The Ultimate Revenge

by Sally Fernandez

  “You will be pleased to know that the United States, along with over twenty nations, agree with you that it is positive. And that gives the OIC an exceedingly powerful voice as the largest but unofficial voting bloc in the U.N., including on the Human Rights Council.”

  “Even the Human Rights Council?” he asked with great interest, recalling OIC’s request particularly for a seat on the Security Council.

  “OIC’s current charter is to fight fearlessly against Islamophobia, an emotionally charged euphemism for ‘defamation of Islam.’”

  “That makes perfect sense. Since 9/11 it has been difficult for the Muslim community to fight discrimination, especially within the U.S.” Noble was openly sympathetic.

  “I agree that feelings have been aroused since that tragic day, but then I became confused by a statement I discovered. It was made by the Secretary-General of the OIC at a press conference at the General Secretariat Headquarters in January 2012. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated…”

  The OIC’s actions and objectives are governed by a new Charter which embraces modernity and the new universal values that do not contradict with the teachings of the noble Islamic Sharia law. The latter has brought lofty principles and noble values that are equal or superior to those of other modern day positive laws.

  “Quite noble, if you pardon the reference. Wouldn’t you say?”

  “I’m not sure it adds luster to my name.” Noble raised an eyebrow. “That’s an about-face! He’s now endorsing Sharia Law; therefore his statement embracing modernity is a contradiction in itself. It certainly is in conflict with western values, and clearly erases the OIC’s earlier charter to commit to the principles of the United Nations Charter and International Law. Not to contradict, converts to conformance with Sharia Law according to my interpretation.”

  Max caught Noble’s facial expression. “My research became more confusing as one fact led me to another. It was like stepping on a hornet’s nest. Are you acquainted with the Istanbul Process?”

  “Only vague rumblings about a U.N. resolution where Istanbul was mentioned.” Noble shifted in his chair and listened intently as Max laid out the details.

  “The official name is the Istanbul Ministerial Process. The topics ranged anywhere from economic cooperation to counterterrorism within the Mideast countries. The major focus shifted to rewriting the language in the U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18.”

  “Do I have it right? I recall it was a resolution to combat defamation of religions worldwide. Ostensibly, it covered all religions and has been in existence and debated since the late 90s. Again, it provided a positive approach to embrace the Muslim community and an obvious attempt to stem off a feared tide of terrorism.”

  “You’re correct, but what is not common knowledge is that in 2011 the U.S. State Department asked the OIC to help draft language to protect free speech and still address the problems of Islamophobia. The then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in several meetings with the OIC at the Istanbul Process.”

  “What was her involvement?”

  “She worked directly with the OIC to change the language in the Resolution 16/18 to criminalize speech insulting religions.” Max averred.

  “To criminalize? Where’s the free speech?” Noble exclaimed.

  “Specifically, points five and six of the resolution explained its full intent. It reads…”

  Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence…adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.

  “How would it be possible to observe and/or to enforce?” he asked warily.

  “The Secretary-General of the OIC stated at an Istanbul Process meeting in London…”

  We need an Observatory at the international level with the broad mandate to monitor and document all instances of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds. It must have global coverage.

  “This is shocking! Call it what you will, but it’s akin to a form of global governance.”

  “Wait, in Geneva at an Istanbul Process meeting, the Secretary-General acknowledged the important element of Resolution 16/18. He stated…”

  It is most significantly characterized by divergence of views on the adoption of measures to criminalize incitement to violence based on religion or belief…

  “Secretary of State Clinton was involved in helping to draft the language. What was she thinking?”

  “Noble, this can only place further limitations on freedom of speech. And how does one decide what is incitement—and what is imminent?”

  “You have to admit that the video by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the California-based filmmaker who criticized the Prophet Muhammad, was clearly meant to incite, even if it didn’t apply directly to Benghazi. But he was prosecuted within the context of the U.S. legal system.”

  “Let’s take it one step further. One should ask—if Resolution 16/18 is adopted with that language then who would determine the fine line between free speech and hate crimes—a sovereign nation or the world court?” Max posed. “Any process that would convict an American citizen outside of the U.S. court system is a scary concept.”

  “If the United Nations ends up controlling the criminalization of hate speech, it presents a slippery slope pitched away from our first amendment and places the U.S. on the precipice of global governance.” Noble shook his head at the worrisome thought.

  “Perhaps that is their intent—putting us on the edge of that cliff.”

  Max then cited Abigail Esman, a contributor to Forbes Magazine, who pointed out that criticism of Islam, such as criticizing the Prophet Muhammad, is punishable by death in particular OIC countries. “In essence she highlights, ‘Your free speech allows you to insult my prophet; my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.’ It is her belief that the OIC is playing a high stakes game of Gotcha.”

  Max paused and made direct eye contact with Noble. “Esman makes a finer point, no less important. She suggested that… ‘by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to imminent violence, we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.’”

  Noble was aghast. “Max, your conspiratorial mind is working overtime. You’re not suggesting that our government outwardly and tacitly approved the riots in Benghazi over the video—as a gesture to show solidarity with the OIC and the Istanbul Process?”

  “What difference at this point does it make?” Max asked mockingly, recalling the former secretary of state’s response when questioned at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Benghazi.

  Max noticed Noble’s not nice look, fashioned to thwart any overreach on her part. She dutifully waited a moment for him to consider the possibility before continuing to make her argument. “We’ve become apologists and it could at least explain the Administration’s rush to judgment by citing the tape as the cause.”

  Max clued Noble in on the report from Al Jazeera’s Imran Khan, exposing a $70,000 expenditure by the U.S. for a commercial designed to convince the public that the government did not have a hand in the so-called Benghazi video. After appearing on seven Pakistani television networks, it was deemed a failure, much to the disappointment of the former U.S. president and secretary of state who appeared in the commercial.

  “Max, be careful. You’re skating on thin ice,” Noble cautioned.

  “At least there is sixty percent more Arctic ice to skate on,” she quipped, harking back to Brian Sussman’s report. Then she quickly added, “Their sound bite didn’t discredit the rioters. It was actually engineered to discredit the video itself to pacify the Islamist,” replacing her sarcasm with a tad of ire.

  “Seriously, I don’t see how this explains any logic for falsely identifying the video as the cause of the riots in Benghazi.”

  Max pushed back. “According to an opinion piece in The Daily Caller, the writ
er referred to the commercial as a political tack. He stated it was either for the purpose, ‘…to deflect the blame for the Benghazi killings or…they were using the Alinsky tactics to implement the Istanbul Process and U.N. Resolution 16/18…’”

  “Isn’t that a bit farfetched, even for you? And it still doesn’t make a connection to Simon?”

  “Hear me out! The writer also cited many Alinskyisms from his book, Rules for Radicals. You may find them quite interesting.” Max read from her tablet:

  The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems… An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent…The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community…Fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.

  “The last one was my personal favorite,” She jabbed. “Interestingly, the former Secretary of State Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College widely reported was titled, There Is Only the Fight …: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”

  “Hank and Baari would be so proud!” Noble enjoyed the irony, but was still confounded. “How does that square with Resolution 16/18?”

  “It doesn’t. That’s what’s puzzling. First go back to the point that Esman made when she said, ‘we agreed not to provoke.’ Then consider the purpose of Alinsky’s rules; they are designed to incite people to take action. Our former secretary appears to have attempted to straddle both proxies.”

  “Let’s not get off track,” Noble cautioned. “I can see where Simon’s interest might align with Alinsky philosophies. But I don’t necessarily see how it supports the full-blown terrorist attack that we suspect Simon plans to launch.”

  “Remember during your interrogation, Simon told you of his conversation with Osama bin-Laden when he claimed to have presented a better strategy to destroy western values. And I couldn’t help but remember what Muammar al-Qaddafi once said…”

  We don’t need terrorists and we don’t need homicide bombers. The fifty-plus million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.

  “By all accounts, the population is projected to be over sixty million by the year 2030 in Europe alone. The Pew Research Center forecasts the Muslim population of the world will reach two-point-two billion and comprise twenty-six-point-four percent of the projected world population within the same time frame.”

  “Isn’t that precisely why they would need representation within the United Nations?”

  “Representation yes, but they are governed by a religious ideology that dictates their own set of laws. They are not a nation, as in the United Nations.”

  Noble picked up on Max’s point. “Perchance Simon and Baari had more in common than anyone suspected. I can’t forget Baari’s Libyan roots go back to his childhood and to the influence of Qaddafi in his life.”

  Max nodded in agreement as she continued to read from her tablet. She stated, “Quoting the writer from the Daily Caller once more…”

  In the vein of Fast and Furious, if there could, just by chance, be a spontaneous riot incited that could be blamed on someone insulting Islam, then it would be used as the justification for a rush for Americans to give up a part of their free speech rights.

  “I suspect if it were to occur it would be subtle and would go unrealized by most of the public. But are you suggesting that the decision in Benghazi on the part of the State Department tacitly endorsed the OIC’s language to criminalize speech that allegedly defiled Islam?”

  “Perhaps, it was the better alternative than to blame the riots on Islamic extremists.”

  “If I understand you correctly, you submit that if Simon were successful in creating a national blackout to foment what is accepted as a catastrophic terrorist event, it would incite anti-Muslim sentiment. It could then force the U.S. government to go into overdrive to defend the Islamic community as a whole, to live up to its commitment to the OIC.” Noble paused, and then with some skepticism acknowledged, “Interesting theory—maybe even plausible.”

  Max, sensing she was making headway, furthered her point that the effect that the Istanbul Process and Resolution 16/18 had on the U.S. government was based on the State Department’s action as cited in Deborah Weiss’s blog, ACT! For America. “Weiss first postulated, ‘This is not necessarily a direct result of the resolution, but of the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of Islam.’ In the course of her investigation, Weiss uncovered that the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, National Counterterrorism Center, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have ‘purged any mention of Islamic terrorism in virtually all of their national security and counterterrorism training.’ In addition, the DHS is focusing on terrorist behavior and conveniently disregarding the motivating religious ideology behind the behavior. She stated that the criminal framework had displaced the war framework in prosecuting terrorists.”

  “It appears that the more we capitulate to the Islamic community, the more power they gain on the world stage.” Max frowned a bit as she began to question her own theories.

  “Are you okay?”

  “I was pondering—could it all be that simple?”

  Noble began to wonder. “Assuming the Arab Spring was meant to strengthen and inspire the Islamic Council—think about this—Baari’s machinations and a misguided foreign policy partially contributed to protests in Tunisia, the ousting of Mubarak in Egypt, the Day of Rage in Libya, and the uprisings in twelve other countries in the Mideast. Assume again that Simon was the quarterback and Hank was the executioner of the strategy, to strengthen the Islamic cause by giving more power to the OIC. Hank had to have known what was going on but he never told all, only enough to keep himself out of trouble,” he countered.

  “Noble, another disconcerting aspect is that the OIC has been linked on many occasions to being in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood. We saw it in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, among other countries. Back in 2011, during the Egyptian revolution the liberal party organized the Free Egyptian Party. In 2013, their spokesperson Ahmed Said sent a letter to the former U.S. president. Hold on and let me grab my tablet—here it is. It stated…”

  Let us first inform you about who the Muslim brothers are: They’re an unlawful organization operating outside the realm of Egyptian law, receiving foreign funding and laundering money in a flagrant breach of international law. Their aim is to rule the world through a so-called Islamic Caliphate, as they believe is their absolute supremacy.

  “Where does that leave the Human Rights Commission?”

  “Boxed in a corner. For example, when it comes to denouncing Islamic countries that continue to force young girls to marry against their wills, they can’t criticize the Islamic practice or they would be defaming Islam. It has the effect of muzzling free speech.”

  “It would appear the Human Rights Commission is not the only one boxed in the corner. How can the U.S. defend Israel against the OIC countries that declare ‘Death to Israel,’ when our actions as a nation give the appearance of strongly supporting the OIC? It defies logic.”

  “Point well taken. With Israel feeling alone and isolated on the world stage it may give them no choice but to take action unilaterally, as Netanyahu stated in a speech to the U.N. It’s also likely Israel’s enemies will attempt to provoke them into action,” Max intoned.

  “So Baari and Simon, with different motives, each planned to muck up the Middle East intentionally? An ironic oddity that they chose the same battleground.” Noble shook his head in disbelief.

  “Let’s look at Baari’s record: he reduced the amount of privately-held land, reduced the ability for Americans to bear arms, created redistribution of wealth through taxing, and whittled away our rights of privacy with the increased actions of the NSA. These actions combined to push our country closer to the Covenant.”

  “So in the end Baari was the true puppet. He literally spent his time in office as Kipling’s Man Who Would Be King.” Noble eased up and displayed a slight smi
le.

  “Without a doubt, Baari energized warring factions on the issue of economic disparity, pitting the haves against the have-nots, and seemingly joined forces with his puppet masters to help build an oligarchy.”

  “He followed Alinsky’s Rule number thirteen to the tee: ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’ Once he had the citizens motivated to support his goals, they would cede him the power he sought. Incredible.”

  “Evidently, it was a rule Simon and Baari adhered to,” Max added blandly.

  “So coming from different perspectives, they sided with Islam. But what do Baari’s socialist handlers have in common with Islamic extremists?”

  “I suspect it has to do with Islamic Socialism, but it’s conjecture.”

  “Is there such a thing?” Noble was surprised, since he heard the term used infrequently in the past.

  “I looked it up. In 1975, Qaddafi published a short book setting up his philosophy called The Green Book. It described what he called ‘Islamic Socialism.’ Muslims use the term to describe a spiritual form of socialism. And many passages in the Koran dictate economic and social equality.”

  “Of course Baari would have been familiar with the concept, having grown up in a Muslim country where its leader coined the term.”

  “It’s amazing that Baari’s handlers sat at the table poker-faced without revealing their ultimate goal, yet at the same time they unknowingly played into Simon’s hand.”

  “Nice metaphor Max, but Simon played upon the aspirations of both of Baari’s handlers, to carry out his single goal—to spread Islam and create the caliphate sought out by the radicals. Although, we can’t be certain until we capture him.”

  “And when that happens let me sit in on the interrogation. After all my involvement I deserve to hear the answers to these questions first hand,” she said forcefully.

  Noble sat back and remained silent for a moment.

  At that point Max did not interrupt. She had made the sale and decided to close the book.