Articles - 2009 — Interfaith Strength

It’s Up to Us!

Originally published on December 23, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

After the population transfers that accompanied partition, Hindus accounted for about a third of the East Pakistani population (1948). When East Pakistan became Bangladesh, they were about a fifth (1971). Today, they are down to nine percent. In the past 60 years, how many UN resolutions were passed about it? How many outraged world leaders spoke out about it? How many times did Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch protest it? The Hindus of Bangladesh are being wiped out, and no one seems to care. Waiting for those world bodies to do the right thing about this will accomplish nothing but to insure the death of Bangladesh’s Hindu community—just as it has done for Pakistan’s Hindus. And now that we know this, we each have a choice: either act courageously and relentlessly to stop the slaughter; or do nothing and be complicit in it.

In February, I will again stand with my Hindu brothers and sisters in the illegal refugee camps of West Bengal and Assam; and in cities like Delhi, Siliguri, and Guwahati. Not only will I do this to show them that somebody does care, but also to continue gathering evidence of these atrocities for people in Washington who are beginning to take notice. Already two government human rights bodies are receiving the information and promising to act on it. Already members of the House and Senate are recognizing the atrocities and that what happens over there determine what happens here. An end to the atrocities is within our grasp; we need only seize it, and you can be part of it.

The American Hindu community and particularly Hindu youth, is the key. If they actively seek justice here and abroad and refuse to be complicit in these atrocities; our future will be secured. The United States—our United States—is the key because we recognize our obligation to stop the killing, and the US is the most effective entity to get it done. When I bring this matter before different bodies, they frequently ask why, if things are so severe, are Hindus themselves not up in arms. My answer is that they are but like everyone else need a focused effort to turn outrage into effective action. The coming months will have many people can act right now:

1. As the United States considers legislation that affects the Bangladeshi Hindus, we must tell lawmakers that their votes are literally a matter of life and death; and that we expect our lawmakers to stand on the side of life. We can do that only if we are prepared with an organization that can mobilize phone calls to every Congressional District in the country. We need volunteers to be part of that calling chain—to make calls themselves but and get others to do the same. The method is simple, but only you can build the chain of moral outrage that will save millions of lives.

2. While real atrocities occur all the time, many of the reports I receive are suspect. Winning the respect and attention of people in Washington requires that we give them only accurate information and are on solid ground when they receive the expected lies and denials from the perpetrators. We need volunteers to help sort through the information, put it in a format that people can use (and which I will provide); and ultimately allow us to verify or refute the information.

3. Children and students are compelling. Depending on your current level of schooling, we can organize lectures and seminars, vigils and marches, pen pals for Hindu children in the camps, and so forth.

4. And like everything else, this takes money. You can donate to my not-for-profit NGO or get others to do so by going to my web site, http://www.interfaithstrength.com, and clicking the “Donate” link. All contributions to Forcefield are tax deductible.

Remember your choice: Take a stand to save Hindu lives now or cry over the dead bodies later. Contact me atdrrbenkin@comcast.net or on Facebook.

Stop Ethnic Cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus—and radical Islam

Speech by Dr. Richard Benkin to Hindu Mahasabha, December 5, 2009, Houston, TX.

Dr. Richard Benkin

What is happening to Bangladeshi Hindus is a crime against humanity. What is worse is the complicity of the government of Bangladesh it that crime. What is even worse than that is the world’s silence about it; especially shameful is India’s silence; and especially important is the United States’ silence. But as terrible as all of that is, we must also understand that it is part of something bigger—international jihad. To stop this crime not only saves lives and prevents genocide but also strikes a blow to the most evil and corrupt movement of the 21st century: international jihad and radical Islam.

This is an important battle in a greater war—which is how we must treat it. What should our strategy be? Many, including our current US President, have counseled “outreach” and finding a way, as he put it, “to turn old foes into friends.” But that is the deadly sort of thinking that has made our enemies appear strong—just as those who counseled the same strategy in the Cold War against communism. We need to reject them as President Ronald Reagan did:

“Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.”

And that is what happened. All we need is the will and we will defeat our enemies, too. That is why we are here, and that is the only reason why we have any business being here. Empty talk strengthens our enemies. Our mantra must be: “The only reason to meet is to act, and the only reason to act is to succeed.”

So let us begin first by getting ready for battle:

1. We need a focus. You will never get people to respond to abstract concepts or gigantic issues. We need to break them down into achievable goals that every decent human being can support—regardless of party, regardless of political philosophy; so worthy in fact, that those who do not support it will reveal themselves as morally bankrupt. There can be more appropriate or worthy goal than putting an end to ethnic cleansing; than stopping the horrors visited upon innocent men, women, and children by a racist enemy: END THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF BANGLADESHI HINDUS.

2. We need to be organized. Many individuals are just that, many individuals. But an organized group commands attention. And that principle holds whether our efforts are underway in the United States, India, or anywhere else where we will fight.

3. We have to have defined goals; and specific objectives. Even people who want to help will not if we do not ask them for the right things.

4. We have to get others involved. And we do so not just by getting them interested, but also by getting them involved immediately. Even people who want to help will not if we do not give them specific things to do.

5. We must be confident, passionate, and audacious. Our enemies are fond of hyperbole and do not mind looking like idiots. Show them that we are just as passionate and formidable as they are but are not idiots.

6. We must be tireless and relentless. Our enemies are and they are convinced that we do not have the passion or courage to carry on the fight or stand forever on principle. Wherever I have been successful, I have outlasted them. Wherever we have failed, we confirmed their belief. And we must never compromise with murderers!

So, those are our principles. How do we put them into practice? There are three basic tracks: Public Policy and Public Relations. Although the two need to be worked on as separate tasks, they overlap and tend to build on one another. And all the time, we need to capitalize on any resource we have to Organize and Grow—in the background while the others are very public, but constant and relentless.

Public Policy

We begin with the understanding that there is no internal dynamic within the Bangladeshi government—regardless of party—that will lead to a just solution to Bangladesh’s ethnic cleansing of minorities or appeasement of jihadis. That means we have to rely on others to create a situation that makes doing the right thing in the interests of the powers in Dhaka. There are separate public policy tracks for the United States, India, the United Nations, and other countries.

Bangladesh is a nation that is extremely vulnerable in that it is dependent on aid from the outside, as well as continued purchases of its exports. Its high contribution of UN peacekeepers has become critical to the nation’s economy and social stability. Each of these vulnerabilities are pressure points that we can use to force Bangladesh to stop supporting murder and injustice. And there are specific ways to do it with specific actions such as lobbying, resolutions, organized vote banks, public demonstration, and so forth. Alone, I have been able to help stop pro-Bangladeshi trade legislation in the United States. Imagine what we can do together!

In all cases, the activities must be planned, coordinated, and compelling so that no one in power will be able to dismiss them. If we use tried and true methods—and stick with them—we will be able to stop the slaughter.

Public Relations

Outside of a small group, very few people beyond the Indian subcontinent know about this, and many of them either do not care or even want to see it continue. We have to change that with a directed and organized program of speeches, public demonstrations, protest actions, articles, outreach, news interviews, winning the support of high visibility individuals who will speak for our cause. But the process is long and hard and fraught with failures and tiny successes. It must be compelling and relentless. Above all, we must never be afraid to be thought impolite!

The program must be international in scope focusing on the United States, India, Canada, Australia, and Europe.

Organize and Grow

Ultimately, the success of many activities depends on numbers; on how many people seem motivated enough to do something about the situation. Each locality provides a unique set of challenges and opportunities. For instance, as I traveled North and Northeast India, meeting with Bangladeshi Hindu refugees; I noticed that several lakh were living in “refugee camps.” That provides an easy structure to organize actions. In the United States, we are divided into Congressional districts. One prominent Congressman has said that any Member of Congress who gets at least ten phone calls fro constituents on any issue will take notice and likely vote that way. It is not quite that easy, but we have natural structures here for organizing people who can be mobilized on a particular issue at a moment’s notice.

People also are hungry to help but need to be given directions on how to help; once they do, we can see how interested they are in taking on other duties, even leadership. It all depends on good organization.

This intense seminar is designed to take these ideas and immediately turn them into action that we all can participate in creating.

Our job will be to make the Bangladeshi’s appear to be the “bad guys” that they are. (What else do you call people who are willing to tolerate murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing?) We can do that, too, because it is the truth. Our other concern is this. We often seem to be losing or not making gains in the war against radical Islam because they set an agenda and we follow it. We have to change that dynamic. We have to show them up for who they are—and show up anyone who is willing to appease them—and make them react to us.

Keeping Afghanistan the “Good War”k

(Originally published September 1, 2009 in Canada Free Press)

By Dr. Richard Benkin

I have a good friend who fought in the 1968 Vietnam Tet Offensive. He talks about how, in the battle’s aftermath, he and his buddies patrolled the streets of Hue City, site of some of the most intensive fighting. He describes walking on the bodies of dead North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers piled several layers high in the strategic provincial capital, and is also quick to remind me that Tet was a stunning military victory for the United States; that in fact, the US did not lose a single military encounter for the rest of the war.

Yet, most Americans at the time saw Tet as a defeat, and it was a turning point in America’s resolve to continuing pressing the war in Southeast Asia. In part, this was due to what is now accepted as uniformly distorted coverage by the US media; but while that coverage was critical to the enemy’s success, it was not the most critical factor. The real problem, my friend said, was that the administration of President Lyndon Johnson even several years into the war continued to give the public overly optimistic, often inaccurate information, leading it to believe that the enemy was incapable of launching such an offensive. Thus, according to the late Peter Braestrup, the administration’s reaction to Tet was, “defensive” and Johnson “psychologically defeated [by] the onslaught on the cities of Vietnam.

”Switch to today. Is the United States just one “Tet” away from the same thing happening to the war in Afghanistan? As the tenure of the Bush administration wore on, many Americans came to see Afghanistan as “the good war” and Iraq as “the bad war”; a theme that the Obama Administration continues to reinforce. We heard this false dichotomy as a consistent drumbeat in Obama’s run for the White House and as a centerpiece of his foreign policy since taking office. Now, however, even that fragile hold on what remains of the war on terror is threatened. Poll after poll shows public support for the war eroding. In an August 2009 ABC-Washington Post news poll 51 percent of the respondents said the war was not worth fighting. Only 47 percent said it was, which is down nine points from majority support (56 percent) when Obama took office. An August CNN poll showed a similar decline: 50 to 41 percent just since May.

And consider: the ABC poll also found that 42 percent of Americans think we are winning the war; 36 percent think we are losing. They all see the same information; hear or read the same media. The problem is that they lack clear and measurable objectives by which they can determine how we are doing; and that confusion opens the door for the same frustration that led to the public thinking Tet was a defeat and the war in Southeast Asia not worth fighting.

Dr. Daniel Pipes has been consistently right in his advice on the war against radical Islam, and was perhaps the first warn us of the threat as early as 1983—ten years before the first World Trade Center bombing. Several years ago over lunch, Pipes said that the Iraq-Afghanistan dichotomy existed because of the conflicts’ stated objectives at that time and how people saw them; that the original impetus for Afghanistan was clear, neutralize those responsible for the September 11 terrorist attack; whereas discussions about Iraq always got bogged down in talk of nation building. The current lack of clarity could be the reason behind the latest poll numbers. My own experience both in business and as a human rights activist is that people have a difficult time identifying with large often amorphous goals. They lack concrete markers, and it is difficult to measure success or failure; hence, the 42-36 percent split in public perception. An administration truly committed to winning that war and the greater war on radical Islam can and would fix it by breaking the war down into several manageable objectives, such as:

The assassination or capture of high ranking enemies: The “Saddam” deck of cards did that in the early stages of the Iraq War.

Reduction of identified violence, like suicide bombings, to a specific level: The Israelis successfully did that.

Clearing Al Qaeda and the Taliban from specific localities: This is what the Pakistanis belatedly have tried to do with little success.

Markers that identify the existence of a stable government in Afghanistan as an alternative to the Taliban one we deposed: This is how the United States disengaged from a successful war and post-war effort in Europe.

Afghanistan’s participation in regional alliances, such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), or in bi-lateral agreements with allies like India: It actually happened in 2007, but no one made anything of it!

There are others, but the specific objectives are less important than having them. Whether or not President Obama does anything to correct the current morass will tell us a lot about his commitment to victory. My friend is skeptical. “We’re going to see ‘Afghanization’ from Obama,” he says, “just like we saw ‘Vietnamization’ from Nixon; which is just another way of getting out.”

Shoaib Choudhury Greeted as Human Rights Hero in Washington

Originally published on News From Bangladesh, December 1, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury responds to concerns from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom about his persecution at the hands of the Bangladeshi government

Powerful US Senator Tom Coburn discusses his concerns about the Bangladeshi government’s persecution of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury returned to Washington after a two-year absence the first week in November; and as he had been in the past was greeted as a hero. Although the editor and publisher of Dhaka’s Weekly Blitz, had received the same welcome in the United States capital before, this one was fraught with added significance.Numerous US officials are by now familiar with Shoaib’s plight.

In 2003, Bangladeshi officials arrested him for intending to travel to Israel, exposing the rise of Islamic radicals in Bangladesh, urging Dhaka-Jerusalem relations, and advocating genuine interfaith dialogue based on mutual respect. He was held and tortured for 17 months before the government released him on bail; something they would not have done without my own intervention and that of US Congressman Mark Kirk, now the leading candidate for President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat.

By the time of Shoaib’s release, several Bangladeshi officials had admitted to me and to US officials that there was no substance to the charges and that they were maintained “only for fear of what the radicals would do” if they were dropped in accordance with Bangladeshi law. In a 2005 meeting, the Bangladeshi ambassador told Kirk and me that the case “is purely a personal financial dispute.” He then promised that the government would drop the admittedly false charges “soon.” That was six and a half years ago, and the charges remain. In the meantime, Shoaib has been attacked by radicals and agents of the government. Last year, he was abducted by RAB and held for three hours before—again—our intervention forced them to release him and admit to planting false evidence. Shoaib continues to face charges of sedition, treason, and blasphemy for such things as—and this is according to the court—“praising Christians and Jews.” One can only imagine how that sits with US lawmakers charged with deciding matters like appropriations, tariffs, and bi-lateral relations between the US and Bangladesh.

While in the nation’s capital, Shoaib met with several of those US officials, as well as US government agencies charged with monitoring human rights around the world. One of those agencies, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom USCIRF), has been following the case almost since the beginning. In a meeting we had with them, Commission members and staff were extremely concerned that Shoaib continues to face these charges, even though the Bangladeshi government has failed to produce a shred of credible evidence in the six years plus the case has been active. As Shoaib answered questions about the legal proceedings—and how they have become more intense and more frequent since the new government took power—we could see our audience writing feverishly, notes that ultimately would enter into their judgments about Bangladesh’s commitment to human rights and religious freedom. Follow that discussion, I provided USCIRF with verified documentation of increased attacks on minorities in Bangladesh since January. USCIRF is charged under US law “to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments, and to give independent policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress.”

USCIRF’s concerns take on an even greater significance after the Commission upgraded Bangladesh’s status after the free and fair elections that returned the nation to democratic rule. The change was not only a recognition of that return but also done in expectation that the new Awami League government would put an end to the sort of human rights abuses from which Bangladeshis had suffered in the past. The fact that things have not improved, and in fact have worsened, is the cause of a great deal of concern.

That same concern was evident as Shoaib and I met with individual lawmakers and their staffs. For some time, Shoaib has enjoyed a great deal of support in the United States Congress, as evidence by the 2007 Congressional vote expressing that support. The tally was 409 to 1 in favor of the legislation that has remained a lynchpin in stopping various pieces of legislation. Since that time, for instance, there have been at least six attempts in the United States House and Senate to pass legislation that would provide Bangladesh with tariff relief and trade benefits. As time passes, such relief becomes ever more critical to the Bangladeshi economy given the large US market for garments and other goods. Currently, however, Bangladesh is at a disadvantage compared to other garment exporting countries—like Guatemala and Honduras, which have a Free Trade Agreement with the United States; and exporting giants like India and China, which can undercut Bangladeshi pricing because of large volume. And in fact, each year, these nations get an ever-increasing share of the US garment market at Bangladesh’s expense.

We also met with staff of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the United States House of Representatives (TLHRC). The TLHRC is a non-partisan commission of Democrats and Republicans committed to investigating human rights abuses worldwide. Like USCIRF, the TLHRC has an impeccable reputation in Washington for being objective and having no particular ideology or agenda. Its findings are considered authoritative and often influence the way US lawmakers vote. Currently, the TLHRC is looking into the possibility of holding hearings on the oppression of minorities in Bangladesh and especially the current governments refusal to prosecute the perpetrators thereby giving a green light for further attacks.

Prior to January, Bangladeshi apologists often responded to US concerns about Shoaib’s persecution by attributing the human rights abuses to “previous governments” or “the BNP-Jamaat government.” And in fact, the propaganda line emanating from Bangladesh and its lobbyists has been that the current government is “different” and committed to move the country away from its more recent history of minority oppression and tacit support for Islamist radicals. The fact that, if anything, the opposite has turned out to be the case is extremely troubling for many in the United States. Consider Obama’s outreach to Muslim-majority countries and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s September meeting with Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Dipu Moni. While Clinton had kind words for Bangladesh, when the matter of trade and similar matters arose, she said she would “consider” it but indicted that nothing would be forthcoming soon. The actions of the current Bangladeshi government have almost killed the promise with which it was greeted by the United States and other countries.

In fact, most people see Washington today as a city struggling with a partisan split between Democrats and Republicans—and not only Americans. In 2006 and 2008, some people in Dhaka and at its embassy in Washington were openly cheering for Mark Kirk to be defeated in the Democratic victories that year. Instead, Shoaib Choudhury’s Congressional champion won re-election and emerged as one of the most powerful officials in Barack Obama’s home state. Yet, over the past several months, there has been increasing support for Shoaib and concern over the Awami League government’s oppression of minorities among the leadership in both parties; and during his Washington trip, Shoaib and I were invited to meet with them. The result: no matter how partisan things might get, Democrats and Republicans agree on at least one thing. The charges against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury represent a serious human rights violation—even under Bangladesh’s own laws—and must be dropped before that country will see any increased aid, trade benefits, or expanded business relations.

Dr. Richard L. Benkin is an author and human rights activist. He is President of a new human rights NGO, Forcefield. Richard Benkin is and He has been the principal defender of Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and is responsible for securing his release in 2005. Benkin is currently working on a book about the oppression of Bangladeshi Hindus entitled, “A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing.” His web site is http://www.InterfaithStrength.com.
E Mail : drrbenkin@comcast.net

Dissident Watch: Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

Originally published in The Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury's struggle in Bangladesh has played out dramatically: his 2003 arrest; his 2005 release;[1] middle of the night battles to prevent his re-incarceration; accolades for his stance as a "Muslim Zionist";[2] and resolutions from the U.S. Congress and others in 2006 and 2007.[3] Things have now settled into a Kafkaesque routine without visible end, one where the process is the punishment.

Already unpopular with Bangladeshi Islamists, whose madrasas (Islamic schools) he exposed as centers for radicalization,[4]Choudhury infuriated them in 2003 by breaking his country's clampdown on positive news about Israel and Jews.[5] On November 29, as he made to board a plane for Israel, the authorities moved against him, seizing him, taking his passport, and placing him in solitary confinement.[6]

His interrogators daily dragged him from his cell and tortured him, demanding he confess to being a Mossad agent.[7] For seventeen months, they denied him adequate food, medical care, and sanitary conditions; in Stalinist fashion, they placed him in a wing for the criminally insane.[8] Crowds pressured his family to denounce him. They beat his brother, who complained to the police, but the authorities backed off, blaming the Choudhurys as allies of the Jews.[9]

After his April 30, 2005 release, Choudhury continued to publish, despite periodic attacks. He has said, "If I went through this and stopped now, it would be worth nothing."[10] Last year, he was abducted by Bangladesh's Rapid Action Battalion,[11] whose captives often "disappear," but pressure from supporters forced his release within hours.

This February, operatives of Bangladesh's ruling party beat him and sequestered his newspaper office. Police never ordered Choudhury's attackers to quit the premises, and as of this writing, still refuse to prosecute them though they carried out their crimes openly and with police knowledge.[12]

Choudhury faces capital charges of "sedition, treason, and blasphemy"[13] despite government admissions that they maintain these only to appease their Islamists.[14] The 2009 elections and a new government changed nothing. May 26, 2009, marked Choudhury's fifty-second court appearance in forty-nine months. The authorities forced him to wait outside the courtroom for hours, only to be told that his case was continued because the government's sole witness did not show.[15] Such prosecution drains his economic and emotional resources even as the possibility of incarceration or execution looms over him.

Choudhury's supporters in and out of the U.S. Congress have blocked trade legislation benefiting Bangladesh, threatened its appropriations, and passed a resolution urging Bangladesh to drop the charges and end Choudhury's harassment.[16] "We've done everything except send in the Marines," said one U.S. official.[17]

Despite its being the world's seventh most populous country, Bangladesh has never been a high U.S. priority. Henry Kissinger's quip about Bangladesh being "an international basket case" still undermines U.S. interest. But Bangladesh, a breeding ground for Islamist terrorists, has strategic importance, and Choudhury's case has implications that go beyond justice for one individual. To overcome U.S. apathy and win justice for him requires three initiatives:

1) Implementation of previous Foreign Appropriations language to cut aid for noncompliance with U.S. House Resolution 64 by continuing the admittedly false prosecution and Choudhury's harassment.

2) Rejection of proposed legislation offering tariff relief and other trade benefits.

3) Exclusion of Bangladesh from U.N. peacekeeping missions, to which it provides more troops than any country save Pakistan.

Richard L. Benkin is an independent human rights activist. He blogs at InterfaithStrength.com.

[1] The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 21, 2006.
[2] The Forward (New York), Sept. 7, 2007.
[3] U.S. House Resolution 64, Mar. 13, 2007; European Parliament Resolution on Bangladesh, European Parliament, Strasbourg, Nov. 16, 2006; "Foreign Affairs. Bangladesh. Mr Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, 3476," Journals of the Senate, no. 131, Australian Senate, Feb. 27, 2007.
[4] Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, "Incubating Ultra-Radicalism," Oct. 19, 2003, Mid East Web, accessed June 22, 2009.
[5] Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, "The Media and a Culture of Peace," undelivered speech to have been presented to the Hebrew Writers' Association, Tel Aviv, Dec. 3, 2003.
[6] The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 21, 2006.
[7] Author interview with former prison guard, Dhaka, Jan. 14, 2007.
[8] The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), Dec. 26, 2006.
[9] Author telephone conversation with Sohail Choudhury, Jan. 20, 2004.
[10] Author telephone conversation with Shoaib Choudhury, Chicago-Dhaka, Apr. 30, 2005.
[11] The Huffington Post, June 5, 2009.
[12] The Huffington Post, Feb. 27, 2009.
[13] Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, "And They Wish to Shut Our Voice," Countercurrents.org, Apr. 27, 2007.
[14] Author and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk's interview with Bangladeshi ambassador Shamsher Chowdhury, Washington, D.C., Apr. 8, 2005.
[15] "Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury," Interfaith Strength, accessed June 26, 2009.
[16] U.S. House Resolution 64, Mar. 13, 2007.
[17] Author conversation, Washington, D.C., Apr. 24, 2009.

Islamists Gaining under Awami League in Bangladesh

Originally published in South Asia Forum, October 4, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Ever since the Awami League’s ascension to power in Bangladesh, there has been a regular cottage industry of apologists claiming that the left-center government will navigate the country away from patronizing Islamists and oppression minorities. If anything, things have worsened under Sheikh Hasina and her cronies. Violence against minorities is not only increasing but becoming more severe–and open–day by day. I have vetted numerous allegations and have established a severe anti-minority action in Bangladesh at the rate of about one per week and a half. The real figures probably are higher.

Now, Muslim dissident journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury reports on new evidence of how open pro-Islamist rhetoric is, including the demonization of other religions–things far worse than what their allied decry as “hate speech.”

Shoaib has been arrested and tortured as a result of his pro-US, pro-Israel, and anti-Islamist actions; and still faces capital charges of treason, sedition, and blasphemy.

He writes from Dhaka,”Hizbut Towhid, a notorious Islamist group in BANGLADESH, recently published a book and DVD named DAJJAL, which is sold openly in all major bookstores in this country.

“This book is written by Selim Ponni, the kingpin of this group. He terms Jews and Christians as “enemies of humanity” and asks people to start JIHAD against Jews and Christians. This is an extremely provocative book and DVD.

“I am surprised, how Awami League, which proclaims to be a secularist party is allowing this. Hizbut Towhid never could sell such hate materials openly before.

For those who look at that and say, “free speech,” you might be missing the point. We can put aside the debate on whether or not governments should censor “hate speech,” which is what Hizbut and other Islamist groups offer their readers. Shoaib’s points are two. The first is that Islamists are more powerful and can spew their hatred openly. (Were this book and DVD an isolated incident, it might not be enough to conclude that, but taken with the uptick in anti-minority activity and Islamist strength, it is significant.) The second is that we are letting our enemy socialize the Muslim world for jihad by default–just because the US is occupied with serious domestic battles, like health care, does not mean our enemies have stopped their nefarious deeds, the worst of which have little to do with the crisis in Iran.

Third, the Awami League continues to lie with a straight face, telling the world that none of this is happening. The PM has lied again and again about repealing the racist Vested Property Act (VPA) and other anti-minority legislation on the books. (The VPA allows the government to seize non-Muslim property and distribute it to its Muslim cronies.) Just this month, US Secretary of State continued the fiction with a syrupy sweet speech about the Awami League’s democratic and moderate Islam ideals. What nonsense! Worse, it gives the Awami League the notion that it is getting away with ethnic cleansing and supporting the worst jihadists while telling a gullible West that it is fighting both!

The Smuggling of cattle must stop

Originally published in The Pioneer, October 5, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Investigations have shown that cattle-smugglers are facilitating anti-India activities. Sadly, security forces turn a blind eye to crimes committed along the border with Bangladesh

The Pioneer recently ran a piece by Anuradha Dutt (“Criminal Slaughter,” September 23) about smuggling of cows from India into Bangladesh. Anuradha Dutt has questioned how it could be done so easily, since “these bulky animals are difficult to overlook in the course of their journey.” One answer: “The laissez faire attitude of the Congress, socialist and Communist parties to the vital issue of protecting these gentle creatures.” Her argument is compelling, and having just completed an investigation into this criminal enterprise, I would add two more: Corruption and jihad, South Asia’s two great scourges.

Early this year, two men contacted Bikash Halder, my Indian representative who works with me to stop Bangladesh’s ethnic cleansing of Hindus. They said they had important information, so we arranged a late-night clandestine meeting in Kolkata with the two, ‘Rahul’ and ‘Samir’. Rahul began by saying how he previously did unspecified work for intelligence agencies that involved frequent trips between India and Bangladesh. Whatever it was, however, it did not bear fruit, and the agencies dispensed with his services; but he stayed in the area and like Samir bought a house near the Bangladesh border. “After 10 pm you can see everything,” they said; specifically, cattle going out of India in exchange for arms and Islamists coming in, and members of the West Bengal Police involved in the transactions.

In fact, Rahul said that the smugglers were jihadis (something he claimed to know from his earlier forays) whose success depended on corrupt Indian officials. Both men were so insistent that they invited us to spend the night with them and see for ourselves. While I had commitments outside West Bengal and eventually had to return to the United States, Halder took them up on their offer this summer.

He travelled to the Bongaon and Basirhat sub-divisions of North 24 Parganas where he met our informants. Since Samir told us in Kolkata that he could see the illicit activity from the back of his house, Halder went to their homes and waited with them for nightfall. Shortly after 10 pm, he confirmed what they reported in Kolkata: Cattle being taken brazenly from India to Bangladesh. It was not Halder’s first encounter with cattle-smuggling.

“It is a usual matter in the India-Bangladesh border area,” he said, adding that the proceeds from “cattle-smuggling are the main support for jihadi activities.” He also uncovered evidence of what he termed “an industry” that floods India with Islamists, arms, and other contraband. “Smugglers are linked to militias on both sides of the border,” Halder said. These arrangements make the police, who are supposed to enforce the law, nothing more than paid armed escorts for those who are breaking it.

He already knew that the West Bengal Police were involved in cattle-smuggling, but his observations from the back of Samir’s house and subsequent investigations showed more extensive complicity. “I have seen the following scenario. Top to bottom, security personnel take bribes. Some agents of both Indian and Bangladeshi agencies are involved with smuggling, and both of them shelter jihadis coming into India.”

He also uncovered evidence of financial ties between higher level authorities in the West Bengal Police. “I know it personally,” he insisted. “Every local police station in West Bengal has a person called a ‘Dak Master’, who collects the bribes.” Much of that, he said, comes from brokers who bring in Bangladeshis illegally, often with the help of BSF personnel. “Frequently, I have faced those incidents,” he said.

In 2008, we observed the same BSF complicity in the tiny town of Panitanki on the India-Nepal border. A bridge over the Mechi River allows people and vehicles to cross freely. As a steady stream of trucks, covered wagons, and men carrying large packages entered India, my Bengali colleagues would point to one and say ‘arms’; to another and say ‘drugs.’ “That one has counterfeit bank notes,” one said, “a big smuggling business.

The illegal activity was so open that even I became adept at identifying the contraband. No one seemed concerned even though the area is notorious for smuggling and a known entry point for Islamist and Maoist terrorists into India. No one checked any packages or stopped a single individual — until I pulled out my camera. As we passed a pile of sandbags, two soldiers emerged and brandished their rifles and demanded I put away my camera. I protested vehemently until they threatened to confiscate it.

In exchange for putting it away, I asked them to let me cross the bridge into Nepal. They demurred, insisting that as an American I needed a Nepalese visa to cross, even though third country nationals frequently take rickshaws or other conveyances into Nepal. But they let me walk to the border in the centre of the bridge where it became clear why the soldiers did not want me taking pictures. The flow of contraband was heavy, continuous, and open. We also saw people running across the dried river bed on either side of the bridge, many carrying large parcels.

While our enemies do this for a principle, these officials do it for nothing more than money: Changing the demographics along the border, compromising India’s security, and throwing away one of its greatest legacies in its reverence for life.

-- The writer campaigns for minority rights in Bangladesh.

Egyptians Prove Jewish Presence in Ancient Middle East

Originally published in Weekly Blitz, September 30, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

While most of the world occupied itself with their leaders at the United Nations and other venues, where their meetings and pious statements will have little or no real impact; they missed what could perhaps be an earth shaking scientific discovery: Egyptian scientists found ancient Egyptian coins that bore the name and image of the Jewish biblical sage, Joseph.

According to the Jewish holy book, the Torah, Joseph was the great-grandson of Abraham, the first Jew, who rose to become most powerful person in Egypt after the Pharoah by saving the Egyptians from a famine. It was Joseph who brought the Israelites from their ancient homeland in modern-day Israel to Egypt. The saga of Jewish slavery in Egypt, followed by their defeat of the Egyptians at the hands of God, their freedom, and under the leadership of Moses, their return to Israel, is the central narrative of Jewish religion and history.

The discovery was reported in the leading Egyptian daily, Al-Ahram, and translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). The importance of the find is that it debunks those who claim that the narrative was a myth, in large part, to deny that the Jewish people had any historical presence in the Middle East before modern times. It is ironic that these finds by Egyptian scientists help provide proof positive that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

According to the article, “The researchers discovered the coins when they sifted through thousands of small archeological artifacts stored in [the vaults of] the Museum of Egypt. [Initially] they took them for charms, but a thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait.” The scientist noted that along with Joseph’s image the coins bore his two names: Saba Sabani, the Egyptian name Pharaoh gave him when he became Egypt’s treasurer; and his “original name, Joseph.” That is, his Hebrew name, which reinforces the Torah’s narrative that Joseph was a Hebrew and not an Egyptian or member of some other tribe. Thus, the coin establishes the Jewish people’s presence in the Middle East in ancient times.

“Research team head Dr. Sa'id Muhammad Thabet said that during his archeological research on the Prophet Joseph, he had discovered in the vaults of the [Egyptian] Antiquities Authority and of the National Museum many charms from various eras before and after the period of Joseph, including one that bore his effigy as the minister of the treasury in the Egyptian pharaoh's court… This [find] prompted researchers to seek and find Koranic verses that speak of coins used in ancient Egypt, [such as]: “And they sold him [i.e. Joseph] for a low price, a number of silver coins [Koran 12:20].”

“The researcher also pointed out that the coins made of precious metals or stones usually had a hole in them, like a woman's ornament, allowing them to be [worn] around the neck or on the chest. Some of them, which bore images of gods and texts from various prayers or incantations, were treasured belongings that were placed into the bindings of mummies or placed [on the chest, close to] the heart. The coins were scarab-shaped. What made the discovery possible was the fact that 500 of these coins were [recently] discovered in the Museum of Egypt.”

But we have to return to the Joseph coins for the most compelling evidence. In the Torah, Joseph gains Pharaoh’s confidence by interpreting two dreams that God sent to Pharaoh in his sleep. None of the Egyptian wise men or magicians could interpret them. Then Pharaoh’s cup bearer told him that he met a Hebrew who was imprisoned with him and that the Hebrew youth had the power to interpret dreams that no one else could. That Hebrew was none other than Joseph.

“Thereupon Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was rushed from the dungeon… And Pharoah said to Joseph, ‘I dreamed a dream, but no one can interpret it. Now I have heard said that for you to just hear a dream is to know its meaning. Joseph answered Pharaoh saying, ‘Not I! God will bring peace to Pharaoh.” (The Torah, Genesis 41: 14-16).

Pharaoh then told Joseph the dream. Seven healthy cows emerged from the Nile and began grazing on its banks. Soon, however, seven lean and ugly cows came forth from the Nile, and they devoured the healthy cows. Joseph told Pharaoh that his dream meant that Egypt is about to experience seven years of bounty; but they will be followed by seven years of famine that could overcome the abundance of the years of plenty. He told Pharaoh that the dream was a message that God sent so Egypt could prepare for the famine while it was experiencing abundance. So, Pharaoh then appointed Joseph to be his treasurer and gave him total freedom to do whatever was needed to carry out God’s wishes and save Egypt from the famine, which Joseph did.

According to Al Ahram, the scientist working on the project “identified coins from many different periods, including coins that bore special markings identifying them as being from the era of Joseph. Among these, there was one coin that had an inscription on it, and an image of a cow symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows.”

Commentary: More empty words from the Bangladeshi government?

Originally published on Weekly Blitz, September 13, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

On September 11, Weekly Blitz reported that at its 38th meeting, the Bangladeshi cabinet decided “to scrap the Vested Property Act.” If there is some reality to the government’s words, this will be a giant step in moving Bangladesh to its place among respectable nations. For what sort of nation supports a law that provides the fuel for a deliberate system of ethnic cleansing? We should, however, be skeptical about that reality for the history of successive Bangladeshi governments—including every Awami League government—would lead us to be doubtful that the decision is anything but a sham; a sham intended to secure the elusive trade benefits that government action have foreclosed to the Bangladesh people; a sham to prevent the United Nations from ending Bangladeshi participation in peacekeeping ventures; a sham intended to stall for time so that the Awami League can get away without taking action that might alienate the country’s radicals. The Awami League, in fact, bears a greater responsibility for the Vested Property Act [VPA] than any other party.

Although the VPA is a continuation of Pakistan’s Enemy Property Act, which was in force in East Pakistan prior to Bangladesh’s War of Independence; it did not become Bangladeshi law automatically—and did not have to become so. In 1974, however, the Awami League government of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, enshrined the VPA into Bangladeshi law and initiated the decades of abuse and ethnic cleansing that followed as a result. He and the Awami League could have omitted the VPA from Bangladesh’s law but chose instead to make it part of it and harass millions of minorities. That is the legacy of the first Awami League government.

While the Awami took power again in 1996—in part on the backs of its minority supporters—it did nothing to weaken or repeal the act or to bring relief to beleaguered minorities until the eve of its exit from power when it passed the toothless and entirely inadequate Vested Property Return Act of 2001. Even its apologists have admitted that the Act was a cynical attempt to regain the pro-minority mantle, while recognizing that the act would not be implemented—and would not be effective even if it was. Nor has the Awami League ever adequately explained why it did nothing throughout its term of office. That is the legacy of the second Awami League government.

Since the Awami League’s return to power in December 2008—again in part because of minority support—the VPA has raged like never before in Bangladesh. Attacks on minorities have increased, and the attackers are often rewarded with the victims’ property—thanks to the VPA and a government and police force that is complicit in this crime. This spring, I reported that hundreds of Muslims attacked a primarily Dalit community in Dhaka, seized several parcels of property, burned several homes to the ground, destroyed a Hindu temple, and sent several of the poor residents to the hospital, all in the presence of police who accompanied the attackers into the community. They cited the Vested Property Act as the legal basis for the invasion and refused to pursue any case against the attackers even though they witnessed several crimes including beatings, arson, religious desecration, and land grabbing. An Awami League MP also refused to take any action when requested to by human rights organizations. Another Awami MP was also involved in a case of kidnapping and forced conversion of a young Hindu girl in northern Bangladesh. Attacked minorities—Bangladeshis all—continue to stream across the border into India, and I have interviewed many, including a teenage victim of ethnically-based rape. That is the legacy thus far of the third Awami League government.

As pointed out in the Weekly Blitz article, less than two months before the Awami League took power, the Bangladeshi Supreme Court ordered the government “to show cause as to why [the Vested Property Act, which is] in contradiction with the fundamental rights and the charter of declaration of Independence of Bangladesh, should not be declared” unconstitutional. It further asked the government to show cause why lands that were seized under the VPA should not be returned to their original owners. The interim government left it to its successor to respond, leaving the legal basis for immediate repeal of the act in the Awami League’s lap. Yet, it never acted upon it. And as Awami officials sat contentedly, more and more minority property was seized under Bangladesh’s most shameful law; a law responsible for the legal plunder of at least 75 percent of Hindu lands.

In the most authoritative study of the VPA to date, Professor Abul Barkat of Dhaka University showed that the Awami League has received as much of the spoils from looted minority party as has the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)—which exposes the Awami League’s dishonesty in claiming to be the savior of Bangladesh’s minorities and its rival their enemy. In fact, when the Awami League has been in power, it received a greater share of VPA spoils than did the BNP.

During the last election campaign and since then, Sheikh Hasina and others in her party have been promising to take action to end the oppression of minorities but have not taken a single step toward keeping those promises. It was widely reported this past spring that the Prime Minister told the visiting commander of Joint Forces in the Indian Ocean Region that Bangladesh would repeal all anti-minority laws; something it has not done. As a direct result of its inaction, anti-minority agitation is increasing, as is police and government tolerance of it. I investigated and verified 12 separate incidents of government collusion in anti-minority actions in January and February alone. That is one every week and a half, and included land grabbing, abduction, assault, murder, rape, forced conversion, arson, forced conversion, and religious desecration

There is only one measure by which the world can change its deteriorating opinion of the Awami League government and the situation for minorities in Bangladesh; and that is action. Thus far, the action of Sheikh Hasina’s government instills anything but confidence that it has the will or even desire to act. Everyday, law abiding Bangladeshis flee attacks carried out with police or government collusion, often in the name of the VPA or because that law offers the perpetrators material gain in exchange for their atrocities. If it acts, not only will minorities benefit, but it also will signal to the world that Bangladesh finally has turned its back on radical Islamists and has decided to re-enter the global society of civilized nations.

The biggest mistake minorities and human rights groups could make now is to content themselves with mere words and not press for immediate action—action that should have and could have been taken the day the Awami League entered office.

Bangladeshi Hindu Abducted, Forced to Convert to Islam: Update

Originally published on Canada Free Press, September 11, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

I previously reported on the abduction of a young Hindu woman from her family’s home in northern Bangladesh (Bangladeshi Hindu Abducted, Forced to Convert to Islam, Canada Free Press, August 11, 2009). At 12:45am on June 13, five Muslims broke into a home in the village of Ghosai Chandura, vandalized it, and grabbed the 21-year old the college student Koli Goswami from her bed.

She cried out, but the men easily overpowered her. They covered her head to muffle the screams, but not before others in the house heard them and came to her aid. But the perpetrators drove them off with gun fire and carried Koli off even as she struggled to break free. Her family has not seen her since that night.

The Bangladesh Hindu, Buddhist, Christian Unity Council (BHBCUC) first reported the inciden; and two human rights organizations, Global Human Rights Defence (GHRD) and Bangladesh Minority Watch (BDMW) have investigated the incident.

Even though these groups have a history of credibility in these matters, the sad fact is that such reports are often exaggerated. This one is not. Our own investigation confirmed the abduction itself and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh’s complicity in it.

We already knew that the police denied any crime occurred and refused to pursue a case; this despite physical evidence of a break-in, which they admit having; the family’s video taped testimony; the legal complaint lodged by Koli’s guardian; and the family’s pleas for them to help locate and recover their daughter.

Police told GHRD and BDMW representatives, “It is not kidnapping. It is love affairs between kidnapper and victim.” Kidnapper? Victim? That hardly sounds like a love affair.

Yet, police continue to insist that even while refusing to explain the basis for their conclusion, their investigation, or why they dismiss the physical evidence that refutes their claim. Nor can they explain why it took five grown men—including an accused murderer—to “convince” Koli to leave home.

Bikash Halder, my associate in India, led the investigation. He dispatched four men to the family home where they spoke with Koli’s uncle and guardian, Professor Beraj Goswami. He claims to have faced nothing but corruption, duplicity, and collusion in the crime from police.

When he filed a complaint immediately after the kidnapping, he expected quick action given the nature of the crime. Instead, he met with police denial—but still insisted on producing Koli to clarify what happened that night. Instead, they produced suspect “affidavits and other so-called marriage of conversion documents,” dated from the time of the girl’s captivity. The only way to determine their veracity would be for Koli Goswami herself to testify in a safe environment that the documents were not secured under duress.

Instead, Goswami told Halder, the following sequence of events occurred. First, the Investigating Officer agreed to help him in exchange for a 25,000 Taka bribe, which Goswami paid. He ordered him to return to the Nandail police station on June 21 and wait while the police retrieved his niece.

After some time, they returned instead with an older woman in a Muslim burka that covered her identity. She said she was Koli Goswami’s mother and that her daughter converted to Islam because of a love affair—something Koli’s real mother disputed numerous times. Goswami denies that the woman was his sister-in-law, but cannot fathom the attempted deception since he could learn the truth by speaking to the woman he knew to be Koli Goswami’s mother. There is a final, rather chilling element to the June 21 meeting: the local Awami League MP, Retired General Abdus Salam, was present during the episode and threatened Goswami should he proceed with the case any further or dispute the conversion.

Curiously, while the police did not produce Koli that day, they now claim that she was present at a secret hearing held the next, about which the family was never told until after it allegedly occurred. They cannot confirm that their daughter was there or that it even took place. Goswami “protested vehemently” and told Halder that as a result “we are afraid we may further be attacked and our adult daughters abducted.”

What is not in dispute is: there was a home invasion; a family’s daughter was taken and has not been seen since; the alleged perpetrators have been identified and at least one is a known criminal; and the police refuse to pursue a case. We also know that a magistrate and the police claim that Koli converted to Islam, and a government official from the ruling Awami League warned the family to stop fighting it.

The incident itself is a crime, but making matters worse is the fact that it remains a common occurrence in Bangladesh. Victims are universally young women and girls, sometimes boys, of child bearing years or younger, and almost always Hindu or Christian.

Their choice is deliberate and as such, meets the fourth condition of genocide, as described in the international Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Islamists have been following this pattern of ethnic cleansing for years. It is consistent with figures gathered during the period of Arab terror bombings in Israel. They disproportionately bombed places frequented by Israeli Jews of childbearing years or younger, children and even babies especially in Judea and Samaria: clubs like Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv, markets where young mothers shop, shopping malls, and so forth. What Islamists cannot gain because they are militarily weak and morally bankrupt, they try to gain through genocide.

The destruction of Bangladeshi minorities has proceeded apace for decades. There has been no outrage by the supposed guardians of human rights. In its most recent report on Bangladesh, Amnesty International did not even mention the problem. This is not new, but since January, apologists especially on the left, have held that the leftist Awami League government will change things. It is an article of faith with them, and nothing could be further from the truth. There is no internal dynamic among Bangladeshi leaders of any party to end minority oppression.

First, they do not care. The only difference between the Awami League and its nationalist rivals is that the former will say that it is wrong; their actions are the same. Second, neither has the political will to anger Islamists and the votes they control—something that numerous Bangladeshi officials have admitted to me particularly in their refusal to stop their admittedly a false prosecution of pro-US, pro-Israel, and anti-Islamist Muslim Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. And third, the parties, especially the one in power, get too much graft from the property looted from the victims and in the bribes they receive to turn the other way at the criminal acts. Figures again show that the Awami League’s history of collusion in that.

Americans know little about Bangladesh other than its poverty and natural disasters. They do not know that Islamists have taken over the institutions in this third largest Muslim-majority country and that they supply shock troops fighting in several hot spots. And consider this: at the time of the 1947 India-Pakistan partition, Hindus made up almost one third of the population in the territory known today as Bangladesh.

Today, they are but nine percent. That population shift is part and parcel of international jihad, and jihadi organizations including Al Qaeda have found a fertile and save haven in Bangladesh. They now threaten parts of India as well. This is not the Islamist war on civilization that makes headlines in the West, but it is real and growing with the passive and active complicity of the government of Bangladesh, an Islamic republic. Incidents such as that of Koli Goswami are part of it, and if they are not addressed strongly and stopped, they will bring an end to Bangladesh’s minorities in our lifetimes.

For Obama, It’s only human rights if it’s anti-US

Originally published on Canada Free Press, September 7, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Although you would never know it from the mainstream media, many Americans never bought the ridiculous argument that Barack Obama was some sort of human rights activist. In fact, for some of us, he was just the opposite. As reported in an earlier Canada Free Press article (“Obama Sides with Islamists in Choudhury Case”), Obama was the only Washingtonian asked who did not take any action to support Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

In 2003, Shoaib was arrested by Bangladeshi officials after he exposed the rise of radical Islam in his country, urged relations with Israel, and advocated genuine interfaith understanding based on religious equality. For 17 months, I fought to end this Islamist-engineered atrocity until with the help of Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL), we succeeded. Both before and after we did—for his persecution has not stopped and he still faces capital charges for his “crime”—I approached approximately 15 percent of the House and a handful of Senators. Every one of them—Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative—responded with support; every one of them except my own junior Senator, Barack Hussein Obama.

I met with his staff in Washington in April 2005, the same week that Kirk and I went well after “working hours” engaged in the very long and difficult meeting with the Bangladeshi ambassador that secured Shoaib’s release. I brought them extensive documentation of the injustice and other evidence of Shoaib’s activities. Most significantly, I told them how Shoaib was one of those rare, courageous and truly moderate Muslims—not like the anti-American Islamist supporters Obama places in that category. He opposes radical Islamists publicly and unequivocally while refusing to let the Islamists intimidate him into leaving his home inside the Muslim world. I told them how he proudly proclaims himself pro-Israel and pro-US; but Obama’s staff never called back and ignored all subsequent contacts. I spoke with Obama personally 13 months later at a meeting he and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) hosted. Durbin called the matter “an important human rights case,” remained on top of it, and protested formally to the Bangladeshis. At his best moments, Obama looked quizzical and confused and never even sent out a form letter. I spoke with Obama one other time about Shoaib’s case, less than six months later. It was a chance meeting, and I reminded him of our last encounter. I updated him on the case and suggested several ways in which he could support the besieged journalist. He hesitated a moment then held out his hand and said in a used-car-salesman kind of way, “Well, we’re sure happy for all the work you are doing.” I really had to restrain myself and just mumbled something about it not being about me, but I do not think he got that; and, not surprisingly, I never heard back despite the reams of evidence I sent at his request.

It is bad enough that Obama easily turns the other way when another human being is being tortured for his beliefs; but far more sinister is Obama’s rejection of basic American values and their defense. As I noted above, support for Shoaib Choudhury crossed party and ideological lines. The day that Durbin sent his letter of protest, then-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) did the same. Everyone recognized the common American value of supporting those who stand against injustice; everyone, except Barack Obama. If we examine his human rights record since taking office, President Obama’s behavior has not changed.

While he takes his wife on a date to Paris, human rights atrocities occur daily across our planet. Islamists or their fellow travelers perpetrate the greatest number. Ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims in Bangladesh—Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and others—is proceeding without a break. Even as this article is being written, about 15,000,000 Bangladeshis are facing state-supported oppression. Currently, Obama’s friends in Islamabad are completing the destruction of Pakistan’s Hindus. Christian communities throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority—are being systematically destroyed. Palestinian and other Arab authorities continue to teach their children the vilest sort of anti-Semitism. And an openly Islamist Turkish government has implemented policies that prevent religious minorities from owning land, training clergy, or offering religious education above high school; this in addition to tolerating anti-minority violence and bigotry. Leftists are guilty as well. There are massive human rights violations in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, targeting both political opponents and the country’s Jewish community. Neither has Cuba nor China moved to give their peoples freedom.

Yet, the perpetrators of these atrocities are Obama’s friends, and so he allows these human rights violations to proceed without so much as a whimper of protest. Yet, he consistently talks about two issues in human rights terms, Guantanamo and the Palestinians, and points an accusing finger at the United States and Israel.

If we examine his silence on the one hand and his aggressive stance on the other, a very clear pattern emerges. It seems that human rights issues exist for Obama only if the supposed victim is anti-American; conversely, those violations should be “understood” if the perpetrator is anti-American. His stance is ideological not moral; and certainly not based on the values that are the bedrock of American society. Obama’s actions in the Choudhury case are consistent with that. Shoaib Choudhury publicly supports the United States and Israel in a part of the world where—according to Obama’s Cairo speech and other pronouncements—we should be ashamed of what the US and Israel have done and apologize for it.

Keeping Afghanistan the 'Good War'

Originally published in the New Media Journal, September 2, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

In part, this was due to what is now accepted as uniformly distorted coverage by the US media; but while that coverage was critical to the enemy’s success, it was not the most critical factor. The real problem, my friend said, was that the administration of President Lyndon Johnson even several years into the war continued to give the public overly optimistic, often inaccurate information, leading it to believe that the enemy was incapable of launching such an offensive. Thus, according to the late Peter Braestrup, the administration’s reaction to Tet was, “defensive” and Johnson “psychologically defeated [by] the onslaught on the cities of Vietnam.”

Switch to today. Is the United States just one “Tet” away from the same thing happening to the war in Afghanistan? As the tenure of the Bush administration wore on, many Americans came to see Afghanistan as “the good war” and Iraq as “the bad war”; a theme that the Obama Administration continues to reinforce. We heard this false dichotomy as a consistent drumbeat in Obama’s run for the White House and as a centerpiece of his foreign policy since taking office. Now, however, even that fragile hold on what remains of the war on terror is threatened. Poll after poll shows public support for the war eroding. In an August 2009 ABC-Washington Post news poll 51 percent of the respondents said the war was not worth fighting. Only 47 percent said it was, which is down nine points from majority support (56 percent) when Obama took office. An August CNN poll showed a similar decline: 50 to 41 percent just since May.

▪ The assassination or capture of high ranking enemies: The “Saddam” deck of cards did that in the early stages of the Iraq War.

▪ Reduction of identified violence, like suicide bombings, to a specific level: The Israelis successfully did that.

▪ Clearing Al Qaeda and the Taliban from specific localities: This is what the Pakistanis belatedly have tried to do with little success.

▪ Markers that identify the existence of a stable government in Afghanistan as an alternative to the Taliban one we deposed: This is how the United States disengaged from a successful war and post-war effort in Europe.

▪ Afghanistan’s participation in regional alliances, such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), or in bi-lateral agreements with allies like India: It actually happened in 2007, but no one made anything of it!

Court Actions Reveal stakes in the Shoaib Choudhury Case

Originally published in International Analyst Network, August 16, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Weekly Blitz editor and publisher Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was back in court on August 12, 2009. Shoaib Choudhury is the Bangladeshi Muslim journalist who was imprisoned and tortured for 17 months from November 2003 until his release in April 2005. That release came about only after an hours-long, often acrimonious meeting among Republican Congressman Mark Kirk (who is currently running to fill the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama), Bangladeshi Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury, and me in Kirk’s Washington office. His “crime” was writing articles that exposed the rise of Islamists in Bangladesh, urged relations with Israel, and advocates interfaith dialogue based on religious equality. Since his release, Shoaib has face ongoing harassment by the Bangladeshi government and its Islamist allies, including: capital charges of “sedition, treason, and blasphemy”; attempts by the government to ruin him and his family financially; physical attacks; having his newspaper invaded and vandalized with police complicity; and being abducted by the government’s notorious Rapid Action Battalion whose abductees often “disappear.” He continues to publish and to speak out against radical Islamists and for Muslim-Jewish rapprochement. (For more information, go to http://www.Interfaithstrength.com.)

Two witnesses appeared for the government and, according to others present, their testimony (such as it was) was essentially “dictated by the government” perhaps in the form of extremely leading questions and canned answers.  Moreover, Shoaib himself complained that the “prosecution side did not properly allow my lawyers to cross examine these fake witnesses.”  (Note that in South Asia, a person’s first name is often used to refer to him or her; not what we in the West would consider the surname; hence, Shoaib instead of Choudhury.)  It all was rather irregular and inconsistent with recent trends and statements by the court.  It also contravened even basic standards of justice under both Bangladeshi and international law.
What does it all mean?  First, it appears that Shoaib’s supporters might have been incorrect recently and at other times to believe the Bangladeshi government had any sort of coherent plan or even the vaguest idea of what to do about this man. He will remain a mystery to them because he has consistently stood on principle despite “incentives” not to do so.
Contrast that with the government’s inconsistent and morally bereft actions. First through various officials, it claimed interest in his work—then, arrested him.  The government at first refused to charge him with any crime, continuing to hold him nevertheless—then charged him with capital offenses.  The government first was adamant in refusing to let him out on bail because the case was “too sensitive” and he “dangerous” to the nation; but then let him out anyway.  Representatives from the highest levels in the last four Bangladeshi governments said they would drop the charges—which they admitted numerous times were false and radical-inspired—then, they said they would not drop them and called demands to do so unwarranted interference . Even in my first meeting at the Bangladeshi embassy in Washington a year after Shoaib’s arrest, one embassy official told me that he researched the case extensively, “but could not find anything wrong except that some people do not like him [Shoaib].”

“And is that a reason to imprison a man in Bangladesh?” I asked.

Evidently it is, because the government later assured members of the United States Congress and others that it would not try him, but eventually it did. “Don't worry,” government officials told Kirk and me. “There is no evidence against him, and he will be acquitted in a trial.” But as perfunctory court dates came and went, the government refused to call any witnesses or present any arguments but somehow kept getting new court dates.

I also suggested to Bangladeshi officials on several occasions that, as Shoaib’s prosecution violated Bangladesh’s own law, dropping the charges would only affirm Bangladesh’s commitment to the rule of law. In an amicus curae and elsewhere, internationally-acclaimed human rights attorney and Canadian Member of Parliament Dr. Irwin Cotler, whose clients have included Nelson Mandela, identified at least 18 violations of Bangladeshi law and additional violations of international law in Shoaib’s prosecution. Formally recognizing that (which other nations do regularly to maintain a self-correcting legal system) would provide a resolution for all parties without causing the Bangladeshis to lose face or suffer embarrassment; all parties except, that is, the radical Islamists. Bangladesh’s refusal to take this option indicates that its government remains in league with them.
Whether it was the BNP, civilian caretaker, military-backed caretaker, or now Awami League government, the actions and fabrications were the same. People have long ago noticed that, too, which is why Bangladesh has been stymied in its attempts to gain legitimacy as a partner with western nations in the war against extremism—the same Islamist extremism that set off bombs in the Bangladeshi capital and elsewhere in the country. But successive government have placed political expediency above the people’s interest by maintaining a case they admit to be baseless.

In fact, the Public Prosecutor in the case was recently overheard telling others that despite the lack of evidence and the prosecution’s poor showing in the courtroom, he expected a conviction based, not on the law and evidence, but on politics. Let us hope he is incorrect again. For with every turn away from justice, one can see the ever strengthening hand of Islamist puppet masters pulling the government's strings. That disgraceful display has become the primary obstacle to Bangladesh’s success in convincing others that it is a “moderate Muslim nation.” It also has stood as the rationale by which successive attempts by the Bangladeshis to gain trade benefits from the United States and others have been blocked. Frustrated, the Bangladeshi’s even sent their Nobel laureate, Mohammed Yunis to lobby for their cause; but the bill he favored never even made it out of Subcommittee.

The government changed its position again this year and finally called a witness--but when the defense and the court challenged him to provide evidence to support his allegations he became a permanent no-show, simply not showing up for court. In civilized nations where the rule of law exists, the court would have dropped the charges in the face of such legal irregularities. In fact, had the defense simply refused to show, there can be no doubt but that the court would have ordered the re-incarceration of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury; and the government would have explained it to the US and others on the basis of the law. Yet that same law is not applied equally in Bangladesh and certainly not to the government. For in the face of such contempt of the court, the government received more court dates; no reprimand, no demand to produce their witness. Recently, the prosecution changed up again by calling more witnesses; and Shoaib's attorney was convinced that the move signaled the government’s desire to end their ordeal. Yet, the next court date was another one in which government witnesses did not show, and the prosecution was awarded yet another continuance.

Those witnesses who did testify talked about all sorts of things but did not offer any evidence that Shoaib committed a crime. In some cases, they made general allegations without evidence to support them; and when the judge asked for some, neither witness nor prosecutor offered any. In others, they spoke of general matters unrelated to the facts of Shoaib’s case. At one point, even the presiding judge seemed to recognize the farce and said that Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury “deserved to be honored not harassed” for exposing the rise of radicals in his country. Yet, that same judge presided over the legal irregularities of the most recent courtroom debacle.

For some, the case of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury involves securing justice for one journalist—and, in fact, it does. Even beyond that, however, what happens in that case will determine the fate of a nation. An acquittal signals Bangladesh’s return to the rule of law and a commitment to opposed radical Islamists. A conviction signals the world that Bangladesh has chosen to side with the radicals against civilization. We as yet do not know what its choice will be.

Ever since this case became a cause celebre, other Muslims living in countries like Bangladesh have been asking if a pro-United States, pro-Israel, and anti-Islamist Muslim can continue to speak his mind and survive in a Muslim nation. What happens in a Dhaka courtroom will answer that question for them and either encourage or discourage them to follow Shoaib’s lead.

Bangladeshi Hindu Abducted, Forced to Convert to Islam

Originally published in Canada Free Press, August 11, 2009

Dr Richard Benkin

For most of us in the West, the notion of forced conversion seems to belong to a bygone age and a long discredited mentality. The sad fact, however, is that like the slave trade and other atrocities we have left in our past, forced conversion is alive and well even today.

The Bangladesh Hindu, Buddhist, Christian Unity Council (BHBCUC) has reported a case of abduction and forced conversion in Bangladesh; and two human rights organizations, Global Human Rights Defence (GHRD)and Bangladesh Minority Watch (BDMW) have investigated the incident. All three groups have a history of credibility in these matters, as well as people on the ground that can confirm or refute allegations.

The case involves a Hindu woman named Koli Goswami. According to the BHBCUC report, at least five Muslim perpetrators including a government official broke into Koli’s home at 12:45am on June 13, 2009. They vandalized the home and grabbed the 20-year-old-college student. When the girl tried to alert others by screaming, they covered her head and, as others started coming to her rescue, fired pistols in the air to scare them away. One of the alleged perpetrators, Touhidul Islam Bhuiya (Sumon) is currently facing murder charges in a separate case.

Yet, the Bangladeshi police have denied that any crime was committed in this case; which also allows Sumon to remain free. When GHRD and BDMW representatives visited the site, police told them, “It is not kidnapping. It is love affairs between kidnapper and victim.” Kidnapper? Victim? That hardly sounds like a love affair. So, Bangladeshi police, as is standard in these matters (and they are not uncommon), have refused to pursue a case: despite physical evidence of a break-in at the family home; despite the video taped testimony of the family; despite the lodging of a complaint by the girl’s uncle; and despite requests by the family for them to help locate and produce Koli.

Although I am investigating the matter further, the basic facts in this case (that is, the break in and abduction) are not in dispute. The police, too, have seen the physical evidence, as well as other material provided by BDMW’s Rabindra Ghosh. The incident itself is a terrible crime, but making matters worse is the fact that it remains a common occurrence in Bangladesh. Victims are universally young women and girls, sometimes boys, of child bearing years or younger. The choice of victims is deliberate and as such, meets the fourth condition of genocide, as described in the international Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

The active participation by a government official in the Koli Goswami forced conversion, as well as police refusal to prosecute the case, are consistent with other incidents of active government involvement and support for forcibly converting young minority members to Islam. It is also consistent with figures gathered during the period of Arab terror bombings in Israel. During that period, Arab terrorists disproportionately bombed places frequented by Israeli Jews of childbearing years or younger: children and even babies especially in Judea and Samaria, clubs like Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv, markets where young mothers shop, shopping malls, and so forth. What Islamists cannot gain because they are militarily weak and morally bankrupt, they try to gain through genocide.

And consider this: at the time of the India-Pakistan partition (1947), Hindus made up almost one third of the population in the territory known today as Bangladesh. Today, they are but nine percent. There can be little doubt that incidents such as that of Koli Goswami are part of a deliberate process that has caused that population decline; and if it is not stopped, we will witness an end to Bangladesh’s minorities in our lifetimes.

Is Shoaib Choudhury’s Ordeal Drawing to a Close?

Originally published in Canada Free Press, July 26, 2009

Dr Richard Benkin

The trial of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury continued this week in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It was his second court appearance in two weeks after being called no more than once a month for the last four years. (Prior to that, he spent 17 months of imprisonment and torture for his anti-Islamist and pro-Israel articles.) The next day, he received a call from an attorney who told him that the prosecutor in his case said the government would convict Shoaib even though it did not have the evidence for it.

While it would be wrong to minimize the danger facing Shoaib or to assume that the Bangladeshis would not convict Shoaib without evidence; the prosecutor’s boast is more significant for the subtle messages he conveyed.

The most important one is that the government has finally admitted that it does not have any evidence to support the admittedly false charges of sedition, treason, and blasphemy. This represents a highly significant change in the position held by the government for the past five and a half years; a position that several Bangladeshi officials have been trying to convince their governments has cost the Bangladeshi people dearly.

Shoaib’s last two court appearances appear to support that conclusion. After months of nothing but continuances and only one government witness (who has been AWOL since being asked for evidence to support his allegations), the prosecution called seven different witnesses in two weeks, who testified only to Shoaib’s alleged attempt to travel to Israel. On July 15, a computer technician added that the government seized Shoaib’s computers but did not say what was on them; and a police official also opined that Shoaib hurt the “religious sentiments of Muslims by praising Christians and Jews.” This week’s witnesses added that Shoaib communicated over the internet to people in Israel (something many Bangladeshis do), and a police officer testified that when arrested, Shoaib was carrying “banned books,” sparking the following exchange between the witness and Shoaib’s attorney.

“Did you read these books and are you sure that these are banned?”

“No I did not read them or see any ban order.”

“How do you know that these were banned books?”

“I was told by someone.”

That is about as anemic a case as one could imagine, and it is clear that the prosecution is banking on a political decision; but that decision would cost the Bangladeshi’s. First, and perhaps most important, it would put the lie to apologists who have been claiming that the current Bangladeshi government is more democratic and less patronizing of Islamists than previous ones. To that extent, it would bargain away a major negotiating ploy that the Bangladeshis are planning on using with the United States and other western countries for aid and trade benefits.

Beyond that, the prosecution through it witnesses alleges that praising Christians and Jews is a major crime in Bangladesh. How well will that sit with Christian-majority countries like the United States if the court agrees with it; or that using the internet, “banned books,” or “criticizing madrassas” is, as another witness testified? With legal scholars like Canada’s Irwin Cotler involved in Shoaib’s defense, Bangladesh can expect that a conviction contrary to law will initiate sanctions by international legal bodies, as well.

The government is not presenting any new even compelling evidence. If this is all it can regurgitate after five and a half years, there cannot be much of a case, at least on the basis of Bangladeshi law. Even the judge seemed to agree, asking the defense to explain exactly what Shoaib is accused of doing, after one day of unconvincing testimony. When his Bangladesh Minority Lawyers Association advocate said that he exposeding the rise of radical Islam and its use of madrassas, Judge Bashir Ullah said Shoaib should be rewarded and not condemned.

Shoaib said the Public Prosecutor was smiling at that point. Whether he was smiling because he knows a guilty verdict will be handed down regardless, or because he sees an end to Shoaib’s ordeal crowned with a not guilty verdict, is a matter of speculation. One way or another, according to Shoaib, the government has decided to finish the trial, perhaps as early as August. They could have done so months, even years ago but did not. Perhaps the economic hard times have led them to re-cast their strategy as regards trade. Perhaps they have read recent articles urging the United Nations to bar Bangladesh from peacekeeping missions. Bangladesh provides more UN peacekeepers than any other country except Pakistan, and doing so has become critical for the Bangladeshi economy. It was also one of the underlying reasons for the 2007 coup there. Or maybe it is they, not us, who ultimately tired of it all. (Some Bangladeshi officials cling to the mistaken belief that the West has no stomach for a long fight.) If Shoaib is right, the court will set a date for defense rebuttal once the government concludes its case. After that, the judge will retire to determine verdicts and set a date for reading the judgment. An acquittal will vindicate Bangladesh as a nation of laws. A conviction contrary to Bangladeshi law will reinforce the arguments of those who say that Bangladesh values radical Islam over justice, political expediency even over its own constitution. Waiting to see which values hold would be an interesting exercise were it not for the fact that a man’s life and the principles of justice hang in the balance. One thing is clear, however, months of delay are coming to an end as is the trial of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury—the Muslim journalist who refuses to back down to Islamist radicals, openly supports Israel, and does so while refusing to leave the Muslim world. The world will be watching to determine what comes next.

Mark Kirk—Israel’s Best Friend in Congress—Announces Senate Bid

Originally published in the New English Review, July 26, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Last November, Israpundit carried an article by Jerry Gordon, “Two Who Won Against the Democratic Tsunami.” One was Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL). Kirk, whom Gordon described as “very pro-Israel,” won a fifth term in Congress despite a perfect Democratic storm: the Republican brand was in tatters; Illinois had become one of the most reliably “blue” states in the nation; Kirk’s district was trending heavily Democratic; the Democratic National Committee was spending millions trying to unseat Kirk; and there was Barack Obama, who carried Kirk’s 10 th District by 61 percent. Yet, Kirk prevailed in part because, as Gordon wrote, he is “one of the most effective, intelligent and moderate GOP members in Congress.” That assessment is shared widely on both sides of the aisle in Washington and has helped make Kirk an effective legislator.

On Monday, July 20, Democrats got what they could not get at the ballot box when Kirk announced that he would not seek re-election to his House seat in 2010. “It’s probably the only way that Democrats would ever get that [Congressional] seat,” quipped one 10 th District resident on hand for Kirk’s announcement. But Democrats also got a bigger headache because at the same time Kirk announced he was running for the United States Senate. In fact, Kirk’s expected candidacy has been giving Democratic leaders fits.

He is running for the Senate seat formerly held by Obama; the seat that disgraced Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell to the highest bidder; the seat whose current occupant, Roland Burris, is accused of winning in that lottery. Burris has become such a liability for Democrats that—led by Senate Majority Whip, Dick Durbin (D-IL)—they have been urging him not to run for a full term. When Burris finally bowed to reality, however, it left Democrats without a credible candidate who can come close to Kirk’s national, foreign policy, and pro-Israel credentials.

In fact, one of the only things that the three likely Democratic candidates share is the lack of any pro-Israel record. The most prominent and only announced Democratic candidate is Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. The closest thing he has to a record on Israel is that he did not stop Illinois’ purchase of Israeli bonds—a purchase he justified solely as a good investment. Another is businessman Chris Kennedy whose only claim to fame is being the late Robert F. Kennedy’s son. The third, Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson, shared a podium last August with Otis Moss, pastor of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ; and as Blogojevich’s spokesperson, justified the appointment of the Nation of Islam’s Minister of Protocol to a state hate crimes commission, saying the Farrakhan associate shares the commission’s goals of eliminating hate crimes and discrimination. None have ever been to Israel. Giannoulis has stated many times that he owes his office to Obama, and all three are supporters of the President and his policies.

Kirk, on the other hand, is arguably Israel’s best friend in Congress. He was personally responsible for convincing the Bush Administration to give Israel enhanced missile defense after he saw the danger on a trip to a forward military base in Israel. (Kirk has been a Naval Intelligence Office since 1989, has combat experience, and was once named Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year.) He and Congressman Steven Rothman (D-NJ) have led efforts to end US funding for UNWRA—the UN agency devoted solely to promoting the system of Palestinian Arab refugees, a designation he challenges. With regard to Hezbollah, Kirk told Gordon “despite the UN peacekeeping force and $500 million of US taxpayers’ money that we simply reset the stage for another tragedy.” He has characterized attempts to force negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as trying to “chase down every terrorist group on the West Bank and Gaza… there are times when you have to hang tough.” An effective human rights advocate, Kirk (together with me), won the freedom of Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury after he was arrested and tortured for exposing the rise of Islamists and urging relations with Israel. As a Congressional aide, Kirk helped free several Soviet refusniks. With much of official Washington trying to find “nuanced” positions, Kirk remains undaunted. In April, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House Appropriations Committee that Israel would have to comply with the Administration’s demands, he replied that the committee would then have to cut appropriations to the Palestinian Authority.

This election is critical for Israel at a time when many in Washington are ready to trying to force suicidal agreements on the Jewish State. In announcing for the Senate, Kirk pledged to fight those efforts, “And to supporters of America’s strongest friend in the Middle East – Israel’s greatest ally in Washington will be Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.”

Neither Jewish nor evangelical, Kirk’s commitment for Israel rests on two propositions: that it is the right thing to do; and that it is and always has been in the best interests of the United States. None of his prospective opponents, on the other hand, will oppose the policies of their political godfather and what has been described as the most anti-Israel administration in the Jewish State’s history.

Why this silence on organised anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh?

Originally published in The Pioneer, July 21, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Reports began trickling out of Bangladesh this spring about an anti-Hindu violence in the heart of its capital carried out in three stages: March 30, April 17, and April 29. A community of approximately 400 Hindus was reportedly going about its business when “hundreds of Muslims” suddenly descended on them and demanded they quit the homes where they and their families had lived for the past 150 years. Witnesses also report that police watched passively while attackers beat residents and destroyed a Hindu temple.

And although every Hindu, as well as the international community, should have reacted with horror and outrage, neither did.

The Bangladeshi Government denied that any such thing happened, and local police captain Tofazzal Hossain declared, “No demolition of temple occurred. There was no temple there, only a few idols.” Yet, sources for the charge — Global Human Rights Defence at The Hague and the Bangladesh Hindu, Buddhist, Christian Unity Council, as well as several local human rights groups and newspapers — are highly credible, prompting our two-month investigation that confirms something terrible did occur, even if not exactly as described by initial reports.

For while not all 400 Hindus were made homeless, a significant number were, which is tragic enough, especially since many remain so months later. Nor has the Bangladeshi Government even bothered to deny that Hindus were beaten, some religious desecration occurred, or that police were present during the attacks. We also confirmed that the area attacked was located directly behind the Sutrapur Police Station in Dhaka and the Shiv Mandir only about 18 m from it; yet, the police did nothing to stop its destruction.

This is not about one terrible event, but about a system of legalised ethnic cleansing that has proceeded non-stop for decades and which places every one of Bangladesh’s 13,000,000-15,000,000 Hindus at risk. For despite Government protestations to the contrary, normal legal protections are suspended for Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh who are often subject to arbitrary actions by the Muslim majority.

Two Hindus, Jogesh Chandra and Taraknath Das, originally owned the land in Sutrapur. They migrated to India in 1947 but before doing so, gifted it to the remaining Hindus; most of them their former servants. A local Muslim, Mahbubur Rahman, tried for years to seize it but could not produce the necessary legal fiction. But after Rahman’s death, his brother and nephews determined to do what he could not because they were politically well-connected.

They used their position to prevail upon police to demand written proof of ownership from the Hindus, which all parties knew they could not provide given their impoverished state and the nature of partition-era transactions. Nevertheless, that was all the Government needed to secretly void the Hindus’ title using Bangladesh’s Vested Property Act. This empowers the Government to declare any ‘non-Muslim’ land vested once its ownership is questioned, no mater how flimsy the pretext, and award it to any Muslim who then can seize it, as was done in Sutrapur.

Next, the police refused to pursue any prosecution in the matter, even though at least three separate crimes were committed: Land seizure, beatings, and religious destruction. The GHRD and other groups have lodged formal protests and brought the matter to Dhaka’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but he also “refused to take any action against the perpetrators of crime,” according to GHRD’s Jenny Lundstrom.

Nor did the cover-up stop there. Mr Zakir Hossain, chief executive of local human rights group, Nagorik Uddyog, told me that his organisation appealed to the Bangladeshi Parliament and Awami League MP Shuranjit Sengupta, but neither he nor his party has taken any action. All of the Bangladeshi officials I contacted refused to comment on the incident.

It would appear that these enforcers of the law have become enforcers of lawlessness, abetting crimes against minorities and sending a message that Bangladesh is a country where the law gives Muslims preferential treatment even if it means ignoring elementary standards of justice.

This explains how Muslims have been able to seize 75 per cent of all Hindu-owned land in Bangladesh. It also means that the reduction of Hindus from almost 30 per cent of the population to nine per cent has been no accident but a deliberate process of ethnic cleansing, which if unchecked, will rid Bangladesh of its remaining Hindu population in our lifetime. And nobody seems to care; the world’s self-appointed human rights arbiters remain shamefully silent.

Meanwhile, dozens of Hindu victims from Sutrapur, including mothers and their children, remain homeless. The lucky ones are flopping in different slums each night, but for others, as one victim put it, “We are now passing a miserable life with no home and very little to eat.”

Perhaps Americans and Europeans will think of her the next time they purchase a garment labelled, “Made in Bangladesh.”

Stop Shaking your Fists and Do Something!

Dr. Richard L. Benkin Address to Telugu Association of North America (TANA) Rosemont, IL (Suburban Chicago) July 4, 2009

I was asked to come here today to talk about the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus: by Islamists—who drive it—“average” Bangladeshi Muslims—who carry it out—and the Bangladesh government—that has encouraged it almost since the day of its birth. That is why I am here. But I grow weary of attending conference after conference where I see the same people shaking the same ineffective fists at the same enemies. What do they think they are accomplishing?

To those who never tire of complimenting themselves for their years of work on the victims’ behalf; to Bangladeshi politicians who cynically claim to be the Hindus’ great hope; and to those international organizations that pretend to carry the mantle of human rights; I ask:

With all of your “heroic” action, have things gotten any better for the Bangladeshi Hindus? Are they any safer today than they were when you started your activity? Has

Bangladesh repealed the openly anti-Hindu Vested Property Act that provides the legal framework for ethnic cleansing and rewards the victimizers with the victims’ land?

With all of your “heroic” action, why have Hindus fallen from 30 percent of the population at the time of Partition (1947) to nine percent today?

My God! Have we learned nothing from the Nazi Holocaust? Do we really have to wonder what the end of these sterile actions will be; not for us, but for the Bangladeshi Hindus? Look at Pakistan’s Hindus, who were once one fifth of the population but are only one percent today. Even that remnant is streaming into Indian Punjab ahead of the advancing Taliban; and I saw that for myself in March.

The comparison with the Nazis is not strained; for Islamists want the same thing for Hindus that Nazis wanted for the Jews. And Islamists today, like Nazis in the 1930s, find no shortage of world leaders and diplomats who recommend we overlook their sins as some sort of cultural expression or justified anger; who urge us to cooperate with those murdering innocents. You’ve heard the expression, “If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” Well, if we do as they suggest, we will have the smell of the charnel house upon us; which is the stench emanating from Bangladesh today.

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” We—no, the Bangladeshi Hindus—cannot afford for us to do the same thing we have been doing for years expecting that somehow things will change. We must understand that making polite protests, putting our trust in Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, and waiting for the UN, Amnesty International, or the rest of the misnomered human rights industry to act will achieve nothing except more of the same. And what is that? Try this.

On March 23 this year, I was in North Bengal, near Bangladesh’s northern border, taking testimony from refugees. That is not easy because many are reluctant to speak, especially about things happening now. Indian state and national governments refuse to recognize their presence as legitimate. They are “illegal aliens” and so are afraid. They have no rights, no status; and at any time can be told to leave their makeshift encampments and find somewhere else to live because someone wants the land on which they are huddling. I observed this myself in 2008, arriving at one camp just moments after the order came and the refugees were packing up their few meager belongings to find another deserted cluster of huts somewhere down the road. These refugees from Islamist terror are afraid that telling the truth about their situation will anger the local CPIM

[1] leader or police (both of whom likely take bribes to allow Islamist infiltration), and be sent back to Bangladesh to meet with any one of several atrocities, possibly death.

Sometimes, they describe what happened then say it occurred a safe number of years ago; I have to figure out which ones really did happen recently. Occasionally, though some brave Hindus speak up regardless of potential consequences, convinced as they are that there is nothing about their current state that makes them happy or promises anything better for their children and grandchildren; and this is what I encountered that day in March. A local teacher and a political activist said they knew of a Hindu family that had crossed into India only 22 days earlier and were willing to talk. They asked if we were interested in meeting with them, and of course, we jumped at the chance. We followed them along the main road until they ordered us to stop and get out of the car. They directed me onto the back of a motorcycle and took me along a narrow, winding path through farmland, then an area covered by banana palms and other growth; and finally to a clearing with a few ramshackle huts where the family awaited to tell their all too familiar story. I’m sure you all have heard it. They were at home on their little farm in Bangladesh when a gang of Muslims broke in and ordered them off their land. When the father protested, they beat him severely and took possession of the family home. Other, extended family reported other incidents, the murder of an uncle and more land grabs; and that the Bangladeshi police refused to help when they went to them. I’ve heard that a lot from refugees in rural

India and have experienced it as well after attacks on dissidents in Dhaka. The police frequently refuse to accept their complaints and voice support for the attackers. In fact, in many cases, the police instead act on counter claims by the attackers. Many refugees have told me point blank that the police tell them that they need to do was to get out of Bangladesh.

Getting back to March 23, the family’s young daughter affected me the most. At first, she was silent then her mother stopped her from speaking; but she kept trying to talk. Eventually, she did and told me that “the Muslims… chased” her; her exact words. Her mother clearly did not want her daughter to talk about her experience and tried to take over the conversation. I realized later she just was trying to protect her. But the girl kept talking, looking down and away as she did. There was a lot more to this, so I decided to give her a break turning to some of the others before asking her, “Did the Muslims say anything when they were chasing you?” That question really made her uncomfortable, especially with my camera going, even though, by agreement, I did not show faces or give away our location; so I turned it off. It was only then that, still looking down, she said that they “caught [her and] did bad things.”

Perhaps it was her tragedy; perhaps her courage. It could have been her parents, still trying to spare her, because most of these young rape victims are shunned by their families and consigned to live with their attackers only to be victimized again and again. But I think about that girl and her family a great deal. I thought about them last month when President Obama addressed the Muslim world; and with all due respect, I had to disagree with him about something essential in his speech. The problem we face is not those he termed the “violent extremists.” It was not just extremists who brutalized that family and the many more like them. In fact, most of the attackers in these cases are average Muslim citizens who do it because they know they can. Nor was it a Taliban Afghani, Wahabi Saudi, or holocaust-denying Iranian government that let them get away with it. It was a “moderate” Bangladeshi government—the Awami League government that the West has said would move

Bangladesh away from its anti-minority and pro-Islamist past. They are the ones from whom we must demand action if this is ever going to stop; and since the US, India, or the UN, will not, it is up to us, and I am prepared to address that because you will remember I believe that speeches and fist shaking are worthless unless they result in effective action. But I first want to mention another young girl I met; this time in 2008, near the North Bengal-Nepal border.

She told me she wanted to be a schoolteacher. Why? Because she was proud of being a Bengali Hindu and thought the most important thing she could do was to instill the same in other, young Bengali Hindus. Given the world in which she lives, her statement shows an incredible inner strength that any of us would be proud to have. But I wonder if she will get the chance, because the Indian and West Bengali governments are not making it easy for her people to survive, let alone spend time on education. The surrounding villages are becoming more and more hostile to Hindus. As we rode through them, my companions noted that they once had mixed Hindu-Muslim populations but are now all Muslim—and you could verify that by the absence of the small temples common wherever Hindus live in India. From time to time, too, Islamists from across the border will team up with these locals and attack the refugee camps. So, I wonder how much Hindu spirit—like that girl’s—is being snuffed out every day.

Several times every week, I receive reports of anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh. For the past two months, I have been verifying them and filling in missing data so we can convinced others that human decency demands action by people in power. Here are seven incidents from January alone—remember, there likely are many more, but these are the ones where I have found “smoking guns”:

On 1 January, 14-year-old Subarna Karmakar was on her way home from school in the Barisal district when several Muslim males grabbed the girl, forced her onto a motorcycle, and carried her off. Her whereabouts remain unknown, and police have taken no action to locate the girl or prosecute the perpetrators.

On 15 January, nine Muslim males kicked in the door of a family home in the Khulna district, and forced their way in the house. They seized eight-year-old Choyon Bairagee and when his mother Aduri begged for mercy, the kidnappers threatened to kill her. The boy’s whereabouts remain unknown, and police have taken no action to locate him or prosecute the perpetrators.

On 24 January in Khulna, five or six Muslim fundamentalists attacked Thakur Das Mondol, a member of the Hindu Union Council and Chairman of Magur Khali Union Jubo Dal. He was carried to

Khulna Medical College Hospital in a “senseless condition.” Police have taken no action.

On 26 January in Faridpur, a group of local, heavily armed Muslim Fundamentalists attacked a Hindu funeral site and a nearby Kali temple, which they destroyed completely. They have seized the temple land, and police have taken no action.

On 28 January, a madrassa was built on the land of a Hindu Temple to the goddess Kali in Dinajpur. Police have taken no action despite numerous appeals, including one to the Prime Minister through AFM Zahid Hasan.

On 30 January in the Chittagong district, 10-15 Islamists attacked the Swaraswait Pandal, destroying the temple and a deity. They also left at least ten worshippers seriously hurt. Police have taken no action despite numerous appeals, including one to the Prime Minister through AFM Zahid Hasan.

Also on 30 January, in the Dhaka district, Md. Hasan Habib, a local Awami League official, noting his position with the new government, forcibly occupied land belonging to Monindra Nath Mondal and threatened the victim should he report the infraction. Police have taken no action.

In February, there were at least five more, including a murder; and March incidents included rape and a possible anti-Hindu pogrom that police allowed in

Dhaka.

For us there can be only one question: What are WE going to do about it.

We need specific goals and a plan to achieve them. I have found that good people are unable to turn their backs when faced with real tragedy and real human rights horrors such as I saw in March. I defy anybody to look in the face of that brave girl and feel nothing. But I am just as firmly convinced that government, press, and even human right activists will do everything they can to avoid getting to that point. For some, it is because they do not want yet one more issue in their very busy lives. For others, an ideological or political agenda drives it. Only we can overcome that. If we wait for it to happen magically, we will witness an end to Hindus in

Bangladesh and have that guilt on our heads. Recognize that there is no internal dynamic by which the Bangladeshi government will change things. That includes the Awami League. The only way to effect change is to get to it indirectly through the action of third parties like the United States. We must be ready to act.

First, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence once said that any member of Congress who gets at least ten phone calls (not emails!) from constituents on a particular issue will take notice, convene staff meetings, and likely vote their constituents’ passion. To be ready we need someone or some group to collect names and phone numbers of people in every Congressional District willing to call their Representatives. We must put them into a data base that can be activated as soon as the moment comes; for if we wait to do it until that moment, we will fail. For instance, Bangladesh is heavily dependent on the United States and other western nations for garment imports; trade is a serious issue that can be addressed. So is Bangladesh’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions—to which it provides the second largest number of soldiers. Third parties must be motivated to take action that will “convince” Bangladeshis that supporting justice and opposing ethnic cleansing is in their interests. There are soe good people in

Washington. Congressman Mark Kirk from here in Illinois, for instance, was also touched by the story of that young Hindu girl. He has helped me with South Asian human rights issues in the past and will support them again.

Our success in any of these things will not just help the particular bill. More importantly perhaps, it will identify us (and Hindus) as an organized and powerful political constituency that no longer can be ignored.

So, who will volunteer? [Identify people.] Meet me after the session, and I will get you started. Give me your name and contact information.

Second, many of us receive regular emails about anti-Hindu incidents. Some are accurate, some not; and even many that are accurate lack specific information needed to make them credible. At the behest of people who can do something about this, I have been reviewing and vetting incidents but the volume of information is much greater than I can handle alone. We need another group to help—existing organizations, students, or a group of individuals making that commitment today. I have developed the methods and aspreadsheet for the information.

So, who will volunteer? [Identify people.] Meet me after the session, and I will get you started. Give me your name and contact information.

And third, sometimes it takes a particular incident for people to recognize a human tragedy. Finding such an incident could be the spark that lights this fire. Throughout May, reports out o

Bangladesh told of an anti-Hindu pogrom in Dhaka; a pogrom carried out by supporters and officials of the ruling Awami League; police also participated. Although further investigation shows that the number of people evicted to be fewer than the 400 first alleged, dozens remain homeless still. Worse, the social and political acceptability of and support for anti-Hindu actions in Bangladesh is undeniable. The attackers grabbed ancestral land, beat residents with the police looking on, and purposely destroyed a Shiva Mandir; one of many Hindu temples destroyed this year alone. And the government supports it. It rewarded the attackers with their victims’ land! As an American, I am incensed that my government sends millions in aid each year to such a government. Is this our issue? Is it the face of that young Hindu girl? This should outrage the entire world; but it does not. Has humanity lost any sense of justice, or is this something we can change? I suggest the latter. We can be the engine that drives that outrage, or we can be passive and let it pass. The choice is ours.

Thank you.

[1] Communist Party of India/Marxist, which has ruled West Bengal for over three decades.

Netanyahu Speaks, but what does it mean?

Originally published in Weekly Blitz, June 17, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Bar Ilan University, Israel, June 14: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave his long-awaited speech about the Middle East today just ten days after US President Barack Obama made his long-anticipated speech to the Muslim world. Spin doctors on all sides were out in force even before Netanyahu’s echo died. From Washington, Obama’s Press Secretary issued the following. “The President welcomes the important step forward in Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech.”

From Ramallah, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared, “The speech has destroyed all initiatives and expectations… and constitutes a clear challenge to the Palestinian, Arab and American positions.”

From the Israeli Right came at least one threat to bolt Netanyahu’s coalition; while an the Israeli Left spokesman said the speech was “too little, too late.”

Stripped of rhetorical flourishes and history lessons, Netanyahu’s speech made the following points.

“The greatest danger confronting Israel…is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons.” (Read: Iran remains our priority.)

“The root of the conflict… remains the [Arabs’] refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.”(Read: Peace requires Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.)

“The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace… has up till now not stood the test of reality.” (Read: No more withdrawals like Gaza.)

“The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders.” (Read: No right of return.)

“There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established… [but] this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged.” (Read: Obama missed the point; our rights long pre-dated the Holocaust.)

“In my vision of peace… two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect.” (Read: Okay, a Palestinian State.)

“A demilitarized Palestinian state.” (Read: But only a demilitarized one.)

“Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.” (Read: Arabs find another capital.)

“[No] new settlements [but] a need to enable the residents to live normal lives [and] raise their children like families elsewhere.” (Read: A freeze on new settlements but allow natural growth of existing ones.)

“The Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas.” (Read: Hamas is not a peace partner.)

Some allege Netanyahu accepted Obama’s “two-state solution.” Other say his demilitarization condition means he has not. But the fact is none of it matters for Netanyahu had the “gall” to suggest that Israel had some demands, which Arabs have vowed never to accept: that they recognize Israel as a Jewish State; give up on their plan to destroy that Jewish State with their right of return to turn it into a majority-Muslim state; and forget about dividing Jerusalem and again prohibiting Jewish religiosity as they had before.

As recently as May 7, the Arab League rejected an American request to moderate these elements in its “peace initiative.” “Hard line” Syria said “I don’t see any justification for amending this initiative.” “Moderate” Jordan re-stated its “commitment to the initiative as it is without change.” After today’s speech, Palestinians and other Arabs angrily asserted that their demands were not negotiable and suggesting otherwise is “an obstacle to peace.” Normally, negotiations are not conducted with the end already imposed on one of the parties; but normality does not hold when the Arabs are involved.

So, whether Netanyahu’s acceptance a Palestinian State or not does not matter—because we’ll never get that far until Arabs recognize peace is a two-way street with mutual rights. Their reactions for the past 60 years suggest we not hold our breath waiting for it to happen.

Why Jimmy Carter Really is an Anti-Semite

Originally published on Canada Free Press, June 15, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

For years, many people have accused former US President of being an anti-Semite, but Carter and his minions have insisted that such accusations amount to calumny and that he is simply a moral man who speaks for the oppressed Palestinians. This week, however, he finally slipped up and let his anti-Semitic slip show.

A day after Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s June 14 speech on the Middle East conflict, Carter told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Israeli Knesset (or Parliament), “In my opinion, Netanyahu brought up several obstacles to peace in his speech that others before him have not placed. He insists on settlement expansion and demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, even though 20% of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish.”

Israel’s right to exist is an obstacle to peace

So, in Jimmy Carter’s world, Israel’s daring to insist that it be recognized as the Jewish homeland—only the very reason why it exists and the historical basis for it—cannot be allowed. It is the obstacle to peace, not the Arabs’ refusal to accept it.

Carter’s rationale for thinking that, however, is really the smoking gun of his anti-Semitism; specifically, that Jews make up less than 100 percent of Israel’s population. Funny, though, he applies this argument to the world’s only Jewish state, and never has done the same to any other country. Mr. Carter seems to consider himself rather knowledgeable in world affairs. If he is, then his omission is one based on bias rather than ignorance. There are 27 countries where Islam is the official state religion, including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, which border Israel. The 24 others are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,
Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somalia, Somaliland, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Several of them, such as Bangladesh, have sizeable non-Muslim minorities; and many with almost none, such as Pakistan, destroyed its non-Muslim minority even while Carter was its ally!

To be comprehensive, 12 countries (plus England, Scotland, and 17 Swiss Cantons) recognize Christianity as their state religion, and Buddhism is the official state religion in three. Carter has never made a peep about any of the 42 countries with an official state religion. He certainly never complained to his Saudi allies or the Jordanians because they prohibit Jews from residing in their countries.

Yet, Carter has seen fit to call Israel’s desire to be recognized as the historical Jewish homeland it is as “an obstacle to peace.” This despite the fact Israel allows free practice of all religions, unlike most of the 27 Islamic nations including Saudi Arabia which makes any religious expression other than Islam a crime.

Doubtless, the man from Plains will protest that he is being attacked for criticizing Israel (another favorite cry of anti-Semites). Before he does, however, he might consider that the only way he will have any credibility is to simultaneously call Saudi Arabia’s and the other 26 countries to drop Islam as their official religion. Let’s not hold our breath, for neither Carter nor any of the other world leaders who call a Jewish State an obstacle to peace ever thought to treat Judaism and Islam equally.

Obama's Address to Muslims misses the Point

Originally published in the American Thinker, June 12, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

When President Barack Obama made his long-awaited speech to the Muslim world on June 4, he was excruciatingly careful to demonize those Muslims he termed "violent extremists" and praise other practitioners of Islam. While the distinction is accurate, it is hardly insightful. While declaring Islam itself evil leads to a strategic cul de sac (what is the strategy once we declare one third of humanity our enemy); Obama's chosen path is equally dangerous. It allows the Muslim world to go on blaming their problems on "imperialism," "exploitation," or more innocuously poverty, and ratifies the consistently disastrous policy of letting those who cheer the terrorists' actions and provide them with ideological cover avoid responsibility. It lets them and the "violent extremists" off the hook in the name of political correctness.

Those same people have been engaged in a deliberate program of ethnic cleansing against Bangladesh's Hindus. Hindus were almost one in five Bangladeshis when the nation broke from Pakistan in 1971. Today, after decades of murder, rape, and forced conversion, they are less than one in ten. Using demographic models and other data, Professor Sachi Dastidar of the State University of New York, Old Westbury, estimates that 49 million Hindus are "missing" from the Bangladeshi population; that is more people than most nations have.

Islamists and their pernicious ideology might drive this, but "just plain folk" carry it out. On March 23, I was near Bangladesh's northern border when a young teacher asked me to meet a Hindu family that had made its way into India only 22 days earlier. We followed him and a local political leader along the main road until they ordered us to stop and get out of the car. At their behest, I got on the back of a motorcycle and was taken along a narrow, winding path through farmland to an area covered by banana palms and other growth; and finally to a clearing with a few ramshackle huts.

The family's story was by now a familiar one. Muslims came to their small farm in Bangladesh and ordered them off their land; when the father protested, they beat him severely. They all witnessed other violent acts and told of Bangladeshi police refusing to help them and supporting their attackers. But it was their young daughter who made the strongest impression. At first silent at her parents' direction, she insisted on speaking and said "the Muslims... chased" her; but it was clear that there was more to it than that. The more she spoke, the more she looked down and away, and was even more reticent when I asked what they said "when they were chasing you." She was clearly uncomfortable with my camera even though, by agreement, I did not show faces or give away our location; so I turned it off. It was then she said that they "caught [her and] did bad things."

Perhaps it was her tragedy and her courage. It could have been her parents; for most of these young rape victims are shunned by their families and consigned to live with their attackers to be victimized again and again. For while Obama spoke so easily, I thought about them all but especially about the young girl; because if he considered her or the countless others like her, he would have realized that the problem is not the "violent extremists." History's dustbin is littered with their like. They come and go causing death and destruction, but ultimately disappear. They become dangerous only when their less extreme cohorts afford them legitimacy, which is why I thought of that young rape victim.

For her attack was possible only because of the people to whom Obama was pandering. The "moderate" Bangladeshi government allows it to happen and refuses to punish the perpetrators. It continues to support a Nuremburg-type law enacted 35 years ago that rewards them with their victims' property. And her attack was possible because average Muslim citizens took part in and benefited from it. These are the people to whom Obama spoke without even suggesting they examine their actions and culpability, and the critical role they have to play if there is ever a chance of genuine peace.

That is the danger in Obama's Cairo University speech and his policy of "outreach" to the Muslim world. Peace is nice; frank discussions are needed. But refusing to demand equal soul searching on the part of those who are in reality radical Islam's lifeline will produce neither and insure that his speeches will keep peace at a distance and create more victims.

Big Day Big Dud for Arab Terrorists

Originally published in Weekly Blitz, June 10, 2009

Dr Richard Benkin

June 8, 2009 was supposed to be a triumphant day for the Middle East’s most radical terrorist groups and their patron, Iran. Unfortunately for them—and fortunately for the rest of the world—nothing turned out as they planned. Radical Islam lost today—lost big—once politically; once militarily.

Today‘s long anticipated Lebanese elections were billed as a showdown between the terrorist group, Hezbollah, and the pro- west March 14 Alliance party, led by the Sunni Moslem Future Movement faction headed by Saad el-Hariri. The terrorists were very confident that they would be Lebanon’s rulers by the end of the day; but when the votes were counted, Interior Minister Ziad Baroud declared that el-Hariri's bloc had won 71 of parliament's 128 seats.

“Congratulations to Lebanon, congratulations to democracy, congratulations to freedom,” el-Hariri said in his victory speech.

The results were also a major defeat for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad who made Hezbollah’s victory a centerpiece of his Middle East strategy. Little more than a week before the vote, Ahmedinejad spoke about the importance of a Hezbollah win; that it would signal popular support for “resistance” against Israel and the West.

“The [Hezbollah] victory in the parliamentary elections will strengthen the resistance and change the status in the region,” he told reporters in Tehran.

By casting the election in those terms, the volatile Iranian leader made the point for his more moderate opponents: ‘No, that’s not what the people want.’ And as such, he might be in some trouble with his ayatollah handlers. Ahmedinejad invested a lot of personal prestige and Iranian cash in a Hezbollah win, and both seem to have been misplaced. Moreover, the results place the terrorist group in a terrible bind. The victors said that they have no intention of allowing Hezbollah to retain its veto power over certain government actions and will reduce the group’s power in Lebanon. If in return, Hezbollah stages a coup, which many observers fear, it would undermine the group’s pretensions of being a lawful group within the Lebanese body politic. As of election night, its strongman, Hassan Nasrallah was purposely obscure about his intentions.

On the one hand, he said his group accepts its loss “with sportsmanship and in a democratic way,” but he then went on to accuse the March 14 group of securing its victory through bribery and scare tactics. He said his group had no intention of disarming, contrary to United Nations resolutions.

“The public here has sent a message to the world, and no one forced it on them. And the message is that they have adopted the resistance option – this option is an expression of those peoples' desires and their choice.’

Iran’s other terrorist vassal, Hamas planned to celebrate its cousin’s victory with a massive attack on Israel and the kidnapping of several Israeli soldiers. That, too, was a disaster for the terrorists. Israeli Defense Forces foiled the attack early Monday. Troops from Israel’s Golani brigade identified ten to twelve terrorists, some of them on explosive-laden horses, and equipped with booby-trapped vehicles and suicide belts. As they attacked the Israelis, other terrorists from farther inside Gaza fired mortar shells to distract them. The terrorists were hoping to cross into Israel and inflict serious damage. Not a single Israeli, however, was killed or injured, while at least four of the terrorists were killed and others wounded. The Israelis also sent helicopters to battle terrorist attacks at several other points along the barrier with Israel. The intent was to inflict as much damage as possible on Israeli troops and civilians, while kidnapping several Israelis and hold them as bargaining chips. Hamas did not achieve a single objective.

Thus, in a single day, the virulent anti-Israel camp suffered a major military defeat at the hands of the Israelis and a major political defeat at the hands of the people it claims to represent.

Strange silence on Islamist terror

Originally published in The Pioneer, June 9, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Obama should have spoken up for the Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh who face terrible atrocities. But he has chosen to remain stunningly silent on South Asia’s ‘Hindu Holocaust’

There is growing concern in the United States over President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, especially in South Asia and West Asia. Although Mr Obama still enjoys media support and spillover goodwill from the election, more Americans are questioning his policies’ wisdom. He is alienating friends and trying to woo enemies; pushing away his strongest allies in the war against Islamist extremism, Israel and India, and pretending that nations behind global jihad (Iran and Pakistan) will help defeat it.

Even members of his own party are wary. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently appeared before the US House Appropriations Committee to deliver the Obama line on Israel, it was Democrat Nita Lowey (along with Republican Mark Kirk) who replied that if the Administration was going to tie Israel’s hands, the House would counter by “restricting aid to the Palestinian Authority”.

Missing in the debate thus far has been concern for the developing ‘Hindu Holocaust’ in South Asia. In several policy pronouncements numerous speeches about the situation in South Asia, Mr Obama never once mentioned the human rights disaster that is rapidly bringing an end to the remaining Pakistani Hindu community. Nor has protecting 13,000,000 Bangladeshi Hindus ever figured in his grand design for South Asia.

While President Obama speaks of the need for international support and regional cooperation, he never once suggested that international aid be sent to care for the thousands of Pakistani Hindus who have been streaming into Indian Punjab. He has never challenged human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to investigate regularly-reported atrocities against Bangladeshi Hindus and the ensuing refugee nightmare; nor has he ever suggested that Bangladesh’s Vested Property Act is a racist law that is incompatible with his vision of peace in South Asia.

To be sure, the destruction of Pakistan’s Hindus has taken several decades, and it has taken three decades to reduce Hindus from under one in five Bangladeshis to under one in 10; so, silence about it cannot be laid at Mr Obama’s feet alone. But in Mr Barack Obama, Americans have a leader with a grand scheme for what he expects to be the future of South Asia to be — evidently a South Asia that tolerates anti-Hindu ethnic cleansing by Muslim radicals. At the very least, Mr Obama should be demanding help for the victims — no less so than that given the ‘Palestinian refugees’ who have an entire UN agency devoted to them.

Evidence of atrocities continues to pour in almost daily. If the US and India tolerate it, we can hardly expect the weak civilian Governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh to act. In March, I interviewed several victims in West Bengal myself. Most poignant was the testimony of a Hindu family that had crossed into India only 22 days earlier with their 14-year-old daughter who told me about being gang-raped by Islamist radicals in Bangladesh. The ‘Hindu Holocaust’ is real and it is happening now. Will an outraged world act or do what it normally does and cry for the victims only after their death?

In 1941, Western Allies began getting intelligence about the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews and others. Some initially dismissed the reports but eventually recognised their veracity. In the end, though, they said the best way to help the victims was to win the war and so did nothing. If that’s Mr Obama’s guide, he had better check his history. Because the vast majority of Holocaust victims were murdered after the Allies decided to help the victims by ignoring them.

World Still Concerned about Shoaib Choudhury

Originally published in Weekly Blitz, May 13, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Looking from the outside, one might conclude that the fight for Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has reached an impasse. And while we seem well passed the time when every month brought new and significant actions by either the Bangladeshi government or Shoaib’s defenders, it would be a mistake to conclude that the world has forgotten about the anti-Islamist Muslim. Not a week goes by when I do not receive at least one interrogatory about Shoaib Choudhury and his fight for justice. Sometimes, it is from the media; and even as I have been speaking about saving the Bangladeshi Hindus from government-tolerated discrimination; the events and radio shows always begin with the host asking me for an update on the fate of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Calls and emails come in from average citizens wanting to know if he is all right and what they can do to help. We still receive the occasional offer of asylum—something Shoaib consistently turns down because, as he makes clear, he is a Bangladeshi. “Let the radicals leave my country,” he says at such times. I still get periodic questions about boycotting Bangladeshi goods; something I have been against to this point, by the way.

Significantly, however, there is continued concern on the part of governments, as well. Recent concern from the government of Australia is instructive. The Australian Foreign Ministry has expressed interest in meeting with me for an update on the status of the Shoaib Choudhury case and to see what might be proper for it to do. In a recent letter to Australian Senator Ursula Stephens, the Foreign Ministry wrote that “The Australian Government will continue to encourage the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that Mr. Choudhury’s trial is conducted in an expeditious and transparent fashion in accordance with proper judicial process and that his human rights are respected at all times." Stephens is a high ranking member of the ruling party, who is close to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. She also has been an outspoken advocate for Shoaib Choudhury.

The Foreign Ministry’s letter indicates where the next phase of the international struggle for justice in his case is heading. At first, that struggle was focused on gaining Shoaib’s release from imprisonment and torture in accordance with legal norms and protection of his human rights. After several government officials admitted that the charges against him were “false…and only maintained to appease the radicals,” efforts focused on preventing this miscarriage of justice from entering and thus polluting the Bangladeshi legal system. Ultimately, the former (BNP) government went forward with the case and in doing so, decided their political need to “appease the radicals” was more important than the damage that doing so would bring to the people of Bangladesh. Specifically, the decision has meant that every piece of legislation intended to provide tariff relief for Bangladeshi imports to the United States has been defeated without every seeing the light of day. (The United States imports about 70 percent of Bangladesh’s garment exports, and has free trade agreements and other relationships with several garment exporting countries who have been steadily eroding Bangladesh’s place in the US market as a result.) Several members of the Bangladeshi government were told that these consequences would follow their continued need to placate radicals, as “the American people do not intend to spend their money to support their enemies.” These included the current and former Bangladeshi ambassadors to the United States and former Home Minister Lutfuzzaman Babar, who conveyed the information to former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. Yet, the rulers in Dhaka decided to place their personal political interests above the needs of the Bangladeshi people.

Once the legal proceedings began, internationally famed human rights attorney Irwin Cotler filed an amicus curiae brief that identified almost two dozen ways in which the case against Shoaib Choudhury violated Bangladesh’s own laws and international human rights laws. Dr. Cotler has defended such luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Andrei Sakharov, and Saad Ibrahim, as well as Shoaib Choudhury. And since then, the proceedings themselves have been carried out contrary to accepted principles of justice worldwide. For instance, despite the fact that the charges were brought five and a half years ago, the government has not been able to provide even a shred of evidence to support them. At one point, it alleged that Shoaib wrote an article entitled, “Hello Tel Aviv” for the American paper USA Today; a completely fictitious allegation that has never been proven in the least. The trial judge told the prosecution that it would have to produce proof of the article, or he would dismiss the case. That was on August 6, 2008, yet the government never even attempted to provide any evidence, and the judge never raised the issue again. The government’s case for the past seven months has consisted of one witness, the officer in charge of Shoaib’s 2003 arrest, Abdul Hanif. Moreover, he has simply not shown up to testify for the past several successive court dates. There is a legal principle in civil societies world wide that “justice delayed is justice denied”; and so in any society of laws, the court would have issued a warrant for the witness to testify or dismissed the case. The government of Bangladesh has done neither. These various illegal irregularities on the part of the Bangladeshi government, prompted one US official to suggest to me in April that “because they have no case against Shoaib, the Bangladeshis are making the legal process his punishment.”

And indeed, there is no movement toward any resolution of the case by the Bangladeshi court system, causing many people to question the independence of the Bangladeshi judiciary. If it proceeds along the lines of its own law, according to one expert here, it “can vindicate its entire legal system by following its own laws and dropping the case.”

Many people have wondered if Bangladesh’s Awami League government will break from the policies of its predecessor or continue them, making only cosmetic changes to enhance it own image. On January 12, several members of the US Congress sent a letter to the then newly elected Prime Minister. They represented Republicans, Democrats, committees that determine appropriations and trade legislation, and the US House Bangladeshi Caucus. In the letter, they congratulated Sheikh Hasina on her electoral victory and hoped she would bring “democracy, integrity and prosperity to Bangladesh. As a first step in achieving these worthy goals,” they noted, “we urge your government to quickly drop all charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.” “Doing so,” they noted at the end of their letter, “will take a significant step toward restoring faith in the Bangladeshi government and removing a significant obstacle in Bangladeshi-American relations.”

This is unusually direct language between governments, and it establishes that there has been no change in US policy in this matter, at the very least since the US Congress passed a resolution condemning the action in 2007. It also means that Bangladeshi goods will continue to be assessed higher tariffs than those of its competitors as long as it proceeds to persecute this journalist in opposition to its own constitution and international norms of human rights.

The current Bangladeshi government came to power with a promise to end that sort of injustice and corruption that has plagued Bangladesh in the international arena for years. The fact that it has done nothing to demonstrate that it is no different from previous governments is starting to take hold among many in Washington and elsewhere. Some legal experts are starting to see if the continued persecution Shoaib Choudhury can be the basis for a case against Bangladesh at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Others are investigating to see if it can be used to exclude Bangladesh from participating in UN peacekeeping forces.

Some people who previously were willing to wait decided against that in February when Shoaib was attacked in newspaper office by, among others, operatives of the ruling party. The fact that the government has refused to take action on Shoaib’s complaint against his attackers—who are known to the police—further confirms the belief that the Awami League government might not be what it advertised itself as prior to the election. There is even some considered opinion that it is doing so at the expense of the Bangladeshi people, at the behest of one of its supporters who has a personal vendetta against Shoaib.

In a meeting at the Bangladeshi Embassy in Washington, Ambassador M. Humayun Kabir addressed Bangladesh’s inability to gain favorable trade status in the US by asking me, “How can you hold up aid for 150 million people because of one man?”

“How can I? How can you?” I responded. “You’re the ones prosecuting a case you have admitted to be false. You’re the ones telling the rest of the world that you place the feelings of the radicals above your own laws. All you have to do is stop it. How can I? How can you do this to your people?”

For the past six months, Shoaib’s defenders in and out of several governments, have taken a wait and see approach wondering if Bangladesh will defend its own legal integrity and stop this illicit prosecution or not. Many are beginning to believe that the Awami League government has already given them its answer.

Nehru, Obama and U.S. support for Pakistan

Originally published on UPI Asia, May 11, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Chicago, IL, United States, — Poll after poll shows that most Americans view India, not Pakistan, as their ally – a kindred democracy fighting a common Islamist enemy. Nevertheless, when I was in India throughout March, the question I was asked most frequently was, “Why is the United States supporting Pakistan?”

Even before U.S. President Barack Obama’s March 27 speech, in which he announced a strengthened U.S. commitment to Pakistan, trepidation had been building. Admitted supporters of the U.S. president told me in New Delhi’s Connaught Place that Obama’s pro-Pakistan tilt varied from their pre-election expectations.

One IT professional said that Obama’s words were “inspiring,” but given current developments, “we will have to see how they are translated into action.” Another young man expressed a growing sentiment that Obama’s actions are meant to “insure that the American people are safe,” regardless of “lives of other people of other countries.”

But Obama pledged in his speech an additional US$1.5 billion annually to Pakistan and identified it – not India – as an ally in fighting the Taliban.

Indians found that especially baffling since Pakistan has shown a decided inability and lack of desire to take on Islamist terrorists, while Indians have been laying down their lives in that struggle.

Even Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher seemed uncomfortably aware of the inconsistency. Shortly after Obama spoke, a CNN-IBN correspondent asked Boucher if he thought the Pakistanis had the “ability and willingness” to fight the Taliban as Obama said they would.

“Let me put it this way,” Boucher replied. “We talked to all the senior people there … and they said they wanted to.”

They “wanted to?” That was Boucher’s ringing support? No wonder Indians are concerned. Many Americans are working to change that policy, but India has a role in that, too, for U.S. policy can be traced in part to Indian decisions decades ago.

People in the U.S. State Department are no different than their counterparts elsewhere. They depend on contacts and authoritative people “on the ground” worldwide, people with inside information and expertise impossible to garner from halfway around the world.

In the 1950s, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a critical decision to minimize contacts with the United States and thereby gave Pakistan that exclusive role. In 1955, he founded the Non-Aligned Movement, which was nonaligned in name only. Look at Nehru’s cohorts: Gamal Abdul Nasser, whose Egypt was a major Soviet ally and large recipient of Soviet aid; Josip Broz Tito, while a communist gadfly, solidly in that camp; Marxist Kwame Nkrumah; and Indonesia’s Sukarno, aligned with China and North Korea.

India itself became ever more dependent on Soviet aid and welcomed legions of Soviet advisors and experts. Only in the early 1990s did India, along with others, realize it had backed the wrong side in the Cold War and had to reorient its policies.

For almost four decades, when U.S. diplomats and advisors needed someone with inside information or to confirm their hunches, they would call their contacts, all of whom were Pakistani. For decades, Pakistanis – and only Pakistanis – were the ones upon whom they relied and the ones who helped their careers.

is no wonder that the experts advising Obama see the world through that Pakistani prism and really do believe them when they say they will fight the radicals. Since then some things might have changed, but not those decades-long relationships. Moreover, Indian leaders often allow their desire to be politically correct on other issues – such as Iraq and at times Israel – to take precedence over Indian interests. But all is not lost.

Washington is a city crawling with lobbyists. Everyone has them, including India. The challenge India is now facing is to make India Washington’s major source of information; to convince people to call an Indian, not a Pakistani, when they need good information about South Asia. That must be a priority for everyone from the Indian Embassy to paid lobbyists and Indian officials who meet with their U.S. counterparts.

India should also push its own plans to counter Pakistan’s. For instance, Obama spoke of regional cooperation. Since Indian troops were so successful against Kashmiri terrorists, let them take on that fight, so Pakistan can move its troops from there to fight the Taliban. That only makes sense if Obama and the Pakistanis were serious about cooperating and fighting terrorists.

There are a myriad of ways India can shift its relationship with the United States, and the American people are ready for this. That

is the challenge facing those who want to see a change in U.S. policies in South Asia.

(Dr. Richard L. Benkin is vice president of Gallagher Bassett Services in Chicago, Illinois. He is also U.S. correspondent for the “Weekly Blitz,” published in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and special advisor on Bangladeshi affairs to the Washington D.C.-based Intelligence Summit. He has written numerous essays and commentaries on the Middle East, Bangladesh and South Asia. He can be contacted at drrbenkin@comcast.net. ©Copyright Richard L. Benkin)

Fawning Media will Ignore Obama’s Pakistan Disaster

Originally published on Canada Free Press, May 11, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

The Obama Administration continues to say all the “correct” things about Pakistan and its fight against the Taliban. Yet, knowledgeable observers in South Asia give the country no more than twelve months to stave off the terror group’s inevitable takeover of that nuclear Islamic Republic. In a New York Times piece in early April, David Kilcullen, former adviser to United States military commander General David Petraeus, predicted Pakistan’s fall to the Taliban “within six months.” Shortly afterwards, his former boss agreed that the current Taliban “insurgency” could “take down” Pakistan. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted later that month, “I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists.”

Yet, the Administration continues to push its program of propping up the ineffective Pakistani government courtesy of US taxpayers.

The US should have two priorities for Pakistan: secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal; and lead an international effort to protect the country’s remaining minority populations on both sides of the Indo-Pak border, as they have been fleeing Taliban persecution in droves at least since February. The administration seems committed to doing neither. Thus, when Pakistan, along with its nukes and remaining minorities, falls to the Taliban; we can expect it to say that it tried everything it could, but that things were too far gone given the policies of its predecessor. And when it does, expect the media to fall behind it lock step, even though the same reporters gleefully blamed President George W. Bush for 9/11 and refused even to entertain the notion that the policies of the previous, Clinton, administration were the primary cause.

Obama’s consistent mistake is to believe that the Taliban is his enemy and that Pakistan is otherwise his ally.

First, there is no question that US policy has tilted toward Pakistan for decades; a mistake no matter who sat in the Oval Office. In part, that was due to foreign policy decisions made by India in the 1950s when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was the driving force behind the so-called “Non-Aligned Movement,” which was non-aligned in name only. Its godfathers were some of the Soviet Union’s staunchest allies at the time: Gamal Abdul Nasser, whose Egypt was the Soviets’ Middle East lynchpin and a large recipient of Soviet aid; Josip Broz Tito, while a communist gadfly, solidly in that camp; Marxist Kwame Nkrumah; and Indonesia’s Sukarno, aligned with China and North Korea. India itself became dependent on Soviet aid and welcomed legions of Soviet advisors and experts. Only in the early 1990s did it realize that it backed the wrong side in the Cold War and had to re-orient its policies. Continued rule by left-leaning governments, however, made a clear break impossible. Towing the politically correct line, the government consistently found itself on the opposite side of the US on issues like Iraq and Israel. Bush even took the lead in changing the dynamnic by offering India—and not Pakistan—a coveted nuclear deal; but the leftist Indian government almost rejected Bush’s bold attempt at rapprochement. On the other hand, Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf was much more skilled at appearing to broker some sort of bridge in fighting the Taliban and even on the Israel issue; and his country continued to benefit from that.

Regardless, it is to our everlasting shame that the United States along with the rest of the world sat by idly while Pakistan’s religious minorities were first stripped of their rights by a Nuremburg-like law. Pakistan's Enemy Property Act was and is openly anti-Hindu and has been in force since the Lyndon Johnson administration. During the same period, we remained silent while Pakistani Hindus fell from almost twenty to only one percent of the population. Most of this took place before anyone even heard of the Taliban. So, it is clear that anti-minority sentiment is not restricted to the enemies Obama has identified but is rather entrenched in the existing Pakistani institutions that we have been and still are supporting morally and with our tax dollars.

President Obama has made a great deal of noise about “restoring” America’s moral leadership in the world. Yet, he is missing a chance for genuine moral leadership here by actively ignoring this chance to unite the planet in a great humanitarian endeavor. If his administration earmarked its pledge of $1.5 billion in non-military aid annually for an effort to save Pakistan's minorities, he would find little opposition. Obama’s consistent mistake is to believe that the Taliban is his enemy and that Pakistan is otherwise his ally.

Even as Democratic Senator John Kerry, Foreign Relations Committee chair, introduced the legislation authorizing those funds for Pakistan, he warned his Senate colleagues, “An alarming percentage of the Pakistani population now sees America as a greater threat than Al Qaeda…Until we change that perception there is, frankly, very little chance of ending tolerance for terrorist groups or persuading any Pakistani government to devote the political capital necessary to deny such groups… the sanctuary that they’ve been able to receive.”

Yet, the administration ignored even its own mouthpiece by abdicating responsibility for securing the nukes to those same people Kerry was warning us about. On his 100th day in office, Obama said, “I’m confident that we can make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure primarily initially because the Pakistan army recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands.” What Obama did not say is that he and many Pakistani generals would disagree on just whose hands are the wrong ones. Both the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, are known to be infiltrated by the Taliban or Taliban-sympathizers for years. For instance, in 2004, the ISI and Pakistani officials at all levels, helped fleeing Al Qaeda forces find safe havens in Nepal. Its embassy in the Nepali capital of Kathmandu brokered an agreement between Maoists insurgents and the Islamist terrorists that eventually brought the formerly outlawed communists into Nepal’s coalition government and eventually to its head. Does Obama think that Kerry’s analysis applied to everyone in Pakistan except the military?

Deep Pakistani involvement with radical Islamists

According to a BBC report in January, the Bush administration expressed concerns about the Pakistani nukes as early as last year and recommended that the US send in special forces to “secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.” Unfortunately, the Pakistanis called the proposal “outlandish” and rejected it saying there was “no chance” of them falling into “the wrong hands”! The situation now is even more desperate, and Pakistani leadership is fragile to put it kindly. Obama should reprise Bush’s proposal to secure the Pakistani nukes and use the goodwill he claims to have gotten to make it happen. He will not, however, because it would deprive him of the cover of blaming the Bush administration when the worst does happen. One would have hoped that the lives of millions and the security of the United States would mean more to the President and those around him than their political spin.

Clearly it does not. For if the President’s noble-sounding words are genuine, how do we explain the following. In his policy speech of March 27, Obama emphasized regional cooperation in the fight against Al Qaeda; and highly reliable sources inside India told me that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had informed the Indians that this meant pulling their troops back in Kashmir so that the Pakistanis would “feel comfortable” moving theirs away for the fight against the Taliban. The Pakistanis, however, are not much of a threat to the Indians in Kashmir. Their terrorist surrogates (such as the ones who carried out the November 2008 Mumbai attacks) are. Yet for ten days straight preceding Obama’s speech, Indian troops were battling those same terrorists and having a good deal of success. They even captured a major terrorist leader. Given that, Obama’s “regional solution” should have had India take on that fight, while Pakistan moved its troops against the Taliban. Of course, that only makes sense if Obama and the Pakistanis were serious about cooperating to defeat the terrorists.

Despite these warnings and the voluminous evidence of deep Pakistani involvement with radical Islamists, however, the media will scream bloody murder, blaming Bush, when Pakistan falls, even though these are Obama’s chickens that are coming home to roost. Count on it.

Look for Action, not Words

Originally published on Weekly Blitz, April 19, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

I recently received an email from an individual long involved in the struggle for minority rights in Bangladesh; an email he sent to several people who, like me, are equally involved in that struggle. The communication talked about “a new development” in the Bangladeshi government’s attitude toward minorities. Its evidence was a statement by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid that her “government believes in peace and prosperity of the mass of people, freedom of all religions and equal rights of people of all walks of life.” The PM also promised to repeal all of Bangladesh’s laws that legislate discrimination against minorities.

When will people learn to look at one’s ACTIONS and not be lulled into complacency by their words? Complacency means disaster for the minorities.

I have heard the same pious-sounding statements from Bangladeshi officials of both major parties that were never reflected in action. I wondered why these leaders continued to say such things when all they did was confirm that the speakers were either unwilling or unable to carry out their promises, if not both. Everyone in Washington knows that, and gives no credence to the words of Bangladeshi officials. That is why every single piece of legislation designed to give Bangladesh favorable trade status here failed.

One bill proposed to the US Senate in 2007 would have offered Bangladesh and some other nations a sort of consolation prize for not getting a free trade agreement. If passed, it would have lowered tariffs on Bangladeshi goods. The government considered passage so important that it sent Mohammed Yunis, who they believed was their most convincing ally, to lobby the Senators; which he did, calling the trade bill critical to the Bangladeshi economy. He urged them to pass it, but while the Senators flattered the Nobel laureate and politely thanked him for his advice, they rejected it. The bill was never even brought up for a vote in committee and died an ignoble death. Tariffs on Bangladeshi goods remain higher than those on competing countries from Latin America and elsewhere. And as long as Bangladeshi governments allow rampant oppression against minorities, they will remain so.

Yet, Hasina’s empty words are enough for those who ignore history and prefer to hope that she might be serious this time. Well, good for them; it’s nice to have hope. But “a new development”? Hardly. Hers was a statement to a visiting foreign; and if there was any substance to the countless hopeful statements that national leaders make when speaking to foreign dignitaries, our world would have long forgotten the scourges of war, poverty, and minority oppression. Even Adolf Hitler told foreign leaders in 1937 that Czechoslovakia was the last of his “territorial demands.” People forget that newly-elected Bangladeshi Prime Minister Khaleda Zia told a visiting Indian official on October 27, 2001, that her government “would protect the minorities and prevent the recurrence of recent incidents”; and that four years later, visiting US Congressman Joseph Crowley “praised the steps being taken by Prime Minister Khaleda Zia’s government to protect the minority communities.” Yet, as every rights group who is following the matter has said, minority oppression only intensified under Khaleda Zia’s government.

Mouthing empty words is easy, taking action is not. For instance, Bangladeshi officials, including those from the military-backed interim government, have said that the Vested Property Act (VPA) is, as one told me, “a black law that must be repealed.” Yet, despite its electoral landslide, the Awami League (AL) has not acted. Moreover it has supported the VPA for years. According to Dhaka University’s Professor Abul Barkat, who has written the most authoritative study the VPA, the AL and BNP have shared equally in the spoils of confiscated land and property. By the end of the last AL regime, about 40 percent of all Hindu households had been affected by the VPA, and over half of all Hindu land had been confiscated under it. Even Awami League allies recognize its 2001 passage of the Vested Properties Return Act an empty gesture that never had any reality.

More tragically, attacks on Bangladeshi minorities have increased since the AL took power; and are carried out with the knowledge that the government will not stop them. I have interviewed dozens of victims, and most report that local officials refused to help them and even told them to leave Bangladesh. Some witnesses claim to have seen them participating in attacks. Global Human Rights Defense documents a 2008 attack in Narayanganj where officials refused to act until the rights group pushed the issue. Even then, the government only launched an “investigation” that never yielded results; the perpetrators were never punished. Last month, I interviewed a Hindu family that had crossed into India only 22 days earlier after they were brutalized and their property plundered by Islamist radicals supported by local leaders.

Unfortunately for the victims, those who should be forcing the government to keep its words seem content with the words alone. Bangladeshi Hindus have been reduced from almost one in five Bangladeshis at independence to less than one in ten today. Words will not protect those who remain, nor will calling them “a new development.” But if advocacy groups pretend they are, they will be condemning Bangladesh’s minorities to the same fate of non-Muslims in Pakistan; where those who have not been murdered, forced to convert, or forced out now pay the jizya for the “privilege” of being tolerated.
Is that what the emailer wants?

Regardless of her words, Sheikh Hasina must be held accountable for what her government does. And if it lacks the will to act, people of goodwill need to help her get it. Otherwise, they all will be guilty of making minority oppression permanent.

Obama domestic and foreign policy two sides of the same coin

Originally published in Canada Free Press, April 16, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

The Taliban are cutting through Pakistan like a knife through butter; the Pakistani government has responded by ceding parts of the country to the terrorists and ignoring the extensive Talibanization of its intelligence service, military, and bureaucracy.

David Kilcullen, former adviser General David Petraeus, recently said that Pakistan could collapse within six months; and a February report from a task force chaired by no less than former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry said: “We are running out of time to help Pakistan change its present course toward increasing economic and political instability, and even ultimate failure.”

So, what is the Obama administration’s response? Throw US taxpayer money down the rat’s hole. Or in the words of one mainstream Indian journalist regarding US policy: “Terrorism pays!”

Obama has promised the Islamic Republic of Pakistan $1.5 billion a year for the expressed purpose of fighting the Taliban, a move that baffles Indians of all political stripes. They are convinced, with justification as one told me that “Pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism against India for the last 60 years, and it is increasing day by day.” Indians also are convinced that Pakistan has used much of that US aid to fund their activities and especially those directed at India. (All Indian political groups believe that. The only difference is between those who think it good and those who do not.) Indians I interviewed after Obama’s March 27 South Asia policy speech made a big point of the fact that he repeatedly named the Taliban as our enemy but ignored the dozens of Islamist terror groups that are responsible for death and destruction throughout India. The growing impression in India is that Obama—and to some extent the United States—is concerned about preventing an attack on its soil (not a bad thing) and does not care who gets thrown under the bus or killed in the meantime (definitely a bad thing). One Indian general told me privately that the US is ignoring an opportunity to strengthen Indian resolve against Islamist terror, something that nation’s leaders often lack, but which seems to be growing among several segments of the population with no coherent leadership to direct it. He and others are convinced as well that America has no chance of stopping the spread of radical Islam in South Asia without harnessing that power.

Indians might be forgiven their skepticism given the fact that Pakistan is still resisting India’s calls for it to rein in the Lasker e Talibani terrorist group, responsible for the bloody attacks in Mumbai last fall that held the world’s rapt attention while killing 186 and injuring 304. Nor does it take any special intelligence contacts or inside information to predict that whatever assistance the US sends is far more likely than not to end up in the hands of a Taliban-ruled Pakistan anyway. Even those news outlets that are the most reticent to play up the Islamist threat broadcast stories of Pakistan being in “chaos” and losing badly to Taliban forces after each terror attack. In March, the apologists at the BBC featured a stunning segment about the oppression of Muslims—and especially Muslim women—by Pakistani Taliban in the Swat Valley and elsewhere.

Obama did give a perfunctory nod to India’s “stake” in the fortunes of South Asia’s battle against “terrorists” (although he was quite deliberate in never identifying the nexus of terror groups as “Islamist”); and the adoring media grasped it as if they were Titanic passengers holding tight to a life preserver. Just beneath the veneer of polite comments by the government and analysts lay a festering body of concern and even anger. For Obama’s high praise in fighting the Taliban was reserved for the Pakistanis, even though they have not made any effective move to stop the terrorists. On the other hand, for ten consecutive days before Obama’s speech, Indians battled Kashmiri terrorists, quite effectively at that, killing dozens and capturing an important terrorist leader. Obama’s speech was laced with platitudes about international cooperation in the fight, yet he never mentioned those Indians who laid down their lives in this fight or suggested that their efforts should allow Pakistan to redeploy troops from Kashmir to the frontier areas bordering Afghanistan and take the fight to the Taliban.

These discrepancies between Obama’s words and his actions continue to raise suspicion about him among more and more Indians. Even those previously caught up in “Obama mania” agree. I interviewed several of them in Delhi’s bustling Connaught Place in March. As one young computer technician told me, he might have found Obama “inspiring” prior to the election, but “we will have to see how they are translated into action, and that is how he will be judged.” Right now, the judgment is “not good.”

Underlying these deadly foreign policy blunders is the same philosophy that underlies Obama’s domestic blunders. Pakistan’s difficulty is the product of bad and self-seeking decisions. For years, radical Islam has been making serious inroads throughout Pakistani society, but its leaders deliberately chose to ignore it. They did so partly out of fear—fear that radicals might assassinate them; fear that they might alienate a bloc of voters; fear that the radicals would successfully use their opposition to paint them as Zionists or pro-American. And they did so out of greed—greed for the graft that would continue flowing from the minions that were taking direction from the radicals; graft from the billions in petrodollars that were funding radical activities. They did so out of wishful thinking that the radicals would either fade away or join the ranks of other civil servants, more concerned with personal enrichment than any philosophy or social goal. And they did so in some cases because they agreed with the radicals’ short term goals. Now Obama is paying them for a promise (to undo the damage their bad decisions have wrought.

The same philosophy drives Obama’s domestic policy. Just like Pakistan, America had an ideological component to its crisis. The collapse of the housing market that triggered it would not have been possible were it not for ultra-liberal measures such as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Whereas previously, strict criteria determined a bank’s ability to grant a loan no matter who the applicant was; the CRA forced banks to loan money to people who did not qualify for them with draconian consequences for any bank that dared stay with traditional mortgage criteria even if the applicant was a minority. There was also a greed component in the cushy roles and extensive contributions by lenders to Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) to ignore warnings about the system and use their positions to rubber stamp rather than oversee. But most importantly, our problems stem from bad decisions: bad decisions by the auto makers which turned once gold standard businesses into train wrecks; bad decisions by lenders to continue making bad loans; and bad decisions by home buyers to borrow more than they could repay and pretend that their incomes supported the lifestyles they demanded. And how has Obama “taught them a lesson”? By paying them for it.

Rewarding bad behavior—whether in Pakistan or the United States—will do only one thing and that is encourage more bad behavior. Obama did not tell the Pakistanis, “You knew Islamists were taking over your society but chose not to oppose them. Now, in order to get the aid we can offer and become a true ally, you have to change.” Nor did he tell those Americans who made bad business, lending, or borrowing decisions, “The one thing we will not do is enable your bad behavior with the money of Americans who made good decisions.” Instead, he has committed the United States to a policy that seeks to make the untenable viable; that promises not to force people to take responsibility for their bad decisions; that insures bad behavior will continue with regular rewards compliments of US taxpayers.

The death throes of minority Hindus

Originally published in The Pioneer, April 18, 2009

Ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh continues unabated, writes Richard L Benkin

I just returned from India after a month during which time an incredible number of significant events were occurring. My primary mission in going was to document and raise awareness of the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus. I found plenty, including evidence of ongoing attacks on them both in Bangladesh and in West Bengal, India. The border between the two is so porous that terrorists and contraband move freely with and without the help of India’s Border Security Force or West Bengal Police. But I also witnessed the tragic beginning of the end for Pakistan’s Hindus. Once one in five Pakistanis, they have been reduced to one per cent of the population.

But as the Taliban take over ever larger chunks of that country, that remnant of a people is streaming across the border into Indian Punjab. The stream became a torrent with the Taliban’s seizure of the Swat Valley earlier this year. Hindu refugees report attacks and threats by the Taliban, as well as officials telling them to leave the country “or else...” The February agreement between the Taliban and the Asif Ali Zardari Government in Pakistan ceded the area to the former and allowed Sharia’h law to be imposed on Swat’s 1.2 million inhabitants.

US President Barack Obama has used this agreement as a model in his stated quest for “moderate Taliban.” But not only does the agreement countersign ethnic cleansing, it also failed even before Mr Obama’s anticipated speech on US policy in the region. Just hours before the President spoke, one of the Taliban parties to the agreement, the Tehrik e Taliban, abrogated it with a terror attack on a mosque in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, and has engaged in other terrorist attacks subsequently.

One Hindi news channel quoted a Taliban spokesman confirming that his group was pulling out of the agreement not to attack elsewhere in Pakistan because, he said, it would be contrary to Allah’s wishes to limit Sharia’h to the Swat Valley. Yet, no major media in India, the US, or elsewhere made this connection.

Even more shameful, no media or Government has protested the ethnic cleansing of Pakistan’s Hindus, who are being finished off by the Taliban. All Governments involved in the region are just allowing it to happen, too. What kind of a world do we live in when India will not defend Hindus attacked for being Hindus; when the US ignores the atrocity; when not a single human rights group or the UN utters a word of protest?

What is happening to Pakistan’s Hindus is a crime, but a crime that is largely accomplished. There remain 13,000,000 Hindus in Bangladesh subject to the same attacks, the same racist laws, and the same intention to eradicate them. Worse, the battle is spilling across the open border into India, and it is changing the security arrangements between the two countries, the demographic balance, and continuing the ethnic cleansing there, too. It is also allowing terrorists into the country whose intention is to undermine the very nation of Hindustan.

My mission is to prevent that, to prevent the murders and other atrocities, even if I am the only voice of protest to cry out about this crime against humanity.

-- The writer is an American Jewish human rights activist.

Awami League Blowing its Chance

Originally published in News From Bangladesh, March 1, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

As an individual from one country who often finds himself protesting the actions of another, I frequently am told that doing so or demanding change is an affront to a nation’s sovereignty. That is seriously ironic, considering the continuous demands placed on my country, the United States, and my people’s country, Israel. Bangladeshi officials and governments, for instance, have demanded that Israel withdraw from territory, give free reign to Hamas terrorists committed to its destruction, release murderers of its people, give away its capital Jerusalem, create and fund a hostile state, and so forth. Some have demanded the US quit Iraq or close the terrorist holding base at Guantanamo. So be it; that is their prerogative.

It is, however, quite disingenuous for representatives of that same government to try and avoid their own country’s responsibility for its actions by complaining that my protests of its persecution of journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury insult its sovereignty. It reminds me of a debate I had last year in the public square of a West Bengal village where I interviewed Hindu victims of Islamist attacks. The ruling Communist Party (CPIM) was trying to intimidate the residents into silence and the local commissar told me that “only the CPIM is allowed to solve our problems.”

“What?” I said outraged. “I should think that a moral government would first and foremost want its problems solved then worry about who gets credit for it!”

Hence, the irony of an inefficient Bangladesh complaining about my solutions to its long known problems of oppressing dissidents and journalists.

The protests are falling ever more on deaf ears in today’s global society. With examples in front of us from Darfur, Rwanda, and elsewhere, it is very difficult for moral individuals to buy that “sovereignty” defense as a justification for the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus, who have fallen from almost one in five Bangladeshis to fewer than one in ten.

People around the world, however, hoped that December’s free and open elections meant that was changing. They were ready to accept the new government’s promises that it would move Bangladesh away from a past that has been characterized by suppression of individual rights and minority oppression, patronization of Islamist radicalism, and massive corruption whereby leaders enriched themselves while impoverishing the nation. After 60 days in office, however, the Awami League (AL) already is blowing that goodwill.

The AL presented itself as the party that would end the oppression of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, and it was successful in thereby getting the minority vote and an assumption of honesty in those claims. Yet, from its very first day in office, the AL had a golden opportunity to show everyone just how serious it is about ending that oppression; but it never even came close to taking it. It has thus far taken no action to repeal the Bangladesh’s racist Vested Property Act (VPA); a law that even otherwise careful officials have labeled “a black law that [the new] government must repeal.” Imagine what it would have done to boost optimism among Bangladeshis and improve the country’s standing worldwide if within the first few days of taking office Sheikh Hasina said her government would repeal the VPA and thereby end a shameful chapter in her nation’s history. It would not be very different than US President Barack Obama’s recent address to Congress in which he stated loudly and clearly that he will close the US base at Guantanamo. Closing Guantanamo is even more complex than repealing the VPA, but Obama’s statement indicated his determination to make it happen nonetheless even without actually doing it yet. The fact that the AL has given no indication that things will be any different under its rule while at the same time doing nothing to stop the daily attacks on Bangladeshi minorities is slowly eroding the optimism with which it was greeted.

The AL’s other mistake was allowing a gang to invade the office of dissident journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, severely beat the peace activist, and refuse to leave the premises. There is extensive evidence showing that the attackers were Awami League activists, which according to reliable sources, is why the police have refused to press the case against them. The incident is already causing a great deal of consternation in Washington, where the admittedly false charges against Shoaib Choudhury have been the reason why several pieces of pro-Bangladesh trade legislation have been defeated without ever getting out of committee. Assessing the government’s actions and knowing that the Bangladeshi Embassy has a pretty good understanding of them one individual who works with Congress told me on conditions of anonymity that people wonder if “Dhaka even looks at anything coming out of the embassy.” Another Washington insider said that at this point, “words won’t cut it and if the Bangladeshis have any hope of tariff relief, they will have to take action first in the Choudhury case.”

Given Congress’ pre-occupation with the economy and President Obama’s promise to cut the deficit by 50 percent, individual foreign aid appropriations are likely to come under increased scrutiny. In such an atmosphere decisive action might be the only way to avert deep cuts in US aid based on the Bangladesh government’s failure to address oppression of dissidents and minorities or to comply with House Resolution 64 on the case of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Dr. Richard L. Benkin, USA
E Mail : drrbenkin@comcast.net
http://www.InterfaithStrength.com
http://www.interfaithstrength.blogspot.com/

Indians love Obama, but call him naive on Pakistan

Originally published in India Post, March 3, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

NEW DELHI: On my first day of a visit to India, the media here was pre-occupied with an event they kept describing in horror as "shocking" and "audacious." It was a terrorist attack in Lahore, Pakistan on the Sri Lankan cricket team that left eight players with minor injuries.

The story dominated every one of the broadcast media and for hours seemed to be the only story they were covering. All day long, at times with a dizzying speed, anchors would interrupt their anxiety-laced presentations to cut to an expert explaining what the "cowardly act of terrorism" meant, to a Pakistani official vowing "we will get the bastards," to comments from Indian sports celebrities saying how smart their team was not to go to Lahore.

CNN's sports reporter called the event "an atrocity," a term his station has never used to describe any of the horrific and fatal attacks against Israel. Nor did his station hesitate for a moment to label the attackers "terrorists," never once militants. To an outsider, the level of horror seemed out of proportion to the attack and casualties, especially in a region that sees far worse on a numbingly regular basis.

The reality, however, is that it was not.For the former British colonies and especially the nations of South Asia, cricket is treated almost reverentially; as a sanctuary from always tense India-Pakistan relations and the region's growing political violence.

In true British fashion, cricket was simply out of bounds as a terrorist target. The attack on Sri Lankan cricketers crossed a red line, and the fact that it was crossed in Pakistan gave it greater implications. Cricket officials from London to Sydney were unanimous in refusing to send their players to Pakistan where, according to one broadcaster, "no one who visits here is safe." The Sri Lankans already were replacing Indians, who refused to attend the tournament out of security concerns.

The consensus was that the attack was part of a pattern of lawlessness in Pakistan. Indeed, the attack seemed more than anything else to say that terrorists there can strike whom they want and where they want at will. Several commentators said that that "growing militancy" was making the nation where Daniel Pearl was beheaded one where police are simply incapable of enforcing law. I interviewed numerous Indians at random in Delhi's commercial hub Connaught Place a few hours after the Lahore attack and asked them about US President Barack Obama.

In the wake of the attack, I asked them about his recent statements that confirm Pakistan's role in the war on terror, including US funding. The good news for Obama is that every person I interviewed liked the US President and looked to him as an inspiration. The bad news is that every one of those fans was adamant that Obama was making a serious mistake with Pakistan. "He's really inspiring," said one young professional. "A majority of Indians really like him [and believe he is] capable of bringing democracy back where it was."

But when I asked him about funding for Pakistan, he said, "That';s a very funny story. All of us know what's happening with that money." This was a frequently repeated sentiments; specifically, that Pakistani intelligence and military divert US funds to attacks on India with the tacit approval of several Pakistani governments. "It's been very evident," said one young woman. Another young man, whose father was a journalist said he was "completely againstâ" giving any funds to Pakistan. "It's a global fact [that] Pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism against India for the last 60 years, and it is increasing day by day.

He also expressed a sentiment that US actions are meant to "insure that the American people are safe, and they're not taking into consideration the lives of other people of other countries." Said another young woman who claimed to be a huge Obama fan that if given the opportunity to speak with the President she would tell him, "There's no other democracy like India [and] we must work together [which means him making] Indian-favoring decisions also."

As one person noted, Barack Obama has inspired a great many people with his words, but ultimately "we will have to see how they are translated into action, and that is how he will be judged."

Press Release

The Frightening Phenomenon of Human Rights Violations in South Asia

“From the perspective of a knowledgeable outsider, South Asia presents a picture of a region with nations that use the language of human rights extensively but remain silent at arguably the most extensive record of accepted major human rights abuses in the world. We have numerous examples of inter-communal violence perpetrated against Ahmadiyya in Bangladesh, Hindus in Kashmir, and Muslims in Gujarat, just to name three. Radical Islamist terrorism has been targeting non-Muslims with growing frequency in cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Jaipur, and elsewhere. Ethnic cleansing is being practiced against Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh with government complicity; and in Bhutan by the government. Even the region’s tiny Jewish population has been victimized with Christians in Northeast India preventing the Bnai Menashe from emigrating to Israel.

“Because South Asia is home to the world’s second, third, and fourth largest Muslim populations, more than 95 percent of the world’s Hindus, and close to one in four people on the planet; this phenomenon is frightening not only for South Asia but for the entire world,” said Dr. Richard L. Benkin, a Human Rights Activist from the US, while giving a talk on “Human Rights in South Asia”, jointly organized by Open Space and CCYRCI (Circle for Child and Youth Research Cooperation in India) at the Academic Staff College, Lucknow University on Saturday.

Author of a monograph on Bangladeshi Hindus, titled A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing, Dr. Benkin drew attention particularly to the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh. He said, “Governments and populations alike seem paralyzed to take effective action. The thing most likely to galvanize both is a specific issue behind which every moral individual and entity can get. The wanton destruction of the Bangladeshi Hindus is one such issue. From almost one in five Bangladeshis to less than one in ten today; Bangladeshi Hindus have been murdered and raped in ritual fashion and had their property legally plundered, while lower level official participated in the carnage and successive governments remained passive. Moreover, the world remained silent. Where was the government of India? Where was the government of the United States? The UN or the human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International? When we talk to leaders about it, they either plead ignorance or offer some excuse about why inaction was better than action. If one objects that it should not matter that the victims are Hindu; realize that it matters only because the perpetrators have made it matter. These atrocities occurred because the victims were Hindu. And perhaps the world is silent for the same reason.” Based in Chicago, Dr. Benkin is the owner and founder of Inter-Faith Strength and a Member of Islam-Israel Fellowship Council. He received “Special US Congressional Recognition” in 2005 and was nominated for Lorenzo Natali Prize for Journalism in 2006.

The programme was presided over by Prof. Nishi Pandey, Director, Academic Staff College, Lucknow University. The CCYRCI was represented by its Executive Secretary Dr. Vinod Chandra and Organising Secretary Dr. Sanjay Singh, while Open Space was represented by its Fellow Dr. Navras Jaat Aafreedi. The talk was well attended by academics and research scholars of the Lucknow University

Those Wacky Moderate Taliban

Originally published on Canada Free Press, March 29, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Delhi, India. United States President Barack Hussein Obama unveiled his much awaited South Asian strategy in a globally televised speech last night (Indian time). Today many Indians told me, as one put it, that Obama “lived up to his middle name by showing the face of a pro-Pakistan US policy.” A critical component of that policy is to find “moderate Taliban” with whom the United States and its allies can negotiate a peace.

Imagine if in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt said the US was going to look for moderate Nazis who could negotiate peace. Americans would have been outraged then, and history would show the policy to have been a calamitous mistake. Fortunately, we do not have to wait for the passage of history since those moderate Taliban have already shown us.

Obama’s template for it is the agreement earlier this year between the current Pakistani government and the Taliban that gave the latter control of Pakistan’s Swat Valley and accepted the imposition of Sharia law there. In exchange, the Taliban “promised” not to launch further attacks against the Pakitani government. Yet just hours before Obama’s speech, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a mosque located in the Khyber region near the Pakistan-Afghan border. So far, the dead or injured number at least 170 of the 250 worshippers. The mosque was completely destroyed. Most news outlets reported the event as a message to Obama that defeating the Taliban will not be easy and that the “militants” could strike at Pakistan pretty much at will. The media also said that no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. All of that is true, but very few outlets reported the fact that several security sources have evidence that the attack was the work of Tehrik-e-Taliban, a deadly Islamist group headed by Batullah Mehsud. What makes that especially significant is that Tehrik-e-Taliban and Mehsud were one of those “moderate Taliban” that entered into that agreement in the Swat Valley. One of the Hindi language channels reported that the group’s spokesman claimed it abrogated the treaty because “it is against the will of Allah to fight for Sharia only in Swat Valley, that all of Pakistan must be under Sharia.”

It took only a month for these “moderates” to do what Hamas, Hizbollah, and other radical Islamists terror groups have done consistently; treating all agreements with us as nothing more than temporary respites valid only until they believe it in their interests to fight. It is a clearly established pattern among these groups yet no one in the Obama Administration seems able to make a connection.

Obama’s inexperience deadly in South Asia

Originally published in Canada Free PRess, March 20, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

March 20, 2009 (Kolkata, India). While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still congratulating the Pakistani government for “resolving its crisis,” by which she means an internal political spat; the real crisis is only getting worse. The Taliban continues its march through Pakistan, imposing Sharia law and persecuting non-Muslims as it does, while President Barack Obama continues to happily search for the “moderate Taliban” among them. And that’s not all.

Yesterday, police here foiled an attempted terrorist bombing by a former member of the Pakistani Rangers paramilitary force. According to Kolkata police and the Indian Border Security Force (BSF), Shahbaz Ismail, flew from Karachi, Pakistan northwest of India to the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka, which borders the Indian state of West Bengal that has Kolkata as its capital. He slipped across the border near Murshidabad not far from this sprawling metropolitan area, the world’s 14th largest. The BSF got a tip about Ismail and alerted the Kolkata police. “We found out that [Ismail] would go to Fairlie Place to buy a rail ticket,” a police spokesman said.

When the would be terrorist got there, the police were ready, even before he had a chance to purchase a ticket to Indian-controlled Kashmir, known as Jammu, which was to be the site of his terrorist action. They had men stationed all around the area, some even posing as reservation agents; all with Ismail’s picture. According to one of the special agents on the scene, Ismail was in India “for a secret mission.” Interrogators are still working on Ismail for the details, but they know it was to take place in Kashmir. Ismail is part of the Al Badar terrorist group, affiliated with Al Qaeda. According to Indian intelligence, over 80 percent of the terrorists “used to work for the Pakistani army and paramilitary force.”

This is the “resolution” for which Obama and Clinton have been congratulating the Pakistanis.

India is in the midst of an election campaign at the moment, and there have been numerous terrorist attacks and attempts recently, almost all originating from or supported by Pakistan. That same day, terrorists attempted to blow up a full passenger train in India’s northeast only to detonate the device too early and so causing only minimal damage. And the day before, a terrorist exploded a bomb in a market in the same region, killing several shoppers. Only one day before that, it was revealed that all of India’s major candidates have been given increased security because of credible terrorist threats.

It might assuage some people that CIA Director Leon Pannetta is now in India, but most people here believe the Obama administration is oblivious to increasing terrorist actions in South Asia, much of that sentiment fueled by Obama’s comments about finding a negotiated settlement with the terrorists.

India and South Asia are the key to winning the war on terror, and it appears that the best Obama is hoping for is a negotiated compromise with the terrorists.

Richard Benkin's two addresses at Lucknow University on March 13 & 14, 2009, were covered by over a dozen newspapers and at least two television stations. One station conducted a taped interview of him.

The addresses were well-received and were presented in a forthright manner, indicting radical Islam and their appeasers for crimes against humanity, especially as they relate to the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus--something that we can stop, if we have the will. What the "civilized world" does, ultimately, will tell us what kind of a world we have and how civilized we are,

Here is a sample of the coverage:

2009-01-28T013623Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNP_2_India-376874-1-pic0.jpg

Clinton Puts US Head in Pakistani Sand

Originally published in Canada Free Press, March 18, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Rudrapur, India. If Americans (or anyone else) needed proof that our government is hopelessly lost in South Asia, this morning’s Indian papers provide all the confirmation they need. The article in question featured a beaming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praising the Pakistanis for “themselves resolving [their] difficulties.”

Now, to be sure, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and his political rival Nawaz Sharif did resolve their internecine spat, but only because the military “convinced” Zardari that it would be in his best interests to give into to Sharif and re-appoint sacked judges loyal to the latter. Some accomplishment.

But Clinton’s belief that this deal can “stabilize civilian democracy and the rule of law” in Pakistan would be laughable were it not so tragic. Before their falling out, Zardari and Sharif appeared to be allies in the wake of last year’s Pakistani elections that ended the one-man rule of former president and military strongman Pervez Musharraf. The coalition of the hopeful hailed that election as a new democratic era in Pakistan. This recent events showed us first that the military is still in charge in Pakistan and second, that the Obama administration along with the European Union are willing to sacrifice the freedom and very lives of others so they can claim victory for their misguided South Asian policies.

Clinton forgot to mention that even when things were all hunky dory between the two rivals, Pakistan continued to slide into chaos. The two never even began to address Pakistan’s endemic corruption at all levels of officialdom. The population’s radicalization by Islamist forces proceeded with a fury. And the military never stopped calling the shots even as westerners were jumping over each other praising the nation’s fig leaf of a civilian government.

Worse, over the past weeks South Asians have watched Pakistan crumble into chaos while its political leaders quarreled with each other instead of the Taliban at the gate. What seems to have slipped Clinton’s mind is that Taliban forces are taking over larger and larger swaths of this nuclear power. In February, the Zardari government even made a deal with them. It agreed to cede Pakistan’s Swat Valley to the Taliban (who were controlling without effective government opposition anyway) and allow it to operate under Sharia law. The Swat Valley, it should be noted, is only 100 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad and home to over 1.2 million people who might not want to live under Sharia. But that’s Pakistani democracy for you.

But this same government, evidently in an attempt to show just how open and democratic it is just released Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Kadeer Khan on the world. He already shared Pakistani nuclear technology with North Korea and other nasty regimes and is thought to be ready to share that technology with Islamist terrorists and rogue states.

Moreover, Clinton and others seem content to allow what has become a river of misery to flow from Pakistan to India’a Punjab: a mass exodus of Pakistani Hindus. This remnant of a community was once one in five Pakistanis and has been reduced to one percent of the population. With Taliban forces in effective control over greater portions of the country, the Hindu population is fleeing fast, either after atrocities have been committed or just ahead of them. According to several informants among them, Taliban officials told them to get out of the country fast or face “dire consequences.” Those officials had a personal stake in that, too, as Pakistan’s Enemy Property Act then gives them the right to seize that “non-Muslim” land and distribute it to a Muslim; likely a relative, ally, or purchaser. Clinton’s praise for this government under which this problem has only grown is consigning the Hindus of Pakistan to extinction through death, forced conversion, or flight. The Pakistan government said this was not “capitulation but the price of peace.” Tell that to the millions streaming across this sad border. They are also victims of a deal with “moderate Taliban,” such as President Obama said he wants to make elsewhere in South Asia.

As these “moderate Taliban” of Mr. Obama’s fantasy world complete their takeover of Pakistan, he should know that there are plenty more of them here in India, where they already have called for chopping off a swath of Northern India from Kashmir to Bengal and turning it into the Islamist state of Mughalistan where Sharia would prevail. And each time capitulate to the Islamists or congratulate those who do, more and more people swell the ranks of our enemies here in South Asia.

Are we still smiling Secretary Clinton?

Obama's futile search for 'moderate radicals'

Originally published in the American Thinker, March 14, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

The words we use are important, and each has its own specific meaning. So when the Obama Administration said that it was open to dealing with "moderate Taliban," people should ask what in the world it means. The Taliban is by definition a radical organization that is not about to give on its maximalist demand of imposing Sharia law wherever it attains power. It is in its very essence contrary to everything we believe in as Americans. When the US President, who considers himself a master of words, speaks about moderate radicals, he needs to be asked, "Are you crazy?"

President Obama is copying the policy of the Pakistani government whereby it has identified elements of the Taliban that it believes are moderate; that is, amenable to negotiation. This, of course, is criminally naïve. Our history with Islamist radicals is that the only time they negotiate is when they believe themselves too weak for a military win and consider themselves bound to any "negotiated peace" only until they are strong enough for total victory.

Last month, Pakistan's government concluded an agreement with those moderate radicals whereby it allowed Sharia law to replace the law of the land in the Swat Valley and Taliban control to replace its own. In exchange, the Taliban agreed to a "permanent peace." Does anyone want to guess how permanent that will be? The Swat Valley, moreover, is located less than 100 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. It is home to over 1.2 million people who now have been consigned to live under the same tyrannical rule that pertained in Afghanistan before the Taliban was defeated there. There is also a giant stone statue of Buddha in the area, which likely will meet the fate of those that used to exist in Afghanistan.

As reported on Fox News at the time, NATO "blasted" the agreement and predicted that the Taliban would only use the ceasefire to become more powerful. Even Amnesty International objected, fearing it would legitimize the Taliban's human rights abuses. The new Obama administration was silent, perhaps mulling over the idea for itself.

Pakistan's government claims that the agreement was not "capitulation but the price of peace" in the region. Taliban leaders, however, say that capitulation is precisely what is it-and I cannot believe that there is something on which we agree. Capitulation was the price of peace. Taliban leaders claim that it was their unrelenting war in the valley and their policy of burning homes and other buildings indiscriminately that forced the government to surrender.

Now, Obama has decided that this is a pretty good idea and has let it be known that he is ready to negotiate with "moderate Taliban." Thus far, the Taliban response has been that they, too, are ready, so long as the United States will "stop your military action in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

This is about as wrong-headed a policy as one could imagine. Although people grow weary of comparisons with the Nazis, we might consider this one. In 1937, the British and French agreed to let Hitler have the part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland as the price of "peace in our time," which was the British leader's famous quote after the concession. It was not long, however, before Hitler gobbled up the rest of that nation and soon embarked on his war for global domination that cost tens of millions of lives.

The Pakistanis ceded this one part of their country with same motives as their 1937 precursors. But less than one month later, Taliban forces already have taken over larger chunks of their country, and the civilian government is in shambles with politicians bickering while Pakistan burns. Most observers believe that only a military coup (which likely will occur as soon as March 16), will save nuclear Pakistan from becoming a Taliban state.

Mr. Obama better take note of the price of appeasement.

Maybe I’m just dumb, but “Smart Power” makes no sense to me.

Originally published on Canada Free Press, March 23, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Perhaps the Obama-Clinton concept of Smart Power is just too sophisticated for my limited conservative brain. For there is nothing smart about it, and it seems like code for avoiding the use of any kind of power. The first tip off came from the fact that it is winning high praise among those who have long detested any manifestation of US power: the Europeans and the UN. The second tip off is that the earliest manifestations of Smart Power could not have been dumber.

There was President Obama’s missive to Iran in which he offered to negotiate and help it “take its rightful place among the community of nations.” The speech reminded me a lot of his famous Philadelphia speech during the campaign. Obama was going to somehow explain his relationship with anti-US, anti-Semitic preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But instead he was allowed to wax poetically and make the election a referendum on race in the United States. No substance, but it sure sounded pretty. So, since it worked on us, it appeared he would try it out on the Iranians. How smart has that turned out to be? A day after the speech, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and long time diplomat Nicholas Burns was asked about it on the BBC. To Burns’ credit, he refused to take relentless BBC bait to trash former President George W Bush, which many former officials have taken up with relish. But he also praised Obama’s effort and said it “would put the Iranians on the defensive” by forcing them either to accept the offer or isolate themselves further. Yet the very next day, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei turned that around with a point that more Americans should have made before casting their votes this past November. He said that Obama’s words were fine, but words mean nothing unless they are backed up with action and that they would judge Obama’s veracity by what he does. In other words, Khamenei put America on the defensive. He put the ball back in Obama’s court, and he must either act or appear disingenuous. Strike One.

Worse still, Obama gave Iranian hard-liners and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad a gift they could never have managed themselves. Iranians will soon be going to the polls, and Ahmedinejad and his crowd were expecting to take quite a hit given the terrible state of the Iranian economy. Now, however, they are making a lot of noise that it was they who made Obama’s plea (which is exactly it is seen here in Asia) possible. ‘Do you really think,’ they are asking, ‘that the US president would have come crawling to us after 30 years if we had given up our march toward nuclear weapons? Or our principled support for Palestinian “freedom fighters?’ And they also are touting it as a defeat for “the Jewish lobby.” A lot of Iranians think they’re right, too. Strike Two.

More smart power came around the same time when Obama said he was interested in finding “moderate Taliban.” There are people I am working with in South Asia who have faced the brutality that some of those “moderates” have provided to their communities and had been looking to the United States to be the champion that would help their Indian government finally take a stand against terrorism and inter-communal strife that is growing here daily. They felt betrayed and discouraged by Obama’s statement and wonder it the US is really the moral beacon they believed it to be. And just today, Obama’s “new approach” was praised by the Pakistani Foreign Minister—the same one who ceded his country’s Swat Valley to the Taliban who are in the process of imposing Sharia law just 100 miles from the Pakistani capital. As that is happening, the remnant of Pakistan’s Hindu population is fleeing just ahead of the scimitar into India’s Punjab state. Strike Three.

One of our greatest barriers in overcoming Islamists is their boast that we have no moral staying power; that we are a shallow, consumer society that will perish. They on the other hand represent moral strength that in the end will triumph. These manifestations of Not-so-smart power make them seem prescient and are going to win the Taliban more recruits than they every got from Bush. In fact, the language of our new administration is conspicuous for its absence of words like victory; it seems that we have given up the very notion that radical Islam (oops, we’re not supposed to say that, either) should be defeated.

The last time this happened to the United States was during the 1960s and 1970s. During the administrations of Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmie Carter, the United States defined its struggle with the Soviet Union in rather ambiguous terms; ambiguous actions followed, and much of the world saw our march toward socialism inexorable. Then came US President Ronald Reagan who changed the nature of how the United States would henceforth view its fight with international communism when he publicly defined the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” When he did that, political opponents on the left, academics, and even from some in his own party rained torrents of criticism upon him; but not the American people. Most average Americans found Reagan’s candor refreshing. We had grown up in the shadow of a possible nuclear holocaust because of that evil empire, and we didn’t like it. We liked the perceived drop in tensions from previous decades but deep down knew that it was temporary and who our enemy was. Ronald Reagan made it okay to name it again.

That same resolve to fight this war was apparent in the United States after 9/11. All of a sudden we experienced what countries like India and Israel had been experiencing for some time at the hands of Islamist radicals. And we didn’t like it. But in the latter years of the Bush Administration and the first 60 days of the Obama Administration, we seem to have lost our way; lost that edge. In fact, the growing opinion in India is that from being the beacon against Islamist terror, the United States now is content to sacrifice others for the illusion of safety. Obamamania is fading fast here among large segments of the population.

The world can only pray that Obama or the person who follows him develop the same strength of character that Ronald Reagan had and will unequivocally and openly define today’s evil empire as Islamist terrorists, for that is what they are. And that is really smart power.

Obama Afghan-Pakistan Policy Already Unraveling

Originally published in the American Thinker, March 28, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin
DELHI, INDIA, United States President Barack Hussein Obama unveiled his much awaited South Asian strategy in a globally televised speech last night (Indian time). Today many Indians told me, as one put it, that Obama "lived up to his middle name by showing the face of a pro-Pakistan US policy," a critical component of which that policy is to find "moderate Taliban" with whom the United States and its allies can negotiate a peace.

Imagine if in 1942 Franklin Roosevelt had said that the US was going to look for moderate Nazis who could negotiate peace. Americans would have been outraged then, and history would show the policy to have been a calamitous mistake. Fortunately, we do not have to wait for the passage of history since those moderate Taliban have already provided evidence that the policy is terribly flawed.

Obama's template is the agreement earlier this year between the current Pakistani government and the Taliban that gave the latter control of Pakistan's Swat Valley and accepted the imposition of Sharia law there. In exchange, the Taliban "promised" not to launch further attacks against the Pakitani government.
Yet just hours before Obama's speech, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a mosque located in the Khyber region near the Pakistan-Afghan border. So far, the dead or injured number at least 170 of the 250 worshippers. The mosque was completely destroyed.
Most news outlets reported the event as a message to Obama that defeating the Taliban will not be easy and that the "militants" could strike at Pakistan pretty much at will. The media also said that no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. All of that is true, but very few outlets reported the fact that several security sources have evidence that the attack was the work of Tehrik-e-Taliban, a deadly Islamist group headed by Batullah Mehsud. What makes that especially significant is that Tehrik-e-Taliban and Mehsud were one of those "moderate Taliban" that entered into that agreement in the Swat Valley. One of the Hindi language channels reported that the group's spokesman claimed it abrogated the treaty because "it is against the will of Allah to fight for Sharia only in Swat Valley, that all of Pakistan must be under Sharia."

It took only a month for these "moderates" to do what Hamas, Hezb'allah, and other radical Islamists terror groups have done consistently; treating all agreements with us as nothing more than temporary respites valid only until they believe it in their interests to fight. It is a clearly established pattern among these groups -- yet no one in the Obama Administration seems able to make a connection.

The Real Issue in the Gaza Fighting

Originally published on South Asia Forum, February 1, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

As people worldwide choose up sides to cheer for in the current Gaza fighting, few recognize what the real issue is, and fewer of them are willing to admit it. Distilled to its most essential ingredient, the Middle East conflict is and always was about Israel. Everything else is window dressing. Ever since Jewish halutzim (or pioneers) began reclaiming their ancient homeland and a renewed Jewish state became a reality, the official position of almost every Arab government and entity has been that a Jewish state of any size and location in the Middle East is unacceptable. That same position has been repeated ad nauseum from almost every mosque in the world; certainly every mosque in the Middle East. If many people in the world today cite blatantly anti-Jewish Quran verses as basic to Islam, you can blame those Imams who scream them out week after week at their Friday sermons. The fact that they are broadcast on official Arab government television and are never denounced by Islamic leaders and scholars only reinforces that notion in the minds of many.

It’s not about “the occupation,” unless one considers everything “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea occupied. And it never was. Nor is it about the aspirations of a people called Palestinian. And it never was. If it was about the West Bank and Gaza, there could have been Palestinian state on both pieces of land—and with Jerusalem as its capital—any time between 1948 and 1967. Both were occupied territory, but the “occupiers” were Arabs: Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem; and Egypt ran Gaza. In 1950, Jordan even annexed the entire territory. Why those who claimed outrage when Israel annexed Jerusalem but were silent about Jordan’s much larger annexation is no mystery if one understands the basic goals of the anti-Israel jihad. So when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964, it was not Israel but Jordan and Egypt that were the obstacles to a Palestinian state. Yet, the terror group’s charter did not mention the West Bank or Jordan; nor did the organization target its occupiers, Jordan and Egypt. Its enemy was Israel not because of “the occupation” but because its goal always has been to take over pre-1967 Israel. In fact, Article 24 of the PLO Charter states, “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip.” That PLO’s first leader, Ahmed Shukairy told the UN Security Council on May 31, 1956, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.” Moreover, neither the PLO nor Fatah, which became the PLO’s major component and was founded in the 1950s, expressed any interest in Jerusalem. The PLO Charter did not even call for a Palestinian state until after the 1967 Six-Day War, when it was amended to demand a Palestinian state on the entire land of Israel.

The occupation is a smoke screen of recent vision; a device, a tactic. Even in the original partition of Palestine, the UN offered the Arabs a Palestinian state comprised of the West Bank, Gaza, and some of pre-1967 Israel. The Partition plan also internationalized Jerusalem. Yet, all of the Arabs rejected it because it left some territory for a Jewish state; and tiny Israel accepted it even though its territory was non-contiguous and far less than called for in the UN mandate.
In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians 96 percent of the West Bank, pre-Israeli territory to make up for the other four percent, Gaza,and East Jerusalem. They turned it down and launched the “second intifada” as their response. The latter day claim by Arafat apologists that the offer was one of “Bantustans” does not even pass the test of elementary logic. Not even the great Jewish physicist (and Zionist) Albert Einstein could have figured out how to turn 96 percent of anything into a series of disconnected and unviable islands.

Given what they were offered, what more could the Arabs want that would leave any viable Jewishstate of Israel? Those fellow travelers who blithely go from one Arab territorial demand to another need to ask themselves that question. Do they think the Arabs will lay down their arms if Israel quits the West Bank and Gaza? No, well perhaps if Israel cedes Jerusalem, too. By the way, when Arabs occupied Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to pray at their holiest religious site, the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. Yet, since Israel has had hegemony over Jerusalem, Muslim worship at the Mount’s Al Aqsa has been so vibrant that the Muslims have had to build an annex to it within the Temple Mount. Okay, so Israel leaves the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, and gives up any right to pray at its holiest religious sites. Oh that’s right, what about the “right of return”? (And of course, there is no consideration for the even greater number of Jews who were expelled from Arab lands since 1948 and are now the majority citizens of Israel.) But Israel at Camp David and elsewhere has even agreed to take a limited number of Palestinian refugees, just not enough to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. And as a result, the Arabs fight on; the anti-Israel war continues.

Israel has offered the West Bank and Gaza to the Arabs at least three times since 1967, even begged King Hussein not to join the 1967 War because they did not even want the territories until the King made it necessary for their security. And just after the war, when Israel offered to give it all back in exchange for peace, they were met with the three infamous Arab No’s of the Khartoum conference: “No peace with Israel; no recognition of Israel; no negotiations with Israel.”

When will the supporters of the Arabs’ anti-Israel jihad conflict finally admit that they do not find the Jewish state of Israel legitimate and would prefer it to be gone; wiped from the map in lock step with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad; that they treat the world’s only Jewish state differently than they do any other state on the planet. And that is anti-Semitism.

Lesson One on the Middle East: It’s not about “the occupation.” It’s not about the Palestinians. Both were later additions to the political narrative. The conflict is and always has been between those who believe that a Jewish state in the region is legitimate and those who do not. If you want to test that conclusion, come up with a workable solution that would bring real and enduring peace to the Middle East—including an end to terrorism by Hamas, Hezbollah, and their state sponsors—that leaves a viable Jewish state of Israel. Go ahead. I dare you.

A Small Victory Down Under

Originally published on Israpundit, February 3, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

An anti-Israel conference scheduled to be held in an official Australian state building was canceled after a small group of dedicated individuals revealed the conference leader’s anti-Semitic motives. Maqsood Alshams, an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh, planned the conference to debate the issue of charging Israel with war crimes for its recent actions in Gaza. Since arriving Down Under in the 1990s, Alshams had become a darling of the Australian left and became known as a “human rights” advocate. It is within that context that spews his relentless anti-Israel venom.

On December 30, I received one of Alshams’ emails, which quoted Malaysia’s Foreign Minister condemning Israel for “disproportionate, indiscriminate and excessive use of force in Gaza and… collective punishment imposed by the Occupying Power on the Palestinian people.” The email fell back on the usual illogical set of human rights accusation against the Jewish state, including the allegation that Israel’s defensive war was a “crime against humanity.” There was nothing remarkable about the email, and I normally do not bother responding to them. But this one came from Australia where the anti-Israel propaganda war–largely over in Europe and in its infancy in the United States—is in full swing. Moreover, email recipients included members of the Australian media who seemed to believe that Alshams’ pro-Palestinian passion was prompted by nothing more than a morally pure commitment to human rights. So I responded. What I sent was this.

“Why didn’t these same people cry for ‘international intervention’ when the Palestinians–and Hamas in particular–thanked Israel for leaving Gaza by making it a terrorist base to lob missiles onto civilian populations in Southern Israel? Where were these same people when Israeli civilians were facing constant rocket attack from Hamas and its allies?”

What I got back was as much a surprise as it was a gift.

“The simple answer,” Alshams wrote, “is that you the Jews are real motherfucker bastards. In 1990 I myself entered in to the Jewish Consulate in Istanbul in Turkey as a law abiding citizen, met two Jewish Diplomats named Hayim Hosen and Eli Lev, I was stripped searched, sexually harassed, personally humiliated by Mohsad agents, you should keep your dirty mouth shut calling any Bangladeshi a brother, you guys are simply assholes. I don’t want to make this an international issue being secured in Australia. But simply Jews like you are the dirty scums… Stop playing the bloody victim games. You scums need to leave Palestine ASAP and give world a bit of peace… and keep your dirty mouth shut…I wonder why God himself hate the Jews…” (The dots are not of my doing. I have replicated Alshams’ email exactly as I received it.)

Not surprisingly, Alshams did not share these sentiments with the larger group; so I did. I also decided to find out more about him. Alshams has convinced Australians that he was a journalist in Bangladesh who had to flee for fear of his life. He alleges that he worked for a paper owned by one powerful party and was threatened by their political opponents. That would suggest he was pretty important. Yet, when Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury investigated, he found no one who could say if Alshams “ever worked with any newspaper here.” He also said that nobody at the National Press Club ever heard of Maqsood Alshams. Choudhury, by the way, is the Bangladeshi who Alshams did not want me to call brother. But when he was imprisoned and tortured for writing pro-US, pro-Israel, and anti-Islamist articles, I led the campaign that freed him. Alshams and his ilk did nothing. So when he emerged from the hell of that confinement, it was Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury who said, “When my own people abandoned me, my Jewish brother protected me, stood with me.”

Another person outraged by Alshams’ anti-Jewish tirade was Anna Berger, a child of Holocaust survivors and someone with ties to Australia’s official Jewish community. Alshams particularly irked her when he said Israel’s actions were worse than those of the Nazis. So she and I got to work letting others know about this. Eventually, she got the information to Vic Alhadeff, CEO of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. Similarly incensed, he contacted the Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia’s most widely read newspapers, which picked up the story. A Herald reporter called me to verify my accusations, which I did. I also sent him Alshams’ damning email.

The jig was up; the masquerade over on January 28 when the Herald ran the story. Reporter Erik Jensen noted that Alshams at first tried to defend the hate-speech as a “private argument.” He said he was “not an anti-Semite at all. I have many Jewish friends.” Well, when he saw that no one was buying his “some of my best friends” defense, he apologized for what he said, blaming it on being “intoxicated and angry.” While Jensen’s article said that backers were not pulling out of the conference, a follow up piece the next day told a different story. The conference had been canceled. The revelations spoiled its public façade of being fair and conducted out of the purest of motives.

Alshams’ “I was drunk” argument did not hold water. He clearly had the presence of mind not to send the offensive email to the wider group for fear of damaging his reputation; not indicative of being drunk. He also telephoned me about two hours later, and repeated the anti-Jewish remarks in a voice not at all marred by slurred speech or the sort of incoherence that marks someone intoxicate. More to the point, being drunk would explain the bad judgment of making the remarks and revealing his bias, but it would not explain away the bias itself. As they say, in vino veritas.

The significance of this small victory goes beyond the episode itself. For Israel’s enemies have successfully—and fallaciously—appropriated the human rights high ground. Talking heads in academia, the media, and government in several nations have allowed them to engage in the worst sort of illogic and hate speech by adopting their version of history and morality. No hyperbole is out of bounds for them. They love to compare Israelis to Nazis and Palestinians to Jewish holocaust victims, though there is no similarity between the two. They have so terribly skewed the ideological playing field that Hamas can use Arab civilians as human shields then accuse Israel of human rights violations when those civilians become casualties of war.

Incidents like this expose the real motivations of the anti-Israel movement and stripped away its cynical use of human rights language. And it must be done again and again and again until the truth finally wins back the day.

(Original date of Press Release, February 1, 2009)

Anti-Israel Conference Canceled in Australia

Activists Reveal its Anti-Semitic Motives

Sydney, Australia—A conference that was to “debate” charging Israel with war crimes was canceled, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, after “revelations the convener had made anti-Semitic remarks.” Maqsood Alshams, a reputed human rights activist made inflammatory and highly derogatory anti-Semitic statements to Dr. Richard L. Benkin of Chicago in emails and over the telephone. Alshams had previously asserted that his passionate anti-Israeli animus was based on his commitment to human rights for all people. When Benkin asked him why he had no sympathy for the children of Sderot and other Jewish communities facing Hamas rocket fire, Alshams said it was because "you Jews are m**herf****ng b**t*rds." Alshams repeated these comments to Benkin and had made similarly revealing statements to others.

Benkin revealed Alshams’ underlying motives to several members of Australia’s Jewish community. They notified the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies - the representative roof-body of the Jewish community. The conference, which was to be held at the state parliament house, was canceled after several participants withdrew and distanced themselves from Alshams.

Benkin, Founder of Interfaith Strength, is an anti-terrorist and human rights activist. Like many others, he is committed to unmasking the anti-Jewish hatred that is the real basis for many Israel-bashers, who cloak themselves in disingenuous human rights language—a ruse that, unfortunately, many in the media and elsewhere reinforce.

Benkin is available for interviews and commentary and can be contacted at the telephone or email above.

Another Victory for Strength over Appeasement

(Originally published February 11, 2010 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard Benkin

When Islamists attacked Mumbai, India’s New York, many people called it that country’s 9/11. Although it certainly was the most high profile attack, it was far from the first in this country of over a billion people. India faces terrorist attacks of one sort or another multiple times each week. The South Asia Terrorism Portal collects figures on terrorism here and calculated that 47,371 Indians have died in terrorist attacks since 1994. Since 2006, about two-thirds of the fatalities occurred as a result of Islamist attacks; the rest came at the hands of radical communists.

Earlier this week, Indian officials said that the greatest threat to the nation’s security was the Maoist insurgency. The Naxalite movement started in 1967, but only became a real insurgency during the past decade and a half. The name comes from the village where the movement started, Naxalbari in West Bengal. I slipped into Naxalbari last year to find, ironically enough, that the communist movement no longer exists there. Different Indian governments have tried various methods to fight or appease the Naxalites, but nothing dulled the terrorist threat—until now.

As reported in The Times of India earlier this week, the Naxalites have for the first time cried “Uncle.” Speaking through the banned Communist Party of India/Maoist (as distinguished from the non-insurgent Communist Party of India/Marxist, which still holds of power in three Indian states), the Naxalites said they were ready for peace talks with the government. They ask only that the government release several of their leaders that it has captured in the recent and ferocious counterattack on Maoists throughout India. As Mohua Chatterjee noted in the Times, “Though the ‘offer’ can be read as a bid to earn some respite from the ongoing crackdown, the bid for talks also marks a climbdown of sorts [for the communists]” Previously, the Naxalites have scoffed at the very notion of talks with the government and consistently vowed to press “the revolution.”

The Indian government, however, recently ended its traditional policies of tough talk with little commensurate action, and has engaged in a massive offensive against Naxalite leaders and forces. On the day of the Naxalites’ retreat, the government captured eight more of their leaders in the Northern state of Uttar Pradesh. One of them earned a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi, long known as a hotbed of communism; where I recently became one of the first openly anti-Communist and anti-Islamist speakers. Significant student movements indicate that there is a growing current among the student body decidedly to the Right.

The Maoists’ General Secretary admitted that the radical movement may be losing intellectual support it once enjoyed, because of “the enemy’s onslaught.”

“This (anti-Maoist operation) is a brutal campaign of repression aimed at the suppression of the political movement of people.” The communist leader, neglected to mention that this ‘brutal campaign’ was undertaken only after years of appeasement and the resulting death of 3120 Indian citizens in the last five years alone.

For its part, the government seems to have recognized that and has said that it will entertain talks only if the Maoists lay down their weapons and stop “all violent actions.” Assuming that this will not happen, sources told The Times of India that the government’s battle plan is “nothing short of a blitzkrieg.”

Are my Sources Better than CNN’s?

Originally published on Canada Free Press, February 8, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

My sources of news and information must be so much better than those of the major news media because I keep coming across things that they do not have. The most recent item was the death of an Islamic clergyman this week in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. Bangladesh, by the way, is the world’s third largest Islamic-majority country and a battleground between radical and moderate Islamic forces. What happens there is of more than marginal interest.

Moulana Hafez Hamidullah passed away quietly at his residence at the age of 63. He was an influential member of the Bangladesh Khelafat Andolan (BKA), a religious and political association of fundamentalist Muslims, and a very prominent Islamic clergyman. He was also the Vice Principal of a madrassa in one of Dhaka’s poorest neighborhoods. Despite the media’s seeming obsession with Islam and President Obama’s pledge to reach out to the Muslim world, there was no mention of Hamidullah’s passing anywhere.

That is particularly distressing because this very religious Muslim cleric was consistently outspoken in condemning “all forms of militancy in the name of religion.” He also preached interfaith harmony based on mutual respect. Hamidullah and his BKA associates were among the few highly religious Muslims to stand in defense of Bangladesh’s “Muslim Zionist,” Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was arrested and tortured after exposing the rise of radical Islam in his country and urging relations with Israel. A Muslim of tremendous courage and perseverance, Choudhury founded and runs Bangladesh’s only openly Zionists newspaper where he recently took very strong public stands supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. (See CFP’s “

Muslim Hero with a Pen.) BKA support has come in the form of numerous public statements, letters to the Bangladeshi government, articles and news releases, and even having some members prominent at Choudhury’s trial. Hamidullah and the BKA also joined with Choudhury to urge the government to drop its ban on travel to Israel.

While I never met Hamidullah, Choudhury and I had a rather intense meeting with two of his BKA colleagues in Dhaka in 2007. ( See CFP’s “

Fundamentalist Muslim wants Bangladeshi Government to end its ban on travel to Israel.”) The first part of our hours-long meeting was rather tense and focused on our profound differences, especially about Israel and the United States’ role in fighting Islamist terror. Although we remained at odds on many points even after our uncensored interfaith dialogue, as I remarked, “Well, we’re not throwing bombs at each other, are we.” We found many shared values as men of faith and, most importantly “agreed to disagree” and continue our dialogue. Thus followed a warm relationship marked by rigorous honesty and mutual respect. These fundamentalist Muslims also act on those statements of friendship even at some cost to themselves. One of them even published a statement that “neither the Zionists nor the Americans are the real enemy of the Believers and the Muslims.”

Yet the mainstream media and prominent organizations do not even mention these or other Muslims who have stood up against terrorism carried out in their name. For if they did their agenda of what Judea Pearl called “normalization of evil” fails. Like President Obama’s pledge to speak with Muslim leaders such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who espouse goals that are contrary to the principles of freedom and justice for which people have struggled for centuries; that agenda is premised on accepting those goals as a reality we must acknowledge. It is the same philosophy that attempts to turn Hamas into a legitimate player in the Middle East—even though it espouses genocide and regularly violates numerous principles of international law and plain decency. Those who push dialogue with the world’s Ahmedinejads have, by doing so, turned any war on Islamist extremism into a war on Islam itself. For it hurriedly and incorrectly accepts extremism as basic to Islam. The existence of Muslims—especially highly religious Muslims—who are fighting that extremism, upsets their ideological apple cart; so their existence cannot be admitted.

So, is it the media’s and their political cronies’ ideological agenda; or, as the title of this article suggests, does my unfunded, one-man operation just have far more extensive news resources than CNN, the networks, AP, and everyone else put together?

Freedom Under Attack in India

Originally published on Canada Free Press, February 18, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

“The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves.”

When historians look back on our era and wonder how a relatively small group of Islamist radicals controlled the international agenda for great countries across the globe, they will ask why we failed to heed those words that William Shakespeare wrote four centuries earlier. They might also reprise the equally pertinent words of the cartoon character Pogo:

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Last week in Kolkata, India, police arrested the editor and publisher of the city’s most prestigious English-language daily for “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims. That’s right, we now live in an age where the state can muzzle press freedom because the newspaper hurt someone’s feelings. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, respectively the editor and publisher of The Statesman, were hauled before a judge on February 11 and charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which outlaws “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.” The law is unclear, as one might imagine, when it comes to specific and objective criteria for determining one’s intentions. It appears that Section 295A trusts this Solomon-like task to whichever bureaucrat happens to take a fancy to pursuing a case.

The Statesman’s offending action took place on February 5 when it reprinted an article from the British newspaper, The Independent. The piece begins, “The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid.” In its most general terms, journalist Johann Hari’s thesis is that criticizing religion is essentially different from criticizing other ideas because its evidence is faith, which is neither verifiable nor replicable. As a result, religion gets special treatment that Hari believes erodes essential and hard-won freedoms. He cites the changed role of the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights (RHR). The RHR, he notes, “has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious.” But the UN Human Rights Council has charged the RHR with identifying “‘abuses of free expression’ including ‘defamation of religions and prophets’….Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself,” Hari laments.

Aside from that central point, the article is a motley collection of ideas, most of them squarely within the tradition of the anti-religious European left. Were Hari not bringing that baggage to the piece, the disingenuous action of the UN Human Rights Council would have come as no surprise. No doubt, Hari was not one of those people outraged by the Jew-hating fest that was the Council’s Durban Conference. Yet, it would be wrong to dismiss Hari as an ideologue. He offers ideas with which I agree and those with which I disagree. And is that not really his point? One’s reaction to his words should not be the determinant of their legality or illegality; nor with Hari’s or anyone else’s right to say what they believe. But that is not the point of this article.

The Indian government did not act because these words were particularly heinous, for it has remained passive in the face of far more inflammatory words inciting religious hatred. For instance, it took no action against the Mumbai publisher of “The Jewish Fifth Column in India” or against those responsible for bringing India the anti-Jewish forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Outpourings of visceral hatred between Hindus and Muslims are constant--and constantly done with impunity. The government acted in this case because Muslim groups chose to make it an issue and orchestrated several days of riots. Bikash Halder of Interfaith Strength, reported seeing roads blocked and large groups of Muslim protesters blocking traffic in the West Bengal capital. He also reported that the riots subsided as soon as Kumar and Sinha were arrested.

Amitabh Tripathi left a promising career in the mainstream media because of incidents like this, which he believes are taking India in a dangerous direction. “This is not the first time in India when freedom of expression has been curbed in the name of feelings of Muslims.” He recalled how the New Delhi editor who published the famous Mohammed cartoons was arrested by the government and fired by his paper for doing so. Tripathi and other nationalists attribute these actions to what they call pseudo-secularism. “That refers to the fact that India is supposed to be a secular country, but it is not. Because the government is so frightened of not being liberal enough, it places Hinduism (the majority religion) in a subservient position and Islam in a privileged one. So it is a pseudo secularism.”

India is not alone in stifling free expression for fear of upsetting Muslims. A Toronto youth leader recently asked me for advice on how to combat regular “verbal and physical abuse Jewish students face” from their Islamic and leftist counterparts. She cited demonstrations that were touted as anti-Israel but gave the loudest cheers to those who said that “Hitler should have finished the job [and killed all the Jews].” There also have been physical attacks. But Canada’s notorious “Human Rights Commissions” refuse to hear them and in fact have gone after Jewish students for protecting themselves or debating the anti-Jewish canards. “They will not even entertain any human rights issue that is not about Muslims,” she said. She said the police always fell on the side of lawlessness. They would tell the Jewish students to disperse on the premise of their being unable to protect them. Neither she nor any of her colleagues ever witnessed Toronto police attempting to break up the anti-Jewish demonstrations or arrest the offenders. In two high profile instances, police advised scholar and commentator Dr. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, and the once and future Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to proceed with lectures; here, too, stifling freedom of expression because it upset Islamic and leftist protestors.

Governments in Canada, India, and a number of other countries are undermining their own principles of free expression to appease growing Islamic populations and their countries of origin. The impetus for these acts of self-flagellation almost always come from leftist and left of center governments; this despite the fact that they have claimed for decades to be the true champion of individual freedoms. Moreover, they are taking these actions when these populations take to the streets because, they say, they are upset. That is the very moment when doing so is most dangerous; when appeasement in 2009 could have the same consequences it did in 1937. For if history has taught us anything, it is that rewarding bad behavior produces, not peace, but only more bad behavior.

Muslim Zionist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, harassed by Bangladeshi Intelligence

(Originally published Thursday, June 4, 2009 in Canada Free Press)

By Dr. Richard Benkin

Dhaka, Bangladesh—The Bangladeshi government resumed its harassment of pro-peace journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, despite repeated promises not to. Intelligence agents have been staking out his house the“past few days,” according to neighbors; and the family cornered a man insisting that he was from Bangladesh’s DGFI intelligence service.

“Sergeant Rafiq” was ask when Choudhury left and returned home, his license plate, and so forth. Choudhury called numerous government agencies, but only one replied, denying it had sent anyone. With crimes by persons claiming to be from the government increasing daily in Bangladesh, the family was concerned. Ultimately, however, the agent admitted being charged with investigating five dissidents, including Choudhury. Bangladeshi’s Washington Embassy agreed that our concern was especially justified Choudhury’s tenuous position. Such visits often are meant as threats in Bangladesh. As of tonight, the police refuse to take any action in the matter or even accept Choudhury’s complaint.

The Muslim world’s only self-proclaimed Zionist, Choudhury was arrested in 2003 by government agents and Islamist forces after advocating relations with Israel, religious equality, and exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. He was tortured and held for seventeen months and only released after strong pressure by human rights activist Dr. Richard Benkin and US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL). The government then charged Choudhury with the capital offenses of sedition, treason, and blasphemy “for praising Christians and Jews,” regularly admitting that the charges are baseless and maintained to appease radical Islamists. Though the government has not produce a single piece of evidence for the charges, and its sole witness keeps refusing to appear, the government continues the case in an effort to intimidate him into Choudhury and to drain his financial resources. As one DC insider put it, “They’ve made the process the punishment.”

The life of this courageous dissident journalist is in danger unless the world renews the protests it lodged during previous governments.

For further information, contact Dr. Richard Benkin at the telephone or email above.

False Accusations Harm Cause of Human Rights: The Case of Mary Mandol

Originally published on Canada Free Press, May 20, 2008

Dr. Richard Benkin

Editor’s Note: On April 29, Canada Free Press (CFP) picked up a storysent by Christian Newswire about a persecuted mother and her infant son in Bangladesh. From the outset, people trying to help could not find Mary Mondol, the woman who was the subject of the story. The Chicago-based Dr. Richard Benkin, who successfully fought for the release of Bangladeshi journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, imprisoned after writing articles in the Weekly Blitz warning the outside world about the rise of Islamic radicals, urging Bangladesh to recognize Israel, and advocating for religious equality, contacted Choudhury to track down Mary Mondol, a Christian woman living in Dhaka. Following are the results of their investigation. Since 2006, Dr. Benkin has been investigating and exposing the emerging South Asian threat stemming from the cooperation of radical Communists and radical Islamists. He has termed this the “Red-Green Alliance” and continues to speak about the atrocities and strategic advantages it already has carried out, as well as the very real threat it poses to us all.

On April 29, I read an article in Canada Free Press about anti-Christian activity in Bangladesh. The story concerned Mary Mondol, a Christian woman who, according to Christian Freedom International (CFI), was approached by a Muslim man in 2001 and given the following choice: either marry him and convert to Islam or be killed. Having no choice, she acquiesced and spent the next several years in virtual captivity, faced regular beatings even while pregnant, and was finally kicked out with her infant son in January. She sought refuge with Christian “pastor,” William Gomes, and the two then began building a case against her husband; but the authorities refused to act. Now, Gomes reportedly said, “They are threatening me to stop working for her. Now I cannot give her shelter any longer...I may be killed any time, as they are very strong and are from the majority community. Being a Christian, I am a minority, and the government doesn’t give support for us. But we are praying to save her from the Muslim family.”

It was a terribly moving story and one that is not unknown by any means in the Muslim world. Unfortunately, however, it is also false, and as such has set back the fight for human rights in South Asia, of which I am part. Having met with religious minorities who had faced persecution from Bangladeshi Islamists, I was determined to act. Moreover, the reported inaction by Bangladeshi authorities in the Mondol case also rang true and mirrored my own experiences with Bangladeshi officials in the Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury case and others. So, in fact, I called my brother, friend, and confidant, Shoaib, the famous “Muslim Zionist.” He has experienced Islamist persecution and has a history of supporting persecuted Bangladeshis no matter what their faith. He is also an accomplished journalist with an extensive network of sources. He also secured the help of Kazi Azizul Huq, a fundamentalist Muslim—that’s right, a Muslim fundamentalist—and the International Affairs Secretary of Khalafat Andolin Bangladesh (KAB). I met Huq when I was in Dhaka in 2007. We spoke for hours and though we agreed on very few issues, as I said, “Well, we’re not lobbing bombs at each other” (not too much of a stretch, especially with the “mujahadeen” in the room). We have maintained an ongoing dialogue that continues to find commonality among believers of different faiths. Huq and KAB have demonstrated their sincerity by taking public positions that are unpopular in this nation of almost 150 million; most notably, that the government should drop all charges against Shoaib and also end its ban on travel to Israel.

For several days, however, Shoaib and Huq continued to tell me that they could find no evidence of the case or even Mondol’s existence. Concerned, I contacted James Jacobson, head of CFI, on May 4 who said they had “solid documentation on [Mondol’s] situation.” He asked his “coworker in Dhaka…to contact [me] about Mary,” but thought he might not “because of security issues.” He never did, and as Shoaib and Huq continued to come up empty, things turned nasty. On May 7, Huq sent an email to a number of people calling the entire story “dubious,” based on the absence of evidence. One of the recipients, Rosaline Costa had previously said she intended to raise the issue at a May 9 Congressional Briefing on Bangladesh and responded to Huq by questioning the veracity of his contacts. That same day, Shoaib’s Weekly Blitz received a phone call from William Gomes who asked to meet Shoaib at the newspaper office, which he did on May 8. He began by clarifying that he was no pastor and that the entire story was false. At that point, Shoaib provided a car to bring Mary Mondol herself to the newspaper.

She denied most of the allegations in the story, stating unequivocally that her marriage and conversion were voluntary. Her husband became abusive only recently, and she and William Gomes filed a complaint under Bangladesh’s Women and Children Repression Act. According to Mondol and Gomes, authorities promptly arrested the husband who is still in jail awaiting trial. She said that the story took on its current form only after she went to Costa for help. She was destitute, she said, but Costa did not help her despite being part of NGOs that are supposed to do such things.

Shoaib Choudhury stands by these allegations and has offered to provide a tape recording of his interview with Mondol and Gomes if needed. Moreover, once these matters were uncovered, things began to change. Costa admitted that she knew Gomes was not a pastor as alleged, but that one of her informants added that because he thought it would “give the story more credibility”. It is also significant that no one brought up the Mondol case at the May 9 Congressional briefing, of which I was part—and the alleged actions in the story were germane to the briefing’s purpose. Gomes also contacted me and confirmed the Weekly Blitz account, repeating an allegation he made on tape that Bangladeshi NGOs “are becoming fabulously rich by cashing in on the agonies of religious minorities in Bangladesh” by issuing false reports like the Mondol case. On the other hand, no one ever provided evidence of the initial story’s allegations. This, too, is not atypical. Most NGOs go to the same set of informants (mostly on the left) who tend to have the same political agenda and often give it higher priority than religious freedom.

The false allegations already have hurt the fight against minority persecution in Bangladesh whether they are the product of noble or venal intentions. That persecution does exist and is a very serious problem. Fighting it often means confronting out and out denials, even by people holding credible positions. Our most powerful ally in those confrontations is truth. False accusations enable both friends and foes alike to question the credibility of all allegations we bring. Bangladeshi officials on condition of anonymity already have made it clear to me and others that they “know these things do exist” but must “show up liars” and others who “want to hurt Bangladesh. They expect the Mondol case to come up again and again. It almost seems in response to the revelations in the Mondol case that a flood of minority persecution stories has been flooding cyberspace. What is truly unfortunate is that many—or even most—of them are true, but people are giving them less credibility than they did previously.

The fight against Islamist injustice is difficult enough. Far too often, we come up against western officials who would rather give Islamists and their fellow travelers the “benefit of the doubt” and accept their “assurances” that “everything possible is being done” to secure minority rights, as I was told recently by another government official.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury Attacked by Goons-Anti-Radical, Pro-Peace Muslim Journalist Savaged in Broad Daylight

Originally published on News From Bangladesh, February 24, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Dhaka, Bangladesh—At 10am today, local time, internationally-acclaimed journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, was attacked as he was working in the office of his newspaper, Weekly Blitz, by “a gang of thugs” claiming to be from Bangladesh’s ruling Awami League. I spoke by telephone with Choudhury as he awaited medical treatment for eye, neck, and other injuries suffered in the attack. The renewed violence marks the first against him since he was abducted by Bangladesh’s dreaded Rapid Action Battalion a year ago.

A large group stormed Blitz premises and attacked newspaper staff until they found Choudhury. At that point, he said, “they dragged me [and two staff] into the street” where they beat them “in broad daylight…They looted my office and stole my laptop” with “all my sensitive information. As of this writing, the attackers continue to occupy the Blitz office.

According to Choudhury, the police were impassive and seemed intimidated when the attackers emphasized their party membership and accused him of being an agent of the Israeli Mossad. They later threatened to attack his home should Choudhury go to the police again.

Choudhury was arrested in 2003 by government agents, in cooperation with Islamist forces, because of his advocacy of relations with Israel and religious equality, and his articles exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. He was tortured and held for seventeen months and only released after strong pressure by human rights activist Dr. Richard Benkin and US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL). In 2007, the US Congress passed a Kirk-introduced resolution 409-1 calling on Bangladesh to stop harassing Choudhury and drop capital charges against him after extensive evidence confirmed them to be false, contrary to Bangladeshi law, and as admitted by successive Bangladeshi officials, maintained only to appease Islamists. The Bangladeshi government continues to remain in defiance of that resolution and its provisions.

Blitz office attacked by pro government goons

Blitz Desk

At 10am Sunday, local time, internationally-acclaimed journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, was attacked as he was working in the office of his newspaper, Weekly Blitz, by “a gang of thugs” claiming to be from Bangladesh’s ruling Awami League. I spoke by telephone with Choudhury as he awaited medical treatment for eye, neck, and other injuries suffered in the attack. The renewed violence marks the first against him since he was abducted by Bangladesh ’s dreaded Rapid Action Battalion a year ago.

A large group led by one Shamim introducing himself to be an official of DGFI stormed Blitz premises and attacked newspaper staff until they found Choudhury. At that point, he said, “they dragged me [and two staff] into the street” where they beat them “in broad daylight…They looted my office and stole my laptop” with “all my sensitive information. As of this writing, the attackers continue to occupy the Blitz office.

Police were impassive and seemed intimidated when the attackers emphasized their party membership and accused him of being an agent of the Israeli Mossad. They later threatened to attack his home should Choudhury go to the police again.

Choudhury was arrested in 2003 by government agents, in cooperation with Islamist forces, because of his advocacy of relations with Israel and religious equality, and his articles exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh . He was tortured and held for seventeen months and only released after strong pressure by human rights activist Dr. Richard Benkin and US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL). In 2007, the US Congress passed a Kirk-introduced resolution 409-1 calling on Bangladesh to stop harassing Choudhury and drop capital charges against him after extensive evidence confirmed them to be false, contrary to Bangladeshi law, and as admitted by successive Bangladeshi officials, maintained only to appease Islamists. The Bangladeshi government continues to remain in defiance of that resolution and its provisions.

A case has been lodged with Paltan Model Police Station. Case No. 65, under section 143, 448, 323, 342, 384, 380, 227 and 506. Police has already started searching for the culprits who were involved in this broad day crime.

Bangladesh police reluctant in taking action against pro government thugs

Zahid Al Amin

Despite lodging of a case more than 24 hours back [Case No. 65, under section 143, 448, 323, 342, 384, 380, 227 and 506], members of law enforcing agencies in Bangladesh are showing extreme reluctance in arresting any of the attackers, who attacked the office of Weekly Blitz on Sunday [February 22, 2009], physically assaulted the editor and other members, abused the female staffs and looted laptop and other valuables in a broad day light crime in presence of One Shamim from DGFI [Directorate General of Forces Intelligence]. Members of law enforcing agencies were witnessing the incident silently as the attackers were mostly claiming to be activists and leaders of the ruling party in Bangladesh.

Others who were in the gang are identified as Ruhul Amin, Shintu, Liton, Yunus, Humayun, Siraj, Lavlu, Kajol etc. According to police sources, most of them were thugs belonging to the ruling party.

At 10am Sunday, local time, internationally-acclaimed journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, was attacked as he was working in the office of his newspaper, Weekly Blitz, by a gang of thug claiming to be from Bangladesh’s ruling Awami League. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is now under medical treatment for eye, neck, and other injuries those he suffered in the attack. The renewed violence marks the first against him since he was abducted by Bangladesh’s dreaded Rapid Action Battalion in March 2008.

It may be recalled here that a large group of armed hooligans led by one Shamim introducing himself to be an official of DGFI stormed Blitz premises and attacked newspaper staff until they found the editor. They locked the editor in a room and continued various forms of physical assaults thus abusing him to be a ‘Mossad Agent’, ‘Israeli Agent’ etc. Culprits are continuing to occupy the Blitz office.

Choudhury was arrested in 2003 by government agents, in cooperation with Islamist forces, because of his advocacy of relations with Israel and religious equality, and his articles exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. He was tortured and held for seventeen months and only released after strong pressure by human rights activist Dr. Richard Benkin and US Congressman Mark Kirk [R-IL]. In 2007, the US Congress passed a Kirk-introduced resolution 409-1 calling on Bangladesh to stop harassing Choudhury and drop capital charges against him after extensive evidence confirmed them to be false, contrary to Bangladeshi law, and as admitted by successive Bangladeshi officials, maintained only to appease Islamists. The Bangladeshi government continues to remain in defiance of that resolution and its provisions.

Meanwhile, one of the leaders of the attacker’s gang named Ruhul Amin is continuing to give threats to the Weekly Blitz editors and other members of the newspaper on immediately withdrawing the case. In a phone call, Ruhul Amin said, “I give you people only 24 hours time. Withdraw the case; otherwise our next target is Choudhury’s residence.”

It may be mentioned here that, Ruhul Amin is a smuggler for decades under cover of shop owner at Dhaka’s Bangabazar area. He maintains huge gang of musclemen and armed cadres as his main profession is extortion, robbery, grabbing of property and similar illegal actions. He is patronized by one Advocate Shintu, who claims to be the advisor of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Advocate Shintu also phoned the Blitz editor several days back and demanded TK. 500,000 extortion.

Weekly Blitz tried to find the reason behind reluctance of police in taking any action against the culprits as to why the attackers are yet to be arrested. On condition of anonymity, a source in police said, “We have already become captive in the grips of the political government and its cadres. We can watch crime, but cannot take actions. Because, if we take any action against those party activists, then we shall face various forms of departmental harassments and humiliations.”

Why we must Act Now!

Originally published on Portal to the Hindu World, November 18, 2008

Dr. Richard Benkin

For 17 months starting in November 2003, I was fighting to free anti-Islamist journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury from prison. Quite often, I was alone in this fight, but even when people joined me, I knew that it was my responsibility to bring about his freedom. The Bangladeshis arrested journalist Shoaib Choudhury after he wrote articles exposing the rise of radical Islam in his country and their use of madrassas to recruit more Bangladeshis to their cause. He also advocated interfaith understanding based on religious equality—something radical Islamists considered heresy—and relations with Israel; he tried to go there, too, but the Bangladeshi government refused to him.

And Shoaib Choudhury is a Muslim. Yet, this Muslim has done more actual work to stop the rise of radical Islam and the genocide of innocents than almost all the individuals and organizations that claim to be working on behalf of the minorities. Oh, I know they are being honest when they say they want to help the Bangladeshi Hindus; many travel all over the world saying that. But is the life of Bangladeshi Hindus any better because of it? Is there anyone who can say their lives are better than they were, say ten years ago? Is radical Islam any less a threat to all Bengalis than it was back then? Is the racist Vested Property Act any less a law today than before? And have the murders, rapes, and other crimes against the Bangladeshi Hindus stopped or even lessened? No, no, no, no, and no!

Every day of those 17 months, I reminded myself that if I did not act, if I took a day off, if I decided to let other people do what is needed; then that would mean one more day of imprisonment and torture for the man who is now my brother; one more day when radical Islam could crush those who oppose them. This is exactly what we are facing with the Bangladeshi Hindus. As I told the Indian media earlier this year, “It strikes me how everyone in India knows what’s happening to the Bangladeshi Hindus, but no one is doing anything about it.” Each day without effective action against this genocide-to-be means more murders, more young girls raped, more Hindu children raised as Muslims and forced conversions, more villages once Hindu taken over by Muslims—and less time before it is too late to save the Bangladeshi Hindus and stop the radical Islamists.

That is why we must act now! But there are other reasons as well. Bangladesh is in somewhat of disarray and is expected to hold elections next month with political alliances less certain than they have been in decades. A few officials in private conversations have told me they are ready to repeal the racist Vested Property Act when the next government takes power. A new administration is about to take office in the United States and could be vulnerable to an early human rights effort. Otherwise, signs point to it coming to terms with radical Islam even if it means the end of Bengali Hinduism. There are even promising signs in India. Congress is more open than before having just jettisoned its Communist allies over the United States nuclear deal. And this year, the CPIM suffered defeats in local West Bengal elections for the first time in decades. When I visited Bangladeshi Hindu refugee camps earlier this year, the only politician to go with me was from the Congress Party.

I am an American Jew who has taken up the fight to save Bangladeshi Hindus—in East and West Bengal, where they should find comfort and aid from fellow Hindus. It is my own fight, too; these are my own people. I have visited their refugee camps. I have listened to the words of their children. They are in my heart forever, and I must do what I can to save them!

So where does that leave us?

First, recognize that the time for empty speeches and meetings that lead nowhere is over. An organization or individual that claims to stand for the Bangladeshi Hindus must show that stance with action. Is there anyone among us who is surprised to learn about another rape or murder in Bangladesh or even West Bengal? While it is important to continue documenting these atrocities, the only reason for the mass emails about them is to spur people to action—to do something about it. That could be providing aid and shelter to the victim, public protests, forcing the prosecution of the perpetrator, and so forth. And our only measure of success must be the condition of the Bangladeshi Hindus.

Second, we must put aside our individual egos and recognize that our goal and the welfare of the Bangladeshi Hindus is far more important than any of us as individuals. If we can accomplish something for the people, is it important who gets the credit for it or the praise? But too many people still put themselves or their organizations above the welfare of the Bangladeshi Hindus—and that is a betrayal of our people.

Third, we must organize an umbrella organization that coordinates action to stop ethnic cleansing and prevent genocide. No person or group should be asked to give up their independence, but if we are to succeed in helping these people, we will do so if organized and united. Our enemies certainly are! In fact, I am engaged in such an effort in the United States and want to do the same in India and elsewhere. Let us not dissipate our energies and resources on events that do little good for the people. Let us maximize their impact for the Bangladeshi Hindus.

And fourth, we must commit ourselves to helping these people; to remain focused on results rather than our efforts; to refuse any half measures or offers of money and position that do not include a complete cessation of ethnic cleansing, and end to all persecution of the Bangladeshi Hindus. If an American Jew can come to India to defend Hindus, why would not every one of the 800 billion Hindus in India do the same?

Stand with me and fight to stop the atrocities not just cry about them!

Those who wish to join me—and I will do it alone if I have to—can contact me via email at drrbenkin@comcast.net or visit my web site

http://www.InterfaithStrength.com and please help by donating to our cause.

Obama Era to Begin Tuesday

Originally published in Asian Tribune, January 19, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Chicago, 19 January, (Asiantribune.com): The avalanche of goodwill that soon to be US President Barack Obama has generated should not eclipse the gargantuan task that faces him as he enters office, not only of the issues themselves but also of his being able to effectively tackle them. Moreover, whether it is the economy or any number of international matters, all of them will require that he support specific positions and make concrete decisions—something that he has been able to avoid doing throughout his political career.

Once he does, that good feeling will take a back seat to practical politics and the job of resolving these matters. Lawmakers’ will also feel obliged to defend what they believe to be their constituents’ interests and their own positions. Getting things done in Washington is not easy, and Obama has not been very effective in that regard as a US Senator.

Given the importance—and often divisiveness—inherent in the issues he must confront, we can expect that Obama’s "honeymoon," as it is termed in DC to last only as long as the opposition to his actions is weak. (The honeymoon is the initial time in a President’s term of office when opposition is muted to maintain good feeling.) Additionally, up until now, the implications of Obama’s positions have been marginal. Now, they will have real consequences at home and abroad, melting away the goodwill that many have for him.

But that is the job of a President and of a leader—to make the hard decisions even if they are unpopular. Up until now, Obama’s success has been based almost entirely on that good feeling; and it remains to be seen how he will react to its fading away as he gets down to work.

Obama has shown some deftness in many of the initial decisions he has made during his brief 75-day transition. His appointments and proposed “economic stimulus package” have sometimes been ideological, sometimes conciliatory. Congress tends to give presidents wide latitude in their appointments, although there was a lapse in that courtesy by the Democrats during the Bush era. Unless the appointment is shown to be guilty of corruption, some potential crime, shocking moral turpitude, or is caught in a serious lie, Congress tends to ignore political or ideological matters and votes to confirm. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson got a jump on that by withdrawing as Obama’s nomination to become Secretary of Commerce when it became known that he was under investigation for allegedly selling state contracts for campaign contributions.

Obama has been hailed for his bi-partisan judgment by nominating two Republicans to be in his cabinet. He asked Bush Defense Secretary William Gates to remain, and because he already holds the position does not need to be confirmed. He also has nominated fellow Illinoisan and former Republican Congressman Ray LaHood to become Secretary of Transportation.

Without a doubt, however, Obama’s boldest decision was that of asking Evangelical Christian Pastor Reverend Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Warren, whose church is in conservative Orange County, California, is a major opponent of gay marriage and credited with a significant role in passing a referendum which outlawed the practice in that state. There was a deluge of protests from liberal and gay activist groups, but Obama stuck to his guns nevertheless, telling the protestors to respect his decision to bring people of different viewpoints to the event. "We have to disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

On the other side, other appointments by Obama have caused an outcry not only among Republicans but among many Democrats as well. Obama’s choice to head the CIA was former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1994 to 1997. The fact that he has no significant foreign policy experience and certainly no intelligence experience has raised a lot of concerns about Panetta’s ability to grasp the complex world of intelligence and make critical snap decisions. If Panetta’s appointment turns out to be a misstep, it could have disastrous consequences for Obama and, more importantly, the American people. Panetta’s appointment seems to be a political one rather than one focused on who is the best person for the job. This one could come back to haunt Obama.

Another highly questionable appointment is Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. MSNBC, a network that openly cheered for Obama during the campaign, indicated this nomination could be in trouble after it reported that the Democratic dominated Senate Finance Committee held an "emergency Senators only meeting" on the appointment. Their specific concern is that Geithner employed a domestic worker and failed to remit taxes and social security monies to the government. Two of Bill Clinton’s appointments had to withdraw over similar allegations. Many people are also high critical of the appointment because Geithner is a "Wall Street insider," who as many people see it was part of the problem that led to the crisis in the American economy. The most important job of the next Secretary of the Treasury will be to preside over Wall Street’s reform and regulation.

Obama’s nominations to be Attorney General, Eric Holder, and Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar to be Secretary of the Interior are also drawing a lot of fire—the first from the right, the second from the left. The Holder nomination is highly controversial because of his involvement in two highly volatile Clinton pardons. Presidents have the power to pardon convicted criminals and even let them out of prison. As Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Holder reviewed clemency applications.

The one generating the most outrage was Holder’s fanatical advocacy of pardoning six Puerto Rican terrorists of the FALN and Los Macheteros, convicted of bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy. Their organizations, which they do not disavow, are responsible for more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and hundreds of injuries, according to the FBI. Holder also passed forward to Clinton the pardon Wall Street financier Mark Rich, convicted of massive fraud. The latter, like the Geithner appointment, calls into question how effectively Obama will carry out promises to reform Wall Street. The Salazar appointment has been skewered by environmental groups. According to the liberal National Public Radio, environmentalists are “fuming” over the appointment, calling it Obama’s “most controversial.” According to the Center for Biological Diversity, Salazar is closely tied “to ranching and mining and very traditional, old-time, Western, extraction industries. We were promised that an Obama presidency would bring change.”

Unless any new information surfaces, however, only the Geithner nomination is in trouble, and even the outcry over Panetta is not likely to scuttle his appointment. During this time of challenges from the left and right, Obama has stood firm on his decisions and behind the people he has appointed. His nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton to become Secretary of State might be the most revealing with regard to political changes and foreign policy in the United States. For years, Clinton had been reviled by conservatives; and going into the 2008 campaign, most saw defeating her as their number one priority. Yet, her nomination to become Secretary of State has been hailed by both sides of the political divide, and she has won praise for her competence and toughness. Her nomination sailed through the Senate committee and should be confirmed by a very wide margin.

During the committee hearings, Clinton made it clear that she and Obama both side with Israel in the current round of fighting, although both made statements of concern regarding Palestinian and Israeli civilian casualties. But their statements indicate that fears of a new US Middle East policy under Obama are unfounded.

Clinton’s appointment, however, might signal a very critical change in US policy. For some time, Obama has been talking tough about Pakistan and about how he intends to shift US focus from Iraq and the Middle East to Afghanistan and South Asia. Nor has he made any secret of his irritation over Pakistan’s role in Islamic terror there. Clinton’s nomination is significant in that regard. During her primary fight with Obama, his campaign derisively referred to her as the “Senator from Punjab” because of her close ties with Indian interests. Given Obama’s stated position on Pakistan, those ties could signal the most significant shift in US foreign policy.

It is still too early to take a real measure of the man. Whether Obama will be up to the task that awaits him is still a big question for Americans—all of whom now wish him the best as our Commander-in-Chief.

- Asian Tribune -

The Real Issue in the Gaza Fighting

Originally published in Asian Tribune, January 18, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

As people worldwide choose up sides to cheer for in the current Gaza fighting, few recognize what the real issue is, and fewer of them are willing to admit it. Distilled to its most essential ingredient, the Middle East conflict is and always was about Israel. Everything else is window dressing. Ever since Jewish halutzim (or pioneers) began reclaiming their ancient homeland and a renewed Jewish state became a reality, the official position of almost every Arab government and entity has been that a Jewish state of any size and location in the Middle East is unacceptable. That same position has been repeated ad nauseum from almost every mosque in the world; certainly every mosque in the Middle East. If many people in the world today cite blatantly anti-Jewish Quran verses as basic to Islam, you can blame those Imams who scream them out week after week at their Friday sermons. The fact that they are broadcast on official Arab government television and are never denounced by Islamic leaders and scholars only reinforces that notion in the minds of many.

It’s not about “the occupation,” unless one considers everything “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea occupied. And it never was. Nor is it about the aspirations of a people called Palestinian. And it never was. If it was about the West Bank and Gaza, there could have been Palestinian state on both pieces of land—and with Jerusalem as its capital—any time between 1948 and 1967. Both were occupied territory, but the “occupiers” were Arabs: Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem; and Egypt ran Gaza. In 1950, Jordan even annexed the entire territory. Why those who claimed outrage when Israel annexed Jerusalem but were silent about Jordan’s much larger annexation is no mystery if one understands the basic goals of the anti-Israel jihad. So when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964, it was not Israel but Jordan and Egypt that were the obstacles to a Palestinian state. Yet, the terror group’s charter did not mention the West Bank or Jordan; nor did the organization target its occupiers, Jordan and Egypt. Its enemy was Israel not because of “the occupation” but because its goal always has been to take over pre-1967 Israel. In fact, Article 24 of the PLO Charter states, “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip.” That PLO’s first leader, Ahmed Shukairy told the UN Security Council on May 31, 1956, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.” Moreover, neither the PLO nor Fatah, which became the PLO’s major component and was founded in the 1950s, expressed any interest in Jerusalem. The PLO Charter did not even call for a Palestinian state until after the 1967 Six-Day War, when it was amended to demand a Palestinian state on the entire land of Israel.

In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians 96 percent of the West Bank, pre-Israeli territory to make up for the other four percent, Gaza,and East Jerusalem. They turned it down and launched the “second intifada” as their response. The latter day claim by Arafat apologists that the offer was one of “Bantustans” does not even pass the test of elementary logic. Not even the great Jewish physicist (and Zionist) Albert Einstein could have figured out how to turn 96 percent of anything into a series of disconnected and unviable islands.

Given what they were offered, what more could the Arabs want that would leave any viable Jewishstate of Israel? Those fellow travelers who blithely go from one Arab territorial demand to another need to ask themselves that question. Do they think the Arabs will lay down their arms if Israel quits the West Bank and Gaza? No, well perhaps if Israel cedes Jerusalem, too. By the way, when Arabs occupied Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to pray at their holiest religious site, the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. Yet, since Israel has had hegemony over Jerusalem, Muslim worship at the Mount’s Al Aqsa has been so vibrant that the Muslims have had to build an annex to it within the Temple Mount. Okay, so Israel leaves the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, and gives up any right to pray at its holiest religious sites. Oh that’s right, what about the “right of return”? (And of course, there is no consideration for the even greater number of Jews who were expelled from Arab lands since 1948 and are now the majority citizens of Israel.) But Israel at Camp David and elsewhere has even agreed to take a limited number of Palestinian refugees, just not enough to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. And as a result, the Arabs fight on; the anti-Israel war continues.

When will the supporters of the Arabs’ anti-Israel jihad conflict finally admit that they do not find the Jewish state of Israel legitimate and would prefer it to be gone; wiped from the map in lock step with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad; that they treat the world’s only Jewish state differently than they do any other state on the planet. And that is anti-Semitism.

- Asian Tribune -

Clinton Begins Confirmation Hearing as US Top Diplomat

Originally published in Asian Tribune, January 14, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee began hearings today on President-elect Barack Obama’s nomination of Hillary Clinton to become Secretary of State. The committee is chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry with Richard Lugar, who has been generally supportive of Obama, as the committee’s ranking Republican. Ever since Obama announced the former First Lady’s nomination on December 1, it has been widely assumed that she would sail through the confirmation process. She has won praise from Democrats and Republicans alike. Secretary of State-designate and US Senator Hillary Clinton (L) prepares to testify during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Senator Charles Schumer on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Clinton promised a new era of "smart" US military and diplomatic power under president-elect Barack Obama, saying American global leadership would no longer be found wanting.

Both Kerry and Lugar opened today’s hearing with high praise for her. Kerry called her "an extraordinarily capable appointment," and Lugar said she was "the epitome of a big leaguer." As one Republican operative told me, "Given the fact that Obama is not going to appoint a conservative to the position, Clinton isn't a bad pick at all. She’s certainly tough enough for the job," he said.

In the first day of hearings, Clinton talked about the US using "smart power." She explained the concept as a departure from what democrats have characterized as the “ideologically-driven” foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Clinton said that the new administration would use that smart power—combining military and economic strength with diplomacy—to reassert US global influence. In particular, she spoke about forging new alliances with nations around the world.

"America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America. I believe American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted. We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy."

Clearly, the Middle East will be critical component of that foreign policy, and mindful of that, Clinton made mention of the Israel-Arab conflict in her opening statement. "As intractable as the Middle East problems may seem [the United States] cannot give up on peace."

Asked about the current situation in Gaza, Clinton tried to reassure Senators that basic American Middle East policy will remain the same.

"I think on Israel, you cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements. That is just for me, you know, an absolute. That is the United States government's position; that is the president-elect's position."

She added that Obama and she "understand and are deeply sympathetic to Israel's desire to defend itself under the current conditions, and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets. However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians."

During the long presidential campaign, there was a great deal of concern by Israel’s supporters that Obama would take a less friendly approach to the Jewish state, but Clinton in her statements tried to make it clear that it was her own—and more importantly Obama’s—commitment for that not to happen. In fact, nothing that she said diverged from anything that has come out of the Bush White House on the Middle East. About a half-dozen pro-Palestinian protestors looked dejected at Clinton’s remarks, and when the hearings adjourned for lunch, Clinton did not acknowledge them as she walked by.

The one issue that did surface in the hearing came when Lugar and two other Republican committee members raised questions about foreign donations to the William J Clinton Foundation, her husband’s charitable organization. Concern had been growing over the past several days about large contributions by the Saudi government, in particular, and whether or not that would constitute a conflict of interest in how she might handle several vital issues. Lugar noted, that foreign entities might believe that contributions to the President Clinton Foundation would win them favor with Secretary of State Clinton. He also wondered if the contributions could hamper Clinton from making difficult decisions that could go against those foreign powers. He added that he believed the issue could be overcome if the Clinton Foundation refused foreign monies during her stint as the US’s top diplomat.

Obama’s transition team was also concerned about this matter, and they were given access to the former President's financial records during the vetting process by which they investigated Clinton for any negative information that could jeopardize her confirmation as secretary of state. They were concerned that some of Clinton’s donors would push policies that could conflict with those of the new Obama administration. According to the New York Times last November, some of those donors included the king of Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, China, and others in addition to the Saudis.

During Clinton's primary run for President, a memo and remark from the Obama camp derisively referred to her as “the Senator from Punjab” because of the Clintons' close ties to Indian interests. Although issues regarding South Asia did not arise on the first day of hearings, those ties ironically could turn out to be an asset for both Clinton and Obama if they surface in subsequent hearings.

- Asian Tribune -

Bangladesh journalist gives threat to US citizen.

(Originally published on 14 January, 2009)

A Bangladeshi journalist named Jahangir Alam Akash who runs a website named Humanrightstoday [www.humanrightstoday.info] has given threat to US Citizen and internationally known peace activist Dr. Richard L Benkin through email recently. It may be mentioned here that, Dr. Richard L Benkin is scheduled to visit Bangladesh during the first part of March to attend several seminars and symposiums organized by local organizations. Knowing about this trip, Jahangir Alam Akash, who is known for his notoriety in Bangladesh and facing several extortion charges as well as aligned with anti US and anti Jewish groups, sent a mail to Dr. Richard L Benkin stating [most of the sentences in the mentioned email contained spelling mistakes which are corrected for the convenience of reader], “I hope you do believe in God . Do not Kill the Human, I hope you are the generator behind killing people of holy Palestine. I have doubt that you are Zionist or Eblish [evil]. Please read the articles of Dr. Tony Klug, He is the real Israeli.”

You are the broker of American Government. We do hate the activities of a broker. Bangladesh government should ban you travel to Bangladesh. You are idiot in supporting the fake journalist Chowdhury.”

Commenting on Dr. Richard L. Benkin’s unrelenting effort in favor of internationally acclaimed award winning Bangladeshi journalist and peace activist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, Jahangir Alam Akash wrote, “Please read the articles of Dr. Tony Klug, He is the real Israeli .You are the broker of American Government . We do hate the activities of a broker. Bangladesh government should ban you travel to Bangladesh. You are idiot in supporting the fake journalist Chowdhury.”

Jahangir Alam Akash although claims to be working in favor of religious minority in Bangladesh, in reality he and his palls are desperately trying to stop every effort internationally in defense of Bangladeshi religious minority groups. Especially, Interfaith Strength www.interfaithstrength.com is continuing its campaign against the most controversial Vested Property Act. This is the point which makes notorious grabbers of properties belonging to Hindu religious minority group in Bangladesh extremely annoyed. They have hired several lapdogs including Jahangir Alam Akash and are propagating to stop this extremely effective website as Interfaith Strength is gradually becoming one of the most dependable and neutral source of information on oppression of religious minority in Bangladesh and the sub continent.

Commenting on this website, Akash wrote, “We do ask to President B Obama to ban interfaithsterength right now and kick you out from US. Bangladesh should re interrogate the case Chowdhury, and we demand it to Sheikh Hasina.

“We also demand to stop interfaithsterength.com and we highly demand to ban the said site.”

Finally in the mail, Jahangir Alam Akash threatened Dr. Richard L Benkin of dire consequences and physical attack during his visit to Bangladesh.

This is for the first time any US citizen is openly threatened by any notorious anti US element.

In the website www.humanrightstoday.info which is owned by Jahangir Alam Akash, description of his professional back ground states that, “Jahangir Alam Akash was a promising young journalist in Bangladesh . He was also a human rights activist and attuned to the daily injustices suffered by ordinary people around him, he reported extensively on the problems of extrajudicial killings, torture and corruption prevalent in the region.”

In the website is it also mentioned that Jahangir Alam Akash works as the ‘Freelance Correspondent’ of Deutsche Wella, German Radio. It is not learnt whether Akash had any assignment from the state owned radio station in Germany to continue his notorious anti-US and anti-Israel propaganda as well as criminal threat to a national of United States.

Repeal Enemy Property Act & Show the Support

Originally published on Daily Khabor, January 11, 2009

Dr. Richard Benkin

Bangladesh Hindu Buddhists Christian Unity Council global chapters joined in a conference call on Saturday, 10th Jan 2009, just after the election. Global OP leaders called upon the newly formed government to prioritize the minority issues and repeal the enemy property act now. Leaders from Bangladesh, America, Switzerland, France, UK, Czechoslovakia Republic, Cyprus & Sweden joined the conference call which lasted 2 hours. Dr. Richard Benkin joined the event as a guest speaker. Biren Adhikari joined from Bangladesh also spoke. Dr. Thomas D. Roy, President, BHBCUC, USA joined from France.

Initially Dr. Benkin talked and answered questions for about 75 minutes. He told that, AL is better than BNP but it will be the biggest mistake if we don't do anything. We need to pressurize the government, we will lobby around the world and they will not do anything if we sit down idle. He told that, he had already talked with some of the members of the Congress & they promised to take the issue this year. In answer to questions he added that, I agree that you should not antagonize the government at the beginning, but if they don't do anything, we must act. He told that, the government should repeal the enemy property act now to show the support to the cause of minorities.

Dr. Richard L. Benkin (http://www.InterfaithStrength.com) told that: I understand that we must give this new government a time, but I would not be as optimistic as some of the other callers. First, we know that the Awami League have benefited from the racist Vested Property Act. Ending the persecution of minorities must be considered one of the first priorities. What is more important than that? And I have one other question: 'this attitude of passivity and let's give them a chance; how well has that worked for the minorities and the victims in the past? Not well. We are sitting by while people are being killed and tortured! So, yes, we must give them some time--but not much or we will see that their words are nothing more than words.

Mr. B.N. Adhikari from Bangladesh talked about election, ministry and what we need to do now. He also answered questions from the audience.

Among others present in the conference call were Ratan Barua, Nabendu Dutta & Sushil Saha; Pradip Das, Chandan Sen Gupta, Sitangshu Guha from NY; Europe president Udayan Barua, Swadesh Barua, Pranab Barua, Ujjibon Chakma, Titu Barua from France; Chitra Paul from Sweden; Arun Barua, Joint Secretary, Europe & Sumon Chakma, Tipu Barua from Switzerland; Bijoy Barua from Cypress; Saikot Sinha from Czechoslovakia Republic.

Finding ‘Moderate Radicals’, Barack Obama style

Originally published on March 10, 2009 in CanadaFreePress

Dr. Richard Benkin

The words we use are important, and each has its own specific meaning. So when the Obama Administration says that it is open to dealing with “moderate Taliban,” people should ask what in the world it means. The Taliban is by definition a radical organization that is not about to give on its maximalist demand of imposing Sharia law wherever it attains power. It is in its very essence contrary to everything we believe in as Americans. When the US President, who considers himself a master of words, speaks about moderate radicals, he needs to be asked, “Are you crazy?”

President Obama is copying the policy of the Pakistani government whereby it has identified elements of the Taliban that it believes are moderate; that is, amenable to negotiation. This, of course, is criminally naïve. Our history with Islamist radicals is that the only time they negotiate is when they believe themselves too weak for a military win and consider themselves bound to any “negotiated peace” only until they are strong enough for total victory.

Last month, Pakistan’s government concluded an agreement with those moderate radicals whereby it allowed Sharia law to replace the law of the land in the Swat Valley and Taliban control to replace its own. In exchange, the Taliban agreed to a “permanent peace.” Does anyone want to guess how permanent that will be? The Swat Valley, moreover, is located less than 100 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. It is home to over 1.2 million people who now have been consigned to live under the same tyrannical rule that pertained in Afghanistan before the Taliban was defeated there. There is also a giant stone statue of Buddha in the area, which likely will meet the fate of those that used to exist in Afghanistan.

As reported on Fox News at the time, NATO “blasted” the agreement and predicted that the Taliban would only use the ceasefire to become more powerful. Even Amnesty International objected, fearing it would legitimize the Taliban’s human rights abuses. The new Obama administration was silent, perhaps mulling over the idea for itself.

Pakistan’s government claims that the agreement was not “capitulation but the price of peace” in the region. Taliban leaders, however, say that capitulation is precisely what is it—and I cannot believe that there is something on which we agree. Capitulation was the price of peace. Taliban leaders claim that it was their unrelenting war in the valley and their policy of burning homes and other buildings indiscriminately that forced the government to surrender.

Now, Obama has decided that this is a pretty good idea and has let it be known that he is ready to negotiate with “moderate Taliban.” Thus far, the Taliban response has been that they, too, are ready, so long as the United States will “stop your military action in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

This is about as wrong-headed a policy as one could imagine. Although people grow weary of comparisons with the Nazis, we might consider this one. In 1937, the British and French agreed to let Hitler have the part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland as the price of “peace in our time,” which was the British leader’s famous quote after the concession. It was not long, however, before Hitler gobbled up the rest of that nation and soon embarked on his war for global domination that cost tens of millions of lives.

Mr. Obama better take note of the price of appeasement.