Islamism & the Middle East

The big blur: Who's us? Who's them?

2007-04-16T18:48:41.234Z

Jewish World Review April 16, 2007 / 28 Nissan, 5767

By Diana West

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If anyone still paid attention to the mythical Bush doctrine — the part about our enemy being terrorist networks and the governments that support them — it would be time to add another government to the enemy watch list: our own.

How else to react to Congress' rubberstamp on a White House request for tens of millions of dollars for the Palestinian Authority's Hamas-Fatah coalition government? And so what if the money is earmarked for terrorist Fatah, not terrorist Hamas? "You're either with us or you're against us" was the way it was supposed to go, and Fatah is no more "with us" than Hamas in any struggle against jihad terror. By rights, our support for the P.A. should put us on our own worst enemies list.

It doesn't work that way, of course, because the United States, along with Israel, has decided to pretend that Fatah is "moderate." This makes our support for Fatah, and, by extension, its coalition partner Hamas, practically kosher.

To borrow from the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, this semantic con may be thought of as "defining terrorism down," lowering the bar on what constitutes civilized statecraft to a point where Fatah can stay involved in suicide-bombing attacks through its Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and keep its hands clean enough to shake those of Quartet players.

Defining terrorism down allows Fatah, — whose constitution declares as its first goal the "eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence" and its "opposition to any political ... alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine," — to be seen as "moderate," at least in the eyes of its willfully degraded "peace process" partners. Defining terrorism down also eliminates a crucial line between "Us" and "Them."

Let the U.S. tax dollars flow. Instead of the dividing lines the first Bush term was known for, we now abide by something more like a big blur. Its amorphousness gives cover not just to parleys with Palestinian terror groups, but to negotiations with Iraqi terrorists (a major flopola), and even meet-and-greets with assorted terror-masters (think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Syria's Assad, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and the Muslim Brotherhood). Without traditional guidelines, we lose our bearings. Without words that mean what they say, we fail to realize we have done so.

Meanwhile, new guidelines, even new words, come into practice. For example, the European Union has now compiled a handbook full of "non-offensive" phrases to use when discussing Islamic terrorism. "Islamic terrorism" is out (the phrase, not the practice), replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam" — or so it is reported.

We don't know for sure because this handbook of sweet non-offensivenesses is actually classified. According to the Daily Telegraph, other terms banned by this "common lexicon" likely include "jihad," "Islamic" and "fundamentalist." This could pose a problem if anyone wants to discuss a fundamentalist on an Islamic jihad. Then again, thanks to the secret codebook, nobody ever will, right?

Sounds like a plan to define jihad terror down and out — which is not at all the same thing as getting rid of jihad terror. Instead, it eliminates the means by which jihad terror is named, categorized, and understood. Fatah is "moderate." "Jihad" is verboten. "Islamic terrorism" is unmentionable, which, as far as EU-crats are concerned, is like saying it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, more or less nonviolent "Islamization" isn't even on the charts.

Such Orwellian movements also eliminate the very concept of an "enemy," an "other side," and certainly an "other side" defined by its Islamic precepts of jihad and dhimmitude. Sure, we still have the Al Qaedists to kick around, that tiny-band-of-"extremists" we always hear about from political leaders. This same little band was invoked just this week by Sen. John McCain as "a tiny percentage of hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims ... the vast majority of (whom) are trying to modernize their societies ... to build the same elements of a good life that all of us want."

Hmmm. If the vast majority of hundreds of millions of Muslims are trying to build "the good life," what's the problem? The problem is with the rhetoric. Any rational assessment of, say, the rapid entrenchment of Sharia across Europe — by no stretch the "good life" we "all" want — turns it into sloppy goop. But rational assessments are out.

Blur is in. It's the post-Bush Doctrine way to define away that vexing problem of Us and Them.

Us, anyway.

Former German soldier traces Middle East crisis to Nazis

2007-04-25T07:21:20.409Z

ormer German soldier traces Middle East crisis to Nazis

Chad Groening and Jody Brown OneNewsNow.comApril 24, 2007

An author who served as a German soldier during World War II says the Middle East crisis of today can be traced to Adolph Hitler, the Nazis, and a Muslim "grand mufti" who tried to persuade Nazi leaders to extend their anti-Jewish hatred to the Arab world.

Hear This Report


advertisement

Hilmar von Campe has written an autobiography called How Was it Possible?, which provides a insight into the relationship between Adolph Hitler's Nazi regime and Islam. The former Hitler youth says there was a very good relationship between the Jews and the Arabs before the war. "The Arab leaders of that time invited the Jews back to Palestine and said together we can really make progress," he shares.

But then, according to von Campe, Hitler invited a Muslim leader to come live in Berlin. "It was a grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was a guest of Hitler from 1941 to 1945 in Berlin," he states. The author says al-Husseini was provided a luxurious home by the Nazis and received the equivalent of $10,000 every month. "And he plotted with Hitler how to destroy Israel and kill the Jews," adds von Campe.

Al-Husseini assisted in the Holocaust, says the author, and helped spur hatred against the Jews in much of the Middle East. "When he came back to Jerusalem, he turned the tide against the Jews and he launched the idea that the Jews have no right to the land on which they lived," he says.

According to the online Jewish Virtual Library, after the war Yugoslavia sought to indict al-Husseini as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for Hitler's "Schutzstaffel" (SS), who participated in the execution of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. But he escaped from French detention in 1946 and continued his fight against the Jews from locations in the Middle East. He died in 1974.

Von Campe contends that al-Husseini helped create a pro-Nazi attitude in the Middle East, which spawned groups like Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.

Justice among Wives

2008-02-15T04:38:12.162Z

Name of Questioner	Lisa - United Kingdom
	Title	Justice among Wives
	Question	My husband was away on business for five months and after he came back he told me that he’d like to marry a second wife. Hearing him I was upset when I know that his would-be second wife lives in Morocco and I am in UK. How can he divide the days equally if he spends more time in Morocco than here in the UK. How can he give us equal treatment? Please reply as soon as possible.
	Date	10/Jan/2003
	Name of Counsellor	IOL Shari`ah Researchers
	Topic	Marital relationships, Polygamy

Answer

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, thank you very much for having confidence in us and we implore Allah to guide you to the best and to solve your marital problem soon, Insha'Allah.

First of all, it is to be stated that "Islam provides a system, which regulates family life as well as the life of the community as a whole. In every respect of its legislation and in its regulation of relations between various groups and individuals in society, Islam maintains justice, fair treatment and a balance between rights and responsibilities. In this way it provides a solid basis for a strong, closely knit community.

Because the woman is the weaker partner in the family relationship, Islam places strong emphasis on the importance of being fair to women, and not to abuse them in any way. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) describes those who are kind and good to their wives as the best of people. He (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: "The best among you are those who are best to your households; I am the best among you to my house-hold."

On his deathbed, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) continued to remind the followers of three areas as needing continuous attention. The first concerns man's relationship with Allah while the other two are concerned with human relations, concentrating on the need to protect the rights of two vulnerable groups in society, namely, women and slaves. He said repeatedly: "Attend to your prayers. Do not ask those whom your right hands possess to accomplish for you what they cannot do. Fear Allah in your treatment of women.""

The above quotation is excerpted, with modifications, from: www.islamicity.com

Focusing on the necessity of being just among wives, we'd cite for you the word of the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, in his well-known book, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam. He writes:

"The condition which Islam lays down for permitting a man to have more than one wife is confidence on his part that he will be able to deal equitably with his two or more wives in the matter of food, drink, housing, clothing and expenses, as well as in the division of his time between them. Anyone who lacks the assurance that he will be able to fulfill all these obligations with justice and equality is prohibited by Allah Almighty from marrying more than one woman, for Allah says: "But if you fear that you will not be able to do justice (among them), then (marry) only one..." (An-Nisa': 3)

And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Anyone who has two wives and does not treat them equally will come on the Day of Resurrection dragging one part of his body which will be hanging down." (Reported by the compilers of Sunan and by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim)

The equal treatment mentioned here pertains to the rights of the wives, not to the love the husband feels towed them, for equality in the division of love is beyond human capacity and any imbalance in this regard is forgiven by Allah Almighty who says: "And you will not be able to do justice among (your) wives, however much you may wish to. But do not turn away (from one of them) altogether..." (An-Nisa': 139)

This is why the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to divide his time among his wives equally, saying, "O Allah, this is my division in regard to what I can control. Then do not take me to task regarding what Thou controllest and I do not control" (Reported by the compilers of Sunan), referring to the attachment and affection which he felt for one particular wife. And when he planned to go on a journey, Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would cast lots among his wives, and the one who was chosen by lot would accompany him. (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim)"

In conclusion, we would like to advise your husband to fear Allah and to be just in dealing with you and his second wife, in order to be spared of Allah’s Punishment on the Day of Resurrection. He can simply attain such justice if he fears Allah and seeks His Guidance. Still, the issue requires mutual understanding between you and your husband. With your concerted efforts, you will live in harmony, even if he is married to a second wife!

May Allah guide you to the straight path and direct you to that which pleases Him, Amen.

MY TAKE: This is what's coming our way, if Islam had their way.

Polygamy: Norm or Exception?

2008-02-15T04:33:36.315Z

	Polygamy: Norm or Exception?
	Question	I had previously understood that polygamy is allowed in Islam. Recently, however, I was informed that Islam is in fact against polygamy, yet still there are some that say polygamy is the right of man and is the norm and not the exception. What is your opinion on this matter?
	Date	17/Dec/1999
	Name of Counsellor	European Council for Fatwa and Research
	Topic	Polygamy

Answer

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear brother in Islam, we would like to thank you for your question and the great confidence you place in us. May Allah reward you abundantly for your interest in knowing the teachings of Islam!

As regards the issue you raised, the European Council for Fatwa and Research issued the following Fatwa:

"There is a consensus amongst Muslims, historically and currently, that polygamy is permissible, and that it is not allowed for a Muslim to have more than four wives at any one time. Further, that if a Muslim has two or more wives he should practice equality of provision and abode amongst them. For Allah Almighty says: “…marry women of your choice two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them) then only one or (a captive) that your right hands possess. That will be more suitable to prevent you from doing injustice.” (An-Nisa': 3)

We know of no clear evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah, which encourages the Muslim to either keep to one wife, or to polygamy. However, it has been narrated that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Whosoever had two wives and treats one of them more favorably than the other will come on the Day of Judgment bent to one side.” (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, An-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah) This hadith warns against polygamy should the man not be able to practice equality amongst his wives."

MY TAKE: Ladies, does this sound like good news to you?

Anti-Shari'a 9/11 Protest Will Go Ahead Despite Hurdles, Organizers Say -- 09...

2007-09-14T00:46:00.881Z

Anti-Shari'a 9/11 Protest Will Go Ahead Despite Hurdles, Organizers Say
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
September 07, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Anti-Islamist activists are still planning to demonstrate in Brussels next Tuesday to mark the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks and protest against the "Islamization of Europe," but organizers are grappling with legal difficulties and warnings that violence may erupt.

Organizers from Denmark, England and Germany planned the event several months ago, but ran into legal hurdles when Brussels Mayor Freddy Thielemans banned the demonstration, citing the potential risk to public order.

Thielemans wrote in an op-ed on August 20 that by choosing 9/11 for the demonstration the organizers obviously intended to draw a link between terrorism and the religion of Islam, a move he called "incitement to discrimination and hatred."

A loose alliance calling itself SIOE ("Stop Islamization Of Europe") said it would go ahead regardless of the ban, while appealing against the ruling. The activists deny the racism allegation, saying their aim is to prevent Islam from becoming the dominant political force in Europe and stop the "creeping" introduction of Islamic law (shari'a).

On August 30 an administrative appeals court upheld the mayor's ban, but SIOE took its case to another tribunal, and a Brussels civil court decision is expected shortly.

Socialist lawmakers in the European Parliament wrote Wednesday to Thielemans - also a socialist -supporting his decision to ban the rally.

"Like you, we are convinced that the people behind this demonstration want above all to stigmatize a community for dark racist and xenophobic reasons as is proven by the readiness to lump Islam together with fundamentalist terrorism," said Martin Schulz, a German who heads the Euro-parliament's socialist group, a collection of 33 left-leaning parties from all 25 E.U. member states.

Amid reports that neo-Nazis are planning to turn up, the alliance fractured this week when a German organizer said the protest should be called off because of the risk of extremist activity.

The Danish and English organizers distanced themselves from the German position, saying the protest in the European capital would go ahead as planned on September 11.

At the same time, they are continuing to appeal on their Web sites for participants to follow a set of simple rules, including restricting slogans to the main theme and carrying only national flags, not party political or organizational banners.

"Racists and violent people or organizations are not welcome to join our demonstration," they said.

Meanwhile a controversial Muslim organization that had been planning a counter-protest in central Brussels on September 11 has called off its event, after Thielemans turned down a request for permission.

Arab European League (AEL) representative Mohamed Benhadou said in response to emailed inquiries that the group had planned "a peaceful demonstration to call for rapprochement between communities and to stop racism."

But it accepted the mayor's argument that the presence of "a large group of right wing protesters puts our security at risk because of possible provocation," he said.

The AEL, which was founded in 2000 by a Lebanese-born political activist, was accused by a government anti-racism body in 2002 of inciting hatred. It has called for Arabic to be recognized as an official language in Belgium.

About four percent of the population of Belgium is Muslim, although the proportion is much higher -- estimated at 17-20 percent -- in the Brussels region.

Thielemens has approved a demonstration in Brussels on September 9 by a group that suspects the Bush administration of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks and wants an international inquiry.

Beware of false messiahs | Jerusalem Post

2007-07-21T07:01:07.261Z

Beware of false messiahs

Shlomo Riskin, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 10, 2007

Reading the newspapers and listening to radio news gives me a feeling of deja vu. Israel is (again) negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas to free Palestinian prisoners, just as we did with Yasser Arafat - because we must "strengthen the moderate Palestinian leadership" against the more radical Hamas.

We are turning over tax money to Abbas to help the Palestinians on the West Bank economically, just as we did with Arafat - because, we are informed, we must "strengthen the moderate Palestinian leadership" against the more radical Hamas.

And we are being urged by the US State Department to ease up on the various West Bank checkpoint restrictions to make daily life more liveable for the Palestinians just as we did with Arafat - because, we are advised, we must strengthen the moderate secular leadership against the more fanatically religious Hamas.

But we were tragically disappointed by Arafat. His Oslo package turned out to be a Trojan Horse, and what we got in exchange for land concessions was not peace, but more terror.

And even when former prime minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinian chieftain 96-97% of the West Bank and a land swap for the remaining 3-4%, he declared unequivocally (in Arabic) that his intention was not to go back to the pre '67 lines, but rather to the pre- '48 situation - before there was a State of Israel. Indeed, his response to the much-too-generous offer was the second intifada, in which the very Kalashnikov rifles with which Israel supplied him to supposedly fight Hamas were used against our civilians and our children.

IS MAHMOUD ABBAS truly a moderate, sincerely interested in making peace - or is he merely a clean-shaven, tie-sporting version of Arafat?

Well, he certainly had no difficulty joining a Hamas government which refused to recognize Israel, until they overthrew the sparse and craven Fatah forces in Gaza last month. He has never declared unequivocal acceptance of the Jewish state in Arabic, and he has never admitted that the Holocaust actually took place - after having written a doctorate attempting to prove that it did not.

And most importantly, Palestinian schoolbooks and radio, television and print media are still spewing out hateful caricatures and wretched rhetoric reviling Jews (and Zionists) and praising suicide bombers - all under Abbas's "moderate" regime.

I remember once calling my wife from a London hotel room, telling her I felt deathly ill after having eaten a portion of fish which didn't taste "right" in one of the restaurants.

"How much of the fish did you eat?" she asked. "About half the portion," I replied.

"Well," was her wise response, "the first bite was the restaurant's fault, but the second bite was your fault!"

HOW OBTUSE can we be? How can we account for making further concessions before having any tangible proof that Abbas is different, that he does in fact recognize our right to exist in the Middle East, that he will not countenance anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist text books and media hype?

When I attempt to understand the psyche of our government's actions, only one explanation comes to mind: Israel has fallen prey to belief in a false messiah named "Peace Process."

How ironic it is that the West Bank settlers and religious Zionists are called the false messianists when, in truth, it is the political Left who actually belong in that category.

And in a way, it is difficult to blame our leaders. After five difficult wars and tens of thousands of shattered families as a result of the devastation wrought by terrorist suicide attacks, drive-by shootings and Kassam rockets, they yearn for peace - even if it is only a mirage.

Tragically, the one thread that connects all fake messianic movements is the failure to be influenced by facts on the ground; despite the fact that - at least in accordance to classical and normative rabbinic sources - a dead messiah cannot be the messiah.

Shabtai Zvi enthusiasts, Jews for Jesus and Chabad messianists continue to believe in their messiah, despite their respective passings from this world.

And in our case, we dare not place our citizenship at risk on the basis of an illusion. Oslo is a dead messiah; it can only be resurrected on the basis of undisputable changes on the part of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah cohorts - in speech as well as in deed.

We dare not attribute to these Palestinians a "moderate" political stance of compromise simply because that is what we would like them to be thinking and saying. The first time we blindly trusted before making concessions, it was their fault; this time, it would be our fault - and the State of Israel cannot afford to become even more vulnerable as a result of further misguided concessions.

The writer is the founder and chancellor of Ohr Torah Stone Colleges and Graduate Programs, and chief rabbi of Efrat.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184063443567&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[ Back to the Article ]

TV3 > News > International News

2007-04-25T07:00:11.228Z

Saudi Arabia sentences Egyptian to death for desecrating Koran
Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:05am

An Egyptian living in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to death for desecrating the Koran and renouncing Islam.

He was sprung by worshippers at a mosque who told police the man had left copies of the Muslim holy book in the wash rooms.

A court found him guilty of no longer being a Muslim and violating the boundaries set by God.

Saudi Arabia executes criminals under its austere version of Sunni Islam.

The chairman of the Czech Senate speaks out against Holocaust denial Prague ...

2007-04-17T15:29:53.681Z

The chairman of the Czech Senate speaks out against Holocaust denial

Prague 17 April, 2007 – The president of the Czech senate, Dr Premysl Sobotka, took a firm stand against Holocaust denial when he spook at the Holocaust Remembrance Day even in the garden of the Czech senate in the old town of Prague on Sunday. In his speech Dr Sobotka quoted a recent resolution from the Czech parliament which calls for all democracies to join forces in condemning the Holocaust denial conference in Iran which was called together to “study the historical validity of the Holocaust”.
“-We can never bow down to hatred but need to speak up when anti-Semitism once more is threatening our societies”, he said.
The Czech parliament was the first to publicly file a protest against the event but was shortly joined by other parliaments in Europe.

This call was repeated in the speech of founding director Tomas Sandell from the European Coalition for Israel who urged the audience not to repeat the mistakes of the past by remaining silent when the Jewish people are again under threat.
“- The lessons from history are clear, democrats need to react in time and work together to combat hate and intolerance”, Sandell said. “In the past it was said that “people did not know” about the threats to the Jewish people. Today there are no excuses. The threats from Teheran to wipe Israel off the map have been made loud and clear. In his speech he shared about the campaign “Learn from history” which aims at introducing Holocaust education in local churches in Europe by commemorating the United Nations Holocaust Remembrance day which falls on 27 January.

Professor Zuzana Ruzickova gave a personal account from her years in the Nazi death camps.
“- When we first heard of the plans of Hitler to kill all Jews we were told that we were in no danger. Both Britain and France were on our side and our neighbors promised to stand up for us. British prime minister Chamberlain spoke about peace in our time. Little did we then know about what laid ahead of us. Soon she was taken to the Theresienstadt concentration camp outside of Prague. Still unsure of what was going on she wondered why people were screaming “gas” as they were taken in to the showers.
In the next few years she would be moved from one concentration camp to another.
“- We were given new numbers but old cloths”, she remembers. Ruzickova survived the concentration camps but most of her family were left behind.

Israeli ambassador to the Czech republic, Arie Arazi warned about not taking present day threats of the destruction of Israel seriously.
“- Hitler was not taken seriously. Let us not make the same mistake with the Iranian leader Ahmadinejad", he warned.

National host Mojmir Kallus of the Czech branch of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, reminded the audience that Christians and Jews have not always been standing together.
“- There has been a lot of anti-Judaism within the Church which we as Christians have had to repent of in order to become real friends and partners of the Jewish people”, he said. " Many Christians have made this journey and today it is only natural that we commemorate this day together," he concluded.

report by ECI

Jihad Watch: Serbia arrests jihadists, investigates alleged training camp

2007-03-21T03:56:38.363Z

Serbia arrests jihadists, investigates alleged training camp

More of the Tiny Minority of Extremists discovered in western Serbia. "Serbia police arrest Muslim extremists," from UPI:

NOVI PAZAR, Serbia, March 19 (UPI) -- A judge in western Serbia's mainly Muslim region is looking into alleged terrorist activity by four Islamic extremists, reports said Monday.

Serbian police in the Sandzak region, on the border with Bosnia and Montenegro, said they had uncovered a group of Islamic religious fanatics at an alleged training camp for terrorist activities, Belgrade's B92 radio reported.

The judge ordered a 30-day detention for the group to investigate police allegations the four, holed up in a cave some 20 miles outside the town of Novi Pazar, were preparing unspecified terrorist activities.

The four denied the accusations.

Police said they found explosives, ammunition and grenades at the camp site.

If convicted, the four face up to five years in prison, B92 said.

History of American involvement and the Middle East - Google Docs & Spreadsheets

2007-02-20T18:11:49.065Z

An Idea That Goes Way Back

By Jonathan Tobin
In 1844, a biblical scholar and professor of Hebrew at New York University published a pamphlet urging the establishment of a Jewish state in the place then known as Palestine.

The name of this early Zionist who argued for the recreation of Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel: George Bush.

But the astonishing thing about this manifesto is not just that the author was a forebear of two later U.S. presidents of the same name. It was that his advocacy of a theological/political position known as "restorationism" — support for the "restoration" of the Jewish people to their historic homeland — was common in 19th century America.

This little-known fact is just one among many that can be discovered about attitudes toward the Middle East in what may well be one of the most important books on the subject to be published in this or any other year.

"Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present" by Israeli historian Michael Oren fills a void that has long existed in the historiography of the Middle East. Until the release of this beautifully written and meticulously researched volume this month, there simply was no comprehensive history of American involvement in the region.

Oren, who is based at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, has written a book overflowing with colorful tales of American travelers, pilgrims, businessmen, missionaries, diplomats, soldiers and sailors who weren't merely observers of this pivotal area of the globe (the term for which was actually coined by the American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan). Americans have, from the very beginning of our own history as a nation, played a crucial role in shaping the Middle East. And as Oren illustrates, we, in turn, have been influenced by this interaction.

Indeed, the formation of the United States of America as a constitutional republic in 1789 is, in part, a result of our first encounter with the Arab and Muslim world: the long struggle with the semi-independent city states of North Africa known to us as the Barbary Pirates. It was the inability of the independent 13 American states — who had no federal government or navy — to protect shipping and sailors from the depredations of those early terrorists, that motivated many to push for the enactment of the Constitution.

THE KORAN AND THE CONSTITUTION
If that nearly forgotten war bears a strange resemblance to the contemporary conflict with Islamist terrorists, it is no coincidence. Oren recounts the shock of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who, while serving as American ambassadors in Europe during the 1780s, met with the Abd al-Rahman, a representative of the pasha of Tripoli, a major source of anti-American terror on the high seas.

In making exorbitant demands for American tribute, Al-Rahman told Adams and Jefferson that his country was fighting under the authority of the Koran, which authorized them to make wars on all non-believers and to enslave all Western prisoners in terms that Al Qaeda would have appreciated. "Every Mussulman [sic] who should be slain in battle" with America, he said, "was sure to go to Paradise."

Oren's book is filled with a host of such encounters that may be new even to those who have been reading about the subject their entire lives.

For example, how many know that the first American arm sales to the Middle East was not to Israel or an Arab state but goes back to Andrew Jackson's treaty with Ottoman Turkey?

Another little known episode that Oren recounts deals with American veterans of the Civil War, both Union and Confederate, who helped found and train the Egyptian army.

Such tales are a delight for history lovers. But aside from pleasure for the general as well as the specialized reader, there is a far broader moral to be learned from this volume that speaks directly to contemporary political debate.

Although the content of "Power, Faith and Fantasy" is far too comprehensive to be neatly summarized in even a lengthy review, there is a concise conclusion that can be drawn from the book. It is that the ideas promulgated by men such as former President Jimmy Carter or scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of the infamous "Israel Lobby" article in the London Review of Books, ignores two centuries of history, as well as smears Jews and other friends of Israel.

Oren illustrates throughout his book just how deep the roots of American support for Zionism run. The George Bush anecdote is but one of numerous incidents in which mainstream American Christians spoke out for the Jewish rights to Zion long before Theodor Herzl did.

DEEP ROOTS OF ZIONISM
Going forward to the 20th century, Oren illustrates that the crucial roles of Presidents Woodrow Wilson in backing the Balfour Declaration and Harry S. Truman in giving the new-born State of Israel recognition were not the result of political calculation but decisions that were based on the deeply held beliefs of these leaders.

The idea of Israel is something that has always been part of the sensibilities of American religious thinking. No lobby could possibly create the broad support for Israel that has run, and still runs, across the spectrum of mainstream America, powered by both faith and secular democratic values.

Oren shows that the contrary thesis that rejects Zionism also has deep roots in the tradition of Protestant missionaries. Those Americans came to the Middle East seeking converts, but wound up founding institutions, such as the American Universities in Cairo and Beirut, that inculcated the spirit of American democracy and nationalism in generations of Arab intellectuals.

Ironically, it was thus Americans who founded Arab nationalism. That means the notion of spreading democracy to the region wasn't invented by George W. Bush or the "neocons" but rather by the intellectual (and in some cases actual) ancestors of the 20th century Arabists in the State Department.

The late Edward Said's thesis that saw all Western views of the region as inherently racist "Orientalism" dominates the academy these days and helps spread the idea that American power is a force for evil abroad. But Oren's research stands as a conclusive reproof to this fallacy.

Though oil and profit have played their parts in forming the story of America' s encounter with the region, more altruistic motives have always tended to dominate our policies. Despite the negative view that emanates from many of our intellectuals, Oren is right when he concludes by writing that "On balance, Americans historically brought far more beneficence than avarice to the Middle East and caused significantly less harm than good."

While it will be no surprise if many in the current Middle East studies establishment attack this book, Oren's achievement is must-reading for policymakers and the general public alike. In an era in which global terror based in the Middle East is the primary challenge to the survival of democracy, Power Faith and Fantasy ought to be read and understood by as many Americans as possible.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0107/tobin011007.php3