Terrorism Returns to Egypt, Will Sanity about Islamism Arrive in the West?

Summary: We see the beginnings of terrorist Islamist groups in Egypt again, with a government unable or unwilling to stop them. The violence will grow. At the same time, this development teaches us about the nature of Islam and Islamism, disproving both sides in the dominant Western debate.

By Barry Rubin

As I've predicted since February, a major consequence of the Egyptian revolution and the rise of radical Islamism there will be a return to the terrorism of the 1990s which destroyed the tourism industry; targeted Christians; murdered moderates and secularists; and killed government officials and bystanders.

Now a group has attacked two police stations in el-Arish. They:

"`Stormed in by the hundreds mounted on pickup trucks and motorcycles waving black flags, a symbol of Jihad,'" said local resident Mohamed Mahmoud. `The militants were heavily armed with machine guns, hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades.'"

Where are these weapons going to be coming from? Arms' smugglers allowed to operate without the restrictions of the old regime; politically sympathetic or well-bribed soldiers turning over equipment.

But, of course, CNN misses the point. Those responsible, it reports, are, "Takfir-wal Higra, a group sympathetic to al Qaeda's goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate." Actually, that group originated in Egypt long before Usama bin-Ladin began his political activity. And in Egypt, terrorist Islamists come out of the Muslim Brotherhood, demanding faster and more extreme tactics. We will be seeing a lot of such people in the coming months and years.

Read it all

Norway As Example: It's Forbidden to Discuss How Political Apologists for Terror-Using Groups Unintentionally Increase Terrorism

Note: This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post in response to recent events. I hope this is the last time I address the issue. If you are going to forward or post a copy please use this one as it has a number of small improvements and is not cut.

It is available in Norwegian at http://wp.me/p1mneq-6a9 Scroll down past the English version. I have not been able to check this translation personally.

Before I begin I want to make five points absolutely clear:

1. I was one of the first people in the world to write condemning the action in Norway as terrorism and as committed by a right-winger. Therefore--and based on my career of 35 years including 30 years working on counterterrorism--it should be clear that I would never endorse the murder of dozens of people. The irony is that a plea to fight terrorism by not granting it rewards was distorted into a pro-terrorist position!

2. A large portion of the Norwegian mass media has repeatedly stated that I endorsed the killings and called the kids at the camp terrorists. This is a lie. False quotes were attributed to my article. To my best knowledge, nobody in Norway tried to establish the truth or report fairly.

3. No Norwegian media--indeed no reporter from anywhere in the world--made any attempt to interview me on this issue and find out what I thought and what I wrote. Imagine, this is the biggest story in Norway and nobody contacted me at all.

4. The Jerusalem Post never discussed this issue with me nor contacted me to discuss the issue and hear my position. I have written for this newspaper for about 30 years without a single controversy arising before.

5. We have arrived at the strange situation in which the Norwegian media and apparently the Norwegian government considers me to be "pro-terrorist" but does not consider Hamas (and a number of other groups one could name) to be "pro-terrorist."

What explains this kind of thing--deliberate lies, deceitful reporting, disinterest in truth, disinterest in fairness? Answer: The conversion of the public debate and media into propaganda exercises in which (ironically, McCarthyist) witchhunts are conducted and those entrusted with the sacred pursuit of truth and accuracy use their positions to spread lies, incitement, and indoctrination.

This has been going on now for some years but there's nothing like experiencing something first-hand to comprehend it well. I now hope to get back to work as an analyst of international affairs and especially of the Middle East.

Foreign Minister Store with Hamas Prime Minister Haniya: Smiles at Hamas, Frown at Israel. Deny Being an Enabler of Terrorism. Norwegian media accuses me--but not Hamas--of supporting terrorism. Haniya on US. assassination of Usama bin Ladin, “Of course we condemn the…killing of a Muslim jihad fighter….We pray for Allah to cover him with His mercy, next to the prophets, the righteous, and the martyrs."

A Case Study from Norway:
It Is Forbidden to Discuss How Political Enablers of Terrorist Groups Unintentionally Encourage Terrorism Without Being Labelled A Terrorist

By Barry Rubin

“I do not understand Norway’s position, and I say that as a friend of Norway. If they shoot, if they fire rockets, why doesn’t Norway believe that they are terrorists? What else do they need to do? Let us not forget that Norway and the other Scandinavian countries called in Yasir Arafat and said: `Iif you want a deal, you must first renounce terrorism. You must recognize the state of Israel, and you must commit yourself to peace.’ Why is all this forgotten? What is the difference between the PLO at that time and Hamas today?” --President Shimon Peres, May 2011

We want Palestine in its entirety—so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst…. We liberated Gaza through resistance. We want to conduct resistance in the West Bank as well." -- Hamas leader Mahmud Zahhar, July 2011, a few days before members of Norway’s ruling party expressed enthusiasm for helping Hamas. .

Ironically, the reaction to my article, “The Oslo Syndrome,” proved its thesis, the same point as the one President Shimon Peres made. If terrorism is empowered, terrorism is more likely to occur. That uncontroversial point has been blown up into something controversial by deceit.

The Norwegian government and media establishment wants no honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there.

How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing?

The blog “Israel Matzav” sums up my position very well:

“Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government's support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?”

And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate--as the ambassador portrayed his country’s view--that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state eleven years ago) but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology--right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic--but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.

I didn’t write about the content of his ideology but about his choice of strategy on the basis of my three decades’ of scholarly study about terrorism. Why did the Norwegian terrorist think that killing people would help—not hurt—his cause? Because like terrorists around the world he sees other groups that use terrorism succeed politically, build a mass base of support, and gain sympathy for their cause despite their methods.

Second, nobody else apologizes for criticizing Israel in the harshest terms after terrorist attacks, something I did not do to Norway. No newspaper in the world to my knowledge apologized for the terrible things written on its pages about the United States after September 11.

The deputy foreign minister and foreign minister of Norway, who both attacked me, have never criticized Hamas or Hizballah by name. Last May, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre explained, “We condemn organizations that are involved in terrorism, but Norway has considered the situation as such that having lists where we put an organization and call it a terrorist organization will not serve our purposes.”

Obviously, if Hamas was named as a terrorist group then cabinet ministers can’t have its leaders to tea. But by not naming it, they are saying: You can commit hundreds of acts of terror and it will cost you nothing politically. But if Israel responds, for example, by counterattacking into the Gaza Strip, we will condemn Israel.

Yes, this is a policy that encourages terrorism and makes it look successful: it wins sympathy for the cause and antagonism toward the victims. But while Norway won’t criticize terrorist groups by name, its officials and media are unrestrained in attacking Israel.

Alan Dershowitz has written from personal observation that in Norway, “Anti-Semitism doesn't even mask itself as anti-Zionism.” And this behavior is carried on by public institutions and media.

Former Prime Minister Kare Willoch criticized President Barack Obama for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because he was “Jewish.” Nor the author Jostein Gaarder who wrote an op-ed in Aftenposten entitled, “God’s Chosen People” at a time when three Israeli soldiers had been kidnapped by Hizballah and a war was on, describing Judaism as “an archaic national and warlike religion.” Apology?

In 2008, a Norwegian comedian said on national television, “I would like to wish all Norwegian Jews a Merry Christmas - no, what am I saying! You don't celebrate Christmas, do you!? It was you who crucified Jesus." Apology? Last year the minister of finance spoke at a largely Islamist-organized anti-Israel rally. Apology? A person who has served as a Foreign Ministry official remarked in 2008 that she occasionally wished the UN would send “precision-guided missiles against selected Israeli targets.” Apology?

But I never said and I’m not saying now that a terrorist attack took place in Norway because of its anti-Israel policies or atmosphere. Nor am I saying that Norway “supports” terrorism itself, that it applauds the murder of civilians elsewhere. What I’m saying--as nobody has publicly acknowledged in Norway—is that to show terrorists they will get more sympathy than Israel, to reward a group like Hamas, to say that terrorism can be ignored if directed against the “proper” people is to increase the overall level of terrorism against Israel and in the world, including in Norway itself.

You’ve never heard of Samira Munir and Norway’s establishment has swept her story away. She was a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin who fought for women’s rights and against sharia law. She was found dead in November 2004, supposedly a suicide but seeming far more likely to have been a terrorist murder. She had received daily death threats by phone and walking down the street. Might this act, whose perpetrators were never punished, indicate that some people think they can commit terrorism, get away with it, and suffer no political damage?

If others who have extremist views and/or mental disorders see every day that terrorism produces political advantage and sympathy for those who commit it they are more likely to commit terrorism. If groups see their terrorism is no barrier to being invited to Norway and to have lunch with cabinet ministers while their enemies’ self-defense countermeasures will be condemned and vilified they are more likely to adopt terrorism as a strategy.

The underlying concept of the Norwegian response is that Norway is a country that isn’t supposed to have terrorism committed against it. But Israel is a country that deserves to have terrorism committed against it. My point is that neither country “deserves” to have this happen. That doesn’t mean Norway is guilty or should be punished or that an evil terrorist attack is justified. No, it means that Norway should be more consistently and universally against giving terrorists victories—even though it does so by ignoring their terrorism.

We are now approaching the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States. There were those then, including in Norway, who said the United States had it coming and the attack was due to its policies. There are always those—including in Norway—who say that Israel has it coming and the attack is due to its policies.

My view is the precise opposite. I’m saying about Norway precisely the same thing I said about the United States after September 11: the attack proves the need to take a tougher stance against terrorism and against all terrorist groups. If the world thinks al-Qaida won and its attack brought political gains, then there would be more terrorism. As it happened, there was tough action against al-Qaida itself but other terrorist groups concluded that terrorism worked, increased their operations, and did reap political rewards.

The Norwegian government and left-wing media wants there to be two sectors in the world: those immune not only from criticism but from serious discussion of their actions, as compared with those who can be lied about with impunity, have hatred incited against them, and then must apologize for not staying in their place as second-class people with second-class rights to express their views.

What I wrote in the “Oslo Syndrome” is that people who accept rationales for terrorism and reward those movements politically increase terrorism. Equally, those who accept double standards, slanderous lies (without apology) about themselves in the media of other countries, and the consorting of those countries with groups that want to exterminate them only increase that behavior, too.

Here are some good responses to the situation:

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/08/norways-deputy-foreign-minister-appeals.html

A collection of antisemitic cartoons in the Norwegian media:
http://www.israelwhat.com/anti-semtic-cartoons-in-the-mainstream-media/

Alan Dershowitz article (free registration required)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704474804576222561887244764.html

A long analysis of Norway’s actions
http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-song-of-norway-its-antisemitic.html

Peres and Store quotes: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/05/06/peres-criticizes-norway-on-hamas/

Zahhar quote, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/3051.htm

Haniya quote http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2910.htm

A fascinating story about a Norwegian-Arab politician from Syria who has renounced her former antisemitism and become a critic of Norway's policy from that perspective.
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/more-tolerance-norway

The Obama Administration's "Mission Accomplished" Fallacy in the War on Terrorism

By Barry Rubin


Leon Panetta, leaving the CIA directorship post to become secretary of defense, and General David Petraeus, leaving the job of commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to become CIA chief, have just come close to declaring victory in the war against terrorism, though that's a phrase the Obama Administration refuses to use.

Good news, says Panetta. Once the United States knocks off about 20 al-Qaida leaders currently in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa, that organization will be out of commission. And while the Taliban cannot be quickly wiped out, says Petraeus, it can be "neutralized" so that it won't cause much trouble in future.



Uh-oh. Here's my proposed headline: Obama Administration Says: Make Deal with September 11 Accomplices. How's that sound? That's what's really going on, a deal with the terrorists and not a defeat of them.

And there's much worse to come in this policy.

Read more

My Adventures as An Alleged Terrorist

By Barry Rubin

The North American airport security systems are a perfect metaphor for Western policies toward the Middle East. Consider my last two trips between the United States and Canada when each time I’ve been identified as a potentially dangerous terrorist. There was no interest about who I was or any evidence I could offer, each time silly things set off alarm bells against me while those who should have been watched more carefully walked through. In that way, the U.S. government has eagerly helped bring down the Egyptian government and subverted the security of Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (among others), while waving through Syria, the Turkish regime, Hizballah, and at times even Iran as no problem. Here is a brief account of my adventures.

Read more

President Obama’s “Reset” of Relations with Muslims and a Massacre in Pakistan

This article is published on PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

There’s something particularly poignant about news that at least 80 people were killed in Charsadda, Pakistan, by a Taliban attack on a police training center there. It isn’t that the event was so unique—except for one feature—but it is a suitable symbol of the situation in the Muslim-majority world today and how messed up is the Western perception of that part of the world.

The unique aspect is that the attackers said they are taking revenge for the killing of Usama bin Ladin by the United States.

And so as Americans cheer, 80 Pakistani families are in mourning. Let me quickly add that I do not blame the United States for this new mass murder. The crime is on the terrorists’ head. Nor do I believe the United States should not have killed bin Ladin. Not at all.

But this is a teachable moment so let’s summarize the lessons.

--Terrorism goes on. The death of one man or even of one organization won’t end it.

--If the United States had not killed bin Ladin on that particular day, in that place, or in that way, the Charsadda attack would have happened anyway. Thus, terrorists use specific events as excuses to do what they would have done anyway.

--Pakistan, albeit not to its credit, had nothing to do with the killing. In fact, major elements in the government protected bin Ladin while even more of the regime opposed the U.S. attack. Terrorists don't kill people because their victims are "guilty" nor do they need a "good reason" for murder. Their reason is the attempt to stage a revolutionary transformation of their society which they believe is mandated by the will of God and also would give them wealth and power.


--The main cause of terrorism is not America (or Israel, or any other country) killing terrorists but revolutionary Islamism’s attempts to seize state power or of those revolutionary Islamists (and their allies) already in power (see Iran, Syria, Hamas in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, and perhaps soon the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?) to overthrow neighbors.

--These policemen were targets not because they were oppressive instruments of capitalism or imperialism but because the revolutionaries want to destroy order so they can operate in a situation of anarchy which they hope to replace with their own rule.

--Most of the victims of terrorism are Muslim but those who proclaim their love of Muslims and of Third World people (the Western left and most Muslim activists there) couldn’t care less about these thousands of killings. Their only interest is to blame them on America, Israel, the West, or Islamophobia. In fact, they attempt to interfere with the battle against the terrorists and revolutionary Islamists, thus leading to the death of more Muslims.

--Revolutionary Islamism uses terrorism because it is a reflection of the movement’s ultimate totalitarian and repressive aims.

--If revolutionary Islamism was just a heretical caricature of Islam then no Muslims would follow it. Why did millions of Iranians support the Islamic Republic? Why has Hizballah come to dominate the Lebanese Shia community? Why will millions of Egyptians vote for Muslim Brotherhood candidates? The reason is that revolutionary Islamism is a "legitimate" interpretation of Islam based on its texts and traditions. But it is not the only, or "best," or most beneficial (for Muslims and others) interpretation. To deny that Islamism is derived from Islam won't convince any Muslims because they know better. This is a battle over politics and interpretation, not "Islamophobia," a concept largely created by Islamists for their own benefit.

--Relatively moderate Arab governments are not just using the threat of revolutionary Islamism to stay in power (although they do that also) but as a reflection of a very real danger to their countries and societies. Whatever one thinks of the Mubarak regime, a Brotherhood regime would be worse. In contrast, it is ridiculous to protect the Assad regime in Syria because it is an ally of revolutionary Islamists, helping them to murder people in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon.

--Any true friend of Muslims would want the revolutionary Islamists defeated and the regimes supporting them overthrown. Such a person would join the fight against not only al-Qaida but also Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, and the Taliban.

--Most of the obsessive demonization of Israel today does not spring from some humanitarian impulse but is orchestrated by revolutionary Islamists and their Western allies (witting or otherwise) to commit genocide on Israeli Jews, expel or oppress Palestinian Christians, and impose a totalitarian state on Palestinians.

--Until Western leaders understand the above principles, their policies will not only fail they will be counterproductive for the interests of both their own countries and millions of Muslims, who do not want to be ruled by revolutionary Islamism.

Now here's an interesting question. Suppose the above list of propositions was submitted to leading politicians, policymakers, journalists, and academic experts, how many of these points would they accept as obvious and how many totally reject? If this list was given to average people how many of these points would they say that they've never heard expressed by their mass media or leaders?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

A Detailed Account of President Obama's Great Accomplishment in Killing Usama bin Laden

This article is published in PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

Military Officer: Mr. President, on the basis of hard work and intelligence-gathering over the last nine years we now know where bin Laden is. We believe we can kill him and get our men out again safely without causing many--if any--civilian casualties. Do we have your approval for the operation?

Obama: Let me think about it.

Obama (sixteen hours later): OK, go ahead.

I know many people will think the above account doesn't give the president enough credit. But as a corrective to many of the inflated accounts being offered in which the president is receiving--and taking--full credit for the operation, I think it is reasonable.

Moreover, I think there is no way that Obama could have said "no" and was quite aware that if he did not give the go-ahead sooner or later the news would have leaked out and he would have looked very bad indeed. There would have been a huge political cost.

Even if the team had failed to kill or capture bin Ladin, been wiped out, or killed civilians inadvertently, the domestic popular support for getting bin Laden is so great that no one would have faulted Obama for trying. Obama would have been given credit  even by his opponents and would have received sympathy for taking a tough decision and feeling remorse for the suffering incurred on others.

This was simply not a difficult or courageous decision to make. And that's an hone
st and accurate assessment--not a merely cynical one--even if one contrary to the general conventional wisdom reactions. The president made the right decision but any other outcome was quite unlikely.

It isn't that Obama hasn't made some tough or arguably courageous foreign policy decisions--the Afghan policy, the Libyan intervention, not to do more against the Syrian dictatorship, demanding the immediate downfall of the Egyptian regime, etc.--the problem is that all of those decisions were wrong ones.

All of the credit should belong to the career military and intelligence people who gathered the information, made the assessments, put together the operation's plan--if anything had gone wrong they, not Obama, would have been fired--and risked their lives to make this happen.

Bin Laden's Death Creates Teachable Moments about the Middle East

This article was published on PajamasMedia. The text is provided here for your convenience.

DOROTHY: “I thought you said she was dead.”
GLINDA: “That was her sister--the Wicked Witch of the East. This is the Wicked Witch of the West. And she's worse than the other one was.”
--“The Wizard of Oz”

By Barry Rubin

It's astounding that Hamas, Fatah al-Aqsa Brigades, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood all issued pro-bin Laden statements. They didn't have to do it. He was no friend of theirs. Yet out of Islamic solidarity, anti-Western hatred, and perhaps fear that it could happen to them they did. It's extraordinary these groups could say such statements and not be totally discredited in American eyes for taking the side of the September 11 terrorist leader.


Ding-dong, bin-Ladin’s dead. The Wicked Terrorist of the West is no more. But there are plenty more around.

In fact, several events are already proving it. The question is: Does the U.S. government, its European friends, and the Munchkins of their intellectual elite know a wicked witch when they see one?

Even the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades of Fatah—the ruling party in the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (PA) of which “President” Mahmoud Abbas is a leader (Abbas himself didn't criticize the operation)—cheered bin Laden. In other words, the militia of a group that has received lavish U.S. funding has now endorsed the September 11 attacks! Will the mass media notice this point? Will Congress?

To make the story even more interesting, Palestinian Media Watch pointed out that the Palestinian news agency edited out that message in its English-language site. What a marvelous case study of the usual practice of expressing extremism in Arabic for their own audience and moderation in English for the Western journalists, policymakers, and “experts.”

The statement is truly remarkable. Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Brigades didn’t owe bin Laden anything. It is supposedly a secular-oriented group and has never cooperated with al-Qaeda. Yet so great is the power of radical Islamism, anti-Americanism, and pure hatred of the “other” that this group—which easily could have remained silent—couldn’t help itself.

The statement reads—and note the use of the word “jihad” from a Fatah group:

“The Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Brigades mourned Tuesday the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, following his assassination Sunday by American troops in Pakistan.

“His death, a statement said, `won't stop our Jihad mission against injustice and occupation….The Islamic nation was shocked with the news that bin Laden had been killed by the non-believers."

He left a generation who follows the education he gave in Jihad, the statement continued. The fighters in Palestine and around the world who have lost their leaders did not stop their mission and will continue in the tutelage of their masters."

"We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The umma, [Islamic nation] which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing.'"

And Ma’an in English changed the end of that passage as follows:

"We tell the Israeli and the American occupiers that we have leaders who have changed history with their Jihad and their steadfastness. We are ready to sacrifice our lives to bring back peace."

Get it? The Fatah group says jihad, Islamism, terrorism hooray! Bin Laden was their great teacher. But the version given out to the world is that they are ready to die for peace. This is the gap that usually exists and usually goes unnoticed.

It is less surprising that Hamas expressed anger at its sister’s demise. Yet remember that historically Hamas was not an ally of bin Laden's. Yet it couldn't resist either. Hamas’s candidate for Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh—you know, the guy we are always being told leads the “moderate” faction—mourned the death of this “Arab holy warrior.” He was confirming that bin Ladin was properly waging jihad.

Haniyeh continued, “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”

Now, if you just see that line quoted consider what it means. Haniyeh is declaring a blood feud with the United States which means that Hamas is committing itself to kill Americans. Saying that the United States sheds “Muslim and Arab blood” is not an accidental phrase.

Of course, this comes after the U.S. government successfully intervened to press Israel to reduce sanctions on the Gaza Strip to an absolute minimum; okayed the passing of $400 million of U.S. taxpayer money to the Gaza Strip (through the Palestinian Authority) to take care of folks there; and helped overturn an Egyptian government keeping Hamas in check.

You call that gratitude? Objectively, the Obama Administration has been one of Hamas’s best friends. Moreover, Hamas has just signed a unity agreement with Fatah. Scores of countries will vote in September at the UN General Assembly to recognize a Fatah-Hamas government unconditionally.

Incidentally, note that it is portrayed as an act of aggression for the United States to try to kill or capture the man who launched a bloody, unprovoked attack on it. This is precisely the way much of the Western mass media and a number of governments portray Israel's self-defense against terror attacks.

The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl asks the right question:

“Should the mourner of bin Laden be recognized as a worthy partner for peace with Israel, or a potential leader of a new Arab state? Haniyeh’s comments won’t leave the White House--which has been weighing how to respond to the Palestinian unity deal -- with much of a choice.”

Perhaps and perhaps not. And how about the leaders of all those other democratic countries just aching to break bread with Hamas? In fact, what is career moderate Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate Palestinian Authority making a deal with Hamas?

Well, a few hours later the PA signed a unity agreement with Hamas. Backing the September 11 attack seems no barrier to their cooperation. Or to continued U.S. aid and diplomatic support? Or to Europeans supporting a Fatah-Hamas state? Guess what? The British government immediately issued a statement applauding the Fatah-Hamas deal.

And that’s not all. Haniyeh also urged the Palestinian Authority to rescind its past recognition of Israel. Remember, that’s no longer a demand by an enemy but a proposal made by a partner and ally. In Haniyeh’s words: Israel’s presence “on our land is illegal and cannot be recognized.” Be sure that he was not talking about parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem but the whole shebang.

Meanwhile, the Syrian regime’s killing of more than 500 unarmed demonstrators is not damaging its standing at the UN, where Syria may soon receive a seat on the Human Rights’ Council. Well, why not? Libya and Iran have achieved such rewards.

And what about Hizballah, now a major part of Lebanon’s government, involved in such events as the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks, killing 242 Americans, and a number of kidnappings including the horrible torture and murder of Colonel Rich Higgins?

Then there's the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Its leader called for violent Jihad to destroy America in October 2010. Four months later, the president of the United States publicly accepted its inclusion in a future Egyptian government. Might this not be a good idea?

Finally, if the United States can do a targeted killing of a terrorist who had killed Americans, unintentionally knocking off an innocent bystander in the process, how can anyone complain about Israel doing the same thing?

Yes, there’s a great deal to learn from the bin Laden assassination.

PS:
Maan has issued a "correction" on the translation but then al-Aqsa Brigades denied having made the statement. Presumably, Maan would not have been fooled by imposters and Abbas probably told the al-Aqsa Brigades that the statement was very damaging and should be withdrawn.
Oh, and by the way, appeasement won't work with these forces because they view the conflict as irreconcilible no matter what America does. Here's a little parable:

DOROTHY: "You can have your old slippers but give me back Toto...." The Witch tries to remove the slippers and gets a terrible shock from them.
DOROTHY: "I'm sorry. I didn't do it! Can I still have my dog?"
WITCH: "No!....Those slippers will never come off, as long as....you're alive."

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704330404576291193887494596.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4062337,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-mourners-of-binladen/2011/04/19/AFlPCfYF_blog.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/wl_nm/us_binladen_palestinians_2
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4976

Bin Laden Is Dead And His Cause Goes Marching On

This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is presented here for your convenience.

Please be subscriber 22,046 (daily reader 39,646). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Usama bin Laden is dead. But revolutionary Islamism is very much alive and stronger than ever. Thinking that bin Laden is the main problem and his death is the solution is very dangerous indeed and might well intensify the policies that have been leading toward the victory of his cause, though not his specific movement.

It is easy to forget that when bin Laden came on the scene revolutionary Islamism was in retreat. True, Iran was ruled by a revolutionary Islamist regime but that government had failed to extend the revolution overseas very much despite its best efforts. Another such regime, the Taliban, came to power in remote Afghanistan.

But by the end of the 1990s, revolutionary Islamism wasn’t doing so well. The reason was that its strategy was to overthrow Arab governments from within. There had been civil wars in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in other places. The existing dictatorships, however, had repressed the Islamists.

So bin Laden came along with a different approach. If direct attacks on non-Islamist governments in Muslim-majority countries didn’t work, he proposed an international movement that would raise revolutionary enthusiasm by attacking the West.

One doesn’t have to isolate a single reason for this targeting. The West represented democracy and modernity, a licentious freedom and secularism that bin Laden and his comrades detested. They also hated Western policies, especially the support of Middle Eastern regimes to which these Islamists attributed their own inability to win.

While Israel was one of these countries, prior to September 11, bin Laden’s movement was more concerned about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It also spoke a great deal about an alleged genocide in Iraq due to sanctions. And finally, it wanted to hit the West to show that it was a paper tiger and could be defeated. And an overarching factor was that the Islamists did not want the West to serve as role model for the future of their own societies though they feared that this was precisely what was happening.

So bin Laden formed al-Qaida and took the road to September 11. It is important to understand that al-Qaida failed as a movement but succeeded in the broadest sense as an idea. Since al-Qaida was relatively small and eschewed political action and base building for the sole tactic of terrorism it was relatively easy to repress, though not to eliminate entirely.

The U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan drove it from its home base and killed or captured many of its leaders. Al-Qaida scattered but that was not such a great disadvantage given its strategy. From Morocco to Somalia, from Indonesia to Western Europe it continued to stage scattered, but sometimes very bloody attacks. Yet that was the most it could do. In revolutionary terms, al-Qaida was equivalent to the terrorist’s of late nineteenth century Europe, the assassins and bomb throwers of anarchism and Russian social revolutionary tradition.

Ah, but who, then, is the Lenin of our day? Just as the anarchist bomb-throwers were a sideshow—however horrific, bloody, and needing to be repressed—the same is true of today.

Al-Qaida stages individual acts of terrorism. Hamas, Hizballah, the AKP in Turkey, and the Muslim Brotherhoods seize state power. And they do so with the help of Iran and Syria.

That’s power, that’s a threat far exceeding the blowing up of a café or embassy. To take control over the lives of millions of people, to hold assets amounting to billions of dollars, to rule over whole territories and launch full-scale wars, that is power. That is a threat to Western interests, to world stability.

What has happened since September 11, 2001? We can list the terrorist attacks by al-Qaida and the casualties. And we can list the following not by al-Qaida:

--An Islamist regime rules Turkey and has seized control of most institutions and is gradually crushing democracy. This regime has aligned itself with Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria.

--An Islamist regime rules the Gaza Strip and has already set off one war and will no doubt do so again. Its patrons are Iran, Syria, and now Egypt. This government now exercises veto power over any Israel-Palestinian peace which means there won’t be an Israel-Palestinian peace.

--An Islamist-oriented regime rules Lebanon, backed by Iran and Syria. It has already set off one war and will no doubt do so again.

--The Iranian regime has weathered a major internal upheaval and is heading full-speed ahead toward nuclear weapons.

--With Western help the regime in Egypt—one of the main bulwarks against revolutionary Islamism has fallen--and whether or not Islamists there take over they will be a lot stronger, able to act freely, and direct a movement of millions seeking to Islamize and eventually make Islamist the largest Arab country of all.

--Revolutionary Islamism is also a serious threat, though so far has been kept at bay, in countries like Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan while in other parts of the world it has spread to places like Chechnya, the northern Caucasus, the Balkans, Nigeria, Somalia, southern Thailand and the southern Philippines, and Indonesia. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan seems far from impossible as does a revolutionary Islamist upheaval in Pakistan.

--Serious Islamist movements have gained political hegemony over growing Muslim communities all over the West. While many Muslims are indifferent to the movement and a few courageous dissidents combat it, Western governments and elites often blindly favor the Islamists.

--In fact, the degree that Western governments, elites, and societies are blind to the actual threat defies belief. The far left—which is a lot nearer than it used to be—often makes common cause with revolutionary Islamism.

Many of these other movements are “smarter” than bin Laden, which is to say they know how to be more tactically flexible. They can smile, and smile and be a villain. They understand far better how to be patient, conceal their plans, use elections, sponsor social services to win supporters, run youth camps to train suicide bombers, take Western aid and assistance, hang out with Western journalists to prove they’re cool guys, produce satellite television networks, and play Western democracies for all they are worth. Oh, and they can still throw bombs with the best of them.

Or, to put it in Iranian terms, bin Laden was the “little Satan” and the “big Satan,” the real revolutionary Islamist movement, couldn’t care less about his death. Indeed, his death serves a useful purpose. If the West thinks the “war on terror” is over and it’s time to celebrate, all the better. Countries can go on trading with Iran, engaging Syria and Hizballah, and acting as if there’s no big threat in Egypt. All the better to eat you up.

So bin Laden is dead and September 11 is, in a sense, avenged. But his cause goes marching on. It is marching forward. And as the West cheers at the good news of bin Laden’s death it may go back to sleep thereafter, snoring as the bin Laden’s of the world advance.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.

Terrorism Flourishes Because It Brings Public Relations and Political Gains

By Barry Rubin
 
Why is terrorism against Israel increasing now? Because the terrorists have:

--Everything to gain domestically. Terrorism mobilizes support among their own people and proves their militancy against rival groups.

--Everything to gain regionally. There is increasing radicalization and growing power for revolutionary Islamism. Throughout the region and especially for Hamas, Egypt's revolution--which Islamists view as a victory for them--has emboldened radicals and terrorists.

--Nothing to lose internationally. The West, and the United States in particular, will do nothing to punish them.

--And lots to gain in terms of public relations. The Western media often gives them good coverage and blames Israel when it retaliates.
 
The examples of recent days amply prove all of those propositions:  

Hamas, which fired or allowed to be fired 50 mortar rounds at Israel, believes it now has a sympathetic government at its back, in Cairo. Moreover, there is no international reaction against its behavior.

Indeed, the New York Times' coverage claims that up until now Hamas has observed a ceasefire, despite the firing of an estimated 600 rockets and mortar shells in two years and several attempts at terrorist attacks on the ground (the most recent of which coincided with the upsurge in mortar shells).  It also mentioned, without qualification, Hamas' claim that it has up until now tried to prevent cross-border attacks despite the fact that there is no evidence for that and much against it.
 
But when Israel retaliated against Hamas for these attacks, much of the international media highlighted Hamas' claim that Israeli forces had killed civilians, ignoring the fact that a mortar position was located, even according to a Palestinian witness--whose statement is buried in the Times story--that they heard the mortar being fired by Hamas people just outside their house.
 
The story should be: Hamas attacks Israel, recklessly uses civilian homes as cover.
 
A few days earlier, the Al-Aqsa Brigades of Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority, claims responsibility for murdering a Jewish family at Itamar--including three children--and there is no international cost. Coverage of the attack in much of the Western media was accompanied by equal or greater space devoted to criticizing the West Bank settlements and those who live there.

In addition, a wire service story claimed that the Al-Aqsa Brigades claim was probably not true (on what basis?) and that the group was almost defunct (a clear lie never before seen anywhere in print). The association between the Al-Aqsa Brigades and Fatah was not made though it is clearly identified as such on the official Al-Aqsa Brigades Internet site!  
 
Finally, an attack on a bus stop in Jerusalem was widely reported in the following ways: AP ran with the story a photo of a Palestinian in Gaza wounded in earlier Israeli attacks (in response to the barrage of rockets); Le Monde claimed the "targeted bus" was headed for a settlement (which seems to be inaccurate as the bomb was left in the station), as if that excuses the attack.

As for Reuters, it explained: "Police said it was a `terrorist attack'--Israel's term for a
Palestinian strike." A "Palestinian strike"? Sounds like someone didn't show up for work and demanded higher pay. There is, according to Reuters, no such thing as a terrorist attack against Israel. Presumably, terrorism only happens to other countries.

So events in the region and the international reaction encourage terrorism.  No surprise. If terrorism is not only unpunished but not even criticized internationally--even rewarded with sympathy for the terrorists' cause and criticism of Israel, the victim--why shouldn't terrorist attacks increase?

On one level, President Barack Obama's response was quite correct:

“There is never any possible justification for terrorism. The United States calls on the groups responsible to end these attacks at once and we underscore that Israel, like all nations, has a right to self-defense.”

But perhaps the problem is that the United States must do more than "call" on those responsible to stop terrorism--something we all know they won't do. Perhaps it should help make them stop. Since his policy has been, whether intentionally or not, helping Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, and Hizballah, as well as never punishing the Palestinian Authority for its incitement or Fatah for its terrorism, changing that policy is a good way to begin.

Moderate Democratic, Jewish Congresswoman Shot; Six Die in Arizona Shooting

.by Barry Rubin
Giffords seems to be a moderate Democrat--my kind of politician--who is pro-Israel and pretty centrist, the last profile of someone who would be targeted by a left- or right-wing extremist. Jared Loughner, 22, is the shooter and appears to have created his own blend of extremisms. He seems to be a deranged person--among his favorite books he lists both Mein Kampf AND the Communist Manifesto. Some of his statements can (and probably will) be attributed to conservative influences--mistrust of government, obsession with gold/silver backed currency--but he seems actually quite mental. He also did things like burn an American flag. No clue yet as to whether Giffords was targeted for any particular reason other than her availability.

I have seen at least four tweets by people who claim to have known him saying he was left-wing--though this may or may not be true.
From JTA::

A gunman shot US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) Saturday.

Giffords was shot outside one of her signature "Congress at your Corner" events just north of Tucson. A gunman approached and shot her in the head....he gunman killed [six] others before he was tackled.

Giffords, 40, was elected to Congress in the Democratic sweep in 2006. The first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Arizona, she made her Jewish identity part of her campaign.

"If you want something done, your best bet is to ask a Jewish woman to do it," Giffords said at the time. "Jewish women -- by our tradition and by the way we were raised -- have an ability to cut through all the reasons why something should, shouldn't or can't be done and pull people together to be successful."

Giffords fought a hard election this year, against the national anti-incumbent, anti-Democratic mood. She tacked to the right of her party on immigration, saying border security was of primary consideration. The election was called in her favor weeks after the vote.

An Article That Will Forever Change Your View of Airport Security

Please be subscriber 18,033 (and daily reader 20,033.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

This is an awesome article about Israel's security methods and the new technologies being developed. If you think that airport security in Europe and North America is inefficient and unnecessarily intrusive now, after you read this article you will know that for sure. Basically the new technologies are quick, accurate, and don't require profiling in the sense that is barred by Political Correctness. The tests focus on identifying individuals likely to be terrorists rather than confiscating their shampoo and toothpaste, taking x-ray photographs, or requiring objectionable body searches.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

A Few (More) Words on U.S. Airport Security

Here's my one-sentence definition of U.S. airport security: 

Let's intensively search fifteen million people not just at random but--even worse--using silly profiling guidelines that misdirect our focus in the hope of finding one or two terrorists a year who, if they exist at all, are using innovative tactics that will get by our procedures.

If this approach could be justified by protecting people's lives then it could be acceptable. But it isn't.

And the moment someone says they do not support profiling on the basis of what categories might be more likely to be terrorists--on anything other than the grounds that it is not legal under existing law--they have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say about counterterrorism. Any policies based on anything other than profiling who is going to be a likely terrorist, in regard to who is actually committing terrorism, endanger the safety, privacy, and pocketbooks of everyone they are supposed to be protecting.

Why American Airport Security Is Really So Horrendous

Please be subscriber 17,925 (and daily reader 19,925.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

Security checks at American airports have become the most controversial topic in the United States. This debate is so full of mistaken assumptions and misleading ideas that it is hard to know where to start in analyzing it.

Basically, it can be described as follows: Let's intensively search fifteen million at random--worse, using silly profiling guidelines--in hope of finding one or two terrorists who, if they exist at all, are almost certainly using an innovative tactic that will get by our procedures.

Let’s consider the terrorist threat within the United States. The opening point must be that the threat of terrorism on airplanes within the United States is very low in frequency. That doesn’t mean a successful attack might not be horrendous, but that the number of attacks the terrorists can mount is going to be small.

Ask yourself this question: How many terrorists will try this year to get on board internal U.S. plane flights? The answer might be zero and it is almost certainly lower than five.

Why is this? It is hard to mount a sophisticated attack from within the United States in the post-September 11 period. The number of people ready to be suicide terrorists in this manner is limited in the U.S. population, as is the number of good bomb-makers. Terrorists also have many other targets and, indeed, the greatest danger is an individual attack using simple technology on very easy targets, as happened at Fort Hood and on many other occasions.

The goal of U.S. internal airport security, then, is to be so impressive that it scares off terrorists, to catch any terrorists who are trying to board, and to persuade the citizenry that the situation is well in hand and that the experts know what they are doing.

Yet here’s the reality. At a railroad station in California, one of my colleagues was asked by a security screener to show his driver’s license. He started laughing and asked, “Why?”

The guard said back sarcastically, “Haven’t you heard of September 11?”

But that’s why my colleague was laughing. All of the September 11 hijackers did have valid drivers’ licenses. And a terrorist who is going to blow up something can easily get a phony driver’s license. Thus, asking for such a document makes the guard (and the public) feel better but it is utterly worthless.

No doubt, the U.S. government will claim that it has achieved the goal of keeping terrorists out of airports. But this is misleading. The TSA has literally never caught a terrorist at an airport. And why go through an airport nowadays with any reasonable level of security when you can look for relatively unguarded targets? That’s what terrorists do.

What is the strategy of a smart warrior? Get his enemy to send all of his troops to guard someplace and then hit at a weak point somewhere else.

For good reason, then, the terrorists have moved to other methods and targets. Attackers have boarded planes outside the United States and put bombs on cargo planes.

As an experienced counterterrorism expert put it: "If our national security professionals bothered to read the recent Al-Qaida strategic publications they would see that the shift in Al-Qaida strategy makes most of this security theater worthless. Will the terrorists take another shot at a plane full of Americans at some point? Probably, but just like last year the threat for the next period will come from an inbound foreign flight."


If the terrorists have shifted their priorities why should the budget, personnel, stringency of an abandoned tactic be continually intensified?

In short, this massive security force and procedure is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and harassing tens of millions of passengers in a futile attempt to locate possibly one or two terrorists a year.

One terrorist puts a bomb in his shoes that doesn't work. Forever after, all shoes must be checked for millions of people? Terrorists plan an aborted attack using a gel. Forever after all liquids and gels must be banned and thus seized from millions of people?

When dealing with counterterrorism, resources will always be limited. If huge resources are thrown away on low-quality, ineffective, and misdirected tasks that means less attention can be paid to the real threats.

That’s why the Underpants Bomber and the Shoe Bomber and also the Times Square Bomber, and yes even the Fort Hood shooter, and others were not caught by the security system. It was too busy paying for people to pat down or x-ray Americans randomly.

People in authority don’t want to admit this because if there ever is a successful attack on a plane they don’t want to be quoted as having been wrong. But read that paragraph above, it’s the truth.

Indeed, the response is: If we don't have this strong security what will happen if a plane blows up? Everyone will ask who let this through. Prediction: The next time there's a real threat or--may it not happen--a plane blows up the investigation will discover that the current system wouldn't have stopped it. That's not speculation: it's what has happened every time before.

Checking passengers is about the passengers themselves. If the system doesn’t do one kind of (effective) profiling it does another (silly profiling). I used to be stopped in the United States for special inspection every single time. Why? Because I was loyal to my Jerusalem travel agent, who arranged my flights. Buying a ticket outside the United States was profiled as likely to be a terrorist. So in the “dangerous” line I was usually behind the Chinese grandmother.

There are other such profiling rules like watching someone carefully if they buy a one-way ticket (knowing things like this, terrorists can afford to buy round-trip and lose their money posthumously on the second ticket), having a relatively new passport, and so on. Profiling, then, goes on but it is just the wrong kind of profiling. What is the right kind? Well, step one is to look at non-citizens who come from certain countries.

It is no exaggeration to say that the great majority of the TSA system is a waste of time, checking documented American citizens who have no motive for commiting terrorism. Put them through the metal-detecting portal, have them put their possessions on the belt that goes through the X-rated x-ray machine. That's enough.

Here's another counterterrorist truth:

Any security system that isn’t completely stupid—and likely to be ineffective--must put the bulk of its resources into looking at those most likely to carry out an attack.

This is not “racial” profiling since these people don’t constitute a race and aren’t being profiled because of their race any more than examining Germans in the United States during World War Two was a racial issue or looking most carefully at people from Communist states during the Cold War was racism. Yes, the Islamists will try to disguise themselves but that’s not so easy for them, though using Western converts is sometimes an alternative.

Does this inconvenience people who may seem to be Muslims, Middle Easterners, excessively nervous, not being able to account for themselves in a logical fashion, or having something suspicious in their bags? Sure it does. But does it contribute to the safety of the passengers to ignore all of these points and inconvenience one hundred times more people? Whether or not this accords with U.S. law is not my department. If it's impossible, or wont happen for political reasons, at least have no doubt that this is the right way--and the safer way--to do things.

Rather than change and improve its methods, one trick used by the U.S. government is to reclassify certain attacks as not terrorism at all. For once the government admits that the problem derives from revolutionary Islamism, an ideology whose constituency has certain characteristics, it becomes much harder to line up everybody for potential pat-downs and x-ray machines which, by the way, don't even detect plastic explosives but only metal, thus further reducing their value.

If I could use the specific, detailed examples given to me by friends involved in U.S. counterterrorism efforts about what's going on behind the scenes you would be shocked at how bad the ruling experts are. They really believe that everyone is a threat and there's no sense singling out potential Islamist radicals as the most likely terrorists. Since the Fort Hood shootings, the U.S. army has made zero progress improving its understanding of the threat and is still denying that radical Islamic sentiments might have anything to do with such attacks.

Many  government experts aren't just against profiling on moral or political grounds: they honestly think it is totally unnecessary and that random screening is better.

Here's another point related to this kind of official blindness: Counterterrorism should never be in the hands of a bureaucracy. That work requires people who are very flexible, think outside the box, and are not tied down by institutional interests. The larger the bureaucracy the more wasteful and inefficient it is…which leads us to the Department of Homeland Security.

What's needed is the kind of people who do special operations in the military, not those obsessed with forms and procedures. The latter are the kind of people who can say, after the Underpants Bomber got through the security and failed only because his bomb fizzled and the other passengers jumped him, that this proves the system worked.

If someone who thinks like that is in charge of protecting you, you are in serious trouble.
Critics of the existing system often cite Israel’s security procedures. The United States can learn a lot from these but, at the same time, there are also important differences. That’s another article.

But here’s the single most important and most easily adapted lesson:

Israel cannot afford the U.S. approach because it must have a system that really does stop terrorism, not just fool people into thinking everything's okay.

In contrast, the United States can afford a gigantic, expensive system that achieves almost nothing, since the level of terrorism on passenger planes leaving U.S. airports would remain the same even if the TSA and its toys were to be cut back by, say, three-quarters or more. 

The exception on this issue, as I’ve indicated above, is that it is worthwhile to invest in a high-level of security for flights arriving from outside the United States. Yet here, too, the focus brought by realistic profiling is needed.

As we saw recently, the terrorists are now working on sending cheap bombs on international cargo flights, which have not been fully checked by security. Now there will be a billion-dollar defensive program in this area as well.

So is the TSA going to check each railroad, bus, airport, and highway around the clock on the chance of finding some terrorist passing through at the same time as an army officer who spoke openly of Jihad was ignored until he opened fire? Will there come a point where this all becomes too onerous, time-consuming, and expensive?

Perhaps the ultimate weapon of terrorists is not to blow up America but to bankrupt it.

Is a government and establishment proclaiming itself horrified at the idea of checking documents when someone has been stopped for due cause by a police officer—the Arizona law—to see if that person is an illegal alien going to authorize stopping and searching of any American citizen for much less of a reason?

Ultimately, the current airport security system is crazy not only because it is excessive in terms of inconvenience or violating privacy but perhaps most of all because it is a terrible way to guard against terrorism. Of course, the public can be propitiated by little changes and big promises. Countering the terrorists requires something much different.

Now if you want to read something terrific that shows the devastating failures of U.S. counterterrorism policy, check out Patrick Poole, "Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat."

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Two Key Indicators on Israel-Palestinian Developments

Please be subscriber 17857 (and daily reader 19,357). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Here are two developments that are important indicators about the Israel-Palestinian situation.

First, the current Palestinian Authority (PA) strategy is to stall and avoid negotiations because making a deal with Israel requires giving concessions to get to a compromise peace. The leadership wants to make no concessions, both because they themselves don’t wish to do so and know that the pressure of their constituency and radical rivals won’t allow it.

At minimum, they can only make the kind of deal that leaves the door open to a Round Two in which Palestinians and their allies could seek to wipe Israel off the map.

But Israel would never make a deal like that.

So the way out for them is a unilateral declaration of independence and international recognition. This new status could then be used as leverage to ignore Israel's demands. And if Israel reacts to this situation--say, by hitting back against cross-border terror attacks--the “independent state” of Palestine can then turn to its allies, sympathizers, and the UN to charge Israel with international aggression and ask Arab states to provide military equipment.

Of course, this will probably never happen. It’s important to know that current U.S. policy opposes such a move. PA “president” Mahmoud Abbas, not the most reliable source, has claimed publicly that the U.S. government has promised to support the unilateral independence option if direct talks don’t work.

And with Abbas and the PA making sure the talks won’t work, believe me, they won’t work.The U.S. government has now officially denied Abbas’s claim. In the words of State Department spokesman Mark Toner:

“We remain convinced that ultimately the only way that we’re going to get a comprehensive peace is through direct negotiations, and anything that might affect those direct negotiations we feel is not helpful and not constructive.”

In other words, they know that the PA is using this method to sabotage the talks, negotiations which the United States wants to succeed (or at least continue), if for no other reason than that the U.S. president has put his prestige behind them.

Here’s the second point: The PA leadership also doesn’t want violence with Israel at this time and has a tremendous interest in keeping down Hamas in the West Bank. Thus, for the first time in ten years, Israel does not have a single terrorist in the northern West Bank (Samaria) it is chasing after and only a handful in the southern West Bank (Judea, mostly Hebron-based Hamas holdouts).

Six years ago there were hundreds of them.Israel-PA coordination helps a lot and is partly itself the product of Hamas’s seizure of the Gaza Strip, which scared the hummus out of PA leaders lest they themselves end up deep in the humus. (See note, below)

Yet another factor has been that Israeli counterterrorism is effective. (Yes, you can defeat terrorists, though they certainly may come back some day.) The security fence; arrests and interrogations; and killing the more incorrigible (including Fatah men the PA wouldn’t do anything about) have had an effect. There was also a largely successful program in which Israel promised that if wanted Fatah gunmen not involved in murder stopped violent activities Israel would stop trying to capture them.

By making it clear that the Western countries won't support a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence, they can also continue a status quo in which the PA holds off a Hamas takeover, develops the West Bank economically, and maintains peace. Given the impossibility of a comprehensive solution leading to a stable two-state situation, that's the best option for now.

Note: Humus, as in soil or broken-down organic matter, i.e. dead.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org/ and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

News Flash: Using My Testimony, Court Fines North Korea $378 Million

By Barry Rubin

A Puerto Rican court has awarded $378 million to the relatives of people killed in the 1972 terrorist attack on Israel’s airport. I was the chief witness at the trial to explain and document the connections between the Japanese Red Army, which carried out the attack, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and North Korea, the state sponsor for the attack. See here and here.

Attacks like this continue to this day--and attempts are made every day--sponsored by Iran, Syria, and other states while the murderous efforts are implemented by groups like Hamas, Hizballah, and even Fatah. One wonders whether they will have their day in court, too, and be subjected once again to the isolation and contempt that they deserve. The present moment is featuring large amounts of sympathy for the perpetrators, diplomatic engagement, and constantly criticizing their victims.

Even now, the British prime minister is in Washington trying to explain how one of the Libyan murderers of scores of Americans and others in the Lockerbie plane bombing was released on “compassionate” grounds on the claim that he was dying, only to make a “miraculous” recovery on reaching Libya. Remarkably, this release coincided with a big oil deal between Libya and a British company called BP, maybe you've heard of it.

Western intellectuals and experts are clamoring for engagement with Hamas and Hizballah even though the blood is not even dried on their hands. At the UN, the sponsors of terrorism and their friends have far more power than their targets. And attacks are carried out with more cleverness in an era of profound credulity, so that Hamas can start a war and use human shields only to reap benefits, while the Turkish regime organizes a theatrical jihad attack of which even video tape of the event is not considered proof by many for what actually happened.
Such anarchy in wonderland the world cannot long endure.

CIA Chief Says Al-Qaida is Weaker. True. But So Is U.S., While Revolutionary Islamist Groups Are Stronger!

Please be subscriber 16,733. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He’s probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large.

Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that’s a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally—the most important actions damaging the group—took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about.

But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida—a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta’s optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week—but how one should regard that organization.



In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group’s decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle.

But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other--leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration’s policy.

First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida’s role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa.

Left out of the celebration regarding victories over the organization has also been the fact that a lot of the terrorist activity has passed to individuals or small groups in the West and Middle East that act on the basis of ideology, or sometimes of some training and encouragement, rather than as the direct arm of al-Qaida.

Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack or failed attacks in a number of places, including one planned for Fort Dix. Individual Muslims or small affinity groups are active. One cannot, of course, achieve a victory over spontaneous decisions of Muslims to become Jihadists, perhaps after reading al-Qaida or other propaganda.

U.S. policy has not so much fought this phenomenon but rather largely pretends that it doesn’t exist. An attack like that at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles Airport, or killing a U.S. army recruiter in Arkansas, or attacking a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest is merely reinterpreted as the act of an individual deranged mind.

The second, and more important, problem with Panetta’s triumphalism is that al-Qaida never posed much of a strategic threat to the United States. Of course, it could stage bloody terror attacks but it could not take over countries.

The real threat, then, is the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent alliance plus movements like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and others.
Here, too, the administration has played a strategy of ignoring the problem. It seems to believe that by diplomatic engagement, or expressions of sympathy, or benign neglect, or moving away from Israel, or insisting that these movements have nothing to do with Islam, the problem can be defused.

But while revolutionary Islamism was set back—at least temporarily—in Iraq it continues to advance elsewhere. Moreover, the movement is further strengthened by the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power and by a U.S. policy that constrains Israel, accepts a Hamas regime in Gaza, does nothing to obstruct Hizballah's power in Lebanon, is reluctant to pressure Iran, engages rather than weakens Syria, and many more steps like these.

Al-Qaida can blow up a building. But the revolutionary Islamists can blow up a country. And soon Iran will be able to blow up the entire Middle East.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

News Flash: Five Captured in Gaza Flotilla have Direct Ties to Terrorist Groups

Please be subscriber 16,420. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page. We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Note that this is only the first group identified as directly involved with terrorist groups and there will be more soon. Their connections include Hamas and al-Qaida. So much for the peaceful nature of the hardcore cadre who attacked Israeli soldiers. Remember that if there had been no such assault--as happened on the other five ships which were taken into port without anyone being injured--there would not have been any casualties.

So here's the question: Why is it so hard to understand the nature of the operation when the organizer is seen by the U.S. government as a terrorist group, a view shared by the previous Turkish government, a Danish government official report, and France's leading counter-terrorist prosecutor?

Of course, the vast majority of people on the flotilla--and especially the other five ships--were well-meaning and not involved in any terrorist or violent activity. But if it had not been for a minimum of 40 militants on the sixth ship not a single person would have been injured.

The following passengers on board the Mavi Marmara are known to be involved in terrorist activity. The Mavi Marmara attempted to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip on Monday, May 31st 2010, and was boarded by Israel Navy forces.

Fatimah Mahmadi (born 1979), is a United States resident of Iranian origin, and an active member of the organization “Viva Palestine”, she attempted to smuggle forbidden electronic components into the Gaza Strip.

Ken O’Keefe (Born 1969), an American and British citizen, is a radical anti-Israel activist and operative of the Hamas Terror organization. He attempted to enter the Gaza Strip in order to form and train a commando unit for the Palestinian terror organization. Here is his site. By the way, while this isn't terrorist, listen as he explains how he loves helping Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Hassan Iynasi (born 1982), a Turkish citizen and activist in a Turkish charity organization, is known of providing financial support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Terror organization.

Hussein Urosh, a Turkish citizen and activist in the IHH organization, was on his way to the Gaza Strip in order to assist in smuggling Al-Qaeda operatives via Turkey into the Strip.

Ahmad Umimon (born 1959), is a French citizen of Moroccan origin, and an operative of the Hamas Terrorist organization.

I hope to be adding more so send me links on these other people or additional "passengers" on the ship.

Oh, and here's a report with links to original documents about the involvement of the IHH, the group that organized the flotilla and ran the "humaniterrorist" ship in it, in violent terrorism. Not just violent terrorism but a terrorist attack against the United States!

By the way, professional moderate Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) has now granted honorary Palestinian citizenship on all the activists aboard the flotilla ships. What's peculiar about this, of course, is that they were helping his rival, Hamas, you know the group that staged an armed uprising against the PA, threw them out of the Gaza Strip, murdered Fatah people, and tries to overthrow the PA on the West Bank?

Abbas wants Hamas to accept his leadership, subordinate itself to the PA, and return the Gaza Strip to his rule. He also wants Palestinian unity in conflict with Israel. I understand that. But surely there should be some limit. Abbas is just putting making anti-Israel propaganda over PA interests and certainly over peacemaking. This is a clear illustration of his priorities.

I wouldn't want to see Hamas assassinate or overthrow him some day--a disaster for U.S., Western, and Israeli interests. But if it ever happens, do remember the irony of his being bitten by the hand he feeds, so to speak.

Oh, speaking of irony, let's remember that the factor ensuring behind the scenes that Hamas doesn't overthrow the PA or assassinate Abbas is...Israel.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Are Terrorists' Motives and Ideology Mysterious? Only to Current U.S. Leaders

Please be subscriber 16,269. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

We depend on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible contribution through PayPal click the Donate button on this page. For more options, go HERE. We depend on your contributions. Thanks to all who have given already!

By Barry Rubin

If you haven’t read the exchange between Attorney-General Eric Holder and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas at the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee you should. It is the authoritative statement of how the Obama Administration views and portrays terrorism.

Briefly, Holder did everything possible to avoid suggesting that recent terrorist attacks on the United States had any connection whatsoever with Islam or Islamism to the point that he looked ridiculous. Of course, you'd have to know what happened before you can understand he looked ridiculous [see AP story, below]

I'll analyze the dialogue and you can read the full text at the end. [Option 1: Go to the end and read it before reading my analysis. Option 2: Watch it on video HERE]

How should Holder have responded?

First, by acknowledging the basic unity of the terrorist campaign rather than pretending there are many diverse motives. Sure, there is the possibility of right-wing violence, but it doesn’t appear very often. And of course there are individuals who are mentally ill or lose control over something (getting fired at a job; a bad divorce) who shoot people, but that isn’t the systematic problem.

If you don’t acknowledge that there is a conscious, orchestrated campaign against the United States how can one possibly deal with it or educate the public about it?

Second, why should Holder be afraid of saying something along the following lines:

There is a worldwide movement of revolutionary Islamism [if he prefers, he could say Salafism or something that doesn’t include the letters I-s-l-a-m in that order] which manifests itself in a number of movements. In trying to seize control of their own countries and destroy U.S. influence and interests, they target America. These groups send agents to the United States for the purpose of carrying out attacks. Their propaganda convinces some immigrants to the United States, converts, and those holding American citizenship to plan and participate in these attacks or to give aid and comfort to these terrorist groups.

Then he can add: Of course, this doesn’t characterize all of Islam, all immigrants, etc., etc., etc., to his heart’s content.

That wasn’t so hard, was it?

But here’s the thing. It isn’t just a matter of Holder not wanting to say certain things out loud lest the Muslim-majority world complain or whatever. The real danger is that what he says, and doesn’t say, reflects his own fuzzy thinking and that of the administration.


The other motive is fear of rioting mobs of Americans murdering Muslims and burning down mosques in revenge for terrorist attacks. While, of course, one should act reasonably to make sure such things don’t happen, the fact is that they haven’t happened and aren’t likely to happen.

A pogrom against Muslims is not the main threat, revolutionary Islamist terrorism (at home and abroad) is the main threat.

And how the U.S. government combat a threat its leaders don’t understand, indeed deliberately choose to misunderstand?

It’s interesting, by the way, to look at two reactions to the hearing. First, if you want to see an example of how key elements in the media have turned into government propaganda organs, check out the Associated Press “coverage” of the hearing, which sounds like a White House press release. In this version, Holder heroically triumphs over those stupid Republicans. The most important aspects (see the text below) aren’t even mentioned. Even in the current atmosphere, this is a shocking Soviet-style article..

Second, the deputy editor of al-Sharq al-Awsat, Osman Mirghani, produces precisely the kind of article the Obama Administration is trying to elicit, sort of. In "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?" he praises Obama for refusing to make any link between terrorism and Islam in U.S. government documents and statements.

Mirghani explains this as a defeat for American “extremists” who want to do something against the countries from which the terrorists come. Mentioning any link between terrorism and Islam, he adds, increases anti-Americanism.

This is a ridiculous notion. I don’t think that anyone—contrary to what Mirghani said—advocates invading Nigeria because of the Detroit airliner bomber or Pakistan due to the Times Square bomber.

He’s right when he says:

"The identity of the terrorist does not necessarily implicate the country he belongs to, in the same way that other adherents of the religion the terrorist follows should not be condemned.”

Correct! But it does implicate specific revolutionary movements and ideologies, doesn't it? And shouldn't that be said? Moreover, what Mirghani advocates--and attributes only to Obama-- has been U.S. policy all along under all presidents.

So what are the real issues that both Holder and Mirghani (and the AP) avoid?:

--How to understand the revolutionary Islamist ideology in order to combat it. If one doesn’t admit that it exists then you can't counter it, deprogram or detect extremists, or predict future attacks?

--Comprehending what’s going on in these countries that lead to such movements, their strength, and their targeting of the United States. This would involve doing things like asking what kind of schools and propaganda exist in countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or the Palestinian Authority-ruled West Bank that produces such terrorists. Even those fighting terrorism against themselves often incite such attacks against the United States and others to deflect that threat.

And then Mirghani does something to spoils his whole case. He concludes that the fact that Faisal Shahzad (Times Square), Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood), and even Anwar al-Awlaki (the Yemen-based cleric who incited them to terrorism) are U.S. citizens shows that this is really an American problem!

Get it? If you remove the Islamic and revolutionary Islamist factor why are there terrorists? Well, Mirghani rules out blaming anything connected to Islam or to their countries of origin. And so, he neatly concludes--wait for it!--that all this terrorism is America's fault!

After all, he says, all those specific terrorists mentioned above—and Mirghani even includes the Nigerian Omar Farouk Abdulmuttalib (Detroit plane) because he was influenced by al-Awlaki—are just another version of Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City). In other words, you cannot blame the country of citizenship for the creation of terrorists unless that country is the United States!

And this is where the Holder approach leads: It’s all America’s fault due both to domestic and foreign policies.

Here’s the full text of the Holder-Smith exchange:

SMITH: Let me go to my next question, which is: In the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?
HOLDER: Because of?
SMITH: Radical Islam.
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It's -- one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.
SMITH: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people...
SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?
HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious...
SMITH: OK. But all I'm asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.
HOLDER: You see, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a -- a version of Islam that is not...
SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.
HOLDER: No, I don't want to say anything negative about a religion that is not...
SMITH: No, no. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about radical Islam. I'm not talking about the general religion.
HOLDER: Right. And I'm saying that a person, like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it...
SMITH: But...
HOLDER: ... and who espouses a radical version...
SMITH: But then is -- could radical Islam had motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did?
HOLDER: I certainly think that it's possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.
SMITH: OK. And could it have been the case in one of these three instances?
HOLDER: Could that have been the case?
SMITH: Yes, could -- again, could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam? Apparently, you feel that that they could've been.
HOLDER: Well, I think potentially incited by people who have a view of Islam that is inconsistent with...
SMITH: OK. Mr. [Attorney-General] it's hard to get an answer yes or no, but let me go on to my next question.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood: The Organization and Policies of a Global Islamist Movement. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.