Was the Malaysian Pilot a 'Political Fanatic' as The Sunday Daily Mail Claims? And, if so, is that Fact Pertinent?

The pilot of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 was a "strident" supporter of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, the Daily Mail on Sunday reported.

Hours before the plane took off, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah reportedly attended a session of Ibrahim's long-running court proceedings. His colleagues said the captain was preoccupied with Ibrahim's trial.

The British tabloid said its own investigation of the pilot showed him to be a "political fanatic" and that he kept a makeshift flight simulator in his private home.

If the name Ibrahim is slightly familiar it is because he is a former deputy premier of Malaysia. 

He broke with the ruling Barisan Nasional Party and founded an anti-corruption reformist Islamic movement. 

He has been involved in lengthy proceedings following his imprisonment for alleged corruption and homosexual activity-- such activity is formally illegal.

Ibrahim is currently out on bail and the leader of the Malaysian parliamentary opposition. He is planning to run for re-election in his constituency on March 23.

Though viewed as a moderate— Ibrahim is prominently supported in the U.S. by Al Gore— he has spoken darkly of a conspiracy between the Malaysian government, the United States and Israel. He said that the Jews were manipulating Malaysian foreign policy. 

This Ibrahim angle may explain why the Malaysian authorities have been so cagey about releasing information.

Even if it proves a dead end -- it might have proved explosive so they may have wanted to be cautious. 

At its outset, Ibrahim's movement received Saudi funding, according to the Israel-based Gloria Center. His International Institute of Islamic Thought is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Discover The Networks.

Investigator are examining the possibility that the pilot's political and religious leanings are somehow related to the plane's disappearance. 

How running a plane into the ocean helps Ibrahim's cause is not easily apparent. 

But then, why did First Officer Gameel Al-Batouti of EgyptAir Flight 990 possibly drive his Boeing 767-300ER into Long Island Sound in October 1999?

But to Zaharie. He had been with the airline since 1981 and a captain for about 10 years. 

The background of co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid is also being investigated in light of photographs showing that he unlawfully allowed female passengers into the cockpit on a previous flight.

Additionally, reportsalso emerged of the presence of an aviation engineer among the passengers, according to The New York Times.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Telegraph 

reported -- and here I think this is a stretch -- that Saajid Muhammad Badat, a British-born al-Qaida informant, told British authorities that he was aware of a long-standing plot by a group of Malaysians— one of whom reportedly was a pilot— to  hijack and airliner. 

Badat said he once supplied the cell with a shoe bomb and that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now being held in Guantánamo, was the plot's original organizer.

State Department Goes Wobbly on 'Jewish State'

A Palestinian Arab newspaper has reportedly quoted State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki as saying the United States does not necessarily expect Palestinian Arabs to accept that Israel has a right to exist in the Middle East as the state of the Jewish people.

Psaki was interviewed by the Arabic-language Al-Quds newspaper on Saturday.

According to multiple Israeli press reports, Psaki said, "The American position is clear, Israel is a Jewish state. However, we do not see a need that both sides recognize this position as part of the final agreement."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that the Palestinian refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the return of the Jewish people to Israel is at the core of the conflict. The rejectionism signals that that even if the more moderate Palestinian faction signed a peace accord with Israel they would see it as only a temporary expediency – while adhering to the position that Jews have no right to a nation state in the Middle East.   

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, who is based in the West Bank, is scheduled to arrive in Washington on March 17 for meetings with President Barack Obama and other administration officials.

His opposition to accepting the right of a Jewish state in the Middle East is the same as that of the Palestinian Hamas leadership which governs in Gaza.

Psaki also reportedly said that a "framework agreement" outlining the future direction of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has not yet been finalized.

The current round of talks began in July 2013 under heavy Obama administration pressure on both sides. The administration pressured Israel to release hundreds of terrorists -- a factor that explains the uptick in security dangers including on Road 443.

The release of the Gilad Schalit prisoners has already caused major damage to security and deterrence.

At any rate, neither side wanted these talks. If nothing else they agreed that talking would be pointless. The Palestinian Arab "minimum" was well beyond anything Israel could accept. 

Indeed, forced talks that collapse in failure were likely to de-stabilize the Arab street and lead to dashed hopes and increased violence.

But the administration and the Europeans opted for the illusion of momentum.

The administration said that it hoped to wrap up a deal by April 2014. 

That now appears, shall we say, unlikely. 

As a fallback, the State Department wanted to have the two sides initial a "framework agreement" that, based on agreed parameters, would carry the talks past April.

But the two sides can't even agree on that -- certainly not for signature.

Now, according to an Israel Radio on Friday, the U.S. is trying to come up with wording for a "framework agreement" that is satisfactory to the sides though neither Arabs nor Israelis would have to formally endorse it.

By putting the talks between Israel and the PLO on the front burner rather than dealing with Iran, and by simply ignoring that with Hamas in control of Gaza, a deal with the PLO is anyway pointless -- the US has wasted its diplomatic capital.

On the Palestinian conflict with Israel, this administration has managed to get it all wrong.

Sally Bercovic's Moving Talk on Life, Death and Meaning

This is absolutely worth watching:

http://www.jhub.org.uk/jdov/portfolio/six-feet-under/


Copy & paste link:

http://www.jhub.org.uk/jdov/portfolio/six-feet-under/

Watching America From 6,000 Miles Away: Two Tea Party Conservatives Mark the Movement's Fifth Anniversary

Marking the fifth anniversary of the tea party movement, conservative U.S. Fox TV personality Sean Hannity interviewed conservative syndicated firebrand columnist Ann Coulter Wednesday on his Fox News Channel program.

Hannity led off by saying that he sees the tea party as "stronger than ever."

Coulter made a distinction between "fantastic" grass roots tea party supporters who helped bring about a Republican-controlled House in 2010, and "conmen and scamsters" who have arisen to trick "good Americans" into sending them money.

She maintained that "rich groups" going after "establishment Republicans" had their own agenda.

"The key word is 'Republicans,'" she said.  

The only way to repeal Obamacare is to elect a Republican majority, she said. Coulter recommended Thomas Sowell's Wednesday column to the Hannity audience in which he writes: "The Republican establishment's criticisms of [Texas] Senator [Ted] Cruz are criticisms of his rule-or-ruin strategy, which can destroy whatever chance Republicans have of taking back the Senate in 2014 and taking back the White House in 2016." 

Hannity replied, "I disagree – because I read the column."

He said the establishment disappointed him and lacked a winning vision.

Coulter insisted success— in repealing Obamacare as well as other issues— depended on a big GOP win. None of Obama's policies will "fall on their own" unless they are rescinded by a Republican-controlled congress.

Hannity held firm that the establishment had not fought sufficiently hard to overcome the president's policies.

"Give them a majority," Coulter countered. "Give them a majority!"

Hannity expressed skepticism. If the Republicans gain control of the congress "then what are they going to tell us? 'Give us the presidency. Then we can really do something.'"

She answered that if it were not for "shysters and con men" Republicans would have already been in control of the Senate.

Hannity shot back that the establishment is the problem and that their opponents are pressing for sticking to principles.

In wrapping up, Coulter asserted that the anti-establishment forces were not genuinely opposed to immigration amnesty.

She urged the audience not to donate to the Senate Conservatives Fund.