Suprise, Suprise… Someone else hates America.

A year after the volatile Islamist rebellion in Nigeria last summer, the main group responsible for the violence, Boko Haram, appears to be moving toward a greater focus on the “far enemy”. Information from the Jamestown Terrorism Monitor in July, 2010 indicates a new video was posted to a jihadist website (Ansar al-Mujahideen) as of early July, 2010, which identified a new target for the organization’s angst – the United States.  Imam Abubakr Shekau, the former deputy leader of Boko Haram – thought dead by local authorities (AFP, July 31, 2009), used the video in classic Twain-esque style as evidence that “the reports of his death were greatly exaggerated.” Shekau announced his newly aquired headship of the organization and after describing Americans as “infidels, hypocrits and apostates” warned that jihad was not over; that it had just begun.  He ended his statement with the all too popular sentiment, “America, die with your fury.”  Shekau further evinced his anti-Americanism and accord with the global jihadi struggle by memorializing former Iraqi insurgent leaders Omar al Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al Masri. 

Technical Junk

Bokò is a word from the Hausa language (indigenous language of the Chadic group) that according to Paul Newman and Roxana Ma Newman, Modern Hausa-English Dictionary, means

1. Western education.

2. Hausa written in Roman script.

3. Mock arrangment: yaƙin ~ army manoeuvres.

4. Adulteration, fraud, trick.

In Islam, ḥarām is used to refer to anything that is prohibited by the faith in the forbidden sense of the word. The Arabic Language has two separate words derived from the same triliteral Semitic root H-R-M, حرم ḥaram and حرام ḥarām. Both of these words can mean “forbidden” and/or “sacred” in a general way, but each has also developed specialized meanings as is indicated by the use of the word in Islamic jurisprudence.

That brings us to Bokò harām, which from what we learned above, essentially means “I hate America.” That’s paraphrasing of course but you get the idea. 

History

The group has allegedly existed under various names in Nigeria since the mid 1990′s, but developed their current militant manifesto under the guidance and direction of Ustaz Mohammad Yusuf. Boko Haram opposes not only Western education, but Western culture and modern science as well. Yusuf stated in a 2009 interview that the belief that the world is a sphere that is contrary to Islam and should be rejected, along with Darwinism and the theory that rain comes from water evaporated by the sun. Clearly open-minded, Yusuf seems to be channeling elements of the Khmer Rouge, or at the very least, experimenting with psychotropic drugs.

Conclusion

While radical Islamist groups in northern Nigeria such as Boko Haram and Kala Kato have traditionally focused on attacks on the Nigerian federal and state governments in their attempts to establish an Islamic caliphate, Shekau’s praise of al-Qaeda and commitment to the global jihad represents a new direction for the militants.

References

1. “Resurrected Boko Haram Chief Threatens United States,” Jamestown Foundation, accessed September 24, 2010, http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36654&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=457&no_cache=1.

The first concern I have is of a religious, or maybe more appropriately put, Spiritual nature. I have been listening to some recordings from an orthodox priest regarding orthodoxy and heterodoxy and he very succinctly summarized my concerns regarding the most prevalent religious problem of our time when he said “If there is a God, then who he is and what he might want from us are more important than anything in the universe.” ~ Fr Andrew Stephen Damick.  

The second concern I have is with the increasing cultural and societal polarization across the globe in our time.  I am no historian, but as a fan of historical non-fiction I am noticing a trend that, from previous examples, does not end well.  The potential for hostilities on an international scale as the result of the “clash of civilizations” has significant legitimacy despite the prevailing and counterproductive conspiracy theories to the point. 

These two multifaceted issues will be the focus of my posts from here on out, or until I get the inkling to write about something else.

I understand the desire to make the music produced in church as beautiful as possible but I wonder if our worldly perception of “beauty” is somewhat distorted from that of heavenly realm. Let me make clear – I do not profess to have insight into the perception of beauty in God’s eyes. But in this circumstance I will say that I have an opinion. The congregation does not sing during services, primarily because the music changes so often that no one is familiar with the melody except the choir. For all intents and purposes the congregation is discouraged from singing. The choir conducts performances for the local community. Is this a ministry to the people or a form of vanity? I have an opinion on that as well.

But let’s get right down to the bones of the real issue; as the old adage goes – opinions stink. And mine seem to have a particularly putrid character. Having thought about all this for quite some time and driven myself nearly to the point of distraction as a result, I have recently come to the conclusion that I am to blame for my own frustration. Could I be right in my opinions? Anything’s possible I guess but that really does not matter. I have allowed myself to become embroiled in controversy and gossip and proclaimed the right to judge others’ intentions. Whether I am right or not, any attempt to teach someone else a spiritual lesson by my rhetoric or convoluted scheming is to assign myself a place alongside the demons; assuming autonomy in judgment from divine authority. I have become the Accuser; I have been deceived by my own superficial piety. Humility is a lesson to which I have only recently been introduced.

Today’s lesson then is this:  when you point a finger at someone… well, you get the idea.  Its funny how the lessons of my childhood seem to creep up real quiet like, and then smash me in the back of the head when I least expect it. So back to my knees I go with my fat head knocked to the floor and may God have mercy on my miserable soul.

On 18 February, 2010, Andrew Joseph Stack flew a plane into a Federal Building in Austin, Texas for the purposes of instigating change in the U.S. Government through means of calculated violence against civilians. Yet there seems to be some debate on the nature of the incident and whether it qualifies as an act of terrorism. I am not sure I quite understand the purpose of the discussion. It seems fairly obvious that this was an act of terrorism when considering Stack’s suicide manifesto and the current “definitions” of terrorism subscribed to within the U.S. Government (with the possible exception of the State Department which according to a 1995 report from the Office of the Coordinator for Terrorism, does not consider individuals acting alone as a source of terrorism) .

The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

The FBI further defines terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization.

· Domestic terrorism involves groups or individuals who are based and operate entirely within the United States and Puerto Rico without foreign direction and whose acts are directed at elements of the U.S. Government or population. Source – http://denver.fbi.gov/nfip.htm

From the above definition a criminal act becomes a terrorist act when the intention morphs from personal vengeance to the furtherance of an ideological objective, whether political, social, or religious. After completing a fairly detailed narrative of his descent into madness, Stack chose to include a section in his manifesto concerning his intentions in what he calls “adding [his body] to the count”. The following is taken from Stack’s suicide note.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

After some consideration, it seems to me the vacillating commitment to identifying this “lone wolf” actor as a terrorist has its origins in the political realm. How do you defend against this type of terrorism? How does a government protect its people from a single individual bent on using the body count of innocents to coerce the civilian population that the government is the villain; or at the very least to instigate change in one form or another? Whose interior monologue is the sole source of evidence indicative of mens rea? This is a difficult question to answer as is obvious from the destruction wrought at the IRS building in Austin. Yet a government could, in a sense, not be held liable if it were removed from the equation. By promulgating the interpretation that these types of incidents are merely criminal in nature and not terrorist acts, they inevitably fall among the statistics of regrettable, albeit acceptable, societal malaise, and a government that is incapable of preventing such events is no longer considered inept for failing to do so.

Oddly enough as I embrace hysteria in exchange for air, the words of a famous atheist come to mind.  In Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Series, a book known as The Guide  has the words “Don’t Panic” written in large, friendly letters on the cover.  I suspect this advice was intended more for his readers than the literary characters themselves simply because panic is all to often the more common human reaction, and it gets us into trouble.  On the other hand, the admonition not to do so has a kind of celestial ring to it.  In fact it sounds very much like the biblical phrase “Fear Not”, a sentiment used over 365 times in scripture. But if I am told not to fear that must mean that I am fearful.  The words “Don’t Panic” are not necessary unless one is panicking. 

Another relevant theme in the Hitchhiker’s Series is the search for the answer to the ultimate question.  The first book suggests the answer is the number 42, but Adams is mum on what the actual question is, and the query’s quest sets the scene for the rest of the series.  Far from 42 however, I think the answer to the ultimate question can be summed up in Psalms 46:10 “Be still and know that I am God.”  But again, what is the question? 

Well, at this point in my life I firmly believe the only question that really matters is how do we get through this life without drowning?  Without succumbing to the tumults and tribulations and passions that plague us?  I am of the opinion that what we are here to do is analogous to learning how to swim.  Having been thrust into the ocean of life (a lame metaphor, I know) the most important thing to remember, aside from the necessity of breathing, is not to panic.  Be still, and know that I am God.  Being still coincides with not panicking, and knowing that He is God is our very breath.  But knowing Him requires us to pray, to read, to partake of the sacraments, to attend the services.  These are the physical characteristics of the swim; the coordinated movements resulting in aquatic locomotion.  

I have been contemplating these ideas for some time and expect that the above themes will be revisited many times  in the course of my life.   But so far they have led me to conclude, among other things, that true wisdom is divine despite the spiritual orientation of the possessor, and that swimming requires a concentrated effort to behave in a manner consistent with intention of moving through the water to reach a particular destination. It also requires one to breath regularly.

This image was taken from Wikipedia. See Bing for their memorial tribute.

I am sure you all have noticed that the main Google website typically commemorates holidays, special events, and important people in some type of artistic rendition of the Google logo on the day associated with that particular subject. A few weeks ago (14 Aug) the site paid tribute to Hans Christian Orsted who is most widely known for observing that electric currents induce magnetic fields. Although somewhat obscure, I appreciated this opportunity to learn something new as I was unaware of Orsted’s role in this field. And when Halloween comes around, which requires little introduction or explanation, I am sure Google will run some version of their logo that includes jack-o-lanterns, and ghosts and black cats with arched backs. Yet today, on the eighth anniversary of one of the most tragic events in our nations history the site portrays a predictable reticence. MSN’s Bing, oddly enough does not seem to be suffering from the same lapse in memory (or judgement) as its competitive counterpart.

On a side note, I think there needs to be a level of cautious objectivism when considering this issue from a more conservative view point which would likely have the President firmly and vocally opposing any authoritarian crackdown on anti-regime demonstrators.  In the West we typically have a very short memory and one thing we need to keep in mind if we intend on claiming the moral high ground in this situation is that among other factors, part of the reason the GOI is a theocracy today is because of the revolutionary momentum of an outraged grassroots youth movement disgusted by the inhumane treatment of the Iranian populace by the western instituted leadership of Shah Reza Pahlavi and his infamous security organization the SAVAK.  If we fail to address our role in the historical events that brought about the Islamic Revolution, the foundation of our argument is not longer valid.

Although a conservative, in the spirit of objectivism, I would like to offer two possible explanations for the President’s inaction.  The first is fairly simple: inexperience.  For a young administration and an even younger president, Mr. Obama and his aids may not have the necessary battle-tested acumen in order to deal with diplomatic crises on an international scale.  The second possible explanation is strategy.  Please bear with me while I lay the ground work for this potentiality.   

One of the many issues that have bothered me about the push to redeploy all US forces from Iraq is the inevitability of an overwhelming Iranian influence in the country (a very strategic location) and a broadening of the power base of the Islamic Revolution.  As the tide of support in America turned against the war in Iraq, and the demand to cease US intervention in the Middle East could no longer be ignored, it seemed as though we had succeeded in dethroning a hostile Arab tyrant only to expedite a long awaited Persian victory in the war between Iran and Iraq.

Immediately after the fall of Saddam, Iranian trained militias such as the 9th Badr Corp, and the Mahdi Militia, began infiltrating the Iraqi Security apparatus and ensuring the new power base in Iraq was sympathetic to the Islamic Revolution.  The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force (IRGC-QF, Pasdaran) and the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (VEVAK) began creating a support network to facilitate Iranian intentions in the country, which inevitably conflicted with western agendas.  With Saddam gone, Iran’s old enemy took new shape as Coalition Forces continued to occupy the country and attempted to mold an ally from the ashes of Arab Nationalism in Iraq. 

The anti-coalition activities of the Pasdaran or Guardians (IRGC) in Iraq is an indisputable fact.  The ever increasing lethality and sophistication of explosive devices and insurgent targeting scenarios in the occupied region are no doubt the result of an attempt by the Iranian regime to influence the outcome of the Iraqi situation and produce a more amicable neighbor.  Iranian political influence in the form of repatriated Iraqi refugees indoctrinated in the revolutionary ideologies of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has infected every stage of development in Iraq’s self-governance since the original post Saddam era constitution.  The withdrawal of US forces from the country will remove the only viable counterpoint to Persian intervention in Iraq.  Whether one agrees with the reasons for engaging in military operations in the Middle East or not, it is imperative that we finish what we started, or prepare our children to face the consequences of our inaction.  As with any unfinished business, failure to complete a particular task creates an opportunity for others to fulfill their own agenda, and Iran will not waste this opportunity. 

Political upheaval, however, has the affect of forcing a countries’ leadership to focus inward and relinquish foreign policy goals, at least temporarily, in favor of ensuring domestic stability.  In the absence of a moderating authority, Iraq’s burgeoning democracy might not survive the strategy of the Pasdaran and the mullahs in Iran, or even that of the Sunni insurgency.  But in the case of the Islamic Republic, sustained internal conflict could sideline Persian foreign policy objectives in Iraq, biding time for democratic development and giving Iraqi forces a chance to stabilize the country unhindered by Iranian intervention.  The recent revolutionary tenor in Iran seems a convenient coincidence for western powers if one of the military goals is to limit Iran’s influence in Iraq.  Iranian leadership has directly contributed the current conflict in Iran to US meddling, to be read as “the clandestine activities of western intelligence agencies hostile to the Islamic Revolution”.  The Supreme Leader recently went so far as to call the United Kingdom “the most evil” of foreign powers, provoking historic suspicion of British involvement in the coup d’état that deposed Muhammad Mossadeq, Prime Minister of Iran of between 1951 and 1953. 

If it is true that the current circumstances surrounding the Iranian people’s indignation toward the regime are due to western backed clandestine operations, those operations have been facilitated by the close proximity of Coalition Forces in the region to sources of vital information otherwise unavailable.  It is ignorant to think that the “War on Terror” was designed to create an environment in which western powers could attempt a coup against the Iranian regime.  Yet if the West is involved with the situation in Iran, President Obama’s disinclination to commit to a stance on the issue aside from supporting Iranian democracy could be akin to Oliver Twist’s Fagin playing “the gentleman” while the Artful Dodger worked to fill the masters pockets. An issue as sensitive as the post-election violence in Iran requires delicate diplomatic handling, especially if the left hand is intent on appearing ignorant of the right hand’s activities.

“There is no resolution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.”  Article 13 of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement

HAMAS

HAMAS, which translated means “zeal” in Arabic, is an acronym that stands for Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, or the Islamic Resistance Movement.  HAMAS is a Palestinian Sunni (Sunni as in Al Qaeda and the Taliban vs the Shia based Hezballah, Mahdi Army, or IRGC) paramilitary organization and political party which gained control of the majority of the parliamentary seats in the Palestinian National Authority in Gaza, during the summer of 2006.  HAMAS was started in 1987 (the first Intifada) by three men, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of the Islamic extremist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood.  (Both Yassin and al Rantissi were assassinated as the result of Israeli airstrikes on 22 March and 17 April 2004, respectively.  Mohammad Taha was released to Palestinian authorities in May of 2004, after 14 months of incarceration by Israeli Defense Forces).

Notorious for its numerous suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli civilians and security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services throughout the West Bank and Gaza [similar to the activities of Hezballah in Lebanon that have won that organization its acclaim among the Lebanese people].  Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.  Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious or anti-Semitic.  However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories.[1]  

There have been many attempts through the years to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table with some measure of success from the more moderate leaders of the Palestinian Authority.  Bearing the olive branch at more than one of these events has been former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in what seems his life’s ambition, to see resolution to the Palestinian problem.  In one of his most recent attempts in April, 2008 President Carter told the Israel Council on Foreign Relations in Jerusalem, “If the agreement calls for a two-state solution and the recognition of Israel and Palestine, Hamas will, in effect, recognize Israel, if the people agree on the plan”.[2]  However, HAMAS has committed itself to the disruption any peace initiatives involving the recognition of Israel by re-instigating violence in the Gaza Strip time and time again.

What President Carter does not understand is that HAMAS will never truly recognize any legitimacy associated with the state of Israel.  HAMAS favors the creation of a Palestinian nation on land that now includes Israel rather than the two-state solution suggested by the U.S. backed peace plan known as the Road Map.  One of the opening statements of HAMAS’ Charter even declares Israel’s destruction as imminent and intimates this as one of the organization’s goals.  “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (attributed to Hassan al Banna, an Egyptian cleric and the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which HAMAS claims its origins).

HAMAS has shown its resistance toward any peace initiative which might involve the recognition of Israel with numerous attempts to derail the peace process using suicide bombers and rocket attacks perpetrated against members of Israel’s civilian population.  With the hostile intentions of this extremist Palestinian militant group fairly well exhibited by its statements in the organization’s charter, as well as the numerous examples of armistice abrogation and terrorist activities, current events in Gaza beg the question, is the intensity of Israel’s actions justifiable? 

Tactics

In order to understand Israel’s “shock and awe” tactics in the current conflict I think we must take into consideration several factors.  One, Israel has something to prove after Hezballah claimed victory at the end of the 2006 war in Lebanon.  Two, the result of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections could signal a change in U.S. foreign policy which may negatively impact U.S. support for Israel.  Three, Hamas can be considered an instrument for facilitating the future foreign policy designs of Syria and Iran.  All these factors (and too many others to mention in detail here) amount to Israel being surrounded by enemies with vacillating support from her former benefactor and the rumor of clink in her armor, once thought to be impervious by her hostile neighbors. 

That being said, asking the question of whether or not Israel’s actions are justifiable essentially amounts to asking how do you justify collateral damage?  An eye for an eye?  Should Israel stop its offensive when it has killed as many innocent Palestinians as innocent Israelis have been killed in terror attacks perpetrated by Palestinians?  This is a ridiculous question, but the reason it seems ridiculous is because Israel’s intent (or at least stated purpose) is not to harm innocent civilians whereas, the suicide bombs and rocket attacks by Hamas are purposely directed at creating civilian casualties.  That is the motivation behind terrorism; to create havoc, promote instability and instill fear in those who are so blindly hated.  Let’s look at some numbers.

The death toll (as of January 4, 2009) in Gaza as a result of the current conflict has reached 500, with Palestinian and U.N. officials claiming at least 100 civilians among the dead[3].  Yet the number of Israeli non-combatant civilian deaths perpetrated by Palestinians in the second Intifada (from September 2000 to the present) attributed to Hamas alone reached approximately 295 individuals.[4]  (This does not include Israeli casualties attributed to other Palestinian extremist organizations such as al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Islamic Jihad.)  And the numbers for Palestinian deaths attributable to internecine fighting are even more startling.

Palestinian INTRA-fada

During the first Intifada against Israel in 1987-1993, intra-Palestinian violence was rampant in Gaza, due to fears of Israeli collaborators within the Palestinian population.  This violence accounted for almost half of the Palestinian death toll.  B’Tselem, an Israeli non-governmental organization (NGO) which also calls itself “The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories” reports that during the second Intifada through April 30, 2008 there were 577 Palestinians killed by Palestinians. Of those, 120 were Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel.  In addition, according to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers “2004 Global Report on the Use of Child Soldiers”, there were at least nine documented suicide attacks involving Palestinian minors between October 2000 and March 2004.[5]

With renewed fighting between Israel and HAMAS, the current Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority and HAMAS leader Ismail Haniya, has issued statements calling for a third Intifada against the state of Israel.  And since fighting began on December 27, 2008, HAMAS has executed 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel.[6]  How many of those individuals are included in the official estimates and who are their deaths attributed to?

According to a January 2003 Humanist magazine article:[7]

For over a decade the PA has violated Palestinian human rights and civil liberties by routinely killing civilians—including collaborators, demonstrators, journalists, and others—without charge or fair trial. Of the total number of Palestinian civilians killed during this period by both Israeli and Palestinian security forces, 16 percent were the victims of Palestinian security forces. …According to Freedom House’s annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, Freedom in the World 2001-2002, the chaotic nature of the Intifada along with strong Israeli reprisals has resulted in a deterioration of living conditions for Palestinians in Israeli-administered areas. The survey states: “Civil liberties declined due to: shooting deaths of Palestinian civilians by Palestinian security personnel; the summary trial and executions of alleged collaborators by the Palestinian Authority (PA); extra-judicial killings of suspected collaborators by militias; and the apparent official encouragement of Palestinian youth to confront Israeli soldiers, thus placing them directly in harm’s way.”

The Palestinian problem is far from over as history will show.  Yet Israel may succeed in crippling the heavily armed Hamas if the international community can stand the site of innocent Palestinian blood as impassively as it overlooks the site of innocent Israeli blood.  If Israel were able to distribute the number of casualties over time as Hamas has would the world be so outraged by their actions?  Why is it acceptable to murder 300 innocent people over an eight year period yet utterly condemnable to retaliate in such a manner that 100 innocent people are killed over an eight day period?  How do you justify the death of innocent people?  The answer is you don’t, no matter who it is.

Note:  Since the beginning of the most recent ceasefire, HAMAS has smuggled an estimated 80 tons of explosives, road side bombs and long range rockets into Gaza across the 8 mile long border with Egypt.[8] 

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” ~H. L. Menckin

[1] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[2] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/21/mideast/carter.php

[3] http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art200901053301418

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_civilian_casualties_in_the_Second_Intifada

[5] http://www.child-soldiers.org/home; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#cite_note-CSGR2004-292-2

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

[7] Violence among the Palestinians”. By Erika Waak. Humanist. Jan-Feb 2003.

[8] http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1204