“v’samachta bechagecha”: and you shall rejoice in your festival. This is it, Sukkot, our season of rejoicing. My very favorite holiday. The spirit is in the air, here in Jerusalem. I look forward to meals in the Sukkah (much larger than the illustration here!), and sleeping in the Sukkah with my grandchildren.
And blessings over the lulav and etrog.
Sukkot starts tomorrow night, and I will post only very erratically, if at all, during the coming eight-day period. The older I get, and the worse the world seems, the more I understand how important are these moments of joy. To all celebrating, I wish a Chag Sameach.
The Legal Grounds Campaign, which I co-chair with Jeff Daube, had to slow down during the recent war with Hamas. But we are ready to gear up again after the holiday and we believe there is now a window of opportunity for effect work.
Our ultimate goal of getting the government of Israel to speak in one voice, providing consistent messages to the Israeli public and the international community about our legal grounds – and then adjusting policies so that they reflect these rights – has not changed. We believe this is critical to Israel’s future.
Until how we’ve been working in the Knesset. We are convinced there is still more work to be done there – bringing MKs on board to speak out about Israel’s rights – before we to the next stage.
It is important to emphasize: There are no magic bullets. We are engaged in a process to turn the situation around. Little by little.
I have already been in touch with some of you directly. If you would like to know more about this campaign – what we’ve accomplished to date and where we are headed – or if you are interested in helping, financially or otherwise, please write to me (and put “Legal Grounds Campaign” in the subject line).
There is, as always, an unending number of subjects to be discussed. I will touch here upon just a few of the most critical.
The other day, the new government of Sweden declared intention of recognizing the Palestinian Authority as a “state.” From the perspective of customary international law, this does not work. For an entity to be defined as a state, it must:
* exercise effective and independent governmental control
* possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control
* have the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations
* have a permanent population
Clearly, the Palestinian Authority has multiple problems fulfilling these criteria. The whole matter of government control is very complex in this situation. One Palestinian Authority as a unity government? Or two authorities, one in Judea and Samaria and the other in Gaza, no matter how it is papered over? Because of this complexity, there is confusion over what population it has.
But most significant is the issue of a defined territory over which it exercises control. Were Abbas seeking to declare a state on the area that the PA now administers in Judea and Samaria, that would be one thing. But he is defining his state as encompassing everything over the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line, sometimes called the 1967 “border”), which enfolds all of eastern Jerusalem as well a host of Jewish communities. He is not in control of this area and never will be.
Then, there is yet another problem. The PLO is obligated to a final status for the PA via the Oslo Accords, which call for negotiations. European nations profess support for Oslo, but unilateral recognition of a state sabotages the process.
I will note here that Oslo does not specifically define a sovereign Palestinian state as the end goal of negotiations.
What is more, the General Assembly resolution that accorded the PA the status of a non-voting member of that body did not legally confer statehood upon the PA either. The UN cannot confer statehood.
Yet Sweden, for purely political reasons, declared itself prepared to “recognize” this “state” that does not exist. The danger is that it could motivate other nations to do the same. While this “state” still would not fulfill all of the traditional criteria, by some measures, a state is defined in part by the recognition of other nations. Thus is it imperative to nip this in the bud. Sweden hasn’t actually taken the step yet.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was furious about Sweden’s announced intentions, and the Swedish ambassador to Israel was summoned for a reprimand.
Swedish prime minister Stephen Lofven was apparently startled by the reaction his announcement (during his inauguration speech, yet) elicited, and has backtracked a bit. Now he has explained that he is friends with both parties and was not trying to attack Israel. He was trying to help, because if the PA is recognized as a state it will advance the peace process. Unmitigated nonsense. Hopefully in the end this will not happen.
Sweden’s announcement stimulated similar talk in London. But in England this was not expected to have legs. If a vote were to be held in the parliament, it would be purely “symbolic.”
Now our eyes are on the north, where the situation is enormously unstable. (Actually, the situation is unstable everywhere, but this area is considered most worrisome.)
On Sunday, a small group of Lebanese soldiers moved across the border from Lebanon into Israel. The IDF shot at them and one soldier was lightly wounded; they all turned back into Lebanon.
At that point UNIFIL – the “peace keeping” UN troops in Lebanon – got involved, and had some harsh words for the shooting of the Lebanese soldier. This struck me as ironic but not terribly surprising: For us they have reprimands. But this force that was supposed to keep Hezbollah from being re-armed after the 2006 Lebanon war totally failed in its mandated mission, as Hezbollah now has some 100,000 rockets.
The concern being voiced here is that there has been a shift in the situation, with the Lebanese army and Hezbollah cooperating. In theory this was not supposed to happen. As far as I know, it has not happened overtly until now. Although I will note that UNIFIL works under the direction of the Lebanese army. The thinking is that this group of Lebanese soldiers was actually a cell intent on a terrorist attack.
Repeatedly over the last several months, I have read reports that Hezbollah, which is headquartered in Lebanon, was not likely to turn its sights on Israel, as it was mired down in the Syrian civil war, where it had been depleted by the loss of hundreds of troops. This is what I have been reporting.
But now there is a new assessment: Hezbollah has actually gained strength as the result of experience fighting in Syria: It has greater confidence and has new offensive capabilities.
The IDF has thus made “dramatic changes” in its plans to defend the north of Israel in all eventualities.
While no war with Hezbollah is expected in the immediate future, it is expected that such a war will come and it will be two-pronged. There will be aerial attack by rockets and missiles that are far more sophisticated than anything Hamas has. And there will infiltration into the north of Israel, in the Galil, with an attempt to seize areas or communities.
There is confidence in the IDF that Hezbollah forces that entered Israel’s north could be repelled in short order. The far greater concern is those rockets and missiles.
I’ve heard it said many times by our military commanders and defense personnel that a war with Hezbollah would not be like a war with Hamas, and I can only pray that from the perspective of our defense they mean it. We would have to preempt. Hezbollah follows exactly the same pattern of hiding rockets in civilian areas. But in Lebanon, there would be no time to warn civilians to move out of the way. Attacks on sites where the key weaponry is stored would have to be swift and massive to prevent launching of those destructive rockets. In order to defend ourselves we would have to concentrate on speedily eliminating the threat, rather than worrying about accusations from the world community or a count of how many civilians got in the way.
And while we are talking about the north, there is also the presence of radical jihadists on the other side of the Golan, in Syria, who at some point in the future may decide to move down into Israel. Different groups are represented there, none nearly as strong as Hezbollah or armed with rockets as Hezbollah is, but requiring extreme vigilance all the same.
All of this, I must add, provides strong rationale for not having gone into Gaza to totally take down Hamas. This would have drawn on too much of our resources, occupied too many of our soldiers – all of which may, on short notice, be needed elsewhere.
On Sunday, a powerful blast tore into Iran’s military facility at Parchin. At least two people were killed. It is not yet known if this explosion was the result of sabotage or a work accident. But such news is always welcome. I will not know anything more before Sukkot begins. But after the holiday, there is a great deal to write about concerning Iran.
Tensions remain high between Netanyahu and Obama, over the issue (which is a non-issue!) of our plans to build in eastern Jerusalem.
What is pleasing from the perspective here is that Netanyahu has about had it – he’s standing strong, unapologetically.
An interview of Prime Minister Netanyahu by Dovid Efune appears in the Algemeiner. In it he explains that his determination not to transfer any territory to the PA without extensive security arrangements (read: the continuing presence of the IDF inside this territory) has “only become firmer,” in light of current situations.
“We don’t just hand over territory, close our eyes and hope for the best.”
This non-appeasing stance by our prime minster is most welcome. He is couching his position in security terms, and indeed the concerns in this regard are very real:
“’[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza,’ says senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar… ‘We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine.’
“If Hamas manages to establish a foothold in the West Bank, it would be able to wipe out Israel and establish an Islamic state in its stead, senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar told Palestinian news outlet Al-Ayyam on Wednesday.” (Emphasis added)
What this indicates is not only that giving a state to Abbas would be incredibly dangerous and foolish, but that the notion of a unity government is a farce, a pretense: If Hamas and Fatah were truly united, Hamas would not be talking this way.
But in the end, Netanyahu’s concerns translate to: No two-state solution, folks. Elsewhere I read that Netanyahu says the definition of “sovereignty” would have to change with regard to what was meant by a “sovereign” Palestinian state.
Abbas will not have this. But there it stands. The world is going to be angry at us and we had better learn to live with it. To give the world what it wants of us would be suicide.
A very good time for making our case about our rights in the land with full vigor.
By: Noah Rothman
In late February, Ukrainians awoke one morning to masked, armed, Russian-speaking men guarding key sites on the Crimean peninsula. This came as a shock not only to Crimean residents and the media covering the sudden outbreak of instability on that strategically vital strip of land, but to the international community as well. This soft invasion was followed hours later by a far more traditional incursion by Russian forces. Within weeks, Moscow had carved off the peninsula from Ukraine and, eventually, annexed it into Russia proper.
Some believed that this shocking development could not be divorced from the counterintelligence coup Moscow pulled off when they lured National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, and all the secrets to which he had access, to Russia for what has become an extended stay.
“Some U.S. military and intelligence officials say Russia’s war planners might have used knowledge about the U.S.’s usual surveillance techniques to change communication methods about the looming invasion,” The Wall Street Journal reported in March. “U.S. officials haven’t determined how Russia hid its military plans from U.S. eavesdropping equipment that picks up digital and electronic communications.”
“We know today [of] no counterintelligence official in the United States [who] does not believe that Mr. Snowden, the NSA contractor, is not under the influence of Russian intelligence services,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) told NBC’s Meet the Press in early spring.
Wittingly or otherwise, there is evidence that Snowden helped facilitate the first major European war in decades and the first brazen land grab on the continent since World War II. Now, Snowden’s leaks may be aiding an equally grave threat to Western civilization: the Islamic State.
“A former top official at the National Security Agency says the Islamic State terrorist group has ‘clearly’ capitalized on the voluminous leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and is exploiting the top-secret disclosures to evade U.S. intelligence,” The Washington Times reported. “Bottom line: Islamic State killers are harder to find because they know how to avoid detection.”
“The changed communications practices and patterns of terrorist groups following the Snowden revelations have impacted our ability to track and monitor these groups,” said Mr. Hayden, who writes a bimonthly column for The Times.
Matthew G. Olsen, who directs the National Counterterrorism Center, supports Mr. Hayden’s assessment.
“Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance. They are moving to more secure communications platforms, using encryption and avoiding electronic communications altogether,” Mr. Olsen, a former NSA general counsel, said Wednesday at the Brookings Institution. “This is a problem for us in many areas where we have limited human collection and depend on intercepted communications to identify and disrupt plots.”
“Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, an Iraqi devoted to former al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, is known to practice evasive tradecraft that undoubtedly improved because of Mr. Snowden’s disclosures,” the report added.
By: Vladimir Demarkovich
Accuracy in Media
A special report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism
The city of Kharkov, a virtual border town with Russia of one million strong just north of the war zone in southeastern Ukraine, recently tore down a gigantic statue of Vladimir Lenin in one of the biggest squares in the world. But President Obama’s most recent response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to send his former campaign finance chairman and current U.S. Commerce Secretary, Penny Pritzker, otherwise known as the “Queen of the subprime mortgage” meltdown, to Kiev to cajole Ukraine into serious economic “reforms.”
Even though many have characterized Western sanctions against Putin’s regime as a mere slap on the hands, Pritzker told the Ukrainians that such sanctions are sufficiently severe enough to encourage Russia to militarily back out of Ukraine. No serious observer believes that.
With all of Europe heavily dependent upon Russian oil and gas—thanks in no small part to maddening government green schemes on both sides of the Atlantic that greatly help Putin’s aggression—further sanctions are very unlikely.
Ukraine’s Strategic Significance
About the size of Texas, Ukraine is the biggest nation in Europe, but tiny in comparison to Russia. Ukraine means borderland. Generally speaking, western Ukrainians speak Ukrainian, while eastern Ukrainians speak Russian. The capital city of Kiev largely speaks Russian, reflecting centuries of Russification dating back to the czars and the former Soviet Union. However, the fact that many Ukrainians speak Russian does not mean that Ukraine is pro-Russian, or that it wants Russia to rule over them. Indeed, it was the Russian-speaking Kiev that tossed out its former pro-Russian president Victor Yanukovych, a former Soviet criminal apparatchik and the most corrupt politician to fleece the country to date since Ukrainian independence back in 1991. Kharkiv, one of the most Russified cities in all of Ukraine, also just sent a very provocative message to the Kremlin by tearing down Vladimir Lenin’s statue—the Soviet idol of scientific atheism, materialism, and socialism that enslaved Ukraine for most of the 20th century.
Ukraine sits right on the East-West divide in Europe, and is a critical geopolitical barometer of things to come. In the 20th century alone, Ukraine was at the heart of virtually every European catastrophe, a situation that could easily repeat itself if politicians continue to ignore the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. World War I, the Communist Revolution, Stalin’s undeclared brutal war of industrialization and collectivization of Ukrainian farms, and World War II—each of these occurred on Ukrainian soil. According to some reports, more than 12,000 Ukrainians and Russians have already died in Ukraine since hostilities broke out.
Right now, there is a lull in the action, but the fighting has not stopped even though a ceasefire has been in effect for a few weeks. Moreover, the “ceasefire” only came into play after the Russian military invaded and shoved the Ukrainian Army out of all of the areas where they had been experiencing increasing success against the rebels on the battle lines throughout the summer. Russia, in virtual control of Ukraine’s gas supplies, will now use the threat of winter as a weapon to further threaten Kiev.
At this juncture, only Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states seem to understand the very serious situation that Europe has on its hands. Sending someone as unserious as Pritzker to Ukraine is akin to criticizing the Russians during the Olympics for their homosexual views, which was quickly answered by Putin’s takeover of the Crimea. The Russians then started a proxy war of sorts by invading the industrialized Donbass area of southeastern Ukraine, the very heart of the Ukrainian economy. Russia also needs all of southeast Ukraine in order to take care of the Crimea. The Crimea, which is a peninsula that juts out over the Black Sea, cannot be properly governed from Russia without a land bridge. As such, it is very unlikely that Russia will stop its aggression in Ukraine on its own. The Russians will likely continue their chicanery until they are stopped.
If Ukraine buckles under, what about Poland and the Baltics? Did not Vladimir Putin once say the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century? While Putin and the former Russian Soviets may have discarded their old communist ideology, they obviously have imperialistic plans to restore Kremlin hegemony over more and more European space, starting with Ukraine.
Religion in Putin’s Russia
Russia’s “conversion,” apparently away from communism to a more religious form of Russian socialism and/or nationalism, can be traced to the fanatic Alexander Dugin. Although Dugin failed to establish the National Bolshevik Party in the 1990s, he has since been riding high under Putin’s regime in propagandizing the nation with a more spiritual form of national bolshevism—amalgamating Russian Orthodoxy and neo-paganism with nationalism, socialism, communism, mysticism, and apocalypticism—all of which spells bad news for Ukraine, if not all of Europe.
According to Dr. Robert Zubrin, “The core idea of Dugin’s Eurasianism is that ‘liberalism’ (by which is meant the entire Western consensus) represents an assault on the traditional hierarchical organization of the world. Repeating the ideas of Nazi theorists Karl Haushofer, Rudolf Hess, Carl Schmitt, and Arthur Moeller van der Bruck, Dugin says that this liberal threat is not new, but is the ideology of the maritime cosmopolitan power ‘Atlantis,’ which has conspired to subvert more conservative land-based societies since ancient times. Accordingly, he has written books in which he has reconstructed the entire history of the world as a continuous battle between these two factions, from Rome v. Carthage to Russia v. the Anglo Saxon ‘Atlantic Order,’ today.”
Zubrin goes on, “If Russia is to win this fight against the subversive oceanic bearers of such ‘racist’ (because they are foreign-imposed) ideas as human rights, however, it must unite around itself all the continental powers, including Germany, Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, Turkey, Iran, and Korea, into a grand Eurasian Union strong enough to defeat the West.” Zubrin later adds, “Without Ukraine, Dugin’s fascist Eurasian Union project is impossible.”
Dugin’s religious mysticism, which includes characterizing the West as the home of the coming Antichrist, is casting a long dark shadow over Russian politics these days. While many have extolled Putin’s religious credentials as of late, and have been fooled by his so-called moral conservatism in which he has stood up for family values against homosexuality, the Dugin program is cause for alarm. Since the late 1990s, Dugin has been a real player in the rise of Putin’s United Russia, Zyuganov’s Communist Party Russian Federation, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. While Putin, of course, will try to look like he is above the fray of ideologues like Dugin, his actions in Georgia, and now in Ukraine, are identical to Dugin’s overall scheme.
Putin’s religiosity is, therefore, much darker than most may appreciate, and is undoubtedly more artificial and propagandized than anything genuine. The first time Putin spoke about his religiosity to English-speaking audiences, was in a September 2000 interview with Larry King on CNN. At the time, a much more reticent Putin, if not even more humble, was very hesitant to talk about his religious beliefs, saying, “I would prefer not to develop on that subject in detail. I think such things are sacred for everybody. Everybody’s belief is not to be shown off, it’s inside a man’s heart.” Such private sentiments are contrary to Christianity, which everywhere extolls the public propagation of the Word of God in which the message of salvation by grace that Christ was crucified for humanity’s sin and was raised from the dead is to be proclaimed, believed and spread (Romans 3:21-28; 10:14-15).
The Russian Orthodox Threat
When Larry King asked the Russian President if he believed in a higher power, Putin responded with a humanistic answer brimming with anti-Christian collectivism, saying, “I believe in human beings. I believe in his good intentions. I believe in the fact that all of us have come to this world to do good. And if we do so, and if we do so together, then success is awaiting for us. And both with regards to our relations as people to people, or inter-state relations. And most important, we will achieve the ultimate goal, comfort in our own heart.” Christianity strongly asserts otherwise. If man was so great or good (Romans 3:9-20), then why did God send His own Son to die on a cross for their sins (Galatians 2:21)?
While Ukraine has a Ukrainian Orthodox Church which rivals the Russian Orthodox Church, they also have Roman and Greek Catholics in the West, together with the largest Protestant evangelical community in all of Europe. While Ukraine has many moral problems, and is rife with mafia corruption, surprisingly, it is still perhaps the most Christian country of Europe today. However, neither Putin nor the Russian Orthodox Church has any interest in allowing this religious freedom nor pluralism to continue to expand unchecked in Ukraine. It even appears that Putin’s new found Orthodox religion is darker than the religious humanism he once espoused.
Indeed, pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine persecuted evangelicals in particular. Pro-Russian rebels beat, tortured, kidnapped, abducted, and killed evangelicals in the Donbass region. Nine different church leaders signed a statement that described what they called ongoing, “purposeful attacks of armed militants against evangelicals.” The pro-Russian rebels also interrupted prayer meetings and church services with intimidation, “inflicting harm on personal health and personal property of pastors and clerics.” Donetsk Christian University was also seized and used as a barracks for training pro-Russian separatists.
Pro-Russian rebels have repeatedly broken into churches and evangelical Christian homes with threats and warnings, such as “Our faith is Orthodox and you are traitors. You are American subjects and agents, so we are going to eliminate you.” Pastor Peter Dudnik of Good News Church in Slovyansk claimed the pro-Russian separatists and Orthodox priest literally took over his church: “They parked tanks in the center’s gardens and, blessed by Russian Orthodox priests chanting prayers, began lobbing shells at Ukrainian forces outside of town. When the rebels fled, they needed two big trucks to haul all their weaponry.” Dudnik acknowledged he does not know who exactly was behind the takeover of his church, “but said it fit into a long campaign by the Russian Orthodox Church to portray competing denominations, particularly evangelicals, as a heretical fifth column inspired and financed by the United States.”
Reversing Reagan’s Gains
As America watches all the international gains that President Reagan’s bold policies brought to the world being completely reversed and foolishly squandered away, it will be recalled that after the Russians shot down a South Korean airliner in 1983, the Gipper went on national TV and used the crime to berate the evil empire of the Soviet Union for a solid 15 minutes. It can be further recalled that this condemnation of the Soviet action occurred after President Reagan’s famous “evil empire” speech, given before the National Association of Evangelical Christians in March of 1983.
Fast forward to June 2014, when pro-Russian separatists shot down a civilian airliner in which nearly 300 innocent people were blown out of the sky. A golden opportunity was missed to slow down Putin’s war against Ukraine. At the very least, the U.S. presidential administration could have easily used the tragedy to severely criticize and censure Russia’s actions in Ukraine by charging those involved in the action with manslaughter, if not murder.
More to the point, throughout the 1980s, the Reagan administration was fully engaged behind the scenes doing anything and everything it possibly could to defeat the Soviet Union economically and ideologically, with no small help coming out of Catholic Poland. Rather than prissy sanctions as imagined by Obama, Pritzker, and European socialists, America needs to get back to what brought an end to the Cold War in the first place. This, however, is becoming increasingly unlikely, and Vladimir Putin knows it. In fact, he is counting on it. This is why he is now in Ukraine.
QATAR AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
President Mark A. Hussey
Office of the President
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-1246
Dear Dr. Hussey:
This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition. The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of Qatar, the country whose capital hosts a campus of Texas A&M University. Since 2003, when Robert Gates (later Secretary of Defense) was president of the university, the Qatar Foundation has borne all campus development costs associated with the campus. (Also see here.)
Texas A&M University at Qatar plays an important part in the Qatari economy, educating students in disciplines including: chemical engineering, electrical and computer engineering, mechanical engineering, and petroleum engineering. With Qatar possessing the world’s third largest natural gas reserves, and significant reserves of oil, engineering is particularly important to their economy.
The president of Texas A&M in 2003, when the Doha campus was established, was Robert Gates, who served until December 2006. Gates resigned from his role as president of the university to accept the nomination for Secretary of Defense by President George W. Bush, and went on to serve in the same role under President Barack Obama until July 2011, at perhaps the peak of the Arab Spring.
We urge you to read the information below, which includes evidence that Qatar is arguably the preeminent sponsor of terror in the world today. It is a benefactor of the genocidal armies of ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram; it is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell; and profits from operating a virtual slave state. Qatar has leveraged its relationships with violent jihadi groups to its own benefit, and to the detriment of the United States and her allies.
So the public understands why this letter is addressed to you:
- In May 2009, Texas A&M University at Qatar awarded the Medal for Leadership to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Sheikh Tamim is the current Emir of Qatar, reigning through the same period of time which saw Qatar-backed Hamas attack Israel, and the rise of Qatar-backed ISIS.
- In May, 2014, the university received $31.7 million in research awards from the Qatar National Research Fund.
- In 2001, the Qatar Foundation funded an initiative in Doha, the Education City. It welcomed six American universities, Texas A&M among them (in 2003), to build campuses in the complex. The Qatar Foundation, which has noted links to terrorism, pays all associated campus development costs.
- The University benefits Qatar financially; according to the University’s website, “Research activities that address issues important to the State of Qatar are valued at over $159 million.” It also states that the University is “a valued resource of the State of Qatar.”
The QAC Coalition and petitioners ask that you consider the attached sourced report on Qatar’s activities. The links cited are vetted and credible sources. We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.
After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to exert due influence on the Qatari government to cease any type of involvement in all forms of Islamic terrorism, slavery, and drug trafficking!
Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy
Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America
& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.
Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
** Select signatures as of 9/27. The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.
CC: Mark Weichold, Dean, Texas A&M University at Qatar. News and Information Services, Texas A&M.