Ideology: A Specter Haunting the World

“The fire-breathing Rebels arrive at the party early,
Their khaki coats are hung in the closet near the fur.
Asking handouts from the ladies, while they criticize the lords.
Boasting of the murder of the very hands that pour.
And the victims learn to giggle, for at least they are not bored.
And my shoulders had to shrug
As I crawl beneath the rug
And retune my piano.”
– Phil Ochs

Karl Marx once famously said that a specter was haunting Europe and that specter was Communism. Today, specters are haunting the world. They are “progressivism” and Islamism. Yet these are misunderstood because the progressives want to pretend they are liberals and the Islamists want to pretend to be normal, technically pious, traditional Muslims of a century or half century ago.

Islam is a religion, Islamism is a revolutionary movement. Liberalism is a center-to-left political movement, progressivism is a revolutionary movement.

In fact Islam/Islamism and liberalism/progressivism are parallel in many ways. Their differences are distracting, one as a religion and one as an atheist non-religious ideology.

For example; progressivism and Islamism both seek to be political monopolies and ideologies. They’re comprehensive. Both use intimidation, though progressivism is more verbal and Islamism is more violent.

Whenever anyone takes one to task, they insult the whole system. They are not rational systems and are not open to debate.

Both invite large elements of opportunism and careerism. People who see the winning side endorse them to benefit their own careers, not out of genuine belief.

Both of these institutions should be studied coherently. They’ve not been studied well on political terms. I will explore Islamism further in an upcoming article.

The English Civil War from 1642-1651, the struggle between monarchy and religious political ideologies, mirrors what Islamism is going through now. This was the West’s struggle between “Christianity” and “politics” which is now the equivalent of the struggle between “Islamism” and “politics.”

This could be called a Manichean model. One side is completely right, and one side is completely wrong. Therefore, a democratic dispute would not be possible.

Phil Ochs, quoted above, was creatively mocking the situation. He showed this ambiguity. Incidentally, I was his guide at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

Here was the new professional elite: so pompous, so arrogant. They were benefiting materially, yet were contentious, simultaneously arrogant yet luxury-loving, but also virtuous and well-intentioned, superior. What more perfect combination would there be but the well-heeled Bill Ayers, the son of a senior Detroit automaker, and yet a bombing revolutionary who did nothing to deserve his good estate!

Imagine! Someone with a gold spoon in his mouth made a scruffy revolutionary, and yet the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars from conservative Republicans, superior to everyone. Surely a new ruling class if ever there was one.

You get the privilege but pretend you are the victim. You can take a lot of wealth while pretending to be the champion of the downtrodden.

Nowadays nobody seems to know what “progressive” means, though it is in the history books. From around 1910-1924, “Progressive” meant liberal, which was not anything like what it is today. When Theodore Roosevelt was disappointed by his chosen successor, William Taft, he formed the Bull Moose Party from the Republican, often referred to as “the progressive party.”

The progressive party of that day did well among people who wanted to continue liberalism.

FDR was always conscious that the American system might turn sharply to the left if he failed, leading to some kind of Obamaesque situation. Remember there was large scale violence (mostly labor related) and an extremely left-oriented culture war. People forget that there was a looming radical threat at that time, for example the Labor Movement.

In 1924, Robert Lafollette decided that his party, Republican, was not liberal enough, and ran under the “progressive” title. He actually got 17% of the popular vote, but concluded that this was not the amount of people needed to win an election, even though this was a rare opportunity to create a three-party system. Ultimately, he decided that the country was not left enough. The brilliance of President Roosevelt was in playing the centrist view. There were communists and progressives and horrid “reactionary republicans.”

Roosevelt, however, pitted the idea that the far left (i.e. communists and socialists) were the only other alternative to the “reactionary republicans.” Often, liberals said that these were the only choices.

During the 1924 election and the 1930s, Earl Browder and other Communist Party leaders used the word “progressive” as a cover.  In 1948, it was the name chosen by the Communist Party for its front party.

Consider how the Communist Party approached the New Deal. Here’s that party’s leader, Earl Browder, in a 1936 interview:

“Roosevelt was being pulled by some to the left and by the others to the right. Consequently, it would be wrong for ‘all progressives to unite around Roosevelt as the sole means to defeat reaction.’  …It seems that personally Roosevelt and [Republican leader Alf] Landon look pretty much alike to Browder.”

Incidentally, I’ve never seen anyone note that when the 2010 electoral organization’s far-left organized, it was called Progressives for Obama. The head was Carl Davidson, the former chief of SDS in the 1960s.

What the Obama movement did was to combine philosophical idealism, the farthest left of the old democratic party, and the lumpen proletariat, convincing more moderate liberals that this more radical movement identified with them, while everyone else was reactionary (as was done in the 1930s).

Furthermore the Republican leadership was headed by an unimaginative “rhino.”

If you want to understand Obama and his movement, you have to go back to the 1960s and 1970s. For more on this, see Silent Revolution: How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance (Harper Collins, forthcoming April 2014)

Kerry’s Absurd Diplomatic Agenda

As far as Secretary of State John Kerry is concerned, the greatest threat to the Earth is “climate change.” That is his view as well of the Obama administration that, according to a CNS News article, wasted $7.45 billion taxpayer dollars over the last three years “to help developing countries cope with climate change in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, according to a federal government report submitted to the United Nations.” In Kerry’s words, climate change is “a truly life-and-death challenge.”

Since the first humans stood upright and began to walk, they have never played any role in climate change, a natural aspect of the Earth that is cyclical, moving between periods of warmth and cooling. We are currently in a 17-year-long cooling cycle which forced the army of environmental liars who claimed that “global warming” was the greatest threat to change its name to “climate change.”

Another name change caused a lot of problems as well.

Since Israel declared its independence and sovereignty in 1948, it has fought a succession of wars against its Arab “neighbors” and been subjected to the claim that former occupants were “Palestinians” despite the fact that there never was and still is not a nation called Palestine. Arabs that chose to remain became citizens of Israel.

It was the Roman Emperor Hadrian who tried to change the name of Israel to Palestine. The name reappeared following World War One when the Treaty of Versailles used it to designate a swath of land south of Syria as a British mandate. In 1948, when the British left, Israel was born again after 2,000 years.

Israel joined the United Nations on May 11, 1949. Resisting the existence of Israel became an Arab cause. These days Israel maintains diplomatic relations with more than 150 nations.

Successive American administrations sought to provide an agreement between those claiming to represent Palestinians and the nation of Israel. All such efforts have all failed. At present the Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah on the West Bank, is the focus of such efforts. Hamas, a proxy of Iran, controls Gaza, a territory abandoned by Israel in the hope that “land for peace” would succeed. It did not and Gaza is little more than a staging ground for ceaseless rocket attacks.

When Secretary Kerry arrived in Israel on January 3 to meet with PA president Mahmoud Abbas, the streets of Ramallah filled with several hundred protesters chanting “Kerry, you coward, there is no place for you in Palestine!” Abbas has never expressed any opinion other than a hope for the destruction of Israel. He replaced Yasser Arafat who waged an “intifada” against Israel as the self-appointed head of the Palestinians.

Kerry is so obsessed with getting a peace accord that he has spent five months trying to negotiate it with no progress. He has made ten trips to Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has had to pretend, like all the former prime ministers, that an agreement is possible. After the 1967 war, Egypt decided to sign a peace treaty that secured the return of the Sinai Peninsula. These days the Egyptian military it is fighting jihadists located there.

The Palestinians are losing ground. Abbas’ refusal to come to any agreement with Israel has resulted in the announcement by the European Union to discontinue its $1 billion annual contribution to the Palestinian Authority if a peace accord is not signed within a year. The US-EU aid packages total $1.5 billion and account for nearly all of the PA’s regular revenue. Jordan has already made it clear it does not want Palestinians providing “security” on its West Bank border with Israel.

Yoram Ettinger, a columnist for Israel Hayom, recently wrote that “Kerry is preoccupied with pressuring Israel, notwithstanding the transformation of the Arab Spring delusion into a reality of an Arab Tsunami, highlighting the 1,400-year-old intra-Muslim and intra-Arab uncertainty, unpredictability, instability, fragmentation, violent intolerance and absence of Arab democracy and civil liberties.”

Kerry wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders, reflecting Obama’s goal. That is an idiotic demand that ignores Israel’s need for security or the provision of housing for its growing population. Obama has criticized the building of such housing in Jerusalem and the West Bank, but few give much thought to the absurdity and arrogance of this. Imagine if Obama expressed a similar criticism of new housing in Canada or Mexico?

The only overt ally the United States has in the Middle East is Israel, but you would not know that from Kerry’s efforts and Obama’s barely hidden enmity. Like the effort to strike a deal with Iran to stop enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons, both are oblivious to the reality of events in the Middle East, all of which reflect a region in turmoil. Having withdrawn our troops from Iraq and preparing to leave Afghanistan, Obama’s foreign policy only portends further turmoil.

The Obama administration would rather fight “climate change” than deal with the harsh realities of the real world.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED COLUMNReport: Kerry Proposes Return of 80,000 Palestinian Refugees to Israel

Documentation on Palestinian Incitement of Hatred

The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had two instructive quotes on peacemaking with the Palestinians:

You don’t make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.

I believe that in the long run, separation between Israel and the Palestinians is the best solution for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel has plenty of unsavory enemies in the roiling Middle East and elsewhere, these days. However, when your enemies disavow your existence, let alone your legitimacy as a sovereign power, you cannot make peace even the one defined by Rabin. This is why Israeli PM Netanyahu has pushed the importance of recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation.  The current diplomatic shuttle campaign for a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA)  by US Secretary of State  Kerry is grappling with this issue.

Today’s release  by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office of documented evidence of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas orchestrating a propaganda campaign  to incite hatred towards Israel and Jews.  There is evidence of Abbas” duplicity of saying comforting things about peace at the UN versus anti-Semitic blood libel to his fellow Palestinians at home.

However, the evidence of Palestinian promotion of Jew hatred is just one of a number of issues that ultimately could bring the current round of final status negotiations crashing down.   An example  is  the issue of UN Res. 242 of November 1967 ensuring Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders. Instead,  Kerry  offered  up a hoary proposal of the current US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power  placing a detachment of US and international troops in the strategic Judean hills overlooking the Jordan Valley approaches to enforce  a final status agreement between the PA and Israel. Then there is questionable matter of ‘sharing’ Israel’s eternal capital of Jerusalem, a fact recognized by the US Congress in a law passed in 1995 requiring a move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.     That move has  been avoided by a succession of US Presidents; Clinton, Bush and now Obama on the grounds that a final status agreement hasn’t been reached between the PA and Israel.  Then there is the matter of so-called land swaps to establish borders based on the pre- 1967 June War, the 1949 Armistice Line.  No other sovereign nation has entered into such negotiations that threaten its existence.

The evidence of Palestinian incitement to hate is reflected in documentation released by Israel’s PM Netanyahu,  a reflection of Islamic Qur’anic doctrine. A doctrine  that states  Allah has endowed the world as a Waqf or trust for Muslims  in perpetuity for all conquered lands. Hence the argument that the Jewish nation of Israel is illegally occupying the space between “the river and the sea”.  That is evident in the propaganda imagery  of the late Yassir Arafat wearing his checkered kaffiyeh allegedly  draped in the shape of Palestine. It is also reflected in monuments of the Palestinian Authority, one of which was cloaked to hide it from the view of President Obama during a visit to Ramallah in  March 2013, while police restrained hundreds of protesters.  There is also evidence of hatred reflected in PA  videos of preschool children being indoctrinated in hatred, spouting classic Qur’anic suras depicting Jews as pigs and sons of apes or an EU-sponsored PA youth TV program  saying that Israelis in Jerusalem are ‘crows and rats”.   Palestine Media Watch (PMW) has documented much of this over the past decade.  PMW published a  a video, today,  of a Syrian TV interview  with Zaki Abbas, a close associate of PA President Abbas,   discussing a plan for the destruction of Israel saying:

Even the most extreme among us, Hamas, or the fighting forces, want a state within the ’67 borders. Afterward, we [will] have something to say, because the inspiring idea cannot be achieved all at once. [Rather] in stages.

Prime Minister Netanyahu drew attention  to this defining  issue on Sunday in his remarks following a two hour cabinet meeting on Palestinian incitement towards Israel in a Jerusalem Post report, “Netanyahu: Palestinian incitement spurs Mideast conflict”:

This is a very grave phenomenon. True peace cannot exist without stopping the incitement against Israel and educating for peace. The refusal of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish People and declare the end of national demands – this is the root of the conflict. This is also the reason why we are insisting on significant security measures, so that we will be able to defend ourselves by ourselves in any situation.

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, whose agency is responsible for maintaining an “incitement index”, drew attention to the role of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas:

We must not ignore the fact that the Palestinian educational system and media, under the patronage of Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] and during the negotiations, are educating and inciting – on a daily basis – for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Watch this IMRA Youtube video containing the Israeli Government report  on Palestinian leadership and schools inciting hatred of the Jewish nation of Israel:

Notice the hateful Qur’anic catechism from Palestinian pre-school children, the adulation and quotations from  Hitler, and the Nazi-style salute by members of the PLO Al Aqsa Brigade . Then there was  a similar event at Al Quds University in November 2013.  The last event  caused Brandeis University President Frederick Lawrence to suspend its  partnership with  Al Quds University and its Harvard educated Chancellor, Sari Nusseibeh. Nusseibeh allegedly during the First Gulf War in 1991 was caught passing target information to the regime of the late Saddam Hussein for launch of SCUD missiles against Tel Aviv.

Why would any rational person persist in trying to reach a peace agreement  in the face of the duplicitous taqiyyah by the PA leadership and its educational system perpetuating hate against Israel. With not the merest scintilla of likelihood that a final status agreement between Israel and the PA could be achieved in the remaining four months, why is the Administration persisting in this effort when the Middle East is aflame with fundamentalist Jihad warfare on all of Israel’s borders.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

TAKE ACTION: Speaker Boehner, install a Select Committee on Benghazi now!

I’ve joined family members of the victims of the Benghazi terrorist attack and more than 70 fellow conservative and military leaders in sending a letter to House Speaker John Boehner demanding that he install a select committee to once and for all get the answers and the truth regarding the tragic events of September 11, 2012.

There is widespread support for a select committee to get to the bottom of disturbing questions surrounding the attack, as H.Res. 36 has 178 cosponsors. Yet Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor refuse to bring it to the House floor for a vote. You have to wonder, is there something they know that they prefer not come to light?

We can no longer accept silence, obfuscation and inaction on this subject.

You can read the letter here. Please feel free to download and circulate it widely.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

RELATED COLUMN: Obama admin bungled Benghazi, could have prevented attack: report

It only takes 33 minutes for a missile to hit the US from anywhere in the world (+ video)

The Heritage Foundation states, “It would take only 33 minutes for a missile to reach the U.S. from anywhere in the world. That’s a sobering thought when North Korea is taunting America with threatening video propaganda about its nuclear capabilities and Iran is advancing its nuclear program.”

In response to these threats, the Obama Administration announced Friday that it would increase the number of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Interceptors protecting the U.S. from 30 to 44. These 30 interceptors allowed White House spokesman Jay Carney to state that the U.S. is “fully capable of defending itself” against a North Korean ballistic missile attack.

He didn’t mention that the Obama Administration has tried to undermine the long-range missile defense program since it came into office, including announcing the “restructure” of the advanced SM-3 IIB interceptor program designed to protect the U.S. and allies from a long-range ballistic missile threat. As Heritage’s Michaela Dodge explained:

When the Administration took office four years ago, it scaled down the number of interceptors protecting the U.S. from 54 to 30. This included cutting 10 interceptors in Poland and 14 in Alaska. The Administration justified its step by saying that the missile defense threat has not progressed as fast as the Bush Administration expected—this despite the fact that both North Korea and Iran have been very public about their efforts to develop long-range ballistic missile capabilities.

President Obama famously told Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev that after the 2012 election, he would have more “flexibility” on missile defense. Just last Friday, his new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, announced a restructuring of U.S. missile defense priorities to focus more on Alaska-based and California-based missile interceptors. This shift away from commitments to deploy advanced interceptors to Poland and Romania is exactly what the Russians have been demanding.

Thirty years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan asked a question that is just as vital today: “[W]hich part of our defense measures do we believe we can do without and still have security against all contingencies?”

Watch Reagan’s 1983 speech about the Strategic Defense Initiative

To protect America, all contingencies must be covered. And as Heritage President-elect Jim DeMint has said recently, missile defense works. It works because the only sure way to deter an attack against the U.S. is to make certain it isn’t worth it for the attacker. As Reagan said:

“Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.

Tweet this quote

Today, The Heritage Foundation and the George C. Marshall Institute are co-hosting an event commemorating the 30th anniversary of Reagan’s landmark speech on missile defense and discussing the challenges of protecting our nation, then and now. Speakers include Ambassador Henry Cooper, Dr. Lee Edwards, Dr. Kim Holmes, Jeff Kueter, Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). The event runs from 10 a.m.-1 p.m. ET, and you can watch online throughout.

Read the Morning Bell and more every day en Español at Heritage Libertad.

A New Year and Turkey is Still in Turmoil

I had a conversation this morning with a confidential European source and keen observer of the Turkish scene.  Some of his astute observations were covered in the January NER, article, “Could the Crisis in Turkey Impact US Policy in the Middle East?”  It was prompted by a Gatestone Institute article, published today, “Where is Turkey Going?” by Veli Sirin, who is German director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. Sirin is another worthy observer and author of analyses on what is occurring in Turkey. He was discussing further developments with regard to the public wrangling between two former Islamist allies, Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan and expatriate Turkish Sheikh Mohammad Fethulleh Gulen, which we have covered in our NER article.

Sirin discussed Turkish press coverage of the recent pleas by imprisoned military leaders requesting new trials. This in the wake of the release by the judiciary of secularist,  pro-American and pro- Israeli Gen. Cevik Bir that we noted in our NER article. The irony is that these Turkish alleged plotters were tried and convicted for conspiracy following second term sweep by Erdogan and the AKP in the 2007 parliamentary elections. My source observed that the purge of presumably secular Turkish military has left it in control of senior officers on the general staff beholden to Erdogan.

Sirin observed in his Gatestone article:

Erdogan was confronted on January 1, 2014 with a petition by the former army general staff chief, Gen. lker Babug, that Babug be released from a life sentence handed down against him on August 5, 2013, in the “Ergenekon” conspiracy trials, in which the Islamist government accused members of the secular military of supposedly trying to bring the government down. As described in the leading national media platform, the Hurriyet Daily News, Ba?bug was one of 275 suspects charged in the “Ergenekon” affair; other high military officials, journalists and academics were subjected to “aggravated life sentences,” which replaced death sentences, in the “Ergenekon” proceedings.

As noted in the same Hurriyet article, Babug based his demand for exoneration on Erdogan’s claim that “gangs within the state” and “members of the parallel state” had penetrated the judiciary, police, and other official structures. Erdogan’s chief advisor, Yalçin Akdogan, implied that members of the judiciary had “framed” military officers in the “Ergenekon” case.

Senior AKP legislator Mustafa Elita? told Hurriyet Daily News that Turkey could change laws to allow a retrial of the military officers convicted of plotting to overthrow Erdogan. According to that Hurriyet Daily News account, Elita? said of the army defendants, “We will, if necessary, make new legal arrangements to stop people’s unjust treatment.”

At the same time, and as reflected in the same Hurriyet Daily News post of December 31, former army General Çetin Dogan, accused and convicted of a similar plot in the “Sledgehammer” trial of military leaders, which ended in 2012, is preparing a complaint against a 20-year prison term imposed on him.

Erdogan’s chief advisor, Akdogan, then reversed course. In a press statement quoted by Today’s Zaman, Akdogan declared, “It is wrong to the utmost degree to use my previous writings to say that I have called some trials ‘false,’ ‘baseless,’ ’empty’ and ‘fabricated.’ Just as prosecutors need evidence to issue criminal charges, the defense, believing the evidence presented is false, needs to provide its own evidence to support its argument.”

Ironies abound in the current Turkish turmoil. Erdogan and AKP were widely reported to have mounted the “Sledgehammer” and “Ergenekon” proceedings in a long-term Islamist bid to cut down the influence of the secularist military. London Guardian correspondent Simon Tisdall, noted on September 25, 2012 that Turkish military commanders had carried out three coups, between 1960 and 1980 (including a full-fledged takeover in 1971), and had forced AKP out of power in 1997.

The  source observed that there is an emerging internal revolt within the AKP that could result in a splinter party being formed for future parliamentary elections.  That political division of the AKP would throw into considerable question Erdogan’s nominations for the March 2014 municipal elections.  Moreover, that might raise doubt about a projected June national referendum on changes to the Turkish Presidency authorities abetting creation of a virtual Islamist Caliphate in Ankara coveted by Erdogan.  A number of those dissident AKP members in Parliament may be Gulenists.   He raised questions about where President Abdullah Gull, himself a Gulenist, stood relative to the current crisis in Turkey.  Gul apparently has the authority to authorize a comprehensive investigation of the graft charges. Gul, according to a Today’s Zaman article ,warned against intervention in the  judiciary investigations and deliberations.  Moreover, despite the Presidency being largely a ceremonial post under Turkey’s constitution, apparently Gul has the power to call for new parliamentary elections.  Turkey’s parliament elects the Premier.

I brought up the prospect of a Gulenist/Secularist effort to topple Erdogan raised by Harold Rhode in our NER article.   The source pointed to a comment in a Hurriyet Daily News report  by Kemal Kilicdaroglu,  head of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP),  about the sudden disappearance of Erdogan’s son, Bilal and why he didn”t testify in the graft investigations.. As we wrote in our NER article, Bilal   was alleged to be part of an Istanbul prosecutor’s investigation of money laundering to Al Qaida militias in Syria via charities and funds controlled by shadowy Saudi billionaire Yasin al-Qadi.  The source indicated  that Bilal Erdogan may have taken a powder to one of the Central Asian ‘stans until the current brouhaha blows over.  He noted that the opposition Republican Party follows in the Ataturkist secular traditions.  Sirin, author of the Gatestone article, may  apparently be an Alevi and  likely an Ataturkist follower as well.

Another related matter affecting  this imbroglio is the sudden breakout of what appears to be  possible virtual autonomy in the predominantly Kurdish southeastern region of Turkey. That is evidenced in flouting of Kurdish national flags and  tolerance of the Kurdish language. The Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) has called on followers in Turkey to remain neutral in the current dispute between Erdogan and the Gulen.  That may be a reflection of an opportunistic strategy by Erdogan to placate the restive Kurdish irredentism to achieve access to oil from both halves of Kurdistan. This would include the Syrian western half  or  Rojava, in the northeastern area of the country, and the adjacent Iraqi eastern half, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG).  Ironically both Kurdish areas have staved off the intrusion of Al Qaida militias now ravaging major towns in the largely Sunni Anbar province of Iraq and adjacent areas of Eastern Syria. The Erdogan deal would involve transmission of Kurdish regional oil via Turkish pipelines to terminals on the Mediterranean coast, which may afford some diversion for profit taking. Then there are the billions of construction project tenders in the KRG dominated by Turkish construction firms. We would not be surprised to see a pardon granted by Erdogan for former PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, now imprisoned on an Island in the Sea of Mamara. He had given his assent to a cease fire deal with Erdogan. Moreover, Today’s Zaman has reported rumors of a general amnesty for the PKK.

Lastly,  we mused on the silence from the Obama White House about accusations of American involvement in fostering the Turkish public prosecutors’ graft investigations  with implied  threats to expel the US Ambassador.  Those accusations were vigorously denied by the US Ambassador Francis T. Ricciardone.  Could it be the alleged graft investigation directed by public prosecutors against the core of AKP in the regime of Turkish Premier Erdogan is an embarrassment to the Administration that touted him as a partner for peace in the Middle East?  Just look at the exchange  regarding the turmoil in Turkey with State Department  Deputy Spokesperson  Ms. Marie Harf in today’s State Department Press Briefing.  In May 2013 when Premier Erdogan visited the White Rose, President Obama said in a rainy Rose Garden setting, “I value so much the partnership that I’ve been able to develop with Prime Minister Erdogan”.  Stay tuned for developments.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

The Connection: Boston Bombers, CIA, USAID and Muhammed Fethullah Gulen

The Corbett Report has posted a video, with source documents, that provides some very interesting insights into the Boston Bombers family that has not been reported on by the mainstream media. The video is titled “Who is Graham Fuller?” Graham Fuller is a former CIA officer under the Reagan administration and has had a family and business relationship with Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the Boston Bombers. Please take the time to become informed about this interesting and developing story:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ZlFhBrMaMsc[/youtube]

ABOUT JAMES CORBETT

James Corbett

James Corbett is a Boiling Frogs Post Partner Producer & Host, The EyeOpener Video Report. James Corbett is an independent journalist. He has been writing and producing The Corbett Report, an online multi-media news and information source, since 2007. Visit Corbett Report here.

Following is the transcript, with references, of the video provided by The Corbett Report:

By James Corbett
BoilingFrogsPost.com
May 8, 2013

In the days of hysteria immediately following the Boston bombing, an unlikely media darling emerged. Ruslan Tsarni, the alleged bombers’ uncle, known to the press as “Uncle Ruslan,” gained notoriety for the ferocity with which he denounced his own nephews and their alleged Islamic radicalism.

It isn’t hard to see why the press focused so closely on “Uncle Ruslan.” He said precisely what the so-called “authorities” wanted to hear about the suspects in precisely the way they wanted to hear it. Compare this to the coverage of the boys’ mother in the mainstream media. After revealing the FBI’s connection to the Tsarnaev brothers—causing the Bureau toreluctantly confirm that they had investigated Tamerlan in the past—she has been alternatively smeared and dismissed by those same media outlets which have refused to delve into the FBI connection.

But even more interesting than the sudden popularity of “Uncle Ruslan” is his background and ties to other organizations.

In an official SEC filing from 2005 it was revealed that Ruslan Tsarni had worked as a consultant for USAID, ostensibly an independent federal agency which is little more than an adjunct of the US State Department and is a known front for deep cover CIA agents in various geostrategic corners of the globe. At the same time in the mid-1990s, Tsarni incorporated a company called the “Congress of Chechen International Organizations” which recently unearthed documents show was providing material support to Chechen terrorists, including Sheikh Fathi, who, according to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, was a “military commander in the violent jihadist movement in Chechnya” and a “preacher of violent jihad.”

As investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker has demonstrated, the address for the Congress of Chechen International Organizations just happened to be the home address of Graham E. Fuller, formerly Vice Chairman of the Reagan-era CIA’s National Intelligence Council. The relationship between Ruslan and this former top CIA official was not a loose one. Tsarni married Fuller’s daughter in the mid-1990s and lived in Fuller’s home for some time, basing his terror-supporting operation under Fuller’s own roof.

Fuller himself has an interesting background that includes his two decade stint with the Central Intelligence Agency. During that time he served as National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia. One of his most notorious acts during that time was penning a memo that, according to the New York Times, later became the basis for the Iran-Contra scandal.

In addition, Fuller has long made the argument that Islam is a potentially useful geopolitical tool for the United States to manipulate for their own ends. He has been quoted as saying, “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against [the Russians]. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.”

Fuller’s ties also extend to the network of Imam Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic preacher who was run out of Turkey for allegations of conspiracy to overthrow the secular government, Gulen ended up in Pennsylvania where he now oversees a vast organization known as the Gulen Movement which has over $20 billion at its disposal for setting up Islamic schools in over 100 countries.

Being a wanted man by the Turkish government, Gulen did not just waltz into the US and gain immediate residency. Instead, he fought a protracted legal battle that included reference letters from well-connected political figures, including none other than Graham Fuller.

Since the details of Fuller’s connection to the Boston bombing suspects’ uncle emerged, Fuller has admitted the connection but dismissed the suggestion that there is any link between the CIA and the Boston bombing case as “absurd.” Late last month, it was revealed that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had attended a workshop last year sponsored by the CIA-linked Jamestown Foundation.

Late last month, Sibel Edmonds appeared on The Lew Rockwell Show to discuss the “coincidence” of Fuller’s connection to this case.

A narrative has begun to emerge from the background noise of the Boston bombing story that paints a very different picture from what we have been told. We have the uncle of the bombing suspects emerging as a media darling for his denunciation of the brothers, who just so happens to have worked with USAID and was living and working at the home of a top CIA official who has actually advocated “guiding the evolution of Islam” to destabilize Russia and China in Central Asia. Now we have several of the pieces of the puzzle that Edmonds’ predicted in the past few weeks falling into place: that the bombers were likely being run by the CIA; that the event would bring focus on radical terrorism who have hitherto been painted as “freedom fighting allies” of the US; and that the case may be used as leverage to make new inroads on the Syria standoff between Washington and Moscow.

And several of the pieces of this puzzle revolve around Graham E. Fuller, former National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia, a proponent of political Islam, an inspiration for the Iran-Contra affair, a character reference for CIA darling Fethullah Gulen, a former RAND analyst, and the father-in-law of the Boston bombers’ uncle.

So what else is there to be uncovered regarding Fuller’s background and activities? For the answer to this, you will have to stay tuned to alternative researchers like Edmonds and Hopsicker, and tune out of the corporate media which hasn’t dared to even broach the question.

The Essence of Senator Rand Paul in Ten Minutes

This video provides a glimpse of the essence of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY): Filibuster, NSA Surveillance, IRS Scandal, Benghazi and Syria Hearings, Foreign Affairs, Balanced Budget Amendment, Economic Freedom Zones, Defund Obamacare and Individual Liberties.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/vKWBh35aHtc[/youtube]

The Growing Missile Threat to Israel

Dr. Ronen Bergman, intelligence and military columnist for Israeli daily Yediot Ahronoth confirmed, Wall Street Journal reports that Syria and Iran’s Qod’s Force may have successfully disassembled and  transferred  to Hezbollah 12 Russian Yakhont anti- ship cruise missiles. See New York Times article, “Hezbollah Moving Long-Range Missiles From Syria to Lebanon, an Analyst Says”.

This despite the IAF five attacks conducted against Syria facilities and supply trains in 2013 using advanced missiles fired on targets from Lebanese airspace. The IAF attacks reported to have destroyed a shipment of  advanced mobile air defense  Russian SA-17’s in January 2013, Iranian Fateh-110 surface to surface missiles in May and  a shipment of  Russian Yakhont missiles in July. Further, according to the New York Times account, Bergman said:

Hezbollah, which is also Lebanon’s strongest political party, has a network of bases that were built inside Syria, near the border with Lebanon, to give the group strategic depth and to store the missiles, Mr. Bergman said. But with a nearly three-year insurgency threatening President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, an ally of Hezbollah, keeping the missiles in Syria is no longer as secure, Mr. Bergman said.

The missiles being moved, he said, include Scud D’s, shorter-range Scud C’s, medium-range Fateh rockets that were made in Iran, Fajr rockets and antiaircraft weapons that are fired from the shoulder.

Bergman also noted the comments of former Mossad head, Meir Dagan about Hezbollah bases in Syria during the Second Lebanon War in 2006:

 Meir Dagan, advised the government not to start an attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon without first hitting the militia’s bases in Syria, which were built on the strategy that Israel would not dare to strike Syria. The bases were believed to contain much of Hezbollah’s long-range missile capability,

The Wall Street Journal report,  “Hezbollah Upgrades Missile Threat to Israel” noted the potential game changer on Israel’s strategy to counter this missile threat on its doorstep:

Hezbollah already has around 100,000 rockets, according to Israeli intelligence estimates, but those are primarily unguided weapons that are less accurate. Its longer-range rockets are spread across Lebanon, meaning Israel’s next air campaign—should one come—would have to be broad, Israeli officials have told their U.S. counterparts, according to American officials in the meetings.

Hezbollah’s possession of guided-missile systems would make such an air campaign far riskier.

Current and former U.S. officials say Iran’s elite Quds Force has been directly overseeing the shipments to Hezbollah warehouses in Syria. These officials say some of the guided missiles would allow Hezbollah to defend its strongholds in Lebanon, including Beirut, and attack Israeli planes and ground targets from regime-controlled territory in Syria.

Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system can intercept and destroy short-range rockets. Its Arrow missile-defense system can intercept the sort of long-range ballistic missiles Iran possesses. A third system the Israelis are developing to deal with mid range guided missiles, called David’s Sling, won’t be operational until 2015 at the earliest.

                                 Arrow Anti-Missile System

Coincidentally, Israel completed another successful test of the  Arrow III anti-Missile system over the Mediterranean today. The Arrow III is a joint development of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Boeing. According to a Defense News, article,  “US-Israel Arrow-3 Marks Milestone Test”, “ IAI also provides the Super Green Pine fire control radar, while Elbit’s Tadiran provides the system’s battle management control center.” Defense News  further reported:

The US-Israel Arrow-3 upper tier intercepting missile passed another developmental milestone with a successful exo-atmospheric maneuvering flight after launch over the Mediterranean Sea on Friday.

In a joint statement, Israel’s Defense Ministry and the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency said the Arrow-3 “successfully launched and flew an exo-atmospheric trajectory through space, according to the test plan.”

The fly-out of the two-stage, hit-to-kill missile marked the second in a series of developmental milestones aimed at readying the system for a full-up intercept test in early 2015. It follows a successful maiden flight in February 2013.

Planned for initial fielding in late 2015 or early 2016, Arrow-3 is designed as Israel’s first line of defense against emerging threats from Iran. Supported by the samefire control radar and battle management systems developed for Israel’s operational Arrow-2, the smaller and much more agile Arrow-3 aims to destroy advanced, maneuvering, unconventionally tipped Shahab-class missiles in space before they re-enter Earth’s atmosphere.

Hezbollah with upwards of  80,000 rockets and missiles would be a formidable threat for Israel to reduce to assure that its rocket and missile  defense umbrella can safeguard its population should it elect to undertake a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is presuming no final agreement is reached with Iran under the current P5+1 interim agreement.  Moreover, a recently introduced bi-partisan US Senate bill, the Nuclear  Weapons Free Iran Act directed at prodding  Iran to reach an agreement  may be posed for action when Congress returns from its holiday recess. Given Iran’s addition of so-called hard liners to the Islamic regime’s negotiating team, the prospects for achievement of a definitive agreement  quickly seized upon by Obama Administration could be illusory.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

“Electronic Army Of the Caucasus Emirate” threatens Cyber War against Russia

On December 27, 2013, the website posted a video titled “Appeal by the Anonymous Caucasus #OpPayBackForSotchi2014.” The “Anonymous Caucasus” describes itself as the “electronic army of the Caucasus Emirate” and has a website and accounts on Twitter and Facebook. In this video it warns the Russian government to stop its “activities” in Sochi (presumably the preparations for the Winter Olympics), otherwise the group will launch a cyber war against it in retaliation for the “Circassian genocide” of 1864,” reports MEMRI.

The video, which is two minutes and 31 seconds in duration, shows still images of signs in English that read: “Putin, don’t build your credibility on Circassian graves”; “Sochi 2014 – the hidden genocide”; “You’ll be skiing on the mass graves”; “2014 Sochi Olympic winter games – Circassian genocide 150 anniversary”.

The message is delivered by an unseen announcer. The following are excerpts:

“Our message is addressed to the government of the Russian Federation and to all the supporters of the [Winter] Olympics in Sochi. You are spending millions of dollars to organize these games on the land of the Circassians, on the land where their entire people was cruelly annihilated, on the land of the 1864 genocide… 150 years have passed, but Russia has not recognized the genocide of the Circassian people, and continues to ignore the people who live on this land. But now Anonymous Caucasus has decided to carry out a new operation called “Pay Back For Sochi.” We will launch the largest cyber war [that ever was] against the Russian government.

You will pay for [the genocide]. You crossed the line of inhumanity by wanting to hold your games on the land of our ancestors. Our army is now stronger than it was yesterday and [even] a minute ago, and our activity will increase. We support all the peoples of the Caucasus [in the struggle] against our enemy and enemy of Islam – [namely] Russia. Stop your activities in the Sochi region and we will stop ours… [If you don’t], we will attack you, we will destroy you. We will get our own way and you will not stop us. We are the Anonymous Caucasus. We neither forgive nor forget…”

Read more here.

EDITORS NOTE: In the mid-19th century large numbers of Circassians were expelled from the northwest Caucasus following the Russian conquest of the area. An unknown number of deportees died during the expulsions.

The Drones are Coming!

The FAA has announced six sites for advanced unmanned aerial vehicle testing. The accepted proposals come from various universities, state governments and airports. “The FAA considered geography, climate, location of ground infrastructure, research needs, airspace use, safety, aviation experience and risk,” the agency said in a release.

Popular Mechanics reports, “Many locations were vying for a test site, seeing it as an immediate jobs generator and a foothold into the growing field of drones. Congress in 2012 ordered the FAA to open the National Airspace System (NAS) to unmanned aircraft. The law sets a deadline of 2015 for the FAA to create regulations and technical requirements that will integrate drones into the NAS. The test sites are part of that effort.”

The winners are the University of Alaska, the state of Nevada, New York’s Griffiss International Airport, the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, and Virginia Tech.

The drones are coming. Here’s Popular Mechanic’s writeup on what that future will look like.

An American Bride in Kabul: My Life in Hell in an Afghan Harem

Want to know what it is like to live as a non-Muslim woman under Islamic gender apartheid? Dr. Phyllis Chesler, noted feminist author and defender of universal women’s rights, experienced sharia first hand during a brief marriage to an Afghan Muslim husband and troubled sojourn in Kabul, Afghanistan. During this time she was a virtual prisoner in purdah, the women’s enclosure, in a polygamous household of a wealthy prominent family. For Chesler this was a defining moment in her subsequent professional career which was largely motivated by her flight from the failed fantasies of a brief marriage to an Afghan college classmate, Abdul Kareem. Her virtual imprisonment, administered by her Afghan mother-in-law intent on either converting or killing her is described in chilling detail in her latest book, An American Bride in Kabul: A Memoir.

This reviewer had first heard the elements of this memoir over a decade ago from the author. Like many others who had we urged her to record this fascinating encounter with Islamic gender apartheid that had endangered her life in Afghanistan. Chesler subsequently wrote limited treatments of the episode in a chapter her book, The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom and a Middle East Quarterly article in 2006, “How Afghan Captivity Shaped my Feminism.”

Dr. Phyllis Chesler

Five decades ago as a naïve young scholarship student at an elite northeastern college Chesler succumbed to bohemian fantasies and enticements of traveling the world when she married the “debonair, dapper” scion of a wealthy Afghan family, Abdul Kareem. There could not have been an odder misalliance. Chesler, raised in Brooklyn, came from an Orthodox Jewish background. Abdul Kareem was allegedly a non-practicing Muslim from the exotic Central Asian country of Afghanistan who had been sent abroad by his wealthy family for a decade of education in private schools and colleges in the West.

Afghanistan was and still is one of the poorest countries in Asia, despite having vast stores of undeveloped minerals and oil reserves. Under Islamic rule since the 14th Century Afghanistan’s women were largely uneducated and had virtually no rights under a patriarchal system. Only privileged sons of the wealthy were educated and sent abroad.

In the company of other Afghan companions in New York, Abdul Kareem plied Chesler with the piquant cuisine of his homeland and visions of world travel and grand adventures. After a civil marriage, the bridal couple took off bound east by ship, first to London and Paris, then flying from Munich to Tehran to Kabul for what Chesler thought would be a brief stop to visit her husband’s family compound. Kabul, the ancient capital of Afghanistan is nestled 6000 feet up in a valley surrounded by the snow-capped mountain ranges of the Hindu Kush and the Pamirs.

Upon arrival at Kabul airport, Chesler’s passport was “smoothly” taken away from her by an Afghan immigration official as she was now an Afghan national. Greeted by an entourage of her extended Afghan in-laws at the airport and whisked off to enter a palatial complex. She  immediately entered purdah the women’s enclosure occupied by her father-in-law’s three wives and 23 children under the control his first wife, Bebgul. Chesler’s husband, Abdul Kareem, succumbs to the patriarchy of his father and virtually disappears, disdaining her complaints about her sudden lack of freedom. Her bohemian fantasies had evaporated. She experiences the slave-like treatment of a household servant, denied of her personal liberties. Public male homosexuality was evident in the slavery of Afghan “dancing boys.” She was continually frustrated by US Embassy officials who offer no assistance in helping her to return to America, as she is considered an Afghan national. Instead a Marine detail accompanies her back to the family compound. Starving from lack of adequately prepared food, ill with hepatitis from contaminated water, pregnant with Abdul Kareem’s unborn child, Chesler, in desperation, confronts Ismail Mohammed, the family patriarch and Afghan bank magnate. He relents to her request delivering an Afghan exit passport and a ticket on an Aeroflot flight that, takes her home via, Tashkent, Moscow and Copenhagen. Upon arrival at Idlewild, now JFK airport, she calls her overjoyed parents who retrieve her. With the assistance of her parents and a battery of lawyers, Chesler eventually succeeds in obtaining an annulment of her marriage to Abdul Kareem and her US citizenship is renewed. He continuously entreats and badgers her with correspondence to come home. Because of her illness and lack of medical attention in Afghanistan Chesler loses their unborn child in a miscarriage. If that hadn’t occurred, then the child of that union would have been declared a Muslim under sharia and custody sought by Abdul Kareem. Three years following her return, an annulment is successfully granted in 1964. One phase of her life is ended. A decade of education and development of a psychoanalytical practice and specialization in women issues ensues.

American Bride also tells the story of another flight in the late 1970’s to freedom by her former Afghan husband and his family and the 25 year relation with his second wife, as new Americans living in New Jersey. He escapes to Pakistan from the draconian Soviet era occupation of Afghanistan as a former deputy cultural minister by masquerading as a peasant with the aid of smugglers. Chesler reports on dialogues and interviews with him. On those occasions he expresses denial of sharia restrictions on the freedom and rights of Muslim women. He disavows secularism in the Islamic world reflected in the lapsed Kemalism of Turkey. He criticizes the US for not having come to the aid of Afghanistan refugees but rejects continued US presence there. There is his unfortunate expression of anti-Semitism reflected in his “money grubbing Jews” comparison to charges of Ottoman Genocide of Armenians during WWI. That is also reflected in the Anti-Israelism expressed by the couple’s two children on the Palestinian questions. This is in contrast with the ironic bonding of Chesler with his second wife, Kamile, an accomplished professional who had escaped purdah in Afghanistan. In the company of Chesler, she met international Muslim and ex-Muslim women activists. In the quarter century of renewed relations between Chesler and her former husband and his second family they share frequent conversations, meals and are invited guests at Chesler’s son Ariel’s wedding.

Chesler’s research for her memoir uncovers the history of Afghan royalty and the constant internecine   murders over several hundred years producing violent changes in succession. She cites the example of an Afghan king, Amanullah who l survived only to be exiled to live out his days in Rome. In 1928, he urged Afghan women to remove their veils, “condoned shooting of interfering husbands” and was reported to have spotted and torn off a burqa and burned it. He went further and advocated co-education. That reform episode didn’t last long. Afghan tribes rebelled and forced Amanullah into exile in Rome in January 1929. Chesler notes in her book her encounter with a number of Germans in Kabul. In the 20th century, German advisers and companies entered Afghanistan to engage in development of the country’s rail system. In the 1930’s with the onset of the Hitler era, Nazi influences were encouraged under Royal auspices. This paralled with Chesler own research into the 2000 year history and archeology of Afghan Jewry stemming from encounters with the émigré Afghan Jewish community in New York City. Through those encounters Chesler makes the startling discovery that Nazi influence on Afghan royalty in the 1930’s and 1940’s may have led to her Afghan father-in-law’s banking fortune from a forced takeover of an Afghan Jewish bank headquartered in Herat. Chesler also reveals for the first time that as a result of her Afghan mother-in-law’s ruthless intentions in purdah that she may have committed the Muslim shahada, profession of faith and become an inadvertent convert to Islam.

Threading through her memoir are references to similar experiences of foreign wives of Afghans and Middle East Muslims some of whom who have lost custody of children, while others have, like her, successfully escaped. Perhaps the worst instances have been American wives of Saudi husbands who have kidnapped offspring of these marriages forcing the daughters into purdah in the Saudi kingdom, subject to arranged marriages to clan cousins. View this Power Point presentation on “America’s Stolen Children,” here. Chesler suggests the Afghan experience described in her memoir triggered her career as a feminist and psychoanalyst. It is also evident in her recent activism as an expert witness in custody battles and honor shame episodes under sharia in US court proceedings involving Muslim women plaintiffs. She also believes that the Afghan episode as a young woman enabled her to understand the patriarchal clan structure that deprived Muslim women of basic freedoms and civil rights placing them in thralldom behind what she calls the “isolation and sensory deprivation chamber and mobile body bag environment” of the burqa. She now advocates the burqa should be banned.

On the afternoon of 9/11 Chesler remarked to German correspondent for Der Spiegel, who was a neighbor in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn, “now we are all Israelis.” That was reference that Americans, like Israelis, were no longer safe in their own countries. Those Israel civilians had suffered egregious casualties from suicide bombings and Intifadas, and more recently rocket attacks by Islamic terrorists surrounding the Jewish nation. In this 9/11 discussion she expressed the irony that Islamic terrorism on 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 young and well educated Egyptian, Saudi and Yemeni men. They were indoctrinated as jihadis by the reclusive late Osama bin Laden from his base in Afghanistan living under the protection of Taliban leader Omar Mohammed. The Taliban who had viciously and violently deprived Afghan women and children of basic human rights even resorting to disfigurement, execution, rape and death. She notes:

These jihadists viewed the West and Western values as repulsive and dangerous. They despised the idea of human and individual rights, free speech, religious freedom, separation of state and religion, women’s rights, gay rights and a host of other rights and privileges.

Chesler noting one American intellectual saying the 19 jihadis were blameless for perpetrating the holocaust on 9/11 in lower Manhattan writing:

She was among those who swiftly demonized anyone who dared say that Muslim Islamists had launched a war. Anyone who criticized Islamist terrorism was a “racist conservative” and an Islamophobe…a label applied to ex-Muslim dissidents like Somali–born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish and the Syrian Americans Dr. Wafa Sultan and Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

At the conclusion of a chapter on American concerns for the plight of Afghan women and discussion of honor killings, she poses two rhetorical questions about the hard lessons drawn from her memoir:

Is my unexpected captivity in Kabul something of a cautionary tale about what can happen to any Westerner who believes she can enjoy a Western or modern life in a Muslim country?

In terms of Afghanistan: Can a tribal, religious, impoverished, corrupt people, beaten down by war and without an industrial infrastructure; a county with a strong warrior and anti-infidel tradition; a country theologically and geographically vulnerable to al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups become modern and Western?

A partial answer comes in her final chapter, Hard Lessons, when she says:

We cannot rescue every woman in Afghanistan or stem the tide of Islamist violence against civilians everywhere, not only in Afghanistan, without defeating the Islamists, ideologically, economically and militarily.

Honor–related violence and gender apartheid are human rights violations and cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism, tolerance, antiracism, diversity, religious custom or political correctness. The battle for women’s rights is central to the battle for a Judeo-Christian, post-Enlightenment civilization.

At the conclusion of Mozart’s opera The Abduction from a Seraglio, about the rescue of another damsel in distress, the Turkish Pasha Selim instead of sentencing the captives to death forgives and frees them to live.

We submit that Chesler’s brief sojourn and flight from an Afghan seraglio facilitated by her pasha, her father-in-law, resulted in her freedom and a life of commitment to the universal and natural rights of all women.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Benghazi: The New York Times, Hillary and Obama’s War against Sean Smith’s Mother

In a shameless glaring act of hypocrisy to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations, the New York Times published an article doubling down on the Obama Administration’s lie that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was due to an anti-Islam video

Meanwhile, the New York Times, Hillary and President Obama have displayed a “Pat who” attitude towards Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith who was killed in the Benghazi attack on Hillary’s watch as Secretary of State.

What makes the attitudes of these superior, arrogant and pompous liberals so hard to stomach is that they falsely portray themselves as champions of women.

In reality, the NYT, Hillary and Obama consider American lives acceptable collateral damage in furthering their socialist/progressive agenda. Obama’s vowed fundamental transformation of America.

Thus, the Administration stonewalling by refusing to release facts about what led to the death of Pat Smith’s son in Benghazi is par for the course – mere collateral damage.

Over a year ago, Hillary looked Pat Smith in the eye and lied to her face.  So much for Hillary’s commitment to the sisterhood. Obama promised Pat Smith answers regarding her son’s death. Pat is still waiting for answers about what happened.  But then, what else could you expect from a president recently awarded Liar of the Year?

Yes, liberals like the NYT, Hillary and Obama only give a rat’s derriere about liberal women that they can exploit to further their liberal agenda. Cindy Sheehan was a liberal darling until she could no longer further their cause. Then, Sheehan was thrown away on their pile of broken lives and dreams sacrificed for their agenda.

These people, NYT, Hillary and Obama are always railing about their phony bologna made-up GOP War on Women, all the while displaying a callous cold disregard for Pat Smith who has been simply seeking the truth about the greatest loss of her life. Thus, the NYT, Hillary and Obama are guilty of launching a war on a mom, Pat Smith.

Ms Smith, I am confident I speak for millions of Americans. We are deeply sorry for the loss of Sean, your brave son. Our prayers and support are with you. May God bless you and your family.

RELATED COLUMN: Obama admin bungled Benghazi, could have prevented attack: report

“New” Details on the Battle of Benghazi

One year and nearly four months after the Battle of Benghazi in Libya on 9/11/12 the American people still do not know:

Why Hillary Clinton cancelled the contract for the Ambassador Steven’s personal security detail and refused to fund a new contract?

Why 8 desperate request for additional security to Clinton by the Ambassador Stevens from March to September 3rd was turned down by Hillary Clinton?

Why Ambassador Stevens was sent into the Al Q’ieda terrorist caldron in Benghazi on the most dangerous day of the year without proper security?

Why the live video feed of the attack taken by aerial drones and cameras on the walls of the US Mission was withheld by Hillary Clinton, and are still being withheld by Obama & Kerry? Those videos will prove there was never a demonstration against a YouTube video.

Why Susan Rice went on 5 Sunday TV Talk Shows and falsely stated the attack by 125 to 150 Al Q’ieda terrorist in a well-coordinated commando style well-rehearsed military attack employing truck mounted artillery, mortars, RPGs, NATO Assault rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, and rifles against the US Mission was the result of a demonstration against a YouTube video that went bad? People do not go to a peaceful demonstration with all those weapons.

Why 2 weeks after all US Intelligence agencies informed Obama that the attack on the US Mission was by 125 to 150 Al Q’ieda Terrorists, Obama made a speech to the world at the UN, and restated the Susan Rice’s falsehood that the attack against the US Mission on 9/11/12 was the result of a demonstration against a YouTube video that went bad?

Why 32 US witnesses who were on the ground during the attack and were saved by two Navy SEALs, have been muzzled by Obama and Clinton, and threatened by their supervisors with the loss of their retirement benefits and possible prosecution, if they testified before Congress, for revealing classified information.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen was appointed by Obama as the Vice Chairman of the Accountability Review Board (ARB), to investigate what transpired in Benghazi on 9/11/2012, when the US Mission and the CIA Annex came under attack. Mullen’s ARB Report eliminated the fact, that Obama’s failure to issue “Cross Border Authority” prevented the Pentagon from being able to dispatch a military rescue missions. Mullen’s ARB Report also eliminated the fact that there were military assets on the tarmac ready for deployment, approximately 90 minutes to 2 hours away from Benghazi, in Sigonella & Aviona (480 miles away), Italy, and West Africa, and that Obama’s failure to authorize “Cross Border Authority” resulted in the death of two Navy SEALs who were killed 7 hours and 31 minutes after the attack was initiated on the US Mission by Al Q’ieda . Eliminating those facts from the ARB Report by Mullen, perpetrated the cover up what many members in the US Armed Forces, many Veterans Groups, and many members of Congress believe was Obama’s “Dereliction of Duty.”

Why the New York Times, continues to perpetrate the cover up, by its publication of a false story full of untruths written by David D. Kirkpatrick on December 28, 2013 about the Battle of Benghazi. That story tried to give Obama and Hillary Clinton cover by blurring the well known facts previously presented by Democrats members of the US House Intelligence Committee, presented to Congress and Obama by multiple US Intelligence Agencies, released to the world in many reports by foreign Intelligence Agencies, testified to in recent sworn testimony by American witnesses who were on the ground in Benghazi who witnessed the attack, and documented in the aerial videos taken for 8 hours during the attack that Obama refuses to release.

If you click on the below listed link you will be able to listen to the audio recording of a speech given by Capt John at the Bali Hai on Shelter Island in San Diego on December 16, 2013 at the annual Christmas meeting of the non-partisan Women Volunteers In Politics organization, revealing new details on the Battle of Benghazi testified to by witnesses who watched the attack in Benghazi, in their recent Congressional testimony

Click here to listen to the audio of my remarks.

RELATED COLUMN: Why NY Times Lied about Benghazi

Dr. Phyllis Chesler an American Feminist Fighting Sharia

In December 2003 we organized a summit with noted counter-Jihadists at a private university club in Manhattan. We were endeavoring to develop a concerted campaign in America to warn about the threat of Qur’anic doctrine and sharia to Constitutional guarantees of free expression, liberty and freedom. We had assembled notable figures from both academic and non-academic research sources to attend the conference. Among the attendees was Dr. Phyllis Chesler, noted radical feminist, author of bestselling books and peer–reviewed journal articles, groundbreaking pioneer in the fields of women’s studies and founder of the Women’s Psychology Association.

When we made our initial acquaintance with her, we also learned of what had propelled her doctoral studies in these fields. She had been virtually imprisoned under the Islamic law in purdah, a women’s enclosure, in a polygamous household in Kabul, Afghanistan with her US passport taken away. All because she had married a man whom she thought was a young bohemian like herself at a private college in the US who came from a privileged Afghan family. Her marriage to her Afghan Muslim husband culminated a tempestuous relationship between a young scholarship student from an Orthodox Jewish background and the debonair attractive young Muslim man who shared her un-orthodox views.  Her marriage to her Afghan Muslim came at a time in the early 1960’s when cross cultural encounters were both exotic and yet politically correct. That fantasy ended upon her arrival at Kabul Airport with the taking of her US passport and abrupt introduction to Medieval 10th Century purdah in her husband’s Afghan household. Her debonair husband abandoned her in the women’s enclosure controlled by her Afghan mother-in-law who sought to convert her from Judaism to Islam. She subjugated Chesler to totalitarian control of her person under Islamic sharia law in violation of universal human rights.

Chesler’s subsequent illness, flight back to America, and annulment of her marriage to her Afghan husband led to her professional pursuit of an academic program in feminism and advocacy of changes in women civil rights and equality. Her 1972 landmark best seller, Women and Madness capped her research and women’s psychoanalytic practice, becoming an iconic work in 20thCentury American feminism. She also went on to deepen her appreciation of Judaism and to fight for female equality in worship, Torah and Talmud study against the strictures of Orthodox Judaism. Her deepening involvement in her Jewish faith, including a second marriage (and divorce) with an Israeli and birth of her son Ariel, crystallized in another pioneering work in 2003,The New Antisemitism. That book drew groundbreaking attention to delegitimization and demonization of Israel and the Jewish people by leftists and Palestinian advocates. Her views expressed in The New Antisemitismhave grown in importance given contemporary compelling research on European and Islamic Antisemitism. Views that belatedly have been recognized by both American and World Jewish leadership.  You can view Chester’s oeuvre of published works and scheduled appearances in 2014 at her website, here.

At the December 2003 private conference many of us in the emerging counter-jihad activist community heard her discuss Islam as a system of gender apartheid under sharia knowing that she had directly confronted it. We urged her to take the time out of her feminist endeavors and write about the experience. She subsequently did in a chapter her book, The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom and a Middle East Quarterly article in 2006, “How Afghan Captivity Shaped my Feminism.” That is a reflection of the long lasting support of Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum where she made been made a Fellow. That exposure drew her into conflict with many leaders in the US and world feminist movement who took multi-cultural relativism as an article of faith that conflicted with what Chesler contended was the imperative of universal civil liberties in the face of Islamic anti-Western triumphalism.

Chesler’s academic research also extends to honor killing, female genital mutilation  and support for banning the burqa under doctrinal Islam. As a result she has been much sought after to provide expert testimony in court matters involving Muslim women in such matters. In a recent Fox News op ed, “Beneath Burqa-Bruised and Badly Beaten Teenager”, about a  recent violent occurrence reported in The New Zealand Herald she drew attention to  the precursors to violence committed against Muslim women. Using the extreme example of quadruple honor killings of a polygamous Muslim family committed by the convicted Afghan Canadian Shafia family, she drew attention to the moral equivalence of “omerta” in Muslim families. Chesler said “that sustained physical abuse and psychological cruelty often precedes or is correlated with a subsequent honor killing.” In the case of the savage beating of the Muslim teenager in New Zealand, hidden from public view by a burqa, Chesler commented that the police became aware that “members of the community in positions of power and trust knew that the abuse was serious but did not help the girl.” Given the increasing evidence of cases of FGM committed in the US by African and Muslim émigré families, legislators in more than 21 states have introduced legislation seeking tougher sentencing guidelines despite existing federal law that prohibits the horrendous procedure.

Praise for her work in these latest efforts for women and freedom from Islamic totalitarianism is reflected in  her abiding friendship with two noted former Muslims, Sudanese former Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations and our NER colleague, Ibn Warraq, author of critical works on Islam, including Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy.

Chesler has maintained communications with her former Afghan Muslim husband despite their divorce. Five decades following her escape from Kabul she completed the long suggested a memoir of her confrontation with an Islamic household ruled by sharia, An American Bride in Kabul. Read our review of Chester’s latest book in the current edition of the New English Review. 

We recently were afforded the opportunity to renew acquaintances and interview Dr. Chesler about her Afghan memoir, professional career as a psychoanalyst in women’s health, commitment to Jewish women’s equality and her advocacy and expert testimony against Islamic doctrinal denial of women’s rights to their physical person, liberty and freedom.

Jerry Gordon:  Dr Chesler thank you for consenting to this interview.

Phyllis Chesler:  Thank you for inviting me.

Gordon:  What prompted you to write, An American Bride in Kabul?

Chesler:  Afghanistan and its people seem to have followed me into the future and right into the West. Islamic burqas are here in America, on the streets and in the headlines. One reads about Afghanistan daily in most major newspapers. This is the country where I was once held hostage; it is the country which sheltered Bin Laden after he was exiled from Saudi Arabia and Sudan. He hatched his 9/11 plot in an Afghan cave. And now, the entire civilian world is being held hostage by Al Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-like Jihadists. An eerie coincidence. Also, in my lifetime, Afghanistan has also literally turned into a Margaret Atwood dystopian novel—even darker and more misogynistic than The Handmaid’s Tale. Given the increasing persecution and subordination of Muslim women, I decided to connect my five long months in purdah to the surreal lives of Afghan and Muslim women today, including in the West.

The Al Aqsa Intifada of 2000 and 9/11 also changed the direction this book would take. How could I write about Afghanistan and Muslim women without also writing about Jihadic terrorism and its war against civilians, both infidel and Muslim, and against both Israel and the West?

Gordon:  What was seductive about Afghan reformist Abdul-Kareem during your courtship at college that led to your marriage as an Orthodox Jewish woman to a Muslim man?

Chesler:  I was a naïve eighteen year old, a full scholarship kid at a private college and there he was—dapper, charming, debonair, a Prince right out of my childhood fairy tales, a fellow bohemian, as secular as I had become, and so very attentive. In retrospect, he was shadowing me, monitoring me, but at the time, I was flattered and thought it meant that he loved me very much. We never discussed religion. In 1959, there were no college courses about Islam or about Islam’s historic imperialism, colonialism, conversion by the sword, and slavery. I thought Jews and Muslims were both “other” in America and therefore somehow similar. He promised me a Grand Adventure the likes of which only wealthy, mainly British travelers had experienced: Time in a place that was once the cross-roads of the known world. Also, just perhaps, like so many other Jewish dreamers, I also yearned for a mystical union between Isaac and Ishmael. Thus, I married Ishmael.

Gordon:  What happened when you reached Kabul and entered your Afghan husband’s polygamous household?

Chesler:  When we landed in Kabul, officials smoothly removed my American passport—pro forma for all foreign brides. I never saw that passport again. Suddenly, I was the citizen of no country and had no rights. I had become the property of a polygamous Afghan family and was expected to live with my mother-in-law and other female relatives in purdah. That means that I was not allowed out without a male escort, a male driver, and a female relative as chaperones. I had expected a life of travel and adventure but this marriage had transported me back to the tenth century and trapped me there without a passport back to the future.

Gordon:  Describe for us how purdah, sharia treatment of women, subjugated your freedom in your Afghan husband’s household?

Chesler:  I lived gender apartheid long before the Taliban or the war lords arose. My Afghan husband was not religious but his family was and so was the country he had not lived in for more than a decade. My mother-in-law kept trying to convert me to Islam. Polygamy was accepted. Half-brothers jockeyed and competed for their father’s attention and inheritance. Although the women had been unveiled by King Zahir Shah in 1958, the poor women of Kabul and the women in the provinces wore burqas or hid from stranger-men behind long veils. Everyone’s marriage was arranged, traditionally to a first cousin, but not necessarily. There were no “love matches” which were viewed as a filthy Western idea. I was a prisoner in fairly post purdah. I could not go out alone, without permission, a male escort, and a female relative to chaperone me. No one but me found any of this abnormal or horrifying.

Gordon:  How much of the denial of basic freedoms in what you witnessed in Kabul was tribal versus emblematic of Islamic sharia treatment of women?

Chesler:  Women were not the only ones who lived under royal Afghan tyranny and a much closed society. Male political dissent was punished; any man who could not manage his wife was in trouble and got his family in trouble. My Afghan husband had brought an infidel, Jewish, American woman to Kabul as his bride. He was already in trouble. The jails in Afghanistan were always filled with political dissidents, “Western” oriented dreamers and thinkers who were tortured and locked away for years. Once, long ago, Afghanistan was pagan, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Hindu, even Jewish—but that all ended with the Arab conquest and the forcible conversion of the people to Islam. It is sometimes hard to say that Islam versus tribal culture and tradition are responsible for what we view as human rights violations and atrocities. Let’s just say that any indigenous barbarism or tribal customs that existed in Afghanistan pre-Islam was not tempered or abolished by Islam. In some cases, for example, the stoning of an alleged adulteress/rape victims, the persecution of religious minorities, polygamy, cross-amputations, rote recitation of the Qu’ran in Arabic without comprehension, physical punishment of children by mullah-teachers, etc. is very much a part of Sharia practices.

Gordon:  How did the experience and flight from Kabul impact on your lifelong pursuit of feminism and women’s rights?

Chesler:  I believe my feminism was forged in purdah in Kabul. That experience may also explain why I am not a cultural relativist and why I believe in universal human rights. Even if we cannot guarantee such rights in a Muslim country, we can do so for everyone who lives here in the West and in North America. I am not one of those academics who believe that it is a woman’s religious right to choose to wear a face veil (niqab) or burqa (ambulatory body bag/sensory deprivation isolation chamber). I also understood that while American women may be discriminated against economically, politically, legally, and in terms of physical and sexual violence, that we have the right to fight for our rights, without being stoned or be-headed; we have free public libraries, access to education and employment, we are not forced into arranged marriages. Thus, I always understood that America, despite all its flaws, is the best country in the world, not the worst.

Gordon:  When did you return to the study and observance of Judaism and what place does Jewish feminism have in gender equality?

Chesler:  I have always been a proud Jew. I helped create feminist Jewish rituals (Passover Sedarim, etc.) and stood against anti-Semitism starting in the early 1970s. But, when I prayed with the Original Women of the Wall for the first time in 1988, I was asked to open the Torah for the women for the first-time ever. It wedded me fatefully to this struggle which is now in its 26th year. I began to study Torah. I joined synagogues, both Conservative and Orthodox. I published a book with my chevrutah (Torah study partner), Rivka Haut, who is a serious Talmud scholar, about this legendary struggle. Recently, alas, this struggle has now been fatefully compromised by a group we call The Women of Robinson’s Arch, led by Anat Hoffman, the very woman who defamed Israel all over the United States for the last decade. I never used this injustice against Jewish women’s religious rights at the Kotel against Israel in the world media. Actually, come to think about it, if we were waging such a struggle in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, or Afghanistan we would all have been stoned to death a long time ago. I publish devrai Torah which may be found at my website under Judaism. Feminism born in the secular world has been used by religious Jewish feminists who have become rabbis, cantors, and Torah scholars—which is rather revolutionary.

Gordon:  What was your career path subsequent to you return to America that transformed you into a pioneering academic in women’s studies and later co-founder of the Association of Women in Psychology?

Chesler:  I returned to complete my last semester at college, spent nearly three years fighting my Afghan husband for a divorce, something he opposed, entered graduate school in psychology, and got a Ph.D in 1969. I was also active in the American civil rights movement and became a leader in the American feminist movement. My first book, Women and Madness(1972) became a classic work and a bestseller. I would say that this work has possibly changed the mental health professions and their clients by at least 20-25%. Thus, sexism remains in the diagnosis and treatment of both genders. But 25% is still something

Gordon:  In Sacred Bond: The Case of Baby M (1988) you championed the rights of a surrogate birth mother in a New Jersey case and subsequent law. What were your arguments and the opposing views of liberal feminists?

Chesler:  I had published With Child. A Diary of Motherhood (1979) and Mothers on Trial. The Battle for Children and Custody, (1986) which I expanded and updated in 2011. I saw the Baby M case as a new and more terrifying kind of custody battle which it was. Many liberal feminists, themselves or their daughters wrestling with infertility problems, wanted this option if needed, especially since adoption is so perilous an undertaking in terms of bureaucratic red tape and other problems. Also, such feminists were ambivalent about biological motherhood and truly believed that if a woman—any woman—broke a contract that this would be used against all women in terms of women changing their minds. This is ridiculous. Men and business people always demand changes to contracts. But if a contract is illegal and immoral, involves enormous exploitation and risk to the “surrogate” mother, where is the glory in upholding it? When the Vatican came out against surrogacy, I was accused of “being in bed with the Pope.” I rather liked that.

Gordon:  You experienced 9/11 in Manhattan as a defining moment. How did it impact you and change your feminist agenda?

Chesler:  Even before that, the Al Aqsa Intifada had galvanized me. Although, as noted above, I had organized against anti-Semitism since the early 1970s, this was a quantum leap forward or backward. I knew the bloody beast was back and that I would have to write about it and about how the western intelligentsia was making common cause with Islamists who hated Jews and the Jewish state. When 9/11 happened, I said: “Now we are all Israelis.” And so we are.

Gordon:  The New Antisemitism (2003) was among the first serious examinations of the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish nation of Israel and the Jewish people. In the decade since the book was published what developments have occurred that confirm your warnings?

Chesler: Thank you for remembering this. At the time it came out, major Jewish organizations were indifferent or hostile. I was mocked as the “Jewish Cassandra.” Liberal Jews would not allow me to speak. I was not reviewed in the mainstream media. On campuses, I needed bodyguards. Now, a decade later, the leaders of Jewish organizations are saying precisely what I said long ago. These same people are now raising money to organize on campuses. They claim they are “on it,” are solving the problem. They are not—they cannot, and they are way too late. Israel still does not have a Ministry devoted to Cognitive Warfare. We, the Jewish people, do not have an Al-Jazeera of our own which broadcasts around the clock globally, covers many issues, and when it comes to Israel and the Middle East, simply tells the truth. Israel has effectively lost the war of ideas. I belong to a premier group of pro-Israel advocates who are brilliant, informed, at the ready, but we are soldiers without boots or weapons and most work without funding. The determined and excellent grassroots pro-Israel groups that have sprung up fight each other for limited funding and Jews continue to give large sums to organizations that take no risks, still have President Obama’s back, and will sacrifice Israel in a heartbeat in the belief that they will remain safe and prosperous in America. Too few Jews want to bear the burden of associating themselves with a country which has been so demonized and isolated. Ironically, misogynist Jews, often Orthodox, often haredi, can be counted on to have Israel’s “back.”  Kavod kaved. Glory is a heavy burden indeed.

Gordon:  What was the message in The Death of Feminism (2005) that led to your complete rupture with academic and leftist feminists and your defense of Muslim and ex-Muslim women’s rights and issues?

Chesler:  There has been no complete rupture. I remain a feminist; I have not renounced the cause of women’s freedom. Also, over time, privately, cautiously, some Second Wave feminists have told me that I am brave, that I am right, that they wish they had the courage to speak out. My closest allies today are Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists and dissidents and religious Jewish feminists. But politically correct journalists succeeded in keeping me as well as many others who share my views, off the mainstream/left stream airwaves and away from all the distinguished lecture podiums. Every so often, I get across the aisle. I will continue to talk to both sides of the aisle.

Gordon:  You have defined the treatment of women under sharia as gender apartheid. How can the West combat it?

Chesler:  Very simply by enforcing the laws of our land. But it is also not so simple. When daughters are beaten and death threatened, forced to veil against their will, they rarely “tell” authorities and when they do, proper action is rarely taken. No one (teachers, guidance counselors, child protective services, physicians) in the West wants to believe that a family will actually conspire to kill one of their daughters because she does not want to wear hijab, drop out of school, and marry her first cousin; or because she wants a higher education, wants to choose her husband, has infidel friends, wants to lead a Western life. Also, “rescuing” such a girl will mean putting her in the equivalent of a federal witness protection program and giving her a new, extended, adoptive Muslim family. This is labor intensive and costly and America is not yet ready to undertake this. Also, girls, even endangered girls, love their families they fear, and do not want to leave them.

Gordon:  Why have honor killings occurred with disturbing frequency in the West?

Chesler:  Although Hindus perpetrate honor killings as well, they do so mainly in one part of India, they do not bring this custom with them into the West. Only Muslims do so. I have published three studies in Middle East Quarterly in 2009, 2010, and 2012. I strongly suggest that your readers view them: Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence (2009); Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings (2010), and Hindu vs. Muslim Honor Killings (2012).

Gordon:  Recently proposed state legislation has been introduced against the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). How prevalent is FGM in domestic Muslim and African émigré communities in this country and would the adoption of the proposed anti FGM legislation make a difference?

Chesler:  This practice continues even though it is prohibited by Federal law. I have recently been told by an immigration lawyer that FGM is very widespread in the United States and that the greatest number of such women are in New York City. New York! This means that unlicensed butchers carry out this often lethal and life-scarring procedure right here, sometimes without anesthesia; that girls are sent back home for “vacation cuttings;” and that licensed physicians are performing this mutilation. The girls and their families all believe that without this mutilation, the girl is impure, tainted, and that no one will marry her and she will remain a shameful burden to her father. Legitimate physicians will not treat pregnant women who have been mutilated which means that when they give birth, it is with no pre-natal care and in emergency rooms staffed by physicians who do not know how to cut through the massive scarring or how to safely remove such scarring after the birth. By the way, I do not believe that the Qu’ran mandates such mutilation; the custom began primarily as an African tribal custom but has been spread via Islam to non-African countries such as Indonesia where the rates are increasing.

Gordon:  Under sharia doctrine domestic violence against women by husbands, male relatives and even female siblings is condoned for alleged unruly and disobedient behavior. Given that you are an expert witness in domestic cases involving Muslim and ex-Muslim women, has evidence of this surfaced in divorce, custody and spousal abuse matters?

Chesler:  I have submitted affidavits to judges on behalf of girls and women in flight from being honor killed and in search of asylum. I have also learned that my work has been relied upon in a number of high profile prosecutions of honor killers in the West. This is a great privilege. Western style domestic violence sometimes results in femicide but not always. Honor killings are not like domestic violence. Mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, and cousins do not conspire to kill a teenage girl in the West. An honor killing is a family conspiracy or collaboration to do just this, although sometimes the victim is a battered wife. In both cases, the girl’s or the woman’s alleged disobedience is seen as shaming her family and ruining their standing in the community.

Gordon:  Thank you Dr. Chesler for this engrossing interview with insightful observations on the treatment of women under Islam.

Chesler:  Thank you for this opportunity to discuss these issues.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.