By Danielle Avel

Cross-posted from Breitbart

On March 3, 2013, a group of “pro-peace” agitators organized by CODEPINK Women for Peace and Interfaith Peace-Builders made noise outside the Washington, D.C. Convention Center to harass the 12,000-plus participants attending the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual Policy Conference. Its activities were characterized by angry screaming and chants for a violent uprising: “Long live the intifada… intifada, intifada!”

Some background: The Palestinians initiated their first uprising, or “intifada,” against Israel from 1987 to 1993. It was marked by violence from the beginning; however, at the time, Palestinians had limited access to heavy artillery and resorted to using rocks, Molotov cocktails, and guns to target Israelis. By the time it concluded, over 170 Israelis had been killed.

The second intifada lasted from 2000 to 2005 and noted a significant escalation in violence thanks in great part to the Oslo Accords–an agreement meant to bring “peace” but that ultimately brought Palestinians easier access to dangerous weapons. During this uprising, Palestinians used guns, bombs, and suicide vests to target Israelis, killing over 1,000.

Anti-Israel groups often use terms such as “justice” and “pro-peace” to hide their true agenda which, as the video shows, is really “intifada.” There is a new push to claim that a new “intifada” may be non-violent, but history suggests otherwise.

Israelis are all too familiar with the Palestinian calls for violence and death; the call for an “intifada” has now reached the streets of Washington, D.C. and is being openly celebrated.

Danielle Avel is an analyst formerly affiliated with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. She can be also be reached on Facebook and  Twitter. © Danielle Avel

Cross-posted from Breitbart as Anti-Israel Event at Brooklyn College Promotes Hate, Represses Dissent

Upon arriving at Brooklyn College (BC) on the freezing evening of February 7th, I couldn’t help but notice the rows of police vehicles parked on the street, the police barricades on the sidewalks, the police officers monitoring protesters, counter-protesters, and lines of attendees waiting to enter the student center.

One could tell from blocks away that this was no typical student event. Unfortunately, the display of force wasn’t due to some prominent head of state making an appearance at BC; these flashing lights were for a peculiar anti-Israel fest taking place on campus.

The lecture, organized by a pro-Palestinian student group, was to promote the seemingly politically correct attempt to delegitimize the Jewish State through BDS —boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. What distinguished this from the usual anti-Zionist fringe gathering was the co-sponsorship of Brooklyn College’s Department of Political Science. Critics, including prominent alumni like Alan Dershowitz, state and city taxpayers, state and city legislators, and people like me were outraged; how could a publicly funded institution participate in promoting BDS, which seeks to eliminate the Jewish state?

The New York City Council suggested taxpayer money should not be used “to give official sponsorship to speakers who equate terrorists with progressives and the Israeli people with Nazis.” The university response ignored critics, claimed the college has the “academic freedom” to officially sponsor even the most odious of propaganda events, and Mayor Bloomberg arrogantly suggested critics apply to schools in “North Korea.”

A BDS supporter equates Zionists with Nazis while waiting to enter the Brooklyn College student center.

At the student center, security measures were tight and included lines outside where names were cross-checked with IDs and the RSVP list, an achingly slow line through the metal detector, bag search, a personal escort to the elevator, another name/RSVP/ID check at the doors of the event, and countless police officers every step of the way.

In spite of the obsessive attention to security measures and the RSVP list, academic freedom was literally left at the door thanks to convenient “errors” that caused students known on campus as pro-Israel advocates like Melanie Goldberg almost deniedaccess. Goldberg had been confirmed for the event three weeks prior and received a reconfirmation email the night before; however, organizers told her that her name was not on the list. She only was permitted to enter when BC Vice President Milga Morales escorted her in. Other pro-Israel students reported similar problems, while anti-Zionist agitators such as Sherry Wolf, Press Officer of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, were seated early.

As I entered the penthouse of the student center, it was apparent the room was stacked with anti-Israel obsessives: primarily members of the co-hosting pro-Palestinian student group along with the usual array of radical feminists, socialists, and greying zealots (often decked out in keffiyehs) that attend virtually every other anti-Israel event in the NYC area. Same crowd, different day.

With all the added security measures, the lecture started late and to the faint sound of chants from pro-Israel advocates stationed on the street. After a brief intro by a student organizer which included a “special thanks” to the BC Political Science Department for standing up to “bullying” by the city council, it was finally time for the two featured speakers, Professor Judith Butler of the University of California at Berkeley and Omar Barghouti, who promotes BDS even as he attends Tel Aviv University.

Judith Butler addresses the crowd as Omar Barghouti looks on.

As for their remarks, it was standard anti-Zionist propaganda, only in this university co-sponsored sphere of legitimacy, their lies gained new authority. To lighten their remarks, though, both principal speakers utilized Jewish words, Butler: “What a Megillah!” and Barghouti: “What Chutzpah!”

The most disturbing part of the evening occurred early on. In the midst of Judith Butler’s soft-spoken rant, the audience was utterly silent until a voice near the door exclaimed, “This is an oppression of freedom of speech, this an oppression.” Looking over, I noticed Jewish students being removed from the room and thought to myself, “I guess kippas are not allowed.”

I later learned that the four students belonged to the campus Hillel organization; three were some of the same pro-Israel students initially denied entry because of the shenanigans with the RSVP list. Finally seated in the audience, they held information sheets in their hands with facts they could rely on to formulate questions later to challenge the speakers. Brooklyn College President Karen Gould herself had recommended “those who do attend with opposing views [should] participate in the discussion, ask tough questions, and challenge any ideas with which they disagree.”

One of the students, Ari Ziegler, published his account in the New York Daily News. Ziegler recounts how an organizing member attempted to confiscate the information, demanding, “Give us the papers or you’ll be removed.” The students refused and were forcibly removed by security. College spokesman Jeremy Thompson claimed that “Based on official reports, they were being quite disruptive.” If the students were being disruptive, however, why was the room silent other than Butler’s voice?  I would have heard the disruption, had one existed, and there was none. City University of New York officials are now investigating the incident.

Organizers of the BDS lecture claimed to close the event to the press but let in friendly media, such as the New York Times, while excluding others. The Daily News reports that members of the media, including one of its reporters (who was wearing a yarmulke), were “removed from the event despite reserving places to cover the forum.” The university is also now investigating this problem.

The controversy and media coverage surrounding the lecture temporarily brought the anti-Israel fringe crowd into the spotlight, prompting BDS promoters to declare the evening a “victory.” At Brooklyn College this translated into university-sanctioned anti-Israel propaganda, controlled media access, pro-Israel students targeted for no valid reason, outright academic repression, and investigations into misconduct in what has become an embarrassing debacle.

This, of course, could have been anticipated; after all, the strategy of BDS itself was born out of the anti-Semitic Durban I conference, and its ultimate goal is the end of the Jewish State—the same goal as terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Though student groups are free to spread BDS propaganda, the political science department had no business adding official sanction to the circus that took place on February 7th.

As Brooklyn College deals with the fallout, universities everywhere can learn a simple lesson: legitimizing the totalitarian ideology of anti-Israel obsessives can only lead to disaster.

Danielle Avel is an analyst formerly affiliated with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. She can be reached through her website www.DanielleAvel.com and on Twitter.

By Danielle Avel

Cross-posted from Breitbart

Breitbart News has learned that a third senior officer’s family is connected to Natalie Khawam, sister of Jill Kelley, the woman who sparked the investigation into David Petraeus’ affair.

Susan Fallon, daughter of the former head of U.S. Central Command, Adm. William J. Fallon, involved herself in Natalie Khawam’s custody battle and encouraged Khawam to steal her then-husband’s computer to hack into it. Natalie is the twin of Jill Kelley, the woman who alerted her friend in the FBI about allegedly “jealous” emails sent from an unknown person now believed to be Petraeus’ mistress, Paula Broadwell.

According to court records, Fallon witnessed an intense argument between Natalie and her then-husband, Grayson Wolfe, on March 3, 2009. The argument culminated in Natalie leaving the couple’s home with their 4 month-old son. Natalie and the baby spent that night at Fallon’s home. Ms. Fallon’s involvement had crossed all normal boundaries in the days leading up to March 3. The court records of Wolfe v. Khawam refer to Fallon as:

an advisor for Ms. Khawam in those final days before the removal — and whose encouraging words led Ms. Khawam to steal Mr. Wolfe’s computer on March 3, 2009 and later to hack into it with the hope of finding incriminating information for use in the divorce and custody litigation.

This connection between Natalie and another family at the top of CENTCOM comes in addition to General David Petraeus and General John Allen. As previously reported by Breitbart News, Jill Kelley may have used her influence to have both former CIA Director General Petraeus and General Allen to speak favorably on her twin’s behalf during her custody battle.

Petraeus was in the midst of leading the investigation into the Benghazi mission attack when he took time to write a letter of support for Ms. Khawam. The generals wrote flowery testaments to Natalie’s parenting skills based on observations of her behavior at social functions. The letters stand in stark contrast to the evidence presented in the case and to Judge Neal Kravitz’s ruling where he deemed:

Ms. Khawam appears to lack any appreciation or respect for the importance of honesty and integrity in her interactions with her family, employers, and others with whom she comes in contact. The court fully expects that Ms. Khawam’s pattern of misrepresentations about virtually everything, including the most important aspects of her life, will continue indefinitely.

In the same case, her twin, Jill Kelley, was ruled to be a “patently biased and unbelievable witness.”

It is baffling that the twins were able to entwine themselves so closely with the families of three high-ranking military officials without raising suspicions at MacDill Air Force Base, home to CENTCOM, where Jill Kelley enjoyed easy access as an “honorary consul.” Even more disturbing, however, is the lengths to which these military leaders lent their influence on behalf of the convoluted personal affairs of a troubled civilian family.

Danielle Avel is an analyst formerly affiliated with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. She can be reached through her website www.DanielleAvel.com and on Twitter.

Cross-posted from Breitbart

Breitbart News has learned that both former CIA chief David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, wrote letters of support in a contentious custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the twin sister of Jill Kelley. Kelley is the woman who triggered the Petraeus sex scandal.

It is known that Allen is under investigation for “inappropriate communications” with Kelley; what is new is that Kelley apparently used her influence over Petraeus and Allen to have them weigh in on the custody battle of her twin sister, who had been deemed by the court to be “psychologically unstable,” according to the New York Post, citing earlier court documents.

Note the sequence of events:

On September 20, while conducting an investigation into the Benghazi consulate attack, and aware of the FBI’s inquiry into his personal life, Petraeus took the time to file a letter (published for the first time below) of support with the D.C. Superior Court for Khawam, citing his friendship with Jill Kelley and her husband Scott as the reason for becoming acquainted with Khawam.

On September 22, Allen filed a letter obtained by Breitbart News with the same court referring to Khawam a “dedicated mother whose only focus is to provide the necessary support, love, and care for her son.”  Allen cited Khawam’s “integrity” as a reason why the custody order should be reconsidered.

Although it sounds as if Allen is well acquainted with Khawam, he acknowledges in his letter that his opinions were formulated by “observing [Ms. Khawam] with her son at command social functions.”

The letters from Petraeus and Allen are identified as Defense Exhibits C and D, respectively, below.

Petraeus-Allen

Why did these two ranking officials of the U.S. government make sweeping statements about Khawam’s parenting skills when their contact with her was supposedly limited to some social occasions?  And why did they reach conclusions in stark contrast to the opinion of the judge in her case, Neal Kravitz, who wrote about her:

Ms. Khawam appears to lack any appreciation or respect for the importance of honesty and integrity in her interactions with her family, employers, and others with whom she comes in contact. The court fully expects that Ms. Khawam’s pattern of misrepresentations about virtually everything, including the most important aspects of her life, will continue indefinitely. …

The evidence established that Ms. Khawam has extreme personal deficits in the areas of honesty and integrity. Ms. Khawam’s false domestic violence petitions (and her equally false testimony at trial relating to many of the same allegations) are merely the most stunning examples of Ms. Khawam’s willingness to say anything, even under oath, to advance her own personal interests at the expense of Mr. Wolfe, the child, and others.

Of note is that, in the same custody trial, Jill Kelley appeared as the only witness for her twin’s stories of abuse by her husband, and that Judge Kravitz found Kelley a “patently biased and unbelievable witness.”

What exactly is the level of involvement of the two generals with Jill Kelley?

Cross-posted from Frontpage Magazine

A gaggle of approximately eight-hundred “anti-Israel” activists, anti-Semites rebranded as

Flowers fit for a funeral.

“anti-Israel” activists, international socialists, and radical feminists descended upon New York City’s historic Cooper Union on October 6-7, 2012 to attend something called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine or RToP.  This RToP circus has been conducted in 4 sessions in 4 cities over the past 2 years.  They will meet again to present their final “conclusions” in February 2013.  If gavels, white wigs, and black robes were absent, keffiyehs and anti-Israel T-shirts took their place. Other highlights of the event included flowers on the stage worthy of a funeral.

This throng of wild-eyed leftists was intent on conducting a “trial” to consider “US complicity and UN failings in dealing with Israel’s violations of international law towards the Palestinian people.”  Note that the session automatically assumed Israel’s guilt for alleged “crimes.”  Even so hostile a personage as Judge Richard Goldstone wrote of the conference in 2011: “It is not a ‘tribunal.’ The ‘evidence’ is going to be one-sided and the members of the ‘jury’ are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.”  NGO Monitor correctly calls the event “a legal farce and a total failure.”

The event derives from an initiative by British philosopher Bertrand Russell who in 1966 decided he had the moral authority to create his own personal knockoff of the Nuremburg Trials, which he dubbed the “International War Crimes Tribunal”.  Lord Russell, born into British aristocracy, became a vehement critic of the United States, to the point that fellow philosopher Sidney Hook referred to Russell as possessed by an “almost pathological anti-Americanism.” That tribunal lambasted US military action in Vietnam in a one-sided pseudo-investigation which historian Gunter Lewy dismissed as a “veritable industry publicizing alleged war crimes”.

October 6, 2012: Russell Tribunal Day One—Day of the Grandiose Egos

RToP audience listens to “testimony.”

Day one started very late (as did day two, as well as the press conference near the UN on day three). Pierre Galland, the master of ceremonies, kicked off the “tribunal” by offering introductory remarks in French, leaving the overwhelming majority of the American audience looking bewilderedly at each other, wondering what was going on.  Only after completing his remarks did Galland switch to English and inform the audience that translation headsets were available.  He went on grandiloquently to demand complete silence from the audience, which he instructed to stand on the arrival and departure of the “jury,” to show it proper respect.  And so began the so-called “tribunal,” not with any grand purpose, but with plenty of grandiose egos.  Some of those egos:

The Mayor of Geneva, Rémy Pagani, lauded for donating 50,000 Swiss Francs to help fund the RToP NYC session.

Writer Ben White gave “testimony” on the topic of “Israeli Policies since 1948.” Not surprisingly for someone known for saying “I am not an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are,” he promoted the Palestinian concept of nakba (“catastrophe”) in referring to the creation of the Jewish State.  He expanded on the idea, calling the situation “an ongoing nakba that didn’t finish in ‘49 or ‘50 or even ‘67 but is carried on today.  And it carries on in both Israel proper and inside the occupied territories.”

“Witness” Ben White, The Tweet, and “Howard Jacobson’s face” (the StandWithUS photo linked to by White in his post)

Seems in White’s mind, the very existence of a Jewish State is a catastrophe.  Then again, this is same man who just last May, decided that a valid reason to boycott Israeli Jewish actors is because of the face of an English Jewish writer since they have so much in common—being Jewish.

Harry Belafonte and “juror” Dennis Banks sharing some laughs at the anti-Israel/anti-US fest.

Other highlights of Day 1 included a sighting of actor/singer Harry Belafonte, famous in leftist circles for heading a delegation to meet with Hugo Chavez and for calling George W. Bush “the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world.”  His comments on Jews, however, made Belafonte a rich addition to the RToP audience: in 2005 he first stated that “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich” and then compounded the insult in his retraction by saying that “Sometimes, the Jewish people have laid claim to such a high and pure morality.”

Actor Wally Shawn is all smiles at the RToP.

Actor Wally Shawn turned up in the audience and the mere presence of a celebrity in the building caused RToP fans to gush about his appearance in virtually every write-up of the event.  Although he did not address the crowd, his previously-recorded endorsement of the tribunal called it “an investigation of the crimes of the State of Israel against the Palestinian people.”  Gee, that sounds like a fair “trial.”  His personal writings tout the anti-Israel propaganda that the Jewish State was formed after World War II because, “the world felt it owed the Jews something–but then showed its lack of true regard for the tormented group by ‘giving’ them a piece of land populated and surrounded by another people.”  Apparently, Wally is under the Helen Thomas perception that Jews are a European invention whose presence in Israel is just recent, ignoring a continuous Jewish presence since Biblical times.

The ultra-animated Stéphane Hessel.

The star of the show, however, was the dynamic 94-year-old Stéphane Hessel, French “ambassador for life” and author of the best-selling essay Indignez-vouz.  In spite of appearing and sounding absolutely adorable, Hessel carries the same venom for Israel as the rest of “tribunal” characters.   He perpetuates the idea that Palestinians are consummate victims and completely ignores the terrorism directed at Israel since its inception.  He recently told the German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that the Nazi occupation was “relatively harmless” compared to the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.”  With his overt contempt for Israel, Hessel as “honorary president” of RToP made a perfect godfather for the clan.

Pink Floyd member, Roger Waters contemplates the “evidence.”

The pseudo-trial continued in its unabashed demonization of Israel and the US interrupted only periodically by Pierre Galland’s admonishments against applause.   The most platitudinous moment of the day went to Roger Waters, “it’s hard to sit here and ignore the elephant in the room [dramatic pause] this elephant being the unfathomable influence in the corridors of power of the Israeli and Jewish lobbies.”

October 7, 2012: Russell Tribunal Day 2 – Day of the Conspiracy Theory

2012-10-07 RToP — Dennis Banks from Danielle Avel on Vimeo. 

With “the elephant in the room” exposed, the “jury” members on Day 2 became far more animated, openly conspiratorial, and completely outshined their “witnesses.”  Native American leader Dennis Banks asked a bizarre question about some “pledge” he had heard about whereby members of Congress sign to get “cash” or “some financial, something financial” if they agree to support Israel.  His question later prompted a four-minute diatribe by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who implied Congressional votes are purchased.

Palestinian attorney and “witness” Diana Buttu gave the sense that Israel controls the US and said this of the US-Israel relationship: “Israel is not a democracy, it stands against the principles of what the United States purportedly stands for and it just simply doesn’t make sense.”  Propagating conspiracy theories, however, apparently makes perfect sense.

“Jury” member Angela Banks.

Former Communist party member and onetime Black Panther member Angela Davis demonstrated that even positive aspects of Israel must be condemned: “Particularly when it comes to issues like women’s rights, LGBT rights, there’s this whole ‘pinkwashing’ process that persuades people somehow that this most undemocratic country is so profoundly democratic.”  In other words, Davis is promoting the anti-Zionist propaganda that the only reason why Israel has such a great record on gay and women’s rights is to divert attention away from the Palestinians.  Because everything is always about the Palestinians when you’re far-left Israel basher — even when the Palestinians living in the Middle East seem more focused on their own corrupt leaders than they are on demonizing Israel.

The Dark Mass aka Noam Chomsky.

The most amusing moment of the day went to “witness” Noam Chomsky who appeared as a dark mass in a dark room on a video feed.  He politely apologized for his technical incapacities but remained a brooding mass throughout his entire “testimony.”

Day 2 also was the day of Cynthia McKinney, who managed to tie every topic to her failed congressional re-election campaign of 2002, not-so-subtly masking it in statements as, “We know the fate that is visited upon people who take a courageous position in opposition to power and what happens to them.”

During the session on “The US’s Role in Palestine & the Middle East,” McKinney reiterated details of her political downfall, one she blames on – of course – the Israel lobby:  The end of her tirade sums up her conspiracy theorist imaginations: “When every vote is counted and processed in a way and monitored so that you can get 29 ovations when Benjamin Netanyahu comes to speak before the Congress, a joint session, more than even the President gets there’s a reason for that and we shouldn’t ignore it.”

On the topic of “Christian Zionism and the Israel Lobby,” it became pretty clear that if it is possible for the far left to loathe a group more than the Israelis, that group would be the Christian Zionists.   McKinney let her green-eyed monster peek through in discussing the head of Christians United For Israel: “John Hagee is one of the most prominent Christian Zionists and John Hagee is extremely wealthy.  He reaps a reward unlike people who give, like the sisters on this panel who give and give and give.”

Mairead Maguire on the topic of Christian Zionists.

“Peace activist” Mairead Maguire pontificated about “the Christian Church hierarchy” and that “at the heart of the Christian faith today there is a lie.” She also offered this gem, “The prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, was a prophet of peace and nonviolence.”  It’s not clear how Maguire reached this conclusion, since religious texts indicate Muhammad was a warlord, but hey, this is far-left logic at its best and of course no one at RToP argued with her.

Keffiyeh montage from The Russell Tribunal on Palestine NYC.

And so concluded Day 2.  The “jury” went off to deliberate, and the audience went home eagerly awaiting the “verdict”  – needles to say, a total lack of suspense filled the air.

October 8, 2012 — The “Verdict,” Press Conference, and Applause (because clapping is a normal, usual occurrence at press conferences)

On the third day of theatrics, we convened at the United Nations Church Center in order to hear the “verdict.”  Surprise—the US is guilty!  Recall, Israel was already assumed guilty.  Also decided:  the UN is guilty for not punishing Israel and the US adequately.

Highlight of the press conference was Cynthia McKinney hijacking a question about “Palestinian leadership” and in doing so, showed her love for Hamas and contempt for the Palestinian Authority without mentioning either group by name.  Her billet doux was rewarded with warm applause from the audience.

2012-10-08 RToP Press Conference – Cynthia McKinney from Danielle Avel on Vimeo.

And so wrapped the Russell Tribunal on Palestine.  What with two days of non-stop anti-Israel/anti-US rhetoric the whole “tribunal” theatre could have been foregone and simply replaced with pseudo-impartial “juror” Alice Walker’s 2011 statement, “I think Israel is the greatest terrorist in that part of the world. And I think in general, the United States and Israel are great terrorist organizations themselves.”

What did it all amount to? The far-left creates events like the RToP because it seeks public fora to spread its conspiracy theories, lies, and venom, hoping its message will thereby seep out into the mainstream.  Sometimes it succeeds and garners attention as with the provocation flotilla to Hamas-controlled Gaza.  But the RToP’s best efforts to gain attention went nowhere, as the “trial” barely registered in the mainstream press.  Its most prominent mention in the US was a criticism in the Wall Street Journal  by Sohrab Amari.  In the end, the usual flock of socialists, über-leftists, radical feminists, “anti-Israel” obsessives, and anti-Semites pretended to be judge, jury and witness, and preached to their own pathetic choir.

2012-10-08 RToP Press Conference – Cynthia McKinney from Danielle Avel on Vimeo.

2012-10-07 RToP — Dennis Banks from Danielle Avel on Vimeo.

Egypt’s new president, Mohamed Morsi, has capitalized on a recent terror attack in Sinai and exploited it to re-militarize the Peninsula and to amass near-dictatorial powers in Cairo.  His manipulation of this tragedy for such sweeping and unpredictable power plays gives insight into how his Islamist government will reshape Egypt and the region.

Start with Sinai: its rearmament is occurring with troops, heavy artillery, air power, and even with U.S. manufactured surface-to-air missiles. Much of this is taking place in defiance of the 1979 Camp David Accords.

These actions affirm recent official statements indicating that Morsi is considering amending the treaty to give Egypt full sovereignty over the region. They also track with polling that consistently shows 92% of Egyptians seeing Israel as an enemy and unfavorable. Morsi, who comes out of the anti-Western and antisemitic Muslim Brotherhood, may be testing the limits of the agreement with the grander goal of eroding the peace treaty with Israel and challenging Israel militarily.

Some history: In 1979, in the hopes of obtaining peace, Israel agreed to return to Egypt the Sinai Peninsula, an area it had conquered in the 1967 Six Day War.  In exchange for territory, the Israelis received assurances from Anwar el-Sadat that Sinai would remain nearly demilitarized.  The agreement benefited both sides; until terrorist attacks recently began, Israel remained relatively secure on its southwestern border, while Egypt received billions of dollars in aid from the U.S. taxpayer, much of it for military purposes.

In 2011, to combat an upsurge in terrorism, the Netanyahu government agreed to an increased Egyptian troop presence and a restricted number of armored vehicles in the region for a limited period of time.  The peace treaty remained intact, with both governments adhering to its guidelines. Indeed, the treaty stayed unchallenged until August 5, 2012.

On that date, terrorists reportedly murdered 16 Egyptian guards while in the process of attempting an attack on Israelis. In response, the Egyptian military sent Apache helicopters to the peninsula without advance agreement from Israel under the guise of conducting urgent airstrikes that Egypt claimed killed 20 terrorists.  The use of helicopters in this area is strictly prohibited by the 1979 treaty, and although Egypt sent airpower to Sinai without prior approval, it appears the Israeli government retroactively agreed to the temporary use of airpower – after all, 20 terrorists were reported killed

In the aftermath of the August 5 attack, and still under the auspices of combatting terrorism, Egypt initiated its largest deployment in Sinai since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Some of the deployments fall within the 2011 parameters but others, Ha’aretz notes, were “deployed without Israel’s prior approval.” Al-Quds Al-Arabi reports that Cairo only informed Israel of the presence of armored vehicles after they were already deployed – another violation of the peace accords.   In this case, Israel did not retroactively approve the armored vehicles and has asked Egypt to remove them from the region.  As for the newly deployed surface-to-air missiles in Sinai, the only purpose of these weapons is to shoot down fighter planes.  Since the Jihadists in Sinai do not possess fighter planes it makes the concept of deploying these missiles to combat terrorism laughable – their presence is to intimidate Israel.

As for the Cairo power play: President Morsi used the August 5 incident as a catalyst to fire top military officials and to seize executive and legislative control for himself, swiftly transforming his government from democratically elected to potentially dictatorial.  In a few short weeks, Morsi amassed power that could be greater than his predecessor’s, Hosni Mubarak.  Unlike Mubarak, however, Morsi’s ideology is firmly based in radical Islam as preached by the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization credited with spawning terrorist groups such as Hamas.

To summarize, the attack on August 5 caused a domino effect that benefited Egypt’s Islamist government by permitting it to deploy military assets in the Sinai and effect a quiet revolution by ousting the military and seizing power for itself.

What seemed like a perfect storm of events for the Islamists, however, is now coming into question.  A new report suggests that three of the terrorists in the August 5 incident were released from prison by none other than Morsi.  Further, the initial deployment of helicopters to Sinai may never have involved airstrikes against terrorists at all.  The Daily News Egypt quotes a Bedouin tribesman: “Nothing happened here; the military never attacked.” Referring to the alleged Egyptian airstrikes, another local Bedouin responded, “It’s not true. It’s just to calm down the people.”  National Public Radio also reports that “evidence of the clashes has not been found.”  Agence France Press notes that Bedouin tribal leaders doubt the military claims and demand that Cairo show bodies to prove that airstrikes had occurred.

This whole incident raises concerns about the veracity of the Egyptian military account. Was it a fabrication to deploy unauthorized aircraft to Sinai and to grab dictatorial powers?

It remains to be seen how far Israel will allow the 1979 agreement to be tested and whether the Egyptian people will quietly acquiesce to an Islamist dictator.  In the meantime, Morsi, who campaigned on a Muslim Brotherhood platform of Sharia and jihad, appears confident in his role as president.  Since taking office, he has continually reaffirmed his support of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist groups, such as Hamas, whose repeated stated goal is the destruction of Israel.  Recently, Morsi told Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, that “Egypt and Palestine are one entity.”

At the time of the Egypt-Israel treaty signing, then-PLO leader Yasir Arafat dismissed it, saying: “Let them sign what they like. False peace will not last.” Perhaps he was right and that “false peace” is finally crumbling.

Danielle Avel is an analyst formerly affiliated with the Investigative Project on Terrorism.  

© 2012 All rights reserved by Danielle Avel.

Cross-posted from Breitbart

Last week, I published a column that details the disgraceful silence of the Obama Administration over the election of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission.

This week, I’m happy to update this story with a positive development — Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) introduced House Resolution 1371, “Condemning the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.” The original Cosponsors of this measure represent a diverse, bipartisan group including Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Rep. Burton (R-IN), Rep. Campbell (R-CA), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Inglis (R-SC), and Rep. Polis (D-CO).

On April 28, Iran was handed a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women despite efforts by Iranian “gender-equality activists” and supporters to block this appointment. The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made no attempts to thwart Iran’s bid for a seat on this committee and on the day of the election, she did not even bother to show up for the meeting. Despite public outcry, the Obama Administration still fails to publicly condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Several members of Congress, however, have taken the lead in voicing the concerns of the American people.

House Resolution 1371 points out that “Iran’s Islamic civil and penal codes discriminate against women” and notes that “according to the Department of State’s 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Iranian women are only ‘nominally’ granted ‘equal protection under the law… in conformity with Islam.’” The resolution also highlights some of the human rights violations against women including:

• “under Iranian law, spousal rape is legal”

• “Iranian penal code dictates a punishment of lashings or a fine if a woman appears in public without an appropriate hijab”

• “Iranian law permits men to have as many as four wives”

• “adultery is punishable by death by stoning, and a man who kills his wife…may easily escape punishment,”

The proposed resolution not only “condemns” this UN appointment, but also “calls on the Administration to denounce the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the Commission” and “urges the President to direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to advocate for the removal of the Government of Iran from the Commission.”

The Representatives who cosponsored Resolution 1371 have taken leadership in Congress by standing in opposition to Iran serving on the UN’s “global policy-making body” for women’s rights. Although the Obama Administration currently still refuses to condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission, Congress members are taking initiative and expressing the concerns of the American people. Voters who are interested in seeing this resolution passed should contact Congress and voice their support for House Resolution 1371.

Cross-posted from Breitbart

Why is it that President Obama can travel to Cairo to promote the wearing of the hijab, but when presented with an opportunity to make a relevant statement on women’s rights issues in the Middle East, he and his Administration are silent? It has been more than two weeks since Iran was handed a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women and still, not one word of condemnation from President Obama, Secretary Clinton, or UN Ambassador Rice. Granted, we have become conditioned to expect world-sanctioned hypocrisy over at the United Nations, but this new appointment comes at a time which is especially dangerous to the women who actually live in Iran.

The women’s rights movement in the Islamic Republic has been building momentum for decades and in recent years has served as inspiration for human rights activists around the world.

Last summer in particular, women took to the streets of Iran in record numbers to peacefully protest what is widely considered to be a fraudulent Presidential election. Activists in Iran have capitalized on this momentum and they continue to protest peacefully — now in an attempt to reform their government’s violent and oppressive laws against women.

This revitalized civil rights movement comes at a time when Iran is attempting to position itself as the leader of the Islamic world. Emboldened women who seek to shift the Republic away from its stringent adherence to Islamic Shariah law pose a huge threat to the existing power structure of the ruling government and an even greater threat to Iran’s credibility in the entire region. It is not the vague prospect of possible UN sanctions which is worrisome to the Iranian government, it is the empowerment of its own citizens — especially the ones in headscarves.

The result is a governmental crackdown on activists along with stricter, harsher laws and propaganda aimed against all women. It is no coincidence that we are witnessing more odd/troubling news coming from Iran — a cleric blames women for earthquakes and then days later a fatwa is issued against women with suntans. News like this makes for catchy sound bites and headlines, but mainstream sources often overlook the harsher reality — women in the Islamic Republic lack even the most basic rights to personal freedom. They have no right to choose their own husbands, have no right to divorce, cannot travel without the permission of their husbands, and are even barred from singing and dancing in public. Activists in Iran face unimaginable odds, yet they are still rising up in peaceful protest — by doing so, they face the possibility of arrest, detention, torture, rape, and even death.

Before Iran was quietly handed a place on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, Iranian-based activists and supporters actually attempted to block Iran’s bid for this seat. They even sent a letter imploring UN members to do everything possible to prevent this travesty from occurring.

How did our own representative at the UN respond? On the day Iran was elected by acclamation to the women’s rights commission, Ambassador Rice did not bother even bother to attend the meeting. Aside from insulting women’s rights activists all over the world, this flagrant act of disregard highlights the arrogance of the Obama Administration and causes the US to appear weak on a global scale. The continued silence of this Administration has prompted some women leaders to sign a petition urging Secretary Clinton to denounce the appointment of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission.

I have contacted the White House Press Office, the US Mission to the UN, the White House Council on Women and Girls, and the State Department, but have not received a single on-the-record comment. After Iran won the seat on the UN women’s rights commission, the state-controlled media was apparently happy to report that the efforts by “hostile groups” were “ignored” by members of the UN. Within its borders, Iran will undoubtedly utilize this election as a propaganda tool in order to give validation to the regime’s horrific treatment of women. As for the rest of the world, over the next four years while Iran holds this seat, members of the UN will pretend that Islamic Shariah law is somehow compatible with women’s rights.

While the Obama Administration is supposedly busy changing the UN “from within,” the US is missing important opportunities to take leadership on the most basic of issues. The silence of this Administration, however, does not mandate the silence of the America people — it is now time for Congress to take action by passing a resolution condemning the appointment of Iran to UN Commission on the Status of Women.

It’s probable that President Obama still has grand dreams of using his public speaking skills to change the policies of the existing Iranian government, but so far this “dialogue” concept has only succeeded in making this Administration look naive. The Iranian regime is a threat to the world and to its own people — if the President is genuinely concerned about this threat, then at some point he will need to set aside his ego and reevaluate the policies of his Administration.

Meanwhile, in places like Iran, activists are waiting for the US President to utilize his skills in a more productive way — by speaking out for the women who would prefer to remove their state-mandated hijab, but face a punishment of 74 lashes for doing so.