eChurch Blog

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

VIRGINIA, September 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Lisa Miller says that if she doesn’t hand her daughter over to her former lesbian partner later this week, she may lose custody of her.

Although Miller long ago left the lesbian lifestyle and returned to her childhood Christian faith, Vermont judge Richard Cohen has ruled that her former partner, Janet Jenkins, has visitation rights, and is the child’s other “parent.”

Miller told LifeSiteNews in a recent interview that during the latest “status conference” with Cohen, her attorney was told that the judge is fed up with her repeated “disobedience” to his visitation orders.

“He said that there is going to be another visitation at the end of this month, and that if I do not give that visitation” he implied that “he would be forced to transfer custody at that time,” said Miller.

Although Jenkins’ attorney was expected to request a custody transfer during the status conference, Cohen did not act to transfer the seven year old girl, who Miller says has complained of being forced to bathe naked with Jenkins, and has mentioned wanting to die following one visit.

Miller has waged a battle for years to prevent the visitations. The last one occurred in January of this year.

“We just keep on praying, and we don’t loose hope, and we look to the Lord for his mercy and his justice,” said Miller.  “I really really believe that this case God is using to not only bring people to him, to Christ, but also to bring Christians to a better understanding that we need to take a stand for what is right and continue with that, with his help, and with his grace, because that’s the only way that I’ve been able to get through all of this.”

Although Miller and her daughter live in Virginia, which has a constitutional amendment denying same-sex “marriage” and civil unions, the state courts have thus far accepted Cohen’s visitation rulings. These rulings are based on a Vermont civil union entered into by the couple shortly before Isabella’s conception by artificial insemination.

Miller hopes that an upcoming appeal will protect her daughter against further forced visitations with someone Miller says she does not want to see.

“I’m still putting my trust in God that he’s going to turn the hearts of the Virginia judges because we still have an appeal we’re waiting on should be heard sometime in October or November,” Miller said.
Contact information:

Judge William D. Cohen
RUTLAND SUPERIOR COURT
83 Center Street, Suite 3
Rutland, VT 05701
(802) 775-4394

(Please be polite and respectful in your communications)

Related Links:

Protect Isabella Coalition
http://www.protectisabella.com/

Lisa Miller’s Facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=81022155363

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Mother Told that Daughter Will Be Taken from Her by Force for Visits with Lesbian
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09011903.html

Mother Refuses All Further “Parental” Visits with Daughter by Former Lesbian Partner as Trial Looms
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010507.html

Vermont Judge Reportedly Threatens to Transfer Custody of Child for Refusal of Unsupervised Visits with Lesbian “Mother”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121510.html

Exclusive Interview with Lisa Miller, Ex-Lesbian Fighting for Custody of Own Child against “Civil Union” Partner
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102707.html

By Simon Rocker – TheJc

The government should lay down conditions for dealing with organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, a parliamentary inquiry has been told by the Board of Deputies.

In a joint submission with the Community Security Trust to the Commons’ Communities and Local Government Committee, the Board wrote: “Any future engagement with umbrella groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain must be contingent on them representing a greater range of views than those of the Islamists, and firmly rejecting violence in all circumstances, including in overseas conflicts.”

It noted that individuals from the MCB and some British mosques had signed the Istanbul Declaration earlier this year which “contained within it implicit threats of violence against the Royal Navy or warships of UK allies, against Israel and against British Jews in the UK,” the Board declared.

“There is no long-term value in building partnerships with those whose attitude towards violent jihad is contingent upon circumstance.”

The committee launched an inquiry in the summer into the govermment’s anti-extremism Prevent programme, which has a scheduled £60-plus million budget over four years to 2011. But the Board said that local authorities allocating the money “seldom have sufficient expertise to determine who is extremist and who is not”.

Government policy should also recognise that there were differences between preventing extremism and encouraging social cohesion, the Board argued.

“Many Muslims may not be integrated, and may promote ideas that are antithetical to community cohesion, but are non-violent and are repelled by Islamism and Salafi jihadism. It is well to remember that the lead members of the 7/7 and Operation Crevice conspiracies came from well-integrated backgrounds.”

It went on: “Neither is speaking English or wearing the veil the real issue. The issue is confronting an extremist and alien political ideology which promotes the supremacy of Islam over other faiths and democratic political systems, a core belief in antisemitism and the use of violence to achieve its ends.”

In its own submission to the inquiry, the MCB said that it had “long spoken out against terrorism and violent extremism. Ever since the atrocities of September 11 2001, the MCB has initiated statements and campaigns to speak out against the scourge of terrorism.”

It added: “Our message ever since 9/11 has been unequivocal and focused — to call on all members of society to eschew criminality and participate positively in society.”

But it said the Prevent policy was “counter-productive” and that far from preventing extremism, it had “prevented cohesion”.

It referred to a recent letter it had sent to Communities Secretary John Denham raising concerns that the programme’s agenda views Muslims as the “suspect community”.

Arguing that Prevent should go “beyond and away from narrow security concerns”, it called for fresh thinking “on the renewal of democratic processes to make Britain a better nation by strengthening civil society.”

In its submission, the MCB also noted: “There seems to have been an expectation that community bodies, by showing ‘leadership’, can wave a magic wand and ask young people to remain oblivious to international political developments at the root of the frustration — not least the injustice in Palestine that has lasted well-nigh 60 years.”

Lovely post from the John Piper Blog

Today, 250 years ago a great pastor was born, Charles Simeon. He was called to Trinity Church, Cambridge in May of 1782. And he endured fruitfully there through much fire for 54 years until his death November 13, 1836.

Simeon never married. He “had deliberately and resolutely chosen the…celibacy of a Fellowship that he might…better work for God at Cambridge” (Moule, Charles Simeon, 111).

His greatest influence was probably through sustained biblical preaching for 54 years. This was the central labor of his life. In 1833, he placed into the hands of King William IV the completed 21 volumes of his collected sermons.

He tried to be conciliatory in doctrinal disputes. Here is an example of how he conversed with the elderly John Wesley:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers.  But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.  Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Bill Muehlenberg

In this important volume a number of important issues are explored concerning the present state of Europe, chief of which is how fifty years of mass immigration – especially by Muslims – has forever changed the continent.

In the first third of this book Caldwell examines the history and rationale for mass immigration into Europe since the end of WWII. There was certainly a labour shortage back then, and bringing in guest workers on a temporary basis seemed like a good idea at the time.

But the temporary usually became permanent, contrary to common expectations. For example, foreign workers demanded – and got, in most cases – the right to have their families come and join them. Since a large percentage of these workers were Muslims, major demographic and religious shifts ensued. While native Europeans were going through a birth dearth, the new arrivals were having rather large families.

Thus Europe changed dramatically, even simply in terms of the numbers. For the first time in its recent history, Europe is now “a continent of migrants. Of the 375 million people in Western Europe, 40 million are living outside their countries of birth.”

But since postwar Europe was “built on an intolerance of intolerance,” very few Europeans actually said these folks should return home when they had finished their work. They were also at this time losing all commitment to their own core beliefs and values, and “behaved as if no one’s culture was better than anyone else’s.”

Caldwell examines the economic value of an immigration culture. Just who has benefitted? While Europe made some gains, it may be that the sending countries benefitted the most. No model of development aid comes close to competing with what we find in Europe, says Caldwell. Europe allowed “migrants to set up a beachhead in an advanced economy and ship money home in the form of so-called ‘remittances’.”

Then there is the whole question of the welfare state and how it can fare in quite multicultural climates. Caldwell notes that they were originally set up in Europe under conditions of ethnic homogeneity. But the massive wave of migrants is heavily testing both the welfare state, and the ability of host nations to remain cohesive.

The second part of the books focuses on Islam, and how well – or otherwise – it is fitting into post-Christian Europe. The non-judgmentalism of so many Europeans – especially the ruling elites – along with the decline of Christian values and beliefs meant that Islam became not just an accepted part of Europe, but a politically protected part.

Fear of “Islamophobioa” and being politically incorrect resulted in numerous policies and practices which basically lead to Continental suicide. Even after September 11, EU bureaucrats debated whether it was even right to use such terms as jihad and terrorism.

Indeed, there really was a clash of civilisations which emerged. On the one hand, a civilisation which was exhausted, no longer believed in itself, no longer seemed to care, no longer held up anything as worth fighting for, had come face to face with a worldview full of confidence, contempt for the infidel, sure of itself, and with an evangelistic and millennialist faith.

The modern values of diversity, tolerance, secularism and relativism “that were supposed to liberate Europeans had left them paralysed”. A guilt-tripping, cowering, faithless Europe is no match for a triumphant and militant faith system. Thus any talk of integration and assimilation is mainly a pipedream in Europe.

If anything, the tensions and frictions are as strong as ever. Indeed, many Europeans – perhaps a majority – are now not at all happy with the way things have panned out on the Continent, and many wish the migrants would simply go back home.

And they have good reason to feel this way. Too many segregated encampments in major European cities have become no-go zones for native Europeans. Crime rates are soaring, with Muslims becoming the majority of those found in European prisons.

And then of course there is the problem of Islamic terrorism, and the lack of a vigorous rejection of, and protest against, it from the Muslim community. The assassinations (Pim Fortuyn, eg.), the Danish Cartoon riots, demands for sharia law, outbreaks of anti-Semitism, and other examples all too fresh in our memories demonstrate the very real problems Europeans are having with their Islamic guests.

Compared to the American experience of immigration, in which the nation really did become a grand melting pot of cultures and peoples, the Europe-Muslim divide looks too difficult to easily overcome. A divided loyalty is the result. As Caldwell rightly remarks, “Imagine that the West, at the height of the Cold War, had received a mass inflow of immigrants from Communist countries who were ambivalent about which side they supported”.

And Caldwell documents how so often European authorities encouraged and assisted in separatist policies and mentalities. This has resulted in a completely foreign culture growing up within the European culture, with little hope of resolution. It is in fact an adversarial culture, and few Europeans seem to know how to deal with it.

The third part of this book looks at the West and its response to the rise of Islam. Is it in fact capable of compatibility with Western liberal institutions? While the meeting of cultures can be a good thing for all involved, in this case one must ask who will be the winner: the West or Islam? Caldwell suggests that “What Islam will contribute to the West is Islam”.

It seems to be one-way traffic in other words. Western nations bend over backwards to accommodate their Muslim guests, to make life easy for them, to assure them that they are fully wanted. Yet at least a dedicated minority of Muslims are convinced that the end of history means a universal caliphate. Gullible and clueless Westerners are mere fools standing in their way.

Caldwell concludes by looking at how many European nations are now, belatedly, sobering up and clamping down. Radical nationalist and anti-immigration parties have of course sprung up, and the EU has recently been dealt some major blows at the ballot box.

Europeans are beginning to realise that they now have some major problems on their hands. But those who realise this tend to be ordinary Europeans, not the politicians, rulers and intellectuals. Indeed, if “Europe is getting more immigrants than its voters want, this is a good indication that its democracy is malfunctioning”.

As such this book is as much a critique of short-sighted and naive policy-makers as it is about the new immigrants. Europe has tended to show us how not to deal with the immigration issue. Thus it at least serves as a negative example.

Even if Europe now wanted to defend its values against those of Islam, the real problem is Europe no longer knows what those values are. It has long ago jettisoned its Christian foundations, and is now floundering in a sea of relativism, diversity, hedonism and secularism. “Whether or not it can defend itself, it has lost sight of why it should.”

Caldwell concludes, “It is certain that Europe will emerge changed from its confrontation with Islam. Is is far less certain that Islam will prove assimilable. . . . When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident, and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter.”

C-FAM By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM)  The head of the United Nations (UN) mission in Serbia recently promoted a highly controversial homosexual rights demonstration in Belgrade against public opposition and beyond his mandate to work “closely with national governments” to “advocate the interests and mandates of the UN.”

UN Resident Coordinator William Infante backed a “gay pride” parade scheduled for September 20th, an event that Serbs have rejected since the last time it was orchestrated in 2001. According to the Associated Press (AP), the organizers canceled the march rather than accept the government’s offer of an alternative route, which was a response to concerns about its ability to provide adequate security due to rising public opposition to the event.  Infante’s advocacy for the ill-fated event has angered groups which are concerned about the increasing pressure on Serbia from the UN and European institutions to adopt a radical homosexual agenda that goes well beyond justifiable protections against discrimination.

Conservative UN watchers were also alarmed that the resident coordinator, who is “the designated representative of the Secretary-General for development operations” according to the UN, took an official position contrary to the consensus of UN member states which have repeatedly rejected inclusion of “sexual orientation and gender identity” among accepted categories of anti-discrimination in any binding UN human rights document.

Despite the fact that UN members have rejected the idea, Infante nonetheless suggested that the special category already exists when advocated for the event along with his counterpart from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Infante stated: “It is very important for all nations to protect all people from discrimination. Human rights are universal and inalienable to all, and these two principles of universality and non-discrimination must be upheld.” at a recent meeting Infante has also cited a recent poll backed by the EU and UN Development Program (UNDP) to suggest that Serbs were willing to embrace a broad view of “anti-discrimination,” but close examination of the poll reveals that nearly forty percent of Serbs are concerned about the protection of their children and the “bad example” that may be set by promoting homosexuality in Serbian society.

Serbia has come under intense pressure from the EU and activist NGOs to liberalize laws and policies regarding family and sexuality. Even though no binding UN treaty even mentions sexual orientation or homosexuality, the powerful human rights NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) sent a letter to the Serbian vice prime minister claiming that Serbia had to adopt the controversial legislation or be in violation of its obligations under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). HRW rested its argument on the fact that the committee tasked with monitoring the treaty, “affirmed … that sexual orientation is a ground protected against discrimination,” but the committee has no authority to interpret the treaty, and only has a mandate to monitor compliance.

Infante only recently took up his UN post in Serbia. He worked in Serbia from 2001 to 2004 as Director, Economic Policy and Finance at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) under the name William S. Foerderer.

Previous Post

Some Muslims are organizing a Capitol Hill Prayer Meeting for this Friday, September 25th. They are claiming that 50,000 American Muslims will peaceably assemble to offer prayers on the grounds of one of the nation’s most cherished sites. Their theme is “Our Time Has Come.”

CBN

A massive Islamic prayer service scheduled to take place on Capitol Hill, Friday, is raising concerns among Christians.

Some 50,000 Muslims are expected to take part in the event being billed as a “Day of Islamic Unity.” The rally starts at 1 pm. ET, Sept. 25.

Organizers say the goal is to illustrate the “wonderful diversity of Islam.” The Web site for the event states:

“We intend to manifest Islam’s majestic spiritual principals (sic) as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet … Likewise; we intend to inspire a new generation of Muslim to work for the greater good of all people. We shall serve all people, regardless of race, religion or national origin.”

The Web site concludes each page with “Our Time Has Come.”

Widespread Internet rumors about the rally have even warranted an article on the government’s truth squad on Factcheck.org.

Much of the negative backlash has centered on the spiritual nature of the event, and on the possible motivations of the group’s organizers.

The Washington Times reported Wednesday that Hassen Abdellah, president of the New Jersey mosque organizing the event, has a history of representing Islamic terrorists.

However, Abdellah told the New Jersey Star-Ledger in August that the purpose of the rally is to pray “for the soul of America” and to show other Americans that “we love America.”

While many Christians are uncomfortable with a large gathering of Muslims on the U.S. Capitol, Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, argues that Christians should instead focus on reaching out to Muslims.

Mahoney and a handful of other evangelical Christian leaders joined the Islamic prayer rally organizers at a Tuesday morning press conference on Capitol Hill.

“Our whole purpose was to say Christians are not the enemies of Muslims and that the heart of Christ reaches out to all groups,” he told the Washington Times about Tuesday’s reception. “We also want to celebrate the wonderful traditions of America that say no one – regardless of their faith – should be persecuted and harassed by the government.”

UPDATE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 /Christian Newswire/ — A group called The Ad Hoc Committee of Americans for Transparency and Honesty in Religion has called on the organizers of tomorrow’s “Islam on Capitol Hill” rally to denounce specific acts of terrorism.

The “Islam On Capitol Hill” website says those assembled will pray “for the soul of America.” It also proclaims — “Our Time Has Come.”

Muslim Americans assure us that Islam categorically rejects terrorism and that the concept of “jihad” refers to a “spiritual struggle,” and has nothing whatsoever to do with “holy war.”

However, the Letter notes that, “Around the world, the overwhelming number of terrorist acts are carried out by Muslims, that many Muslim-American groups have terrorist ties and that justification for acts of violence against ‘infidels’ is found in the Koran.”

Signers of the letter ask rally organizers to disavow the following acts of terrorism, “committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam”:

• The 9/11 attacks (more than 3,000 dead)

• The 2002 bombing of a hotel in Netanya, Israel (30 killed)

• The 2002 Bali bombings (202 dead)

• The 2007 plot to murder soldiers at Ft. Dix

• The 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India (173 dead)

• The 2009 conspiracy to bomb a synagogue and Jewish community center in the Bronx

The letter asks recipients if they are “willing to join millions of other people of faith in America and denounce these and similar acts of terrorism?”

The letter is signed by 19 prominent leaders, including: Tony Perkins (President, Family Research Council), Mat Staver (Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel), Joe Farah (Founder and CEO, WorldNetDaily), Pastor Rick Scarborough (President,Vision America) and Rabbi Daniel Lapin (President, American Alliance of Jews and Christians). The affiliations listed are for identification purposes only. Click here to read the Open Letter in its entirety, including a list of signers.

The letter was sent by Federal Express to Hassen Abdellah (President of the Dar-ul-Islam Mosque in Elizabeth, N.J.), identified in a September 5, Washington Post story as the main organizer of the Sep. 25 event, and Aly A. Aziz (President of the Islamic Society of Central New Jersey), also mentioned in the Post story as helping to organize the event.

To date, there has been no response.

Dr. Scarborough commented: “If people all over the world were committing acts of murder and mayhem in the name of Christianity, Christian leaders in the United States would spare no effort to disavow these blasphemies. Why are Muslim leaders conspicuously silent?”

Dr. Scarborough can be reached for further comment at 936-560-3900.

Catholic Culture

The president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging members of Parliament not to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide and to avoid ambiguous language in discussing the issue.

“It is legitimate to use medication and other means to alleviate suffering, even if a side effect can be the shortening of life expectancy,” writes dying Archbishop James Weisgerber of Winnipeg. “It is also legitimate for someone to refuse medical procedures that are found to be especially burdensome. But what is never acceptable is the direct and intentional killing of the depressed, handicapped, sick, elderly or dying.”

He continues:

It is hard to see how any legislation legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide would protect the most vulnerable in our society. What confidence and trust could they possibly have that their lives would continue to be protected by health-care providers, family and friends, or society at large? Euthanasia and assisted suicide, by their very nature, mean there is no longer a common duty for all to protect the lives of others. There is also the well-founded fear that euthanasia and assisted suicide can be imposed on individuals as a way to save costs and lessen demands on care-givers. Inevitably, the result would be a society even more fragmented, with its members living in greater isolation and anxiety.

How the West’s Enemies Are Saving It

Prof. Barry Rubin

When people are very pessimistic, I say to them: Don’t worry our enemies will save us. By that I mean that the enemies of peace, progress, and democracy – Islamists and radical Arab nationalists, terrorists and silly people in the West alike–are so intransigent, obviously lying, and dangerously wrong about society that they will convince and force most people to reject and combat them.

Even when thrown lifelines, even when confronted with naiveté, they reject concessions, turn up their nose at compromise, go too far, and make their nonsense so illogical and apparent, as to either teach the naïve in political and intellectual power or persuade others push them aside in order to survive.

Today offers some examples of this idea:

The presidency of Barack Obama and the relatively soft stands of European states have given Iran a great opportunity. Tehran could have made a show of flexibility, a strong pretense about being cooperative, and met with Obama. This would have forestalled a higher level of Western sanctions, while Iran could still work secretly on nuclear weapons.

After all, even after a virtual coup by the most hardline faction, the stolen election, the strong repression, the show trials of dissidents, and the appointment of a wanted terrorist as defense minister [that’s a pretty amazing list, isn’t it?], the West was still willing to deal with the regime.

Instead, Iran produced an “offer” to negotiate so minimal that even the Europeans rejected it. While this doesn’t mean all is well—Russia and China will block and sabotage even moderate sanctions; the West Europeans will oppose really strong ones—at least Iran’s last-minute effort to derail the process altogether will fail.

Imagine what the Iranian regime could have done if the ruling establishment had let someone less extreme than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad get elected, then claimed this showed what a moderate and democratic state they were running. A charm offensive could have defused the nuclear controversy and the sanctions would have fallen away. Iran would have been set loose and a few years from now could have finished its nuclear program in a relaxed manner.

But no!

Turn to Lebanon. The Syrians were riding high. A new government was going to be set up in Lebanon with their clients have both thirty percent of the cabinet seats and veto power over all government policies. But when the March 14 coalition, which won the recent elections, presented its own list of ministers, the Syrians and their Hizballah allies rejected it: not subservient enough. March 14, which has been giving ground steadily, was pushed so hard that it dug in its heels and rejected the Syrian demands. The negotiations will now have to start all over again.

Syria could have gotten back around 80 percent of its former total power over Lebanon in one day, but that wasn’t enough for Damascus.

The same applies to U.S. attempts to engage Syria. The Obama Administration was eager for progress, but the Bashar al-Assad dictatorship would even give an inch to gain a yard. The talks have been frustrating for Washington. The Syrians weren’t willing even to deescalate the terrorism in Iraq for a while.

Syria could have gotten out from under U.S. sanctions, reestablished normal relations with Washington, and have the Obama Administration turn a blind eye to its sponsorship of terrorism and subversion throughout the region.

But no!

The same applies to Hamas. It tried a little to pretend to moderate and already Western suckers were swallowing the bait, but it couldn’t—and wouldn’t –sustain the pretense very long. It couldn’t resist going back to its super-hardline statements and actions.

But the Palestinian Authority (PA) offers an even clearer example. Imagine how much it could have obtained if it played along with the U.S. president’s eagerness to help. A show of flexibility, an eagerness to negotiate, and an effort to get a Palestinian state on something approaching reasonable terms real fast probably would have brought success.

Atmost, there could have been a Palestinian state within 18 months on pretty favorable terms for the Palestinians. Or should one say, at most the PA could easily—and I mean easily—engineered a U.S.-Israel conflict unseen in the history of the Jewish state. But from the start PA leader Mahmoud Abbas made it clear that he was asking for everything and giving nothing. His best chance is already past.

And similar things can be said about various Arab countries regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict specifically and also getting in good with the president.generally. They could have rushed to make minor, meaingless gestures toward Israel in exchange for U.S. support on their broader demands.

Can I have a “But no!”?

One more, historic example: Remember Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein? In late 1990 or early 1991 he could have cut a very favorable deal which would have left his country with part of Kuwait, billions of dollars, and the Saudis trembling at his every command. Instead, he refused any deal, kept his army in Kuwait, and suffered a military defeat.

He did the same in the 2000-2003 period when he could have made some kind of bargain for stopping his nuclear program in exchange for all sorts of concessions. Instead, he did the opposite: he pretended to keep up the program even when he cut it back.

It is very important to understand why this kind of thing happens repeatedly and, though ultimately disastrous for Saddam, usually works out pretty well for the dictators or the leaders of powerful opposition movements.

First, all these forces really are radical and extremist. They don’t want a deal; they want total victory, all the disputed land, total rule, complete dictatorship, the expulsion or extinction of their adversaries. And they can also rightly argue: these methods got me this far.

Second, they really believe their own propaganda. They think they can win and assume that those on the other side—whether Israel, the West, or other regimes they want to overthrow– are weak and doomed. And, in turn, their enemies give them enough signals to this effect to make them continue to believe this is true.

Third, they are wedded to brutal methods. Terrorism is no accident; it is the tool of people who exult in deliberate violence against civilians. And in such political groups the gunmen and their values rise to the top.

Fourth, they are afraid of internal rivals and their own followers. They know that the people have been so conditioned by extremism as to reject moderates as traitors. This is obviously less true in Iranian but more true in Palestinian politics.

But the other part of this factor is even if a given leader, say from Hamas, wanted to follow a more moderate policy he knows that this would be used against him by rival leaders to destroy his power and maybe even kill him. They must continue to ride the tiger or be eaten. And the fact that they helped give birth to the tiger in the first place won’t save them.

Finally, this is the region’s political style, which to some extent mirrors Western history. Toughness counts; fear is better than popularity.

Many Western leaders and much of the Western intelligentsia are like someone sleeping through a burglary. But not only their friends are trying to wake them up, so are—however inadvertently—their enemies.

Prof. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary university. His new book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

You can buy his latest book The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict on Amazon.com here.

Reproduced with expressed permission from the Gloria Center

Jerusalem Post

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi ripped up a copy of the UN charter; called the Security Council a “terrorism” council; declared a two-state solution in the Middle East untenable, and proposed a lifetime term for US President Barack Obama during a rambling speech at the UN General Assembly on Wednesday.

Gaddafi, who ascended the podium in shiny bronze robes and carrying a flurry of handwritten notes, praised Obama before attacking the UN Security Council’s five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – for using their powers to “terrorize” developing nations.

“It should not be called the Security Council,” he said through a translator. “It should be called the terror council.”

While his commentary on the United Nations earned applause from some Arab and African states, many anecdotes touched off bouts of laughter from an amused and befuddled audience.

In describing the limited power of the General Assembly compared to the UN Security Council, he likened GA delegates to décor. “You just make a speech and then you disappear,” he said.

During the speech, Israeli and American officials maintained a presence in their designated spots with low- and mid-level diplomats. Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev was not present, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice left the chamber before he began speaking.

Gaddafi’s visit touched a nerve following Libya’s warm welcome to Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC he would not attend Gaddafi’s speech.

Early Wednesday morning, the Libyan leader was greeted for his first appearance at the General Assembly in 40 years by dueling sets of protesters. A crowd of several hundred supporters – mostly suited members of the Nation of Islam – gathered at Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza to welcome the “King of Africa” and call for a new African era led by the man until recently shunned by much of the Western world but now the chairman of the African Union.

Across the plaza, dozens of Libyan immigrants staged a counter-rally calling out “down with Gaddafi” and shouting lists of the Libyan dictator’s misdeeds, including suppression of free speech and human rights violations.

Midway through Gaddafi’s address, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inexplicably walked through the room, greeting delegates. He was set to address the assembly late Wednesday, but as the day progressed various member states announced they would boycott his appearance.

Iranian Americans, Jews, labor unions and human rights activists have planned a massive “Stand for Freedom in Iran” protest on Thursday afternoon.

Israel and Canada announced they would not be present during Ahmadinejad’s speech and Germany was prepared to walk out if he said anything controversial. Israeli leaders have called on world leaders to walk out during his speech to protest his call to destroy the Jewish state.

As of Wednesday afternoon, US officials did not indicate how they would respond to the Iranian leader’s talk. White House aides made sure Obama and Gaddafi would not cross paths even though their speeches were back to back. At the conclusion of Gaddafi’s speech, the American diplomats in the audience did not applaud and sat with conspicuously folded hands.

Similarly, there was little reaction from the Israeli delegation, even when Gaddafi denounced the two-state solution as “not practical” because the two states overlap.

“The solution is an Arab democratic state without religious fanaticism,” he said.

“Sharon and Arafat are over,” he added, declaring that young Israelis and Palestinians want to live in peace together. “They want to live under one state,” he said.

He added that Arab states were not hostile to Israel, nor were they “enemies of the Jews.”

“The Jews will one day need the Arabs,” he said, pledging that Arab states would protect them. “Look at what everybody else did to the Jews.”

In his first appearance at the General Assembly in 40 years, Gaddafi also sought to make up for lost time, pontificating in a 90-minute speech that far exceeded the 15-minute time slot. He meandered through his notes, sharing his opinion on major wars in recent decades and lamenting the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King.

More than an hour into his speech, Gaddafi demanded his fellow delegates pay attention to his speech. He accused them of being jetlagged due to their long trips to the United States.

Grimacing at his own sleepless night, he proposed moving the United Nations headquarters from New York to Libya or China. America, he said, had been bearing the undue burden of providing security to foreign leaders and it has become a terrorist target.

“We want to relieve American from this worry,” he explained.

However outlandish, the suggestion followed Gaddafi’s struggle to find lodging during his stay. Several New York City hotels reportedly turned him away. On Tuesday, the Libyan government pitched a tent on property in New York reportedly leased from Donald Trump, a US State Department confirmed. Gaddafi intends to use the tent for entertaining and he slept at the Libyan Mission before his GA address.

Previously, New York City refused a request for the Libyans to pitch Gaddafi’s tent in Central Park and residents of Englewood, New Jersey, opposed a second proposal to stay there.

Neighbors in Bedford, New York, were similarly outraged. The town issued a stop-work order late Tuesday, according to lawyer Joel Sachs, who said he believes the erection of a tent violates “several property codes and laws.

“There is no such thing as diplomatic immunity when it comes to complying with local laws and ordinances,” Sachs said. “This is a private piece of property and they have to comply with the laws of this municipality.”

The Trump Organization said Trump did not rent property to Gaddafi. Part of the estate “was leased on a short-term basis to Middle Eastern partners, who may or may not have a relationship to Mr. Gaddafi. We are looking into the matter.”

In a statement, US Rep. Nita Lowey criticized the welcome extended to Megrahi. Gaddafi’s apparent lack of remorse for the bombing was “unwelcome throughout the New York area,” she said.

Jerusalem Post

Under increasing attack over his country’s suspected nuclear weapons program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the UN General Assembly on Wednesday that Teheran was ready to meet conciliation with conciliation.

Ahmadinejad spoke to a half-empty chamber as he sought to cast himself as a beleaguered champion of the developing world, that he portrayed as under attack from rapacious capitalism.

At the same time, the Iranian leader issued stinging attacks on Israel, the United States and the West, without calling them by name. When he accused Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza, he prompted a walkout by the representatives of Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, France, the UK and Germany. The Spanish and Bulgarian representatives remained in the chamber, according to Army Radio.

The US, Israel and Canada were among those that boycotted the speech, in protest against his persistent denial of the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad made only passing reference to the nuclear issue, a call for global nuclear disarmament.

Moments before he spoke, foreign ministers of six global powers told reporters on the sidelines of the General Assembly that they expected Iran to come clean about its nuclear program. Tougher sanctions against Iran are being considered if talks between the powers and Iran on the issue, set for October 1, fail to yield results.

At times, Ahmadinejad struck a softer tone, declaring that Teheran was “prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us.” He peppered his speech with religious references, invoking the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, as well as Islam.

Yet most of the speech focused on his usual themes – scathing verbal attacks on archenemy Israel and the West.

He assailed Israel for what he said was a “barbaric” attack on the Gaza Strip last winter, and claimed that the “brutalities in Gaza have not all been published.”

“The international community is impatiently waiting for the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza,” he said, in reference to alleged war crimes by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead.

He also called for a “free referendum” in “Palestine,” which he said would allow “all Palestinians – including Christians, Muslims and Jews” to live together in peace.

He accused the West of hypocrisy, saying it preached democracy, but violated its fundamental principles.

Turning to domestic affairs, Ahmadinejad insisted he won by a “large majority” in June elections. Pro-reform opposition politicians have alleged electoral fraud, and Ahmadinejad has been at the center of political turmoil since then.

On Thursday, a high-level meeting of the UN Security Council is expected to adopt a resolution calling for a more intense global campaign to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation. It does not name countries, but refers to previous resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.

Ahmadinejad blasts ‘Zionist regime,’ U.S; many countries walk out

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted Israel and the United States and said a “small minority” cannot be allowed to “dominate” the world in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

Referring to Israel only as the “Zionist regime,” Ahmadinejad said that “inhuman policies in Palestine” had forced “the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years,”  while “much to the chagrin of the international community, calling the occupiers as the peacelovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists.”

He also charged that Israel had committed “genocide” and that the international community “is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza.”

He added, in an apparent reference to Jews, “It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions.”

The Iranian president also criticized the United States, also not by name, saying that it is “not acceptable that some who are several thousands of kilometers away from the Middle East would send their troops for military intervention and for spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the whole region.”

Ahmadinejad did not speak of Iran’s nuclear program, but did say that he supported the “elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.”

He also called his June re-election as president “glorious” and “fully democratic,” and said he had been trusted with a “large majority.” The election has widely been seen as illegitimate, and those opposed to Iran’s rulers continue to protest its results.

Media reports said more than half of the seats in the General Assembly may have been vacant by the end of the speech as a result of diplomats walking out of the speech in protest. Among those walking out was the delegation from the United States, which called Ahamdinejad’s remarks ” hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric.”