GW Students Refuse To Condemn Genocide

By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/16/2008

When George Washington University senior Sergio Gor tried to get campus student groups to sign a Declaration Against Genocide last week, he thought it would be a no-brainer. Who, after all, wouldn't support a statement endorsing such uncontroversial tenets as the "right of all people to live in freedom and dignity," the equal dignity of men and women, and the freedom of conscience?

All too many, as it turned out. Having approached all the largest student groups at the school to support the declaration, Gor, the president of the George Washington chapter of the Young America's Foundation, was refused time and again. For most students, the message of the declaration, which is a central component of the Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, was simply too "controversial to support."

It is instructive to reflect on just what is now deemed excessively "controversial" on American campuses. For instance, the Declaration Against Genocide condemns an Islamic hadith (a narration about the life of the prophet Mohammed) that calls on Muslims to kill Jews. It also condemns terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has declared that "the accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible" – an unmistakable expression of genocidal intent toward the countries that Islamic radicals consider to be the "little Satan" and the "great Satan" respectively. There is nothing, in short, that can be considered even remotely objectionable.

Yet, at George Washington and countless other schools across the country, groups ranging from the Muslim Students Association to the College Democrats – to even the College Republicans – have been unwilling to condemn these and other affirmations of hatred when they concern Islamic militants. George Washington's Gor found that out the hard way: In a week of trying to promote the Declaration Against Genocide, what Gor heard most often was not outrage at the atrocities of Islamic terrorist groups or revulsion at their murderous anti-Semitism. What he heard most often were excuses.

Thus, the Black Student Union refused to sign the declaration because it didn't specifically mention the slave trade. Meanwhile, the College Democrats refused to sign the declaration because it singled out the following hadith from the prophet Muhammad: "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" The College Democrats insisted that the quote was taken "out of context." They, too, would not sign.

Perhaps the most surprising rebuff came from the school's College Republicans chapter. Although some individual members expressed support for the declaration, the club as a whole would not support it. "It was a shock when the College Republicans said that [the declaration] was too 'controversial,'" Gor recalls. "They said they didn't want to offend anyone. But I thought, 'Who is going to be offended if you oppose genocide?'"

Less shocking, perhaps, is that Gor failed to garner the support of the Muslim Students Association. Founded by members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian forerunner of al-Qaeda, the group today has over 200 chapters on American college campuses and retains much of the political extremism of its parent organization. Some MSA chapters, for instance, have held an annual "Anti-Zionist Week" to denounce the state of Israel. When in 2005 a group called the Free Muslim Coalition Against terror held a rally in the nation's capital condemning terrorism and expressing support for Muslim democrats in the Middle East, the MSA conspicuously refused to take part. Considered against this background, it is not surprising that the group has refused to condemn Islamic terrorists and their ongoing war to destroy the Jewish state. On more than one occasion, it has been on their side.

Just as troubling as the MSA's silence is that no other student groups were willing to support the declaration at George Washington. Nor is this the first time that the school has shown itself to be intolerant of any and all debate about Islamic extremism. When the inaugural Islamo-Fascism Week was held last fall, radical students at the school plastered the campus with bigoted flyers – "Hate Muslims? So Do We!!!" the flyers proclaimed – to condemn the alleged bigotry of the campaign. The students later claimed that they put up the flyers in protest over "Islamophobic racism." Although it was never explained why it was "Islamophobic" to point out the demonstrable fact that Islamic terrorists justified their atrocities using the Muslim religion, let alone why doing so was "racist," the flyer incident acutely demonstrated the abject failure of many American universities to engage in a serious discussion about the threat of radical Islam. Terrorism fueled by religious extremism is a brutal reality in many parts of the world, but within the groves of American academia, a complicity of silence obtains.

Students like Sergio Gor despair at that reality. "On our campus the political correctness is at a new level," Gor observes. "Students are afraid to stand up for anything, and to offend anyone. We're just a few blocks from the White House, and these are groups that will protest the war [in Iraq] in a heartbeat. But when it comes to genocide, they won't take a stand."

Palestinian businesses look east to China
Tue Apr 1, 2008 7:15pm EDT
By Wafa Amr

HEBRON, West Bank (Reuters) - Faced with Israeli trade and travel restrictions, a stagnant economy and a flood of cheap imports from Asia, Palestinian businessmen are increasingly seeking their fortunes in China.

Demand for Chinese visas among business owners in the occupied West Bank is so high that the Chinese consul regularly visits the city of Hebron to stamp their passports and circumvent an Israeli ban that prevents them from traveling to the embassy in Tel Aviv.

"Everybody is doing business in China," Khaled Oseily, businessman and mayor of Hebron, told Reuters. "The Chinese consul comes to Hebron and on one day issued some 600 to 700 visas to Hebronite businessmen."

China began to open up its economy around 30 years ago, using cheap labor to produce and export huge volumes of inexpensive goods that have undercut local industries in many developing countries.

In Hebron, the largest Palestinian city famous for its leather and handmade ceramics, the wave of cheap Chinese goods was the last straw for businessmen already battling Israeli travel restrictions that inflate costs and hurt economic growth.

Israel says its network of checkpoints and roadblocks that carve up the West Bank is needed for security reasons. Palestinians say they amount to collective punishment.

On Sunday, Israel said it would remove about 50 "dirt roadblocks" in the West Bank and open a "permanent checkpoint" that obstructs the flow of travelers to the town of Jericho.

Western and Palestinian officials said Israel had pledged in the past to remove West Bank barriers but failed to do so.

Meanwhile, many Palestinians have turned to the import trade, traveling to China to buy cheap goods to sell at home.

Increasingly, and amid doubts peace talks with Israel will yield a deal for an independent Palestinian state soon, they are opting to stay.

"Economic conditions in Palestine are very bad," said Hazem Shyoukhi, a gift merchant from Hebron who moved to the eastern Chinese city of Yiwu in 2006 to start an export business.

"There (in Hebron) we conducted our business based on news reports," he told Reuters by phone from Yiwu. "I had to listen to the newscast to check if there was a closure ... I worked under pressure merely to survive, so I decided to leave."

"MADE IN CHINA"

China, which since the end of the Cold War has turned to the Middle East for half of its oil imports, is not just linked to the region by trade. Beijing has sought a bigger political role in the Middle East and has appointed an envoy to the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Palestinian diplomat Ahmad Kayed, who lives in Beijing, said in the past 10 years, more than 200 Palestinian businessmen had settled in China, but thousands of other Palestinian and Arab businessmen were frequent travelers to Chinese cities for trade.

Arabic restaurants, mosques and schools have opened throughout the vast country, he said.

"Palestinian imports of Chinese goods are (worth) more than $2 billion through direct trade by Palestinian businessmen or through Israel," said Kayed, head of Palestinian-Chinese trade relations at the Palestinian embassy in Beijing.

Competition from cheaper Chinese goods has all but destroyed the manufacturing industry in the Palestinian territories, where the "Made in China" label is a common sight in shops.

The popular Crocs leisure shoes, made by U.S.-based Crocs Inc, sell for 280 shekels ($78) in Israel but in Hebron, the copycat Chinese-made version goes for just 13 shekels ($3.6).

For five decades, Yasser Hirbawi was the only Palestinian manufacturer of the national black-and-white keffiyeh headdress, the symbol of Palestinian nationalism worn most famously by the late leader Yasser Arafat.

Now, he wipes dust and cobwebs from an old weaving machine in his small, dark textile factory in Hebron.

"Two years ago I had to close down my factory because I couldn't compete with Chinese-made Hattas (keffiyehs) that sell for 40 percent less," said the 76-year-old, who himself wore a keffiyeh.

Hebron mayor Oseily said competition from Chinese goods coupled with Israeli restrictions had forced about 200 shoe factories to close in the city, putting 17,000 out of work.

He said more than 40 percent of people in the Hebron area were unemployed and called the 250 Israeli army roadblocks there a "huge impediment" to business.

WORK ETHIC

Thousands of miles away in Yiwu, a city of 2 million people in China's eastern Zhejiang province, 30-year-old Shyoukhi had a happier tale.

"Palestinian businessmen import everything from China. I even get orders to send Chinese-made Palestinian flags and the Palestinian keffiyehs," said Shyoukhi, whose export office does business with thousands of Palestinian and Israeli merchants.

Yiwu has become a buzzing trading spot thanks to the influx of Middle Eastern money. It is now a hub for selling made-in-China Arabic products, like fashion clothing and religious artefacts.

Every Friday, buyers from Lebanon, traders from Yemen and businessmen from Egypt, gather for their weekly prayers. At wholesale markets in the city, makeshift stalls are stacked with everything from toothbrushes to belts.

Businessmen in Hebron have their business cards printed in English and Chinese, and many have even adopted Chinese names.

Professor Wilfried Vanhonacker, who taught a course "Doing Business in China" at the Kellog-Recanati School of Business in Tel Aviv in February, said Hebronites needed to adapt to globalization or see their businesses die.

"Production has moved to China and it will be moving next to Vietnam. There are 1.3 billion people in China with an incredible work ethic ... This will continue," said Vanhonacker, dean of the Moscow School of Business Skolkovo and author of several books on China.

In Hebron, Shehadeh Sammouh, once a small-time merchant, now owns a large store selling Chinese shoes, clothes, toys and household goods. He sells Chinese shoes for 70 percent less than a Hebron-made shoe.

"Customers demand the goods made in China because they look better and are cheaper," Sammouh said.

(Additional reporting by Royston Chan in Yiwu; Editing by Clar Ni Chonghaile)

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Global Guerrillas

Global Guerrillas

RESILIENT COMMUNITY: FABRICATION

Posted: 15 Apr 2008 02:37 PM CDT

It's normally assumed in most projections of a localized future (driven by disruption, expensive energy, etc.) that consumer products become very rare. Either they are too expensive (usually due to the vast expense globalized transport/delivery) or too infrequently available (due to disruptions) to support current lifestyles. However, in the longer term, that doesn't need to occur. In resilient communities that undergo the transition, a revolution in manufacturing currently underway (we are only at the very start of this journey) may provide a solution. What is it? Personal fabrication. It's a method of low cost and small scale production for anything from 3-D objects up to and including intelligent systems (it will get even more effective as the costs are driven down and capabilities increase in concert with Moore's Law). It has enormous promise and will likely provide a way for resilient communities to not only stay completely "modern," but even advance economically and in quality of life faster than communities dependent on traditional centralized sources of production.

I'm going to spend much more time exploring the limits and implications of this in the future (particularly in my upcoming book on the Resilient Community). In the interim, here's a broad/high level overview to get your head wrapped around the concept.

Personal fabrication is a method of manufacturing that has been recently popularized and accelerated by MIT (specifically MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms). Essentially, it takes rapid prototyping machines (which have been around since the early 90's) and combines them with easy to use design software to create a small local manufacturing shop that can produce a wide variety of original products. Here's an explanation of what personal fabrication is from the center's director, Neil Gershenfeld (read the entire article if you get a chance).

NOTE: Again, this has applicability to both development and counter-insurgency (although, over a longer time horizon). It also may be transformational in terms of warfare. Think DIY (do-it-yourself) weapons systems

Lieberman willing to star at Republican convention
By Manu Raju
Posted: 04/15/08 08:06 PM [ET]
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.

Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman’s appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.

McCain has yet to ask Lieberman to speak, either in primetime or elsewhere, at the convention. But if McCain thinks it will help make his case for the White House, as some of his allies suspect, Lieberman would be willing to speak on his behalf.
“If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman said in a brief interview.

Lieberman said he doubts McCain will ask him to give a keynote address, but acknowledges the subject has yet to come up in the two senators’ discussions.

A Lieberman aide said even though there are no plans for the Independent to give a speech at the convention, it is a “likely possibility” he will address the Republican audience in some form.

Appearing before the Republican convention carries some risk for Lieberman. His Democratic colleagues could seek retribution by taking away his gavel on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee next Congress.

Lieberman has had a long leash this Congress because his decision to caucus with Democrats — despite losing Connecticut’s 2006 Democratic primary — allows them to hold their narrow 51-49 majority. If Democrats pick up more seats as expected in November, and Lieberman angers Democrats along the campaign trail, some privately expect there might be an attempt to deny him his bid to retain his chairmanship.

One Democratic leadership aide said losing his chairmanship could happen in that scenario, but “the bar would have to be very high.”

That’s because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a close relationship with Lieberman.

Unlike a number of Democratic colleagues who backed Lieberman’s challenger Ned Lamont after the 2006 primary, Reid offered words of praise for the senator, saying he would not “turn on Joe.” Reid called Lieberman and promised him a chairmanship if he won reelection, a move that angered some Lamont supporters.

Even though Reid may not need Lieberman next Congress to claim a Senate majority, he told Lieberman in private conversations that he would protect his seniority.

“I can tell you Sen. Reid had talked to me a few times and said he knows there will be talk if we get more than 51 Democrats next year,” Lieberman told The Hartford Courant this month. “As far as he is concerned, I will retain my seniority, et cetera, no matter how many Democrats there are next year.”

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman, said he would not comment on the senator’s private conversations, but acknowledged that the two men spoke.

When asked Tuesday if Lieberman’s chairmanship was at risk next Congress, Reid said succinctly: “No.”

“We have one difference of opinion, maybe two with Sen. Lieberman,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a prominent supporter of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential candidacy. “As a whip, I can tell you time and again, he’s been there when we’ve needed him.”

Lieberman, a staunch Iraq war supporter, has taken the Democratic Party to task for its push to withdraw from Iraq, likening that approach to surrendering to al Qaeda. He has called for aggressive action against Iran and pushed measures that some Democrats have likened to war-mongering.

He continues to criticize the Democratic candidates for their foreign policy positions, and says the party has jettisoned its tradition of being strong on defense by pandering to its liberal base.

Making those points to a Republican audience in front of national primetime viewers would make a strong case for McCain’s candidacy, which is based largely on his national security experience, Republicans say.

“I think it would be a great idea,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain’s closest Hill ally. “If you looked at economic issues and social issues, I bet you we disagree a vast majority of the time. But when you look at what the primary job of what a United States senator is in the age in which we live, we have pretty much universal agreement — and that’s to protect the homeland.”

“I think Sen. Lieberman would be a very powerful spokesperson,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), a former general chairman of the Republican National Committee. “I think he really is someone who helps Sen. McCain break through to independent voters.”

Lieberman’s presence could potentially anger some social conservatives because of his positions supporting abortion rights and other liberal values. But Lieberman’s arguments that McCain is best suited to lead the country at a time of war would override those objections, said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a hero of the religious right.

“If he’s talking about security issues, Iran, Joe is fabulous on those issues,” Brownback said.

But the extent of his criticism on Democrats could bring back memories of 2004, when Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller gave a scathing keynote speech attacking Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the party’s presidential nominee. Miller, who was planning to retire from the Senate at the end of 2004, had little to lose by crossing his party.

Kerry declined to comment on Lieberman, but called Miller’s speech “hysterical and inaccurate.”
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he doubts Lieberman would give a Miller-like speech.

“I don’t think he’s going to act like that if he does that,” Brown said. “But of course, I would be disappointed if he does that.”

April 16, 2008
Iraqi Unit Flees Post, Despite American’s Plea

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
BAGHDAD — A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias.

The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing.

Capt. Logan Veath, a company commander in the 25th Infantry Division, pleaded with the Iraqi major who was leading his troops away from the Sadr City fight, urging him to return to the front.

“If you turn around and go back up the street those soldiers will follow you,” Captain Veath said. “If you tuck tail and cowardly run away they will follow up that way, too.”

Captain Veath’s pleas failed, and senior American and Iraqi commanders mounted an urgent effort to regain the lost ground. An elite Iraqi unit was rushed in and with the support of the Americans began to fight its way north.

This episode was a blow to the American effort to push the Iraqis into the lead in the struggle to wrest control of parts of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army militia and what Americans and Iraqis say are Iranian-backed groups.

That approach was intended to build up the Iraqi military’s fighting capacity and put an Iraqi face on the operation in Sadr City, which is occurring in a Baghdad bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric. Two weeks ago, more than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers deserted their posts during the fight against militias in Basra.

Tuesday’s desertions in Sadr City, although involving a particularly hesitant Iraqi unit, left many of the Americans soldiers wondering about the tenacity of their Iraqi allies.

“It bugs the hell out of me,” said Sgt. George Lewis, Captain Veath’s platoon sergeant in Company B, Third Platoon, First Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment. “We don’t see any progress being made at all. We hear these guys in firefights. We know if we are not up there helping these guys out we are making very little progress.”

Company B moved into Sadr City at the end of March as part of a broader effort to secure the southernmost portion of the densely populated Sadr City.

That area has been used by militias to fire 107-millimeter rockets toward the Green Zone. The Americans’ mission is to stop the rocket firings and help the Iraqi government establish a modicum of control.

Some Iraqi soldiers have fought hard. American soldiers have been regularly coaching them on how to protect their patrol bases, conserve ammunition and evacuate their wounded.

One big problem is that the Iraqi troops have responded to militia gunfire with such intense fusillades that the soldiers have endangered civilians, American soldiers and even their own forces. The barrage of Iraqi Army fire has become such a regular occurrence that some American soldiers are worried that militia fighters have tried to insert themselves between nearby Iraqi units to induce the Iraqi soldiers to fire on one another.

In a recent visit to the Iraqi forward position, First Sgt. Martin Angulo of Company B sought to coach the Iraqis on how to use their newly acquired M-16s to direct precision fire at a militia sniper who had been tormenting the Iraqi forces from an alleyway.

The problem on Tuesday, however, was more serious: an Iraqi retreat that left a gaping hole in the most forward position on a critical thoroughfare in the Tharwa section of Sadr City.

The episode began when Major Sattar, the leader of an Iraqi company that had taken up positions 700 yards in front of the Americans, suddenly appeared at Company B’s field headquarters in the southern part of Sadr City.

The major’s company had replaced a more battle-hardened Iraqi unit just two days earlier, and he had been unhappy to find that he would be occupying a position to the front of the better trained and equipped Americans.

“Every house in Sadr City probably has one of their sons in the Mahdi Army,” he observed when American soldiers visited his position on Monday. “So it is hard to convince people to believe in the Iraqi Army.”

When he arrived at the Americans’ position on Tuesday, the Iraqi officer reported that many of his soldiers had taken off their uniforms and deserted after other Iraqi Army commanders failed to send reinforcements during a gun battle with militias that he said had lasted several hours.

Major Sattar calmly explained that he was leading the remainder of his 80-man company away from the fight. As if to underscore the point, a convoy of Iraqi vehicles piled high with furniture was parked in front of the American position.

Abandoning the stronghold, however, would allow the militias to move in again and seed the road with roadside bombs. Other Iraqi units had stood their ground through several long firefights, and Captain Veath was surprised that the major’s unit was leaving after holding off another militia attack.

“You went through a whole battle and are now removing yourself?” Captain Veath asked incredulously. “Are any of your men dead?”

Major Sattar acknowledged that his unit had several wounded but none killed. But he and other Iraqi soldiers insisted that they were poorly equipped to battle the militias. Iraqi forces, they said, were short of ammunition, had only a few armored vehicles and were up against militia fighters they said were equipped and trained by the Iranians.

“We are not afraid,” the major responded.

He also complained that he had no means to communicate directly with the American troops.

“That is an excuse, and you know it,” Captain Veath shot back. He argued that one of the major’s platoons was situated just 100 yards from some of the American Stryker vehicles and that the two sides had agreed that the Iraqis could send a runner over to the vehicles to ask for help if necessary.

The Iraqi commander returned to his convoy and Captain Veath followed, promising a Stryker escort if the Iraqi soldiers would only return to their positions.

Dozens of excited Iraqi soldiers began to join in the discussion. As tempers flared and voices rose, Sergeant Angulo ordered the company’s soldiers to stay close to Captain Veath.

The Iraqi convoy drove off, and the Americans began to scramble to find a new Iraqi unit to plug the gap. Senior Iraqi commanders hurried to the scene and a special Iraqi reconnaissance unit was ordered to advance up the road. With the help of an American bomb-clearing unit, Stryker vehicles and attack helicopters, the Iraqis rumbled north, spraying rounds as they went. According to the last reports monitored by Company B, the Iraqis were stopped short by several roadside bombs, and planned to resume the push in daylight.

The furious Iraqi fire on their drive toward the abandoned base endangered the American soldiers who were bringing supplies to one of their platoons, and an American officer issued a plea over the tactical radio.

“They are lighting up everything,” he said. “Tell them to knock it off.”