Kyrgyzstan Declares War on Imams “Kyrgyz secret services have decided to establish total control over the activity of Islamic clergy” — because they know that the clergy fuels the jihad.

Kyrgyzstan Declares War on Imams

“Kyrgyz secret services have decided to establish total control over the activity of Islamic clergy” — because they know that the clergy fuels the jihad. Western authorities, meanwhile, persist in ignoring this fact. From AxisGlobe, with thanks to A Girl Scout:

Kyrgyz secret services have decided to establish total control over the activity of Islamic clergy. According to operational data, clerics are getting more and more actively involved in the radical organizations, including filling supervising positions there. Similar situation is especially dangerous as «the Kyrgyz pattern» might be in the long term demanded in the scale of the entire Central Asia…Total espionage plan

The National Security Service (SNB) of Kyrgyzstan has developed a special plan on strengthening the control over the republic’s Islamic clergy. This was told by a high-ranking source in the diplomatic department of one of the Central Asian region countries. According to his information, the plan contains a list of actions directed to activation of gathering of data on current activity and external contacts of the Islamic clerics.

The paramount attention in this document is paid to the following aspects of activity of the clergy:

– Content of appearances in mosques, in the lessons in religious educational institutions, and during informal meetings with the believers;
– Content of the religious literature, audio and video materials distributed by clerics;
– Structure of visitors of mosques, in particular their ethnic belonging and political views. Special interest is represented with possible contacts of clerics with the activists of the illegal Islamic fundamentalist organizations, especially of the Jihadist persuasion;
– Participation of clerics in private business, first of all, in partnership with foreign businessmen, in particular from the Arab countries, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Britain;
– Personality of the foreign sponsors allocating donations to concrete clerics;
– Foreign trips of clerics, both on religious and commercial motives.
First of all it concerns those clerics who from the end of the 1990s – the beginning of the 2000s more than one to three times had gone abroad behind the CIS borders.

The following categories of the Islamic clergy are representing heightened interest for the SNB:

– Persons who have arrived from Uzbekistan since the first half of the 1990s, and even more those who have arrived within the last six to eight years;
– Natives of Kyrgyzstan of Uzbek and Uighur origin, living or having earlier lived in the southern part of the republic, especially in the urban centers of Osh, Jalalabad and Batken areas;
– Persons younger than 35 years of age, having received religious education of Islamic clergy outside the CIS after proclamation of the state independence, especially in such countries as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Egypt;
– Persons combining duties of cleric with private business, especially those who have continuous contacts with the foreign partners.
The plan is developed and will be realized with an active assistance of secret services of Uzbekistan and Russia. It is aimed not only at revealing the secret supporters of the fundamentalist movement in the environment of the Islamic clergy. In opinion of the SNB analysts, such clerics play far not the last role in the activity of the organizations of radical trend. It is determined by the fact that they have continuous contacts with many believers and the legal right to conducting religious propagation. Moreover, by experience of the Middle East countries (in particular Palestine and Jordan), and also other republics of Central Asia (especially Uzbekistan), attendants of mosques and teachers of Islamic educational institutions may privately participate in the medium and the highest level of leadership of the fundamentalist movement. While other prominent members of the organizations of similar trend are compelled to operate in the conditions of conspiracy, clerics are public figures.

Don’t cry for Cindy, Alfred Nobel Fortunately, someone in Oslo may have noticed that Cindy Sheehan is a total creature of production. Not of hers but of the Democrats, the left, their ceaseless propaganda machine, and the willing acolytes, dupes, sympathizers and followers in the all too enabling progressive press.

Don’t cry for Cindy, Alfred Nobel

Sunday, October 15, 2006

After days on those rapturous tenterhooks, Cindy Sheehan, the highly touted, omnipresent, albeit picaresque peace mom, has failed in her ruthless media driven quest for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. A prize many felt she deserved.

Not that she didn’t have the radical Democrats, the far left loonies, the anti-war crowd, the Dellinger descendents, Father Berrigan’s brood, the few remaining Winter Soldiers, the best the fading 60s had to offer, and the rest pulling for her. But it just wasn’t to be.

But neither John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Ned Lament, nor the inflationary and mystical powers of the famed peanut planting mummer, Jimmy Carter – a Nobel Prize winner in his own right for the providential nuclear arming of a starving North Korea, or was it for the coddling and nurturing of the murderous Fatah, or the atrocious gushing over that brutal island prison warden, Fidel Castro, who can really say now ­ could parlay the sad, tawdry public pirouettes, back flips, and hastily written screeds of that shy shrinking violet to the rapt attention of the dynamite baron’s current committee.

Sadly, it now appears to even the manifold minions of our progressive left, with the hindsight of the award now behind us, that the prize was actually given this year to a man who may deserve it.

Nope, the Prize is going to Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank.

Mr. Yunus has parlayed the small local bank he founded, which offers collateral free loans to the poorest of Bangladesh’s poor to start small businesses, to a customer base of some six million. Interestingly, the borrowers currently own 94% of the banks equity, with the Bangladeshi government owning the remaining 4%, while 97% of the borrowers are women.

When advised of the prize, a humbled and selfless Mr. Yunus said that he would re-invest his prize money in his bank, enabling even more of his fellow countrymen to begin lives of improved economic circumstances.

Can you imagine a Nobel going to such a humble man, who devoted his life to such a decent venture, which overwhelmingly caters to women to boot, when Cindy Sheehan is setting such a beautiful example? That is when she’s not slobbering all over raucous, blood thirsty South American dictators ­ believers in peace, all – blocking roads, writing self-aggrandizing hagiographical narratives tinged with P.T. Barnum accounts of her own supreme importance, demanding air time to further her personal agenda, screeching about the war to end wars, using her dead son as a tool, piling prevarications atop lies on top of hokum, creating more hot house emissions than Albert Gore Jr., while waving the bloody shirt?

I can’t for a second imagine that the Nobel Prize Committee, save for the one that dragged a thoroughly discredited Mr. Peanut to Oslo for his best Bob Barker in a white tie and tails, would have a difficult time finding folks on this planet who would equal or better the peace record of Ms. Sheehan. Though it now appears they have. And it is entirely possible that she was not, gasp, no, even on this year’s program.

Fortunately, someone in Oslo may have noticed that Cindy Sheehan is a total creature of production. Not of hers but of the Democrats, the left, their ceaseless propaganda machine, and the willing acolytes, dupes, sympathizers and followers in the all too enabling progressive press.

Cindy Sheehan appeared at just the right time. And her story – however convoluted, riddled with inaccuracies, laced with problematic and divergent sidebars, sprinkled with outright fabrications, and littered with bunk ­ was glossed over by the Democrats and the left because she provided them with the necessary, however campy and smarmy, street theater they were sorely lacking before her arrival.

Her public life, since her first public appearance, has been crafted by the entertainment industry, with camera angles, the beating of drums, long views, close-ups, second units, grips and gaffers, FX effects, of light and magic, and just plain computerized special effects.

And this sad, sorry woman has played it all out with a Vivien Leigh tragic-comedic effect, not knowing it all was just political theater and then failing to realize she could simply quit play acting, peel off her stage persona, and go home when the director, a Democratic strategist, Harry Reid, an itinerant TV personality, or the local ward boss said cut, that’s a wrap.

Like an episode in the Twilight Zone, Cindy Sheehan seems doomed to continue acting the same painful insensate role even as the play ends, the viewers file out, the theater is closed, and the whole place is gradually covered in cobwebs.

Ms. Sheehan knows no other character to play than the archly grieving socialist, often Stalinist, anti-war mom, enraged at President Bush, embracing every tin horn dictator she can find, and some she can kiss, while the crowd, their attention, and the media gradually abandon her.

Meanwhile, Mr. Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank will continue to aid the downtrodden in Bangladesh, in their millions, for the greater good, in a place which has never crossed the mind of Cindy Sheehan.

And Cindy will disappear from view and suffer the ennui which afflicts those who have hogged the limelight from artificially constructed contrivances and fail to understand why they now stand alone in the darkness.

Across America the fire stations are quieter. Rescue companies are no longer rushing to the homes of Cindy’s now grieving accomplices, bringing life giving oxygen to those who felt giddy through that long evening’s night until Norway’s Aftenposten brought them the news about Mr. Yunus and his prize.

Alfred, please don’t cry for Cindy.

Reid used campaign funds to pay bonuses to staff

North Korea’s Perennial Helpers Not since the middle of the Civil War has either major political party been as intellectually and morally bankrupt as today’s Democrats. The latest evidence comes in the form of the insistence of Harry Reid, John Kerry, Joseph Biden and others that the administration negotiate directly with North Korea, outside of the multilateral, six-party approach we’ve been using. The most dishonest Dem, as one would expect, is Kerry, who said: “Even when told this test was coming, the administration sat on the sidelines and hoped others would do the job. Surely George Bush could have sent a top-level negotiating team with a mandate to stop this test from going forward. We need to get off the sidelines.”

North Korea’s Perennial Helpers
By Paul Mirengoff | October 17, 2006

Not since the middle of the Civil War has either major political party been as intellectually and morally bankrupt as today’s Democrats. The latest evidence comes in the form of the insistence of Harry Reid, John Kerry, Joseph Biden and others that the administration negotiate directly with North Korea, outside of the multilateral, six-party approach we’ve been using. The most dishonest Dem, as one would expect, is Kerry, who said:“Even when told this test was coming, the administration sat on the sidelines and hoped others would do the job. Surely George Bush could have sent a top-level negotiating team with a mandate to stop this test from going forward. We need to get off the sidelines.”The administration, of course, is not on the sidelines — it is an active participant, along with Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia in efforts to negotiate with North Korea. (And, within the context of the six-party framework, the U.S. has had bilateral contacts with North  Korea). The six-party approach is the one that Kerry, an avowed mulitlateral, certainly would be advocating if he possessed an ounce of intellectual honesty.

It also happens to be the only diplomatic approach that makes sense. Unless the U.S. is willing to attack North Korea (and the Dems aren’t advocating that) the U.S. acting by itself lacks the leverage to influence North Korea’s behavior. We can’t effectuate sanctions on our own, nor can we implement an effective blockade of North Korea — the country shares a border with China. Even a lightweight like Kerry must understand the futility, under these circumstances, of sending to North Korea “a top-level negotiating team with a mandate to stop this test  from going forward.” Mandates don’t stop anything. A team with tens of millions in U.S. dollars plus a few prostitutes would be more like it, but even that would, at best, only postpone the inevitable.

China, on the other hand, has substantial leverage with North Korea. China is its one significant backer and, along with South Korea, represents its economic lifeline. Japan potentially is a key player too because it has leverage with China insofar as the Chinese fear that  Japan will develop nukes in response to the North Korean threat. Even  with the help of China, South Korea, and Japan, it’s difficult to see  North Korea abandoning its nuclear aspirations. But given their leverage  and influence, these countries hold the key to any favorable outcome, including reducing the likelihood that North Korea will share its  nuclear technology, and promoting stability if the North Korean regime  begins to collapse. To put it in terms that even Kerry might understand, China, South Korea, and Japan have nearly all of the soft power here. If the Dems had any motivation other than partisan advantage, they might ask themselves why North Korea is so insistent on bilateral talks with the U.S. There is nothing the U.S. can do for North Korea that it can’t agree to do in the context of multilateral talks. Thus, North Korea is not demanding bilateral talks for any legitimate reason. Rather, it’s attempting to create a win-win situation for itself. Either the U.S. agrees to biliateral talks, thus increasing the likelihood that the most important player — China — will pull out of the process (or, short of that, feel a lack of investment in it). Or North Korea can blame the  U.S. for the stalemate.Accordingly, when the Dems denounce the administration for sticking to the multilateral approach they are, if not taking North Korea’s side, then certainly playing straight into its hands. But that’s just a continuation, at least in spirit, of the Clinton/Carter policy towards North Korea that helped get us into this mess.

New Jerusalem Mufti endorses suicide bombers

New Jerusalem Mufti endorses suicide bombers

A Muslim (named Jihad, incidentally) just called in to the Mark Larson Show and insisted, among other things, that Islam forbids suicide, and thus that suicide bombing was condemned by Islam. Jihad, you might want to have a word with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (who was appointed to the post because he was supposed to be a moderate, replacing a much more inflammatory incumbent, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri).

“New J’lem Mufti endorses suicide bombers: New Grand Mufti of Jerusalem hints that Palestinians have right to resist occupation by any means,” by Yaniv Berman in Ynet News, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

On October 15, The Media Line news agency conducted an exclusive interview with the newly appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Lands Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Hussein. During the interview the mufti said he endorsed the phenomenon of the suicide bombers, as it was part of the Palestinian people’s legitimate resistance…. With a Hamas government on the one hand and an angry US on the other, Abbas could not afford an inflammatory figure sitting in the highest religious post. He decided to appoint Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, manager and imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque.’A simple man’

An informed Palestinian source told The Media Line that Hussein was “a simple man, born to a family of humble means.” He was chosen by Abbas because of an important quality he had – an ability to avoid controversies. According to the source, Hussein fears to lose all he has gained, and “Abbas knows he will never jeopardize his position.”

For three months the new grand mufti followed Abbas’ expectations. People who came to listen to him preach on Fridays in Al-Aqsa Mosque never heard him inciting against Israel. His fatwas (religious decrees) also avoided such controversial statements.

Hussein explains that the authority of the grand mufti was wide-ranging.

“We discuss worship, personal issues, economic issues, social issues and political issues – everything which is related to Islam.”

Hussein went on to explain that the mufti discusses all aspects of Islam, including politics.

And then he made a surprising comment.

“It is the Palestinian people’s right to engage in resistance until the occupation ends. As long as the resistance is legitimate, everything related to it is also legitimate.”

Asked to express his view with regard to suicide bombing, the mufti answered: “It is legitimate, of course, as long as it plays a role in the resistance.”




By Julie Mccaffrey

IT is smaller than a 10 pence piece and all but invisible to people standing just inches away.

Yet Nadia Eweida’s tiny white gold cross is at the centre of a huge legal row that has engulfed Britain’s biggest airline and infuriated religious groups.

Check-in worker Nadia, 55, was forced to take unpaid leave by British Airways after refusing to remove the Christian emblem. But she claims it is a clear display of double standards as Muslims can wear head scarves and Sikh males their turbans.


function Ads_PopUp() {}Falk AdSolution

on error resume next call Ads_BWD_DoFSCommand(QQKh,QQLh)

“It seems that only Christians are forbidden to express their faith,” she told the Mirror. “I am not ashamed to be Christian and shouldn’t be made to feel that way.


“I want people to know I am a Christian when they meet me.


Just like people know when they meet a Muslim.”


The case echoes that of Fiona Bruce, the newsreader who has not worn her cross necklace on television since BBC governors debated whether it would cause offence to other religions.


And it bears striking similarities to the Muslim teacher Aishah Azmi, from Dewsbury, Yorkshire, who is taking legal action after being suspended for wearing a veil in lessons.


It will only add to the row over religious clothing after Jack Straw asked Muslim women to ditch their veils.


Hundreds of Nadia’s colleagues have demanded she be reinstated and yesterday Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain insisted:


“Frankly, I think the British Airways order for her not to wear a cross was loopy.”


As backing for Nadia grows, BA is faced with rumours of staff strikes, Christian boycotts and a slump in ticket sales.


JOHN Andrews, communications officer for the diocese of Bath and Wells, said: “I think BA is being extremely offensive to members of the Christian faith.


“It is rather more than an ornament. It is more than an item of jewellery.”


Meanwhile Nadia, from Twickenham, West London, is set to sue for religious discrimination.


She said: “My case shows a company so scared of upsetting a minority that it has swung too far to the other side and upset the majority.


“It is clearly not fair that I am prohibited from wearing my cross, when Muslim ladies are allowed to wear a hijab and Sikhs freely wear turbans.


“They immediately identify that person’s religion. I imagine that’s why the teacher in Dewsbury is fighting to wear her veil.


She should be allowed to wear it in the classroom. I respect her views but what I don’t respect is one rule for some and another for others.”


Ironically, the row started the day after Nadia, who has an exemplary seven-year record with British Airways and is based at Heathrow’s Terminal Four, attended a training course on diversity and dignity at work.


“We spent the day learning how to integrate and understand different cultures, religions, sexual orientations and political allegiances,” she recalled.


“The next day my duty manager asked me to take off my cross. I said it was an expression of my faith. But she refused to accept that.


“I’d worn it many times, but all of a sudden it was an issue. “I was sent to see the customer services manager, who then sent me home.”


NADIA, who is single and looks after her elderly mother, was born in Egypt to an Egyptian father and English mother.


She believes that, instead of constantly trying not to offend a minority faith, employers should demonstrate equal consideration towards people of all faiths.


“As a Christian in a Muslim country, I was in the minority and held tightly to my faith,” she explained. “I wear a cross because it reminds me what Jesus Christ did for mankind. I think I am within my rights to wear it.”


Nadia, who attends church up to seven times a week, has the backing of her local MP Vincent Cable, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who called BA “disgraceful and petty”. And she also has the backing of her union, the TGWU.


However Nadia, whose great grandfather Thomas Paine helped found the Salvation Army, claims to be overwhelmed by all the attention.


She said: “I didn’t expect this to escalate. And it seems that the more people who know about my case, the angrier they become.


“But I am not getting angrier, I am growing more determined.


“My ultimate aim is firstly to win an apology from British Airways, saying sorry to me for their behaviour and sorry to all their Christian workers who wish to express their faith.


“Secondly, I want to return to the job I loved. I’m not ashamed of what has happened, and if I go back I won’t have my tail between my legs.


“Sometimes it takes one person to make a change by putting their head above the parapet. And if that has to be me, then so be it. I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways but I feel I must stand up for the rights of all Christians, and all citizens.”


A BA spokeswoman emphasised that Miss Eweida has not been suspended and said an appeal was due to be heard some time next week.


She said BA recognised that employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. “Our policy states these items can be worn, underneath the uniform. There is no ban.


“This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the Christian cross.”

Israel threatens massive Gaza ground assault

Israel threatens massive Gaza ground assault



Jean-Luc Renaudie | Jerusalem, Israel
17 October 2006 03:40

 Israel on Tuesday ratcheted up threats of a massive ground offensive in the Gaza Strip, amid an ongoing war of words with the ruling Hamas movement, which has vowed to teach the army a harsh lesson.

“Gaza should not become a second Lebanon,” said Immigrant Absorption Minister Zeev Boim, reiterating a phrase used by Israeli leaders recently to mean the territory should not become a bastion of militant resistance.

“Apparently we will not have any other choice but to launch an expanded operation, like Defensive Shield, in order to destroy the stockpiles of weapons and to hit the terrorist organisations,” said Boim, a close ally of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Defensive Shield, the largest military operation in the West Bank since the 1967 Six Day War, was launched by Israel in 2002. It left more than 200 Palestinians and 29 Israeli soldiers dead and about 5 000 Palestinian detained.

“We have to completely stop the rocket fire and not to allow the terrorists to smuggle modern arms that would upset the balance of power between the forces,” Boim told public radio.

Israel has already been pounding Gaza for nearly four months after militants, including those from the armed wing of the Islamist party Hamas, seized a soldier and killed two others in a cross-border raid in late June.

More than 250 Palestinians, as well as two Israeli soldiers, have been killed in the territory since June 28. Nevertheless, militants have continued to fire rockets into the Jewish state and, according to Israel, have accumulated vast stockpiles of arms via tunnels dug to Egyptian territory.

The Israeli military overnight fired a missile in the northern Gaza Strip which, according to witnesses, destroyed an electricity generator that served a large part of the town of Beit Hanun, depriving it of power.

The military said the raid was aimed at militants as they prepared to fire rockets at Israel.

In the occupied West Bank, an 18-year-old militant from the radical Islamic Jihad group and another teenager were killed near the northern city of Jenin.

On Monday, the armed wing of Hamas declared it had the “means and arms necessary to confront the Zionist enemy with all our force if it proceeds [further] with military operations in the Gaza Strip”.

“If the enemy decides to go towards a large confrontation with Hamas, we will be up to this challenge and are totally ready to resist. We have finished preparations to teach the Zionist enemy a lesson it will not forget,” the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades said.

The group rejected Israel’s claims that vast stores of smuggled arms have been amassed, accusing the Jewish state of “using such allegations to justify criminal operations it seems to have decided to wage in the Gaza Strip”.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, who heads the Hamas-led government, promised again on Tuesday not to bow to foreign pressure.

Haniya and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas have failed to agree on the formation of a unity government, with Hamas refusing international conditions to recognise Israel and past peace agreements, and to renounce violence.

As a result, the West froze direct aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas took office in March, flinging the territories into economic meltdown and exacerbating plumetting living standards, particularly in the Gaza Strip.

Israel’s Summer Rain offensive has wreaked havoc in the impoverished territory, where 1,4-million people live on rationed electricity since Israel bombed Gaza’s sole power plant in late June. — AFP


New Mexico U’s Radical Rule

New Mexico U’s Radical Rule
By Christina Hoff Sommers
The Albuquerque Journal | October 17, 2006

As a writer and frequent campus lecturer, I am accustomed to encountering activist professors. Nevertheless, when I visited the University of New Mexico Law School recently, I was taken aback by the political fervor of the faculty.

I had been invited by the student-run Federalist Society to lecture on the foibles of campus feminism. I consider myself a feminist, but I believe that academic feminism has been hijacked by gender war eccentrics— like the law professor who confronted me at the University of New Mexico. In the question-and-answer period, she insisted that American society is a “patriarchy.”

Well, the UNM Law School is no patriarchy. The dean is a woman and fifty-seven percent of this year’s entering class is female. During orientation, new female students were warned by members of the Feminist Legal Caucus to avoid the Federalist Society or they would be “marked forever.”

For the record, the Federalist Society is a highly respected national legal organization with chapters on campuses throughout the country. It champions conservative and libertarian ideas— as well as debate over them. But the University of New Mexico Law School is not a place for free and open debate.

A 2004 study by the New Mexico Federation of College Republicans found that 100 percent of the full-time professors at the law school were registered Democrats. The Federalists could not find a conservative to serve as their faculty adviser.

By contrast, the student body is politically diverse. Students complain that courses lack objectivity. Here is the catalogue description for a seminar called Environmental Global Warming: “Global climate change is the major environmental threat of our era. Its effects are felt by all species, but especially on those who are poor….” Another course called Gender and the Law explores “how the Law created categories that support subordination based on gender.”

All of the students in the Clinical Law Program recently had to attend a lengthy lecture on immigration given by an ACLU member and watch a video of a weeping woman facing deportation. For “balance” the students were shown a 30-second anti-immigration television commercial from an Alabama political candidate.

The day I visited campus UNM faculty members were organizing a teach-in on Guantanamo and manning tables to protest military recruiters on campus. Last year the faculty achieved a prized, long-term goal: it terminated a hugely popular “DA Law Clinic” where students worked with the local District Attorney’s Office. The professors were uncomfortable with a program that prosecuted— rather than defended— accused criminals.

The dean of the law school, Suellyn Scarnecchia, professes a commitment to diversity— but that does not include changing the school’s strict “liberals only” hiring policy. She and her faculty seem not to question the ethics of running a public, taxpayer-supported law school as if it were a re-education camp for the political left.

The dean recently did make an attempt to respond to student pleas for change. She introduced a new course called “Difficult Dialogues.” Her idea was to provide a forum where students across the political spectrum could have civil and rational discussions.

Students say the classes are “ridiculous” and include a lot of confronting, screaming and accusing. In a recent session students “debated” whether or not the law school should offer more evening and part-time courses. One male student suggested that it might lower the school’s already modest ranking. An outraged female student burst into tears and accused him of not caring about the needs of mothers with young children.

The dean’s new course is not a solution to the law school’s problems, but another example of its chronic intolerance. It is true, of course, that most of the nation’s law schools have predominantly liberal faculties, but under responsible leadership they do not stifle dissent.

After speaking at UNM I next lectured at the University of Colorado. Far from being under siege, the Federalists say they are treated respectfully by most faculty and students. With a few notable exceptions, the professors do not pummel students with their politics. The school administration is focused like a laser on the economic development of Colorado.

The state of New Mexico has only one law school. Each year it accepts only about 100 students. Under constructive leadership, it could easily be on par with Colorado, which ranks 43rd compared to New Mexico’s 77th place on the list of best law schools— and Colorado is moving up all the time.

Sixties-style activism and political fervor have their place, but at the UNM Law School these are practiced at the expense of the intellectual, economic and civic mission that a state law school is expected to fulfill.

Peace Still Far Off A poll carried out in the Palestinian Authority by the Al-Mustaqabal Research Institute shows that nearly 2/3 of PA Arabs object to normalized relations with Israel – even if Israel quits Yesha.

 Peace Still Far Off

By Hillel Fendel

A poll carried out in the Palestinian Authority by the Al-Mustaqabal Research Institute shows that nearly 2/3 of PA Arabs object to normalized relations with Israel – even if Israel quits Yesha.

64.1% of the respondents said they oppose the Saudi peace initiative that calls for Israel to leave Judea and Samaria, the establishment of a Palestinian state – and subsequent normalized relations between it and Israel.

Former IDF Research Division Chief Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser says that the above plan recognizes “only Israel’s existence, but not its right to exist. This is very significant. Only one who is blind does not see that Israel exists – but the question is whether they recognize our right to exist. Not only Hamas, but even Fatah is not willing to do so.” Kuperwasser spoke with Arutz-7 correspondent Haggai Huberman.

The survey, released yesterday (Monday), indicates that despite the many pro-Arab decisions over the years in the UN, a strong majority of 77.3% view the international community and its decisions as “unfair to the Palestinians.” Close to 69% even feel that the Arab initiative approved at the Beirut Summit in 2002 is not fair.

Over 60% of those polled support Hamas for not having yielded to international pressure to recognize Israel.

The respondents were divided over the proper course for the PA to take in the event that Fatah and Hamas fail to agree on a unity government. 35.5% feel that Hamas should continue to run the government, while only a third of that amount – 11.8% – say Fatah should lead. 23.6% feel that new elections should be held.

Who said French troops won’t do anything in Lebanon?

Who said French troops won’t do anything in Lebanon?

Commanders of the French contingent of the United Nations force in Lebanon have warned that they might have to open fire if Israel Air Force warplanes continue their overflights in Lebanon, according to Isreali Defense Minister Peretz. So, as Charles Johnson notes, the French, having made all sorts of promises about keeping the peace but later making it clear they have no intention of disarming Hezbollah or blocking Syrian and Iranian arms shipments, have finally found someone they are willing to fight.

For his part, Peretz says his government has evidence that Syria is shipping arms to Hezbollah — in other words, the U.N. resolution is not being enforced. He threatens unilateral Israeli action if, as seems certain, this state of affairs continues. Meanwhile, says Peretz, Israeli flights over Lebanon will continue.

Israel has fought all of the major existing Arab powers. Now, perhaps, it will find itself in armed conflict with the major emerging Euro-arab power.