by Raymond Ibrahim
Special to IPT News
August 2, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3695/obama-administration-war-on-persecuted-christians
The Obama administration’s support for its Islamist allies means a lack of U.S. support for their enemies or, more properly, victims—the Christian and other non-Muslim minorities of the Muslim world. Consider the many recent proofs:
According to Pete Winn of CNS:
The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports. The new human rights reports—purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered—are also the human rights reports that include the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath. Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role. For the first time ever, the State Department simply eliminated the section of religious freedom in its reports covering 2011… (emphasis added).
The CNS report goes on to quote several U.S. officials questioning the motives of the Obama administration. Former U.S. diplomat Thomas Farr said that he has “observed during the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration that the issue of religious freedom has been distinctly downplayed.” Leonard Leo, former chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, said “to have pulled religious freedom out of it [the report] means that fewer people will obtain information,” so that “you don’t have the whole picture.”
It’s not the first time the administration has suppressed knowledge concerning the suffering of religious minorities under Islam. Earlier it suppressed knowledge concerning Islam itself (see here for a surreal example of the effects of such censorship).
In “Obama Overlooks Christian Persecution,” James Walsh gives more examples of State Department indifference “regarding the New Years’ murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the ravaging of a cathedral,” including how the State Department “refused to list Egypt as ‘a country of particular concern,’ even as Christians and others were being murdered, churches destroyed, and girls kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. ”
And the evidence keeps mounting. Legislation to create a special envoy for religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia—legislation that, in the words of the Washington Post, “passed the House by a huge margin,” has been stalled by Sen. James Webb, D-Va.:
In a letter sent to Webb Wednesday night, Rep. Frank Wolf [R-Va, who introduced the envoy bill] said he “cannot understand why” the hold had been placed on a bill that might help Coptic Christians and other groups “who face daily persecution, hardship, violence, instability and even death.”
Yet the ultimate source of opposition is the State Department. The Post continues:
Webb spokesman Will Jenkins explained the hold by saying that “after considering the legislation, Senator Webb asked the State Department for its analysis.” In a position paper issued in response, State Department officials said “we oppose the bill as it infringes on the Secretary’s [Hillary Clinton’s] flexibility to make appropriate staffing decisions,” and suggested the duties of Wolf’s proposed envoy would overlap with several existing positions. “The new special envoy position is unnecessary, duplicative, and likely counterproductive,” the State Department said (emphasis added).
But as Wolf explained in his letter: “If I believed that religious minorities, especially in these strategic regions, were getting the attention warranted at the State Department, I would cease in pressing for passage of this legislation. Sadly, that is far from being the case. We must act now…. Time is running out.”
Much of this was discussed during Coptic Solidarity’s third annual conference in Washington D.C. last month, which I participated in, and which featured many politicians and lawmakers—including the U.K.’s Lord Alton, Senator Roy Blunt, Congressman Trent Franks, Congressman Joseph Pitts, and Frank Wolf himself. As Coptic Solidarity’s summary report puts it, “All policy makers voiced strong support to the Copts…. Some policy makers raised concerns about the current U.S. Administration’s overtures towards religious extremists.”
There was little doubt among the speakers that, while Webb is the front man, Hillary Clinton—who was named often—is ultimately behind the opposition to the bill. (Videos of all speakers can be accessed here; for information on the envoy bill and how to contact Webb’s office, click here).
Even those invited to speak about matters outside of Egypt, such as Nigerian lawyer and activist Emmanuel Ogebe, wondered at Obama’s position that the ongoing massacres of Christians have nothing to do with religion. After describing the sheer carnage of thousands of Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, lamented that Obama’s response was to pressure the Nigerian president to make more concessions, including by creating more mosques (the very places that “radicalize” Muslims against infidel Christians).
Indeed, while the administration vocally condemned vandal attacks on mosques in the West Bank (where no Muslims died), it had nothing to say when Islamic terrorists bombed Nigerian churches on Easter Sunday, killing some 50 Christians and wounding hundreds. And when the Egyptian military indiscriminately massacred dozens of unarmed Christians for protesting the nonstop attacks on their churches, all the White House could say is, “Now is a time for restraint on all sides”—as if Egypt’s beleaguered Christian minority needs to “restrain” itself against the nation’s military, a military that intentionally ran armored vehicles over them at Maspero.
In light of all this, naturally the Obama administration, in the guise of the State Department, would oppose a bill to create an envoy who will only expose more religious persecution that the administration will have to suppress or obfuscate?
Bottom line: In its attempts to empower its Islamist allies, the current U.S. administration has taken up their cause by waging a war of silence on their despised enemies—the Christians and other minorities of the Islamic world.
Romney’s Ten Commandments on National Security
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”
Governor Romney’s Ten Commandments on national security are based on his recent pronouncements, including his October 8, 2012 speech at the Virginia Military Institute.
1. American exceptionalism. Thou shall adhere to the classic US worldview, highlighting American moral and strategic exceptionalism – US global competitive edge. American moral exceptionalism is a derivative of America’s Judeo-Christian values, formulated by the early Pilgrims and the US founding fathers. Romney believes in America’s moral, economic, scientific, technological, educational, medical and military exceptionalism. He is aware that America’s best interests and the minimization of global disorder – militarily and economically – require US pro-active leadership.
2. US global leadership. Thou shall embrace US global leadership, underscoring US freedom of unilateral action, rather than subordinating US policy to multilateral considerations. The US – not the UN or any international order – is the dominant quarterback of international relations. US global leadership is critical for its economic, homeland security and military concerns. It bolsters posture of deterrence, providing a tailwind for allies, thus constraining clear and present threats posed by rogue/terrorist Islamic regimes. On the other hand, US withdrawal is interpreted as weakness, emboldening adversaries, weakening allies, fueling clear and present dangers and facilitating the recurrence of 9/11.
3. Realism. Thou shall abide by realism and experience and not by wishful-thinking and delusion. Thus, the Arab Street intensifies anti-US terrorism and not democracy. Confronting – rather than engaging – rogue regimes upgrades deterrence and reduces the threat of war. Preempting – rather than retaliating against – undeterred rogue regimes spares humanity calamitous wars. Moreover, Putin’s Russia is a rival – not an ally – of the USA. Steadfastness, not flexibility, would restrain Moscow’s imperialistic ambition, reassuring US’ East European allies. Realism requires confidence, marathon-like resolve, and clarity and not apology, hasty-wavering and ambiguity.
4. Moral Clarity. Thou shall follow moral clarity – a prerequisite for operational clarity. Do not subordinate moral clarity to political convenience. For example, Islamic terrorism is the most distinct threat to Western democracies. It must be clearly identified and not be blurred by linguistic acrobatics, such as “workplace violence,” “man-caused disasters,” or “isolated extremism.” The threat of Islamic terrorism must be lucidly presented and not be deleted from the training literature of the defense and counter-terrorism establishment. Islamic terrorism has afflicted the USA –systematically and not randomly – since the 18th century. Core American values of liberty and justice are a lethal threat to rogue and tyrannical Islamic regimes. The US is the chief strategic obstacle to megalomaniac transnational aspirations.
5. Peace through strength. Thou shall advance strength – and not pliability – in order to promote peace. Strength deters, and perceived weakness fuels, terrorism. Enhancing military capabilities – of the US and its European allies – is compulsory in order to face rising threats and deter aggression.
6. Strategic cooperation. Thou shall enhance strategic cooperation with capable, reliable, stable, predictable, democratic and unconditional allies – such as Israel – which contribute to the US in the areas of defense and commercial high-tech, intelligence, battle tactics, training and operations. Israel is the only ally resembling a US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single American on board, cannot be sunk, already deployed in an area critical to primary US interests, snatching hot US chestnuts out of the fire, saving the US taxpayer some $20BN annually.
7. Moral equivalence. Thou shall not indulge in the morally-wrong and strategically-flawed moral equivalence between the role model of counter-terrorism (e.g., Israel) and the role model of terrorism (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO); between the role model of unconditional alliance with the US (e.g., Israel) and the role model of systematic alliance with America’s enemies, such as Nazi Germany, the Communist Bloc, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden (e.g., the Palestinian leadership).
8. Iran. Thou shall prevent Iran’s nuclearization for the sake of the US – and not Israeli – interests. A nuclear Iran would traumatize the supply and price of oil; would devastate pro-US Gulf regimes; would coalesce Iran’s takeover of Iraq; would accelerate nuclear proliferation; would upgrade the military capabilities of anti-US Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador; would embolden anti-US Islamic terrorism, including sleeper cells in the US; and would devastate the US posture of deterrence.
9. Palestinian issue. Thou shall be cognizant of the secondary role played by the Palestinian issue in the Middle East. It is not the root cause of regional turbulence and anti-US Islamic terrorism, not the crown jewel of Arab policy-making and not the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As stated by Romney, the Palestinians are concerned about the existence – not the size – of Israel. He is aware of the indispensability of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria for Israel’s existence. He is also aware of the adverse impact by the proposed Palestinian state upon cardinal US interests. Hence, the unacceptability of the “two state delusion.”
10. Political correctness. Thou shall not subordinate the Ten Commandments to political correctness, expediency and global/domestic pressure.
Will Governor Romney be faithful to the Ten Commandments on national security if elected on November 6, 2012?
Ambassor Yoram Ettinger’s article reflects an Israeli-American perspective. His artlice was first published in “Israel Hayom”, October 12, 2012, http://bit.ly/RCSZQ0.
Leave a comment
Posted in commentary, politics
Tagged Election 2012, foreign policy, Israel, Israeli perspective, Middle East, Mitt Romney