Katrina and the War on Terrorism

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 13, 2005

The failure of governments to assist the disenfranchised citizens in Egypt, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories should be a lesson to the U.S. during the fallout from the disastrous hurricane Katrina. The Muslim Brotherhood in

Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, succeeded mainly because they provided the social, medical and educational services that the local governments failed to deliver.

In countries where governments do not provide adequate infrastructure or social services, not only Muslim countries, but in nations worldwide—terrorist organizations such as FARC in Columbia, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and al Qaeda in Pakistan take advantage of this void to supply those services to people who could not otherwise access them. In return, the people offer allegiance to those terrorist organizations.

Unfortunately, alongside genuinely worthy causes, such as building hospitals, schools and supplying food, money and medical treatment, these groups also pursue their own agenda. Their dual role serves to legitimize and glorify their activities. In Africa, for example, not only do hospitals supported by Islamist organizations serve the needy population (thus enhancing their image in the eyes of the locals) but they also provide an apparently legitimate way to obtain visas and work permits that make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate other countries.

As mighty as the Democrats try to portray George W. Bush, he is not responsible for natural disasters, including hurricane Katrina. In fact, it was under Jimmy Carter’s administration that the Democrats preempted the construction of stronger levees and dams that would have prevented much of the current disaster. It was the responsibility of the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans to safeguard their infrastructure, lives and assets. They utterly failed. Continue reading “Katrina and the War on Terrorism”


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Incitement in the mosques:

Incitement in the Mosques:
Testing the limits of free speech and religious liberty

By Kenneth Lasson*
Whittier Law Review | Fall, 2005

* Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law [with diligent research assistance on this article from Martin Cohen].

Text: 28,778 words

SUMMARY:
… Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country.

… In April of 2004, for example, a Muslim preacher at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem referred to Jews as “sons of monkeys and pigs,” and as “murderers of prophets.”

… In an Al-Aqsa Mosque sermon, the United States-sponsored road map was called by Sheikh Yousef Abu Sneina one of the plots fabricated against the Palestinian people like the Oslo accords and the Camp David summit.

… Some clerics now openly preach incitement, urging fellow Muslims to follow the path of the jihad by destroying Jews, who continue to be vilified as “pigs and monkeys.”

… Official PA television offers a children’s program that glorifies massacres of civilians and suicide bombings, and broadcasts sermons that “continue to encourage terrorist jihad against all Jews.”

… It is not difficult to draw an analogy between the symbolic speech in Virginia v. Black and sermons promoting terror between the recent history of violence in Muslim society and the sermons related to jihad.

… It should go without saying that there are many similarities between the symbolic speech (cross burning) in Black and sermons promoting terror between the recent history of violence in Muslim society and the sermons related to jihad. …

Citation:
n20. See Alyssa A. Lappen, “Ford Has A Better Idea: One Nation Under Allah,” FrontPageMagazine.com (Dec. 30, 2003), http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11513.


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Triple-pronged Jihad — Military, Economic and Cultural

By Alyssa A. Lappen
AmericanThinker.com | April 5, 2005
[In a wide ranging interview with Islamic scholar Bat Ye’or comes a frank discussion of Eurabia: what it is, and what it means for Americans. — Interview by Alyssa A. Lappen]

In her new book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Bat Ye’or takes a sweeping view of history, not the one that most of us consider, just past the ends of our noses. The world’s preeminent historian of two unique Islamic institutions, jihad and dhimmitude—the latter, the humiliated, precarious state of non-Muslim peoples living under Islamic rule—Bat Ye’or has masterfully portrayed the means by which the Euro-Arab Dialogue unfolded over the past 30-plus years. ‘There are three forms of jihad,’ she says today, ‘the military jihad, the economic jihad and the cultural jihad.’ The EAD between the European Community and the Arab League has been a means of spreading [the] economic and cultural jihad from the Middle East to Europe.

In November 1967, Charles De Gaulle announced at a press conference that henceforward, France would assume a pro-Arab policy. His goals were to prevent a return to intra-European wars and to help France resume its leading role in European politics and history. Little could he have imagined the far-reaching results. De Gaulle died in November 1970, but in October 1973, following Egypt and Syria’s war against Israel, Georges Pompidou picked up his policy reigns and led Europe into the Euro-Arab Dialogue—(EAD), a process that took hold and changed the face of Europe for the worse.

On French initiative, the European Community sought to open a Euro-Arab Dialogue, but the Arab League for their part made any dialogue dependent on the establishment of an anti-Israel policy in Europe.

Outraged that Israel had won the war against all odds, with help from the U.S., the oil-producing members of the Arab League unilaterally quadrupled the price of oil and cut production by 5 percent a month. Additionally, they imposed an oil embargo on the nations considered friendly to Israel—the U.S., Denmark and Holland. France and Germany panicked. On November 6, 1973, the nine countries of the European Economic Community met in Brussels and issued a joint resolution that reversed the intent and meaning of United Nations Resolution 242, and declared illegal all territory Israel had gained in its defensive 1967 war. Furthermore, the EEC demanded that henceforward ‘the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people’ be included in any definition of peace. Continue reading “Triple-pronged Jihad — Military, Economic and Cultural”


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Evaluating Muslim-Jewish Relations in Britain

By Ben Cohen
Jerusalem Viewpoints | No. 527, 1-15 February 2005

* British Muslim organizations are becoming far more vocal on foreign policy matters. Two positions would appear to be axiomatic: opposition to the Iraq war and Britain’s continued involvement in Iraq, and a resolute anti-Zionism which both delegitimizes the State of Israel and scorns Jewish anxieties when it comes to anti-Semitism.

* Prior to the furor over Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses, national origin was the principal component of Muslim immigrant identity in Britain. The Rushdie Affair introduced an overarching Muslim identity over these distinct communities. By the end of 1988, a UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs (UKACIA) had been formed to coordinate protests against Rushdie. By January 1989, Muslims in the northern English city of Bradford were burning copies of the book in public.

* It can be argued that alleviating the social plight of British Muslims does not necessarily require legislation which characterizes the policy focus as a problem of discrimination against a religious minority. Moreover, a number of studies have questioned the assumption of an organic link between deprivation and Islamist politics. More sensitive social policies and better employment prospects will not, by themselves, dilute the appeal of the radical Islamist agenda.

* A November 2004 poll conducted by The Guardian demonstrates that it is political and religious issues, rather than economic and social ones, which energize Muslim activism in the UK. According to the poll, 88 percent of Muslims want to see schools and workplaces incorporate Muslim prayer times as part of their working day – a demand all but unknown among other religious groups. Continue reading “Evaluating Muslim-Jewish Relations in Britain”


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Islamism’s Poster Boy

By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 15, 2004

On Thursday November 6, 2003, Jordanian Amer Jubran shocked the U.S. Immigration Court at his final deportation hearing and agreed to leave the U.S. voluntarily, no later than March 5, 2004. That date has come and gone, but Jubran may remain in the U.S. If so, his presence is apparently without sanction.

On March 22, Jubran wrote for the (misnamed) Axis of Logic—purportedly from Jordan—“on Israel’s assassination of Ahmad Yassin. Perhaps the Amman dateline was a ruse: He was listed as a “confirmed speaker” at a March 27 and 28 “Land Day” conference designed by Al Awda radical Mazin Qumsiyeh to “confront Zionism.” Jubran may have “appeared” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology event on tape, phone or video-conference. He may have gone to Jordan after settling with U.S. immigration and returned to Boston later to address “Resistance and the Strategy for Liberation.” Or maybe he never left the U.S. In cases of voluntary departure, the Homeland Security Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports, it cannot release information publicly.

Although Jordanian, Amer Jubran describes himself as Palestinian Arab. He reportedly arrived in the U.S. on a student visa in 1988. In 1997 he married an American born in Puerto Rico and began an obsessive effort to obtain a green card, which he received in 1999. By then, however, his allegedly bogus marriage had ended; he was officially divorced in February 2000.

Perhaps the swirl of controversy that enveloped Jubran was circumstantial. Yet he could not have conceived of a more successful public relations campaign for Islamic causes if he had tried. In hindsight, Jubran looks less a victim than a man on a jihad mission.

Jubran’s immigration difficulties apparently began with his June 10, 2001 arrest at Coolidge Corner in Brookline Massachusetts, where tens of thousands of Jews and Christians celebrated Israel’s 53rd Independence Day. While leading 60 or so anti-Zionists in protest, Jubran allegedly kicked a Jewish spectator from nearby Waltham.

Already, Jubran belonged to the Islamic Society of Boston. But three months before September 11, no one cared about its embedded terror network. Literally hundreds of articles on Jubran followed his reputed 2001 fracas. The alternative Boston Phoenix alone reported his link to the city’s Islamic Society—a point it failed to investigate further.

By October 2003, Boston Muslims had obtained local approval for a gigantic $22 million mosque, despite their support from Egyptian cleric and staunch suicide bombing advocate Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi—and their ties to Abdurahman Alamoudi, a lobbyist indicted for alleged terror funding activities.

Their longtime Saudi mosque director, Walid Ahmad Fitaihi, before his return to Arabia, asked in
Arabic
how anyone could naively consider peace possible with the Jewish “people who hide that which Allah has shown them, and who distorted the words and wrote the Book with their own hands; a people who have betrayed the trust of Heaven and who have killed prophets” He predicted Islam’s utter defeat of Jews, Judaism and Israel for a “second transgression” he alleged to be in progress. In this, Fitaihi was simply describing the Islamic apocalypse that Muslim radicals expect to culminate soon. Perhaps Jubran did not share his views, but he in any case relished controversy and press.

The average internet search for “Amer Jubran” today instantly lands nearly 900 hits. Most plead on behalf of a purported victim, but skirt his radical views. Was Jubran really the prescribed target of government abuse?

A well-aimed kick with a hard-soled shoe could of course prove deadly. But in 2001, Jubran allegedly committed the kicking. He said he had done no such thing. Brookline police had “grossly violated” his rights. He was “slapped with a racist frame-up.” If deported, he ludicrously claimed, Israel might assassinate him. Israel intentionally assassinates only proven progenitors of terror, not “activists.” But Jubran fashioned his arrest and felony assault charges into publicity for “Palestinian free speech rights.”

His adept use of faulty logic and aggressive bluster defeated the allegations and turned the entire affair to Muslim advantage. He was simply demonstrating as part of an “ongoing campaign” to highlight “the illegal occupation of Palestinian land since 1948.” In other words, he considers Israeli statehood illegal, and all that implies.

Jubran won round one in a personal jihad against seemingly reasonable charges and official demands. He effectively twisted events to evoke sympathy, in turn to advance illicit claims—and lower the social barriers to aggression against innocent parties. Americans may not recognize such actions as weapons, but scholars of Islam frequently attribute their like to a potent form of perpetual jihad.

Upon his November 4, 2002 arrest in Rhode Island for alleged U.S. immigration violations, Jubran redeployed tactics he had successfully used earlier. The federal proceedings helped him generate reams more sympathetic ink in radical outlets worldwide; the Irish anti-War Movement, Muslim Civil Rights Center, Independent Race and Refugees Network and American Civil Liberties Union all bemoaned his “illegal” detention and U.S. government “abuse. They screamed over infringements of his free speech. Even Amnesty International took notice.
ACLU advocacy on Jubran’s behalf is not that surprising, since Nancy Murray heads the Massachusetts chapter’s Bill of Rights Education Project—and efforts for the state to join Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont and Maine by passing a resolution that would give unquestioned sanctuary to illegal aliens. Coincidentally (or is it?), Murray is mother of International Solidarity Movement leader Rebecca Murray, who two years ago made a fawning visit to Arafat in the Mukata and has since spent her time glorifying the memory of senior Fatah terror official Ziad Dias, [1] and on road shows to accuse Israel of war crimes.

These advocacy circles meanwhile furthered general acceptance of radical goals. One could almost imagine Jubran blessing his troubles. His “human rights” lingo fooled many. But even without Jubran his “Defense Committee” continues its apparent soft-core jihad. It links to Boston’s A.N.S.W.E.R. and a Muslim-Arab-South Asian unity movement dubbed Blue Triangle. It features Richard Hugus’ October al Jazeerah commentary (since reproduced at radical addresses everywhere). It ties to something called “Defend Palestine”—though “defend” is a stretch, given its claim to all of Israel.

Denying the place for any Jewish homeland in Israel is not humanism. Neither is sympathy for terrorists. Jubran does both. “We are living in an evil empire far worse than Hitler’s,” he told an October anti-war rally in San Francisco; [2] he also praised anti-American “resistance” and empathized with suicide bombers. Was this frustration, or an unguarded expression of jihad ethics, which for radicals are embedded in Islam? Was he building support for global Islamism?

Jubran probably overstayed his U.S. student visa. He allegedly married on false pretenses to obtain a green card. He certainly used more than a decade in the U.S. to foment hatred. At Harvard and MIT, students report, Jubran physically harassed and threatened political opponents. One student reports three encounters; each time, Jubran grew intimidating and physically forceful. In March 2003, he screamed at an Iraqi man at a pro-war rally, “Who pays you? The CIA?” To prevent him from attacking the Iraqi, Jubran’s “Defend Palestine” friends were forced to physically restrain him. In November, at another pro-Palestinian propaganda event, Jubran referred obliquely to activities in Jordan that he said he couldn’t discuss, reports the student, who believes Jubran may still be in the U.S. and fears him.

The Jubran imbroglio raises questions about the U.S. right to deport illegal aliens; and whether the latter may nevertheless flaunt federal laws or promote bold-faced hatred, disguised thinly for university circles as something else.

A more pressing issue concerns the legality of supporting terror groups like Hamas. Jubran recalls arch-terrorist Ahmad Yassin with praise. He describes not the mass-producer of legions of guided-human-missiles, not the chief architect of hundreds of intentional civilian murders or thousands of horrid permanent injuries—but a “crippled” 67-year-old, better left to murder and maim more innocents. He negates the roots of Hamas in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928, decades before Israel’s 1948 birth—and glosses Hamas espousal of violent jihad. Hamas grew from “its [own] resources, constituencies, sacrifices, religious identity, political clarity, and membership base,” Jubran claims.

Reading this, one wonders: Do any of the “activist” groups established by Jubran in Boston play some role for Brotherhood offspring—Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda? Jubran ignores the genocidal nature of both Hamas and its Charter. To him, its jihadis are providers of “social programs and services to the poor and victimized in Gaza and the West Bank,” suppliers of “schools, housing, health care, social welfare, and mentor support to many individuals and families.”

Suicide mentoring

The “activist” Jubran exposes the true nature of his humanism. Britain now plans to jail anyone so much as sympathizing with extremists.

This leaves the question of Jubran’s whereabouts. If he is still in the U.S., his friends are coy about it. On March 24, “Axis” editor Les Blough noted that Jubran had “lived for many years in the United States, until January 4” but was now “in Jordan, as a result of the efforts of Homeland Security to silence his speech.” An end note reiterated, “Submitted directly to Axis of Logic by Amer Jubran, writing from Amman, Jordan.

Still, in Boston Jubran’s site on April 8 announced an “emergency protest in support of the Iraqi uprising” at 5 p.m. in Copley Square. Almost pointedly, its main page prominently featured an announcement of the previous MIT event held on March 27 and 28. For two full days speakers challenged “the Zionist agenda” with jihad topics like

the Right to Resist; the Right to Return; the illegitimacy of the State of Israel and the need for a single, unified, democratic Palestine; the U.S. role in the Conflict; Palestine and the anti-war movement; and repression in the U.S. against activists.

The notice said,

Confirmed speakers include;

Dr. Samia Halaby — “Women in the Palestinian Struggle”
Dr. Jess Ghannam, ADC-SF — “Peace Negotiations and Land Dispossession”
Saja Raouf, Iraqi Law Student — “Iraq and Palestine: What is the link?”
Amer Jubran — “Resistance and the Strategy for Liberation”

But Jubran is supposedly in Amman, Jordan. Or is he? If the U.S. government knows, it isn’t saying.

NOTES:
[1] Margot Dudkevitch, “Female would-be suicide bomber indicted,” Jerusalem Post, Aug. 30, 2002.

[2] Josh Gerstein, “Jordanian Praises ‘Resistance’ in Iraq,” New York Sun, Oct. 27, 2003.


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Enemy With A Human Face

By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 2, 2003

As a young woman in 1968, I worked briefly with Christian leaders to fight mass starvation inflicted on Biafra’s Ibo people. Joan Baez and Bob Dylan also raised money for the afflicted Biafrans. In this, my family and I followed the late Father Aloisius Dempsey, a Jesuit priest who had spent his life tending to sick and impoverished disaster victims worldwide, may he rest in peace. Never did Father Alo or his peers call on peace activists to engage in “resistance.” Peace activism then consisted of marching and raising funds to feed the starving.

Not that Biafra lacked cause. Nigeria’s so-called “civil war” actually constituted a Muslim jihad genocide that felled one million victims. Biafran Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu explained in his June 1969 Ahiara Declaration, the Ibo were threatened with “total destruction,” and their secession resisted “the Arab-Muslim expansionism which has menaced and ravaged the African continent for twelve centuries.” Nigerian troops in 1966 slaughtered 50,000 “like cattle.” In one village, in 1968 they murdered the entire adult male population. Nigerian Lieut. Col. Murtala Mohammed declared in September 1967, “My destination is Onitsha, brothers and sisters. Let nobody stand on my way, for anything that stands on my way would be crushed.” Indeed, the Ibo people were crushed. As Karl Maier expertly describes in This House Has Fallen (2000), Nigeria’s Islamization continues today and the Ibos have become its second class citizens.

Now “peace activism” ironically sides with jihad, at least as embodied by the International Solidarity Movement, which claims a Palestinian Arab “right to resist” “via legitimate armed struggle,” including murder by suicide. ISM is just ending its six week “Freedom Summer Palestine Campaign.” Ostensibly to “challenge Israel’s brutal occupation policies,” this sought to halt construction of Israel’s security fence, which ISM derisively labels an “apartheid wall.”

To Israel, the fence represents a life-saver to keep suicide killers out. ISM wants them to get in. A fence can be removed; lives cannot be replaced. Continue reading “Enemy With A Human Face”


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.