I also have no opposition to East Jerusalem serving as their capital, as was proposed by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert. Moreover, there is no question in my mind that Abbas & Co. are capable of establishing embassies, operating banks and delivering the mail. But does brother Mahmoud have the will or capacity to prevent terrorist organizations from firing missiles at tiny Israel? Herein lies the crux of the matter.

Abbas succeeds in glossing over his recent unity pact with Hamas without even mentioning the name of this political party, which is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S., the European Union, Canada and Japan. Did Abbas really think that by not mentioning his pact with Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis), this omission would be overlooked?

No mention either of the recent incident at Joseph's tomb, where an unarmed Israeli civilian who had come to pray at Joseph's tomb in Nablus (such visitations by religious Jews occur regularly), was shot dead in cold blood by the Palestinian police (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13179865). This hardly inspires confidence.

Read brother Mahmoud's op-ed again. What else is missing? There is no mention of whether he is prepared to recognize Israel. Sure, he is currently willing to establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, but nowhere does he say that he intends this as a permanent arrangement or that this is tantamount to recognition of Israel. Brother Mahmoud writes:

"Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948."

Apparently, recognition of Israel is one of those "core issues," which leads to the conclusion that Abbas, like Hamas, is seeking the establishment of a Palestinian state coupled with "hudnah," i.e. a mere temporary truce with Israel.

Assistance to Palestinian refugees? Absolutely, but what about those 900,000 Jews who since 1948 were evicted from their homes in the Muslim Middle East, deprived of their property, and also sent to live in squalid tent cities? Don't they deserve a "just solution"?

And for the sake of accuracy, note how Abbas fails to mention that it was the Palestinians who refused to accept the 1947 UN General Assembly partition plan, which would have created an independent Palestine more than 60 years ago. He also has forgotten that most of the land designated by the UN for that Palestinian state was appropriated by Egypt and Jordan until 1967.

But let's not hold any of this against dear Mahmoud, who, practiced in the art of taqiyya, i.e. lying to gullible non-believers, must do what he must do in order to survive.

Thomas Friedman's "End of Mideast Wholesale": Road Apples

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "End of Mideast Wholesale" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&hp), Thomas Friedman today showcases his ignorance and arrogance regarding Israel and developments in Egypt. Friedman writes:

"For the last 30 years, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt wholesale — by having peace with just one man, Hosni Mubarak. That sale is over. Today, post-Mubarak, to sustain the peace treaty with Egypt in any kind of stable manner, Israel is going to have to pay retail. It is going to have to make peace with 85 million Egyptians. The days in which one phone call by Israel to Mubarak could shut down any crisis in relations are over.

Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and the front-runner in polls to succeed Mubarak as president when Egypt holds elections in November, just made that clear in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. Regarding Israel, Moussa said: 'Mubarak had a certain policy. It was his own policy, and I don’t think we have to follow this. We want to be a friend of Israel, but it has to have two parties. It is not on Egypt to be a friend. Israel has to be a friend, too.'”

Amr Moussa wants to be "a friend of Israel"? Apparently, it never occurred to Friedman that Amr Moussa is capable of saying one thing to The Wall Street Journal, intended to soothe Western sensibilities, while saying something quite different to the Egyptian media. Friedman still doesn't understand that in the Muslim Middle East, prevarication, i.e. taqiyya (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/taqiyya-when-lying-is-ordained-from.html), is sanctioned from above when seeking to vanquish non-believers.

Observe the "other" Amr Moussa speaking with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masri Al-Yawm on April 21, 2011 (http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/36787.htm):

"The Camp David Accords signed between Egypt and Israel have expired and no longer govern the situation, Arab League secretary-general and potential Egyptian presidential candidate Amr Moussa has said.

Moussa, who participated in the negotiations with Israel in 1978, made the statements during a discussion with Egyptian youth.

He added, 'What governs the relationship between the two countries is the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and the Egyptian-Israeli treaty.'"

Or in other words, Moussa is paving the way for another war with Israel.

As noted by Eric Trager in an article entitled "The Throwback" (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/87607/moussa-biography-egypt-arab-league-mubarak) in The New Republic:

"Despite having represented the combined interests of the Arab world’s 22 autocracies for the last decade, he is now the frontrunner to succeed Mubarak in what could be Egypt’s first-ever truly democratic presidential election. And Moussa owes his startling political ascendance primarily to one thing: his shameless exploitation of anti-Israel demagoguery for political gain.

. . . .

As Egypt’s top diplomat, Moussa immediately projected an adversarial approach toward the United States and Israel. One of the first issues he handled was the Madrid Peace Conference, which the George H.W. Bush administration hoped would help shape a new regional order following the Persian Gulf War. When Israel insisted that the administration push for the repeal of a U.N. General Assembly Resolution that equated Zionism with racism as a precondition for joining the peace conference, Moussa demanded that the issue be tabled until after the conference, and Egypt was ultimately absent from the vote.

. . . .

He declared that U.S. support for Israel 'poisoned' the peace process, and, after the U.S. presented evidence of a Libyan chemical weapons program to the Mubarak regime, Moussa publicly denied that such evidence existed. He backed Yasser Arafat’s refusal to compromise on Jerusalem during and after the failed Camp David summit in the summer of 2000; called on the Arab world to support the Palestinian Intifada in October of that same year; and declared the Palestinians’ 'right of return' to Israel a 'sacred right,' over strong U.S. objections."

Friedman believes it is incumbent upon Israel to befriend this man? Thanks for the gratuitous advice, Tom, but you know what you can do with it.

Taqiyya: When Lying Is Ordained from Above

The West is blissfully ignorant of a concept, taqiyya, prevalent in the Muslim Middle East, which permits lying to non-believers in order to defeat them in battle. I observed in a January blog entry how the Egyptian governor of south Sinai alleged that a series of shark attacks against tourists visiting the Red Sea were the result of a plot by the Israeli Mossad (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/shark%20attacks). Inane? Just a one-time contrivance? Consider more recent instances of prevarication from the Palestinian territories:

Last week, Italian national and pro-Palestinian activist, Vittorio Arrigoni, was abducted and strangled to death in Gaza. Tawhid wal-Jihad, an al-Qaeda-linked group, acknowledged that it was holding Arrigoni, whom they said would only be released if their own leader was freed by Hamas, but this did not prevent Hamas from subsequently accusing Israel of the murder (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/italian-national-vittorio-arrigoni.html).

On April 7, Hamas terrorists fired an advanced laser-guided anti-tank missile from Gaza at a yellow school bus in southern Israel. Hamas had already learned in early March that Israel's Trophy anti-tank missile defense system, now protecting Israel's frontline Merkava tanks, is effective, so instead, they took aim at defenseless children. An Israeli 16-year-old boy died yesterday as the result of wounds sustained in the attack. Hamas claimed it didn't know the yellow bus was transporting school children (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-says-didn-t-mean-to-target-israeli-school-bus-1.354967).

In March, five members of an Israeli family were stabbed to death in their sleep by two Palestinians in the Israeli settlement of Itamar. Yesterday Israeli announced that they had apprehended the murderers, who had confessed to their crime. The Palestinian Authority had sought to blame a disgruntled Thai worker for the grisly killings (see: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212177).

Although much of the West still does not grasp taqiyya,
there should be no excusing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent declaration (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml):

"There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

John Kerry, principally responsible for convincing Hillary of Assad's moderation, wants to be the next Secretary of State. Kerry has repeatedly visited Damascus on behalf of Obama and favored sending a U.S. ambassador to Damascus for the first time in five years following the murder by Assad of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. I suggest that Kerry find something else to do in life that is more in keeping with his limited ken.

[Assad's security forces shot to death 12 more protesters in Homs last night. It is only a matter of time before the Syrian Ba'athist regime collapses.]