| HOME | Featured Stories | December 2006 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Posted by Bernice Lipkin, December 31, 2006. |
|
These are some photos by Fred Reifenberg. See these and other imaginative and delightful photos at
|
|
|
|
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND THE UK GOVERNMENT
Posted by Family Security Matters Foundation, December 31, 2006. |
|
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan is a
British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance
since its inception. He also writes for Spero News. He has
previously contributed to various publications, including the
Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the
Royal Anthropological Society. This is archived at |
|
The Muslim Brotherhood is the group most associated with originating Jihad as a political act, and as such, it has continued to this day as a terrorist-sponsoring organization. So why, asks FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan, does Britain allow Mockbul Ali, an employee of Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to promote and grant visas to members of the Muslim Brotherhood? Members of Congress and President Bush: what do you have to say to this? The Muslim Brotherhood And The UK Government Britain and the United States have a "special relationship" which I hope shall continue indefinitely. Despite this special relationship, there are things going on within Britain's Foreign Office which should raise alarm for anyone who believes that Britain is singing from the same hymn-sheet. Instead of acting to prevent the influence of terror-supporting organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a young Islamist within the Foreign Office is actively promoting cordial relationships with this group. Formed by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, the Brotherhood began as a youth group but rapidly became political. Hassan al-Banna was killed in 1949, a year after the group was first outlawed in Egypt. Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) took over the group's propaganda unit in 1952 and began to advocate armed jihad as a justifiable political act. Along with Ala Maududi, Quttb's philosophy, as described in books such as Milestones on the Road (Ma'alim fi'l-Tariq), has been a motivating force in the international jihad as mounted by Al Qaeda and others. The group made several attempts to kill Nasser, and in 1966, Qutb was hanged. The group is still banned in Egypt, though it is tolerated, and 55 members of the group became members of parliament in last year's election. But the Muslim Brotherhood is still a supporter and instigator of terrorism. In 1987, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Brotherhood formed Hamas, whose objective is to use terrorism to abolish Israel as an entity. Mahdi Akif, leader of the Brotherhood in Egypt, announced in August this year that he would train his followers to fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon and join Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. The "spiritual leader" of the Muslim Brotherhood is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar. He supports Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel and armed resistance to coalition forces in Iraq. Qaradawi is justifiably banned from ever setting foot in the United States. Last September it was revealed that Mockbul Ali, who works in Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had recommended that Yusuf al-Qaradawi should be allowed to enter Britain. Mockbul Ali wrote a long letter explaining that the radical sheikh posed no threat. The letter was written 10 days after four Al Qaeda-sponsored British citizens blew themselves up on July 7 in London, killing 52 and injuring hundreds. Mockbul Ali's advice came in response by an invitation for Qaradawi to make a return visit to Britain. The invite had been proffered by London's ludicrous leftist mayor, Ken Livingstone, who has said: "Of all the Muslim leaders in the world today, Sheikh Qaradawi is the most powerfully progressive force for change and for engaging Islam with western values." Livingstone also compared the Islamist sheikh to Pope John XXIII, who introduced the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. So who is Mockbul Ali, and what does he do? The answers are disheartening. Firstly, he is an anti-Semite. In his letter about Qaradawi, he said criticisms of the Islamist sheikh had come from "tainted Jewish sources", going on to name Memri and the British Board of Jewish Deputies. The former is a media monitoring group, founded by Colonel Yigal Carmon, who served for 22 years in Israel's military intelligence service. The Board of Jewish Deputies is a highly respected and long-standing British institution. Secondly, Mockbul Ali is a former student radical, who is only 26 years old. He was a member of the Union of Muslim Students (UMS), where he edited its newspaper. One of the articles he edited was about Aayat al-Akhras, an 18-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber, who killed two Israeli civilians in a Jerusalem supermarket. The article, entitled "A bride in the dress of martyrdom" described her attack as a "heroic operation... in the heart of the Zionist entity." After 9/11, Mockbul Ali wrote in the newspaper: "If you are not white, you are most likely to be 'liberated' through bombings, massacres and chaos. Welcome to terrorism as a liberating force. Welcome to civilization - western style." Mockbul Ali now heads the FO's "Engaging with the Islamic World Group (EIWG)", founded three years ago. This group has an annual budget of $15.8 million. And its mission? To engage with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic factions. These include groups such as Jamaat-i-Islami, the party founded in Pakistan by the other godfather of Islamism, Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (1903 - 1979). In July this year, Mockbul Ali approved the granting of a visa to Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, a member of the Bangladesh Jamaat-i-Islami. During Bangladesh's war for independence from Pakistan, Sayeedi was responsible for killing Hindus and Bangla citizens. He has been involved in persecutions of the Ahmadiyya sect in his native country, and has said that US soldiers in Iraq should convert to Islam or die: "...let all the American soldiers be buried in the soil of Iraq and never let them return to their homes." Sayeedi has compared Hindus to excrement. He is also linked to the terrorist group JMB, which has carried out numerous bomb attacks and suicide bombings. But Mockbul Ali let him come to Britain, where he visited the Saudi-funded East London Mosque. So warped is Mockbul Ali's mindset that he claims Sayeedi is a "mainstream Muslim figure". Mockbul Ali's "Engaging with the Islamic World Group" has also entertained Qaradawi and other Islamists at the expense of the British taxpayer. In July, it funded an Islamic conference based in Istanbul, which cost $550,863. Qaradawi and his wife were paid to fly to the conference and back, and to stay in a luxury hotel. 180 other Muslim leaders from various Middle East locations were paid to travel to the conference, which was held in the Ceylan InterContinental Hotel. Mockbul Ali remains in his job, engaging with the terror supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and others. Even Britain's elected representatives can not ask questions about him. On May 8, Conservative MP Michael Gove asked questions in the Houses of Parliament about Mockbul Ali. He wanted to know "in what capacity Mr. Mockbul Ali is employed to advise the Foreign Office; what level of security clearance he has; and what vetting procedures were undertaken before he was offered employment." Kim Howells, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told him that such information was classified. Britain should remain as a friend and ally of the United States. But it is the duty of a good friend to point out where someone is going wrong. As a good friend of Britain, the United States government should pressure the United Kingdom to explain why it continues to hire this traitor to both countries' mutual interests. |
|
WOW! EVEN ARABS FAKE IT!
Posted by Arlene Peck, December 31, 2006. |
|
For years, I have heard there really are women who fake organisms. I wonder if faking enthusiasm is the same. Because, folks, I am a woman, who is having trouble even faking a flicker of enthusiasm for the leadership we have in this country. But, today? I haven't a clue. I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm certainly not a Green, a Libertarian or a Peace party follower as any of these are votes that do not count. Does that make me sort of a donkey that is neither a mule nor a horse? Like so many out there now, I am confused. Lately though, I have begun to feel like a lovelorn old maid who never had a date for the prom. I am looking for leadership and feel like one of those lounge lizards who is looking for love in all the wrong places. Our Jewish organizations are looking for love by pouring money ... money such as the millions raised in the United Jewish Communities Emergency Campaign that was supposed to go to the Jewish Agency but instead went to Arabs in Israel. I couldn't believe it and still can't! To Arabs who want the Jews of Israel dead? The Left find it fitting because they cop the plea that "Israel is a democracy" so the funds for restoring the north should be handed out in a "democratic fashion" to these moronic anti-Zionist? They have used much of the $3,000,000 to send a lot of non-Jewish children, mainly Arabs, to camp. Why am I surprised? The same thing happens here, in this country when people give to the Federation and they call for my donation with the lead-in.. "Let me tell you about our inter-faith program" and then proceed to preach to me on the benefits of the Hispanic and black programs they have. When did Hispanics and blacks ever give back to Jews? Never, as far as I can tell. It's gotten to the point where I can't stand it anymore. Never thought I would see the day when I disliked everyone running my government or aspiring to high office so much that I dread a trip to the polls. Me! Arlene Peck, woman who in her entire life has never missed a chance to vote! Let's focus on Israel and her various "goings-on". While keeping the faith when it came to the decisions Israel made, I have now come to a point when nothing they do makes any sense. In retrospect, frankly, I think that the last time I trusted the "powers that be" was when Yitzhak Shamir was running Israel. Now, I shake my head in amazement at the mentality or lack of it that is seemingly running things. For instance, Gaza is once again receiving massive amounts of anti-tank missiles to be used against Israel. If that weren't enough, the Hamas terror organization recently ordered and received Soviet-made SA-7 surface-to-air missiles. What are the Israelis going to do? Wait until they fall onto a Tel Aviv dicso before doing something? Now would be the time to have an offensive but, naw..they'll wait. In the meanwhile, the terror group Hezbollah are busy little bees using their broadcaster TV station, Al Manar, to recruit homicide bombers, have fund-raising campaigns to gather money for terrorist operations, conduct pre-attack surveillance and oh, did I mention, incite violence in various ways. Hamas is not far behind. However, who in the liberal media is paying attention to any of this? Do they even care? Frankly, I don't give a diddly-squat about public opinion and press approval anymore anyway. I care about survival ! Lapsing into denial isn't going to help. Bush and Olmart and Peres can praise their "road-map' to peace all they want if they don't want to realize that this is a culture that wants to kill us...everyone who is not them! Not only the Jews! They are gearing up for the next war and have no doubt, the next war is coming. However, I"m afraid they're so busy trying to win the hearts and minds of everyone that the issue of survival will get lost along the way. TRANSFER is something that should already be in the making. When there is a cancer, and Gaza is a cancer, it has to be cut out. Holistic measures by negotiation and hugs aren't the answer. And, then if something is finally done with Israel's weird penchant for apologizing for even things they didn't do, they'll rush to have a press conference and say, "we've been bad". Hell, I "almost" don't even have the energy to say I told you so with issues like "the security wall" that Israel built to the tune of raging protest and resolutions in the United Nations and the EU and voices against them in The Hague. That topic has died down though. Not because it was instrumental in stopping homicide bombers from entering their malls, restaurants, busses and schools to kill Jewish children. Why? Because we, in the United States, are chomping at the bit to start building a fence on our Southwestern border to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens invading our country into Arizona and California every day. China has already erected a massive fence along its border with North Korea India on its borders with Pakiastan, Saudi Arabia next Yemen and so on. You probably didn't even know about those though, as not even anyone from the liberal left are out there protesting. I am not alone. Even in Israel, the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are faking terror attacks. By carrying weapons or bringing knives to IDF checkpoints, they hope to be arrested. Then, they will have the opportunity to study in peace for a high school diploma and it is all free! I'm tired of hearing fake stories about 'massacres' instead of the truth being told about the battles that caused these deaths. The Main Stream media (MSM) and our State Department obviously don't get it or don't want to realize that the conflicts that Israel is constantly pushed into would be over much faster if the Jewish State were as barbaric as their Arab Muslim enemies and used civilians as shields instead of having the concern for civilians and non-combatants that they do. The Arabs have long faked 'oppression' by the IDF. I have seen dozens of films documenting the fake damages that the poor deprived Palestinians suffer at the hands of "The Jews". What I find really disturbing about that topic is that the Jews are losing their Jewish identity at a rapid rate. The Jewish High Holidays came and went and I was astounded at how many around me either were either not aware, did not care and never even bothered to go to synagogue. The way I see it, since there are many out there who want to kill you because you are Jewish, you might as well know what you are dying for. I have given up in crying out to the Liberal Left and preaching to those on the Right, that Bush is not the friend of Israel that they think he is. I cannot tolerate stupidity. Jews, a minuscule dot in the world census, have made and continue to make an enormous contribution to the benefit of humankind as reflected by the dozens and dozens of Noble Prize winners. We excel in medicine, arts, science, and political science, among others, yet are blind to the dangers that face us. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush's mouthpiece, made a speech at the American Task Force of Palestine's inaugural dinner in Washington. The world clapped when she stated, "There could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state." This, folks, gives me shivers when the so-called Palestinians go all out to prove themselves to be the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in history and no one in our government is willing to see reality for what it is. These "people" are clearly evil, genocidal and terrorists, whether active in Fatah, Force 17, or a supporter. Yet Dubya and Condi see no evil and hear no evil but speak evil. It brings back shades of Neville Chamberlain. Yet, where are the cries from either the Jewish or the Christian communities (other than the Zionist Organization of America), for that matter fighting against what is the beginning of the end of the Jewish State? As a matter of fact, where are the marches and strong actions which need to be taken by the Israeli government? I have long been lamenting how there are, in my opinion, no "moderate"... Muslims. If there were, we would be seeing at least fifty of them out of 1.4 BILLION, marching and shouting at demonstrations that theirs is NOT a violent and dysfunctional culture. But silent they remain. We should be hearing that theirs is not a sick society that beheads people and does not represent them. The so-called moderates say nothing because they are either too terrified to speak or living in the squalor of apathy. Silence is not golden and in their case, it is evil and
destructive to their people.
Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and
television talk show hostess. She can be reached at:
bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com
|
|
WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE BY MUHAMMAD'S WORDS AND DEEDS
Posted by Michael Travis, December 31, 2006. |
|
These are two separate and independent reviews of Robert Spencer's
important new book: The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most
Intolerant Religion (Regnery Publishing, 2006).
The first essay was written by Bruce Thornton is called The Wolf
Pack; it appeared in
www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton102606PF.html.
The second is by Andrew G. Bottom and is called Scrutinizing
Muhammad's example and teachings; it appeared in the Washington
Times, www.washingtontimes.com
|
|
Bruce Thornton, The Wolf Pack Ambrose Bierce once quipped that war was God's way of teaching Americans geography. He could have said "teaching us history," for the enemy is emboldened by our ignorance not just of where he lives but of how he lives, his beliefs and values, and to understand these traditions we must understand their history. Unfortunately, in the current war against Islamic jihad we persist in ignoring the documented history of Islam and its beliefs, accepting instead the spin and distortions of various propagandists, apologists, and Western useful idiots. This imperative to know the enemy's beliefs is particularly important for understanding the jihadists, for Islam is a fiercely traditional faith, one brooking no deviation from the revelation granted to Muhammad and codified in the Koran, Hadith, and the sira or biography of the Prophet. As Robert Spencer shows in his invaluable resource The Truth about Muhammad, in these sources Muhammad is presented as "an excellent model of conduct," as the Koran puts it, his words and deeds forming the pattern for all pious Muslims to follow. "Muslims," according to Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, "as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life." The facts of Muhammad's life, then, are paramount for understanding the beliefs that warrant and validate jihadist terror. Presenting those facts clearly and fairly is precisely what Spencer accomplishes in his new book. Spencer has been for years a bastion of plain-speaking truth. Through books like Islam Unveiled, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), and as director of Jihad Watch , Spencer has courageously presented the simple facts of Islamic history and thought that too many Americans, including some in the current administration, ignore or distort. Spencer's new book continues this important service of arming us with the facts we need in order to understand an enemy who wants nothing from us other than our conversion, death, or subjection. Basing his description of Muhammad on the same Islamic sources revered by believers themselves, Spencer paints a portrait of the Prophet unrecognizable to any who have been deceived by the idealizations of apologists like Farida Khanam, whom Spencer quotes as claiming that Muhammad's "heart was filled with intense love for all humankind irrespective of caste, creed or color," or the British religious writer Karen Armstrong, who claims that "Muhammad eventually abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Ghandi." Such fantastic delusions cannot stand up to the relentless quotations and facts Spencer gathers from Islamic sources, all of which show us a Mohammad justifying and practicing violence in the service of the faith he invented. As Spencer traces Muhammad's life, we see the behaviors practiced by today's jihadists, who continually cite the Prophet as their justifying model. The arrogant intolerance of any other religion finds its source in Muhammad's assertion to Muslims, "Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah." The rationalization of violence by invoking the hostility of unbelievers is also warranted by Muhammad: because of the rejection of him by his tribesmen the Quraysh, Allah "gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them [Muslims] and treated them badly." Hence the various offenses fabricated by today's jihadists to justify their aggression against the West. But Muhammad justifies not just defensive warfare but also violence in the service of the faith: "'Fight them [unbelievers] so that there be no more seduction,' i.e., until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's,' i.e. until God alone is worshiped." We see here the jihadist's hatred of the West and globalization, whose political freedoms and hedonistic prosperity "seduce" believers from the faith. As Spencer concludes, "The Qur'an . . . commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until 'the religion is God's' -- that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Later Islamic law, based on statements of Muhammad, would offer non-Muslims three options: conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic law, or warfare." So much for the protestations of tolerance and co-existence constantly peddled by jihad's Western publicists. Every aspect of Islamic practice and belief finds its basis in Muhammad's words and deeds. When Muhammad's lieutenant Abdullah attacked a Quraysh caravan during a month when fighting was prohibited, Muhammad's initial displeasure was changed by a "revelation" [i.e. from the angel Gabriel, who dictated the Koran to Mohammad] saying "persecution [i.e. of Muslims] is worse than killing," and Abdullah was forgiven. "This was a momentous incident," Spencer concludes, "for it would set a pattern: good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them, without reference to any larger moral standard. Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of the overarching principle of expediency." As Spencer progresses through the Prophet's life, the evidence for Muhammad's model as the source of modern jihadist practice becomes overwhelming. The penchant for beheading enemies displayed by jihadists is validated by Muhammad's decapitation of his enemy Abu Jahl after the battle of Badr against the Quraysh. A "revelation" after the battle codified this practice and linked it to the terrorizing of the enemy that would help Muslims prevail: "'I [Allah] will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment." Given that "contend against" can be defined as any activity that "seduces" believers or stands in the way of Muslim interests, the divine justification for the violence and terror perpetrated by jihadists from Indonesia to Africa, Israel to England is obvious. So too with the practice of making tactical treaties and truces only to break them later. "If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah lovest not the treacherous," a statement also revealing of the double-standard many Muslims take for granted when dealing with non-believers. Armed with this loophole, Muhammad moved against the Banu Qaynuqa, a Jewish tribe who had resisted Islam but with whom Muhammad had a truce. As Muhammad famously said, "War is deceit." This precedent of deceit is obviously pertinent today, particularly for Palestinian Arab dealings with Israel. We have seen agreement after agreement signed by Arafat and others, only to be violated when circumstances seem to favor force. The mistreatment of women, polygamy, child-marriage, stoning of adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, mutilation of enemy corpses, the sentence of death for apostasy, the subjection of dhimmi or Christians and Jews, even the killing of writers who displease the faithful -- remember the sentence of death against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie, still in force -- all have their precedents in the things Muhammad said and did. And as Spencer documents in his conclusion, this invocation of Muhammad is continually made by the jihadist terrorists themselves, who accurately link their violence to incidents and sayings from the life of Muhammad. To pretend that these devout Muslims are ignorant of their own religion's traditions or are "hijacking" them is willful blindness. Perhaps the most important precedent established by Muhammad, however, and one at the root of modern jihadist violence, is the demonization of Christians and Jews. Centuries before the existence of Israel, the actions and words of Muhammad legitimized the hatred of Jews. As Spencer shows, this disdain and resentment reflected the powerful barrier the Jews of western Arabia presented to Muhammad's new faith and ambitions, not to mention the extent of Muhammad's borrowings from Jewish scripture and traditions. But the continuing refusal of the Jews to accept that Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets" eventually led to his war against these potent rivals, including the Qurayzah of Medina, 600-700 of whom were beheaded. This hatred was justified by calling the Jews along with the Christians "renegades" who had turned against God and the true faith of their ancestors. Thus throughout the Koran one finds codified an intolerance and hatred of Jews still infecting the Islamic world today. The notion of apologists that Islam offers tolerant accommodation to Jews and Christians is belied by verses in the Koran such as, "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors," and in Ibn Ishaq's biography by comments about the Jews such as, "You brothers of monkeys, has God disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?" Given all this evidence, as Spencer writes, "It is nothing short of staggering that the myth of Islamic tolerance could have gained such currency in the teeth of Muhammad's open contempt and hatred for Jews and Christians, incitements of violence against them, and calls that they be converted or subjugated." And this historical evidence is ratified by contemporary events that show modern Muslims following to the letter the example of Muhammad, from continuing persecution of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands, to the riots and calls for violence that attended (and validated) the Pope's quotation of a Byzantine emperor's observation that violence in the service of religion is Islam's sole innovation. Spencer concludes with some common-sense suggestions, most importantly demanding that so-called "moderates" condemn jihad and teach against religious intolerance in their schools and mosques. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen, given the power of Muhammad's example of enmity against unbelievers, and given the arrogant intolerance and unwillingness to compromise that typify too many Muslims. The anxiety about appearing "racist" and the sentimental idealization of the "other" dominating American society make it even more unlikely that any politician will challenge Muslims about the facts of Mohammad's words and deeds that jihadists today use to justify their actions. Unless we heed people like Robert Spencer, it seems that only another graphic example of jihadist violence within our borders has a chance of teaching us the history of the enemy. Andrew G. Bottom Scrutinizing Muhammad's example and teachings Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch Parliamentarian and secular Muslim reformer, has courageously identified the taboo discussion which must take place to understand, and defuse, the scourge of modern jihad terrorism: "In their thinking about radical Muslim terrorism most politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and other commentators have avoided the core issue of the debate, which is Muhammad's example." This taboo is all the more puzzling, and dangerously delusional, given the public pronouncements of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers. The immensely popular Qaradawi reaches an audience of tens of millions of Muslim sympathizers across the globe with his regular appearances on Al-Jazeera television. During a June 19, 2001 broadcast, Qaradawi delivered a sermon entitled, "The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model," proclaiming: " . . . Allah has . . . made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion . . . " Consistent with the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad recorded by pious followers), and earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad, Qaradawi further acknowledged that Muhammad launched aggressive jihad campaigns, and also maintained that there is in fact a "jihad which you seek," i.e., invading other countries in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove, by force of arms, "obstacles" standing in the way of this coercive Islamization. More ominously, Qaradawi has made specific unabashed appeals for Muslims to wage a "jihad re-conquest" of Europe, recalling the millennial legacy of jihad wars waged by Arab, Berber and Ottoman Muslim conquerors and colonizers. Disregarding murderous threats, and the prospect of social ostracism, the intrepid author Robert Spencer -- a serious independent scholar of Islam for the past two decades -- has taken up Hirsi Ali's challenge in his compelling new book, "The Truth About Muhammad." Mr. Spencer's stated purpose in writing the book was to elucidate, in particular, those aspects of Muhammad's life used by Muslims today to rationalize violence, or other behaviors incompatible with Western constructs of human rights and dignity. And Mr. Spencer, whom I have come to know through my own independent research on Islamic doctrine and history, fulfills admirably his pledge not to "deride," "lampoon" or "mock" Muhammad, but instead compose "a scrupulously accurate account of what he [Muhammad] said and did" regarding these critical matters. A salient feature of "The Truth About Muhammad" is its exclusive reliance on pious Muslim sources: the earliest (and most respected) Muslim biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (died 773), Ibn Sa'd (845), and the great historian al-Tabari (923); the "gold-standard" canonical hadith collections of Bukhari (870), and Muslim (875); and the Koran itself. As Mr. Spencer notes, these are the same sources contemporary Muslim biographers have relied upon, both respected scholars (such as the late Martin Lings, aka Abu Bakr Siray Ad-Din), and popularizers (Javeed Akhter, Yahiya Emerick). Despite his caveat that the book is "not a comprehensive biography" of the Muslim prophet, Mr. Spencer's concise, pellucid narrative (which includes both a succinct chronology and a glossary of key Arabic names and places) has remarkable breadth, chronicling Muhammad's evolution from a proselytizer, to a prototype jihad conqueror and ruler. The final chapter is a brilliant analysis of Muhammad's disturbing modern legacy. Mr. Spencer provides understated, scrupulous documentation of the consequences of Muhammad's status as "an excellent example of conduct" (Koran 33:21), invoked by contemporary Muslim clerics, governments, journalists and jihadists alike: exploited child brides and general misogyny, sanctioned by law; Draconian, mutilating punishments such as stoning for adultery and amputation for theft; jihad violence against non-Muslims and Shari'a (Islamic Law)-sanctioned oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad's bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view. Nearly 25 years ago, the late Richard Grenier wrote "The Marrakesh One-Two," a trenchant fictional account of a doomed effort to film the life of Muhammad. Grenier characterized the filmmaker's basic predicament with biting wit. Even after reading a series of modern Muslim hagiographies, Muhammad left the impression of being " . . . a gamey figure for a religious leader . . . sort of a blend of Saint Teresa of Avila, Jane Addams of Hull House, William the Conqueror, and Casanova . . . Allah is merciful, but not necessarily Muhammad, I guess." Of course such an impious, if accurate presentation, was impossible. Following a conference with the clerics of Al Azhar (the leading Sunni Islamic institution of religious education) in Cairo, Grenier's fictional filmmaker laments: "The only thing they would give me was I could have P.V. Muhammad. That is I could script shots from Muhammad's Point of View, subjective camera. I could have faces reacting and people talking to Mohammed. But Muhammad couldn't answer them because his voice would be too holy." Today, "P.V. Muhammad" putatively "non-fiction" accounts prevail, while the authoritative biographies of Muhammad written in the mid 19th through early 20th centuries -- by scholars such as William Muir, David S. Margoliouth and Leone Caetani -- are now almost unknown to the public and chattering classes. These elegant analyses -- like Mr. Spencer's -- also relied exclusively upon the earliest Islamic sources, such as Muhammad's first pious Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq. Margoliouth's biography recognized Muhammad as " ... a great man, who solved a political problem of appalling difficulty -- the construction of a state and empire out of the Arab tribes." Margoliouth recounted this accomplishment without "apology" or "indictment," summarizing faithfully the picture of Muhammad that emerges in Ibn Ishaq's biography: "In order to gain his ends he recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He profits to the utmost from the chivalry of the Meccans, but rarely requites it with the like. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres. "His career as tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief, whose political economy consists in securing and dividing plunder . . . He is himself an unbridled libertine and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is, however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end . . .This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy ..." "The Truth About Muhammad" eschews contemporary "P.V. Muhammad" hagiography, reviving the highly informative, unapologetic genre of biographical narratives of Muhammad epitomized by the works of Muir, Margoliouth and Caetani. Transcending even these seminal biographers, Robert Spencer's perspicacious modern analysis makes clear how Muhammad's sacralized behaviors continue to motivate and direct the contemporary global resurgence of jihad, in all its cultural as well as military manifestations. Policymaking elites must heed Mr. Spencer's urgent concluding admonitions: "It is difficult if not impossible to maintain that Islam is a religion of peace when warfare and booty were among the chief preoccupations of the prophet of Islam. Sincere Islamic reformers should confront these facts, instead of ignoring or glossing over them, and work to devise ways in which Muslims can retreat from the proposition that Muhammad's example is in all ways normative. If they do not do so, one outcome is certain: bloodshed perpetrated in the name of Islam and in imitation of its prophet will continue . . . "If no Western politicians can be found who are courageous enough to grasp this nettle, Western countries will eventually pay a stiff price, when the jihadists they have admitted carry out successful jihad attacks, or inspire native-born Muslims to do so -- or when they advance Shari'a [Islamic Law] provisions by peaceful means, as in the campaigns in the United Nations and several European countries for the adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon riots." Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
ISRAEL'S CO-DEPENDENCY
Posted by Jake Levi, December 31, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Dr. David Lazerson December 11, 2006. |
|
Psychology has long dealt with the social phenomenon known as "co-dependency." It's a term often used to describe the dynamics that occur in a family that has to deal with an alcoholic or drug addict. In a nutshell, this type of illness involves both the addict and the surrounding well-meaning "significant others." Although the addict plays the victim card to the hilt, it is those around him or her who become the pawns in this destructive game, and thus, parents, friends and spouses all become the real victims. Unless the addict is dealt with in a professional way - usually at a locked down facility that offers rehab and counseling - the cycle of perpetuating the disorder simply goes on unabated. In fact, without the "tough love" approach, it gets worse. Left to everyone's good wishes and hopes, the dysfunctional behaviors not only repeat themselves, but they occur with greater frequency and intensity. The addict is no longer dangerous to himself or herself, but to all those around. Eventually, the addict destroys all around him, including those who invested so much time and energy to help; even those who were considered loved ones. Without insisting on absolute accountability and very specific, concrete changes, the behaviors go on unabated until the addict and all in the circle are swept away in a whirlpool of destruction. In effect, since love doesn't work, everyone has been loved to death. Tough problems take tough solutions. Even though we'd prefer to go easy and use the kid-glove approach, it simply won't work with addicts involved in this co-dependency relationship. The same notion, unfortunately, applies very well to Israel and her militant Islamic neighbors. That relationship, too, has deteriorated into one of co-dependency. Israel is the well-meaning significant other, always trying to talk nicely and be so politically correct. Israel keeps asking this question, always hoping and praying it will be true: 'Oh, you want more land, and more dialogues and more concessions, and then you will change? Then you won't throw rocks at us, or shoots missiles at our communities, or bomb our buses? Then you will love us?' Yet, these militants have only demonstrated worse behaviors over time. They showed, in fact, the worst of addictive behaviors. Not to drugs, of course, but they've become addicted to hatred, racism and violence. And yet, it is Israel, along with the rest of the Western world, that has become a co-dependent partner, and thus actually has served to perpetuate and reinforce this deadly, destructive cycle. A major factor that enables the destructive cycle to continue is that no real consequences are placed upon the perpetrator. The principal doesn't make concessions to a harmful bully. He suspends the bully, and sends him to a special training school if the bully becomes a repeat offender. Drug addicts and alcoholics don't need love pats on the back or free reign over the family car; they need to be admitted to a rehab facility. If need be, a responsible and concerned adult uses the Baker Act, and puts them in against the addict's will, for the addict no longer has self-control to stop the addictive pattern. There has to be real consequences for behaviors. Without these, even if they seem harsh at first, the addict has no chance whatsoever at rehabilitation. So, too, with Israel's neighbors. The situation in Gaza has become an absolute nightmare, with daily missile shootings into civilian areas in Israel. There is no other country on the planet that consistently bends over backwards to accommodate and tolerate this type of violence. But this allowance, this co-dependent behavior from Israel, is not some nice gesture of tolerance leading to some sort of mutual relationship and understanding. Rather, it is seen by the attackers as an open window. It's like the mother who begs her drug addict son, "Please! I gave you $50 yesterday. Don't take my furs to the pawn shop!" The addict is way beyond words or motherly tears. In fact, if allowed to carry on without some drastic interference, the addict would kill his own mother to get to that purse. Israel needs to stop this co-dependent nonsense. Killing the missile shooters one by one is an enormous waste of time, energy and, mainly, it constantly puts Israeli civilians and soldiers at tremendous unnecessary risk. This tactic plays right into the hands of the Islamic militants, allowing them to simply carry on as usual without any real consequences. And it also backfires. Just like an addict, the Arabs continually play the poor victim to the rest of the world. Israel gave up the entire Gaza area to the Palestinian Authority. The rules were laid out very clearly: 'Here's a big chunk of real estate. Get busy making your own country and don't destroy the leftover synagogues, and definitely don't use the area to shoot at us.' But as soon as they got Gaza, the Arabs immediately desecrated and burned down the remaining synagogues. Once they saw that Israel and the world did nothing in return and that there were no major consequences, well, they set about putting the next phase into operation - daily Kassam rocket attacks into Israel. Thus, while Israel kept its side of the bargain, the Arabs are spitting all over the "peace" deal and laughing at the entire world. Israel gave them a huge opportunity to stop the destructive cycle, but the other side was probably never really too interested in making peace and sitting side-by-side anyhow. They have broken peace deals over and over and over again. The only solution is for Israel to take it all back, clean up shop and stop this ridiculous, self-destructive, co-dependency. If not, I'm afraid the current Olmert government will continue to lead the country down the dark whirlpool of co-dependency - being loved to death. Jake Levi can be contacted by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
POPULATION TRANSFER IN PERSPECTIVE
Posted by Dr. Alex Grobman, December 31, 2006. |
|
In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs said that the primary way to achieve peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs - including Israeli-Arabs - to live separately. "Minorities are the biggest problem in the world," he claimed. Asked if Arab Israeli citizens should be removed, he said: "I think separation between two nations is the best solution. Cyprus is the best model. Before 1974, the Greeks and Turks lived together and there were frictions and bloodshed and terror. After 1974, they constituted all Turks on one part of the island, all Greeks on the other part of the island and there is stability and security." When reminded that they were removed forcibly from their homes, he replied, "Yes, but the final result was better." Later, he explained, "Israeli Arabs don't have to go... But if they stay they have to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish Zionist state." Lieberman's remarks set off a firestorm of criticism in the Knesset and around the country. Whether you support Lieberman or find his proposals abhorrent, they should be seen with a historical perspective. After World War I and II, transferring populations was considered legal and moral, and the most favored response to inter-ethnic strife. This is no longer true. Population transfer is now seen as illegal and a crime notes Eyal Benvenisti, professor of Law at Tel Aviv University. As Benvenisti points out, the first population-exchanges involved Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. The Treaty of Nueilly of November 27, 1919 provided for 46,000 Greeks from Bulgaria and 96,000 Bulgarians from Greece to switch countries. After the defeat of the Greek army in the Greek-Turkish War following World War I, and the Turk assault against Greek communities in Turkey, Greek refugees began fleeing their homes in Turkey. Greece and Turkey exchanged of populations with about 2,000,000 Greeks, who were Turkish citizens, and about 500,000 Turks, who were Greek citizens. The exchange of populations had worked so effectively, Benvenisti observed, that in post-World-War II, the Allies decided to transfer 15 million Germans living in Eastern Europe, primarily in the Eastern part of Germany, after it had been granted to Poland. According to the Potsdam Declaration, Germans living in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were to be transferred to Germany "in an orderly and humane manner." Although the West attempted to ease the transition, there was much distress suffering and large numbers of deaths. After the borders in Europe were redrawn, smaller transfers were made in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Population transfer was also used to settle the inter-religious enmity between Hindus and Muslims in British India in 1947. Once it became clear the communities could not live together, the sub-continent was partitioned into two states -- India and Pakistan -- requiring the resettlement of millions of people. Mass transferring of populations by states is no longer acceptable. When Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974, Turkey was condemned for the large numbers of Greek and Turkish Cypriots who were displaced after being forced to flee from their homes. After atrocities were committed in the former Yugoslavia, people began using the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe the uprooting and displacement of populations, which was identified as a war crime. A process that was sanctioned, if not legal in 1948, is now regarded as criminal. The most recent example of forced mass transfer, Benvenisti continues, occurred in Cyprus with the Greek-Cypriots and the Turkish-Cypriots. After Turkey invaded and occupied the northern part of the island, more than 200,000 Cypriots fled or were relocated across the "Attila Line," set up by the Turkish military. Greek-Cypriots left the Turkish-occupied zone, while Turkish Cypriots escaped to the north, where they moved into homes abandoned by Greek-Cypriots. The Greek-Cypriot refugees resettled in the southern part of the island, a number on property owned by Turkish-Cypriots. The right to recover property and the right to return are two of the key obstacles to settling this dispute. The need to separate Arabs and Jews or transferring Palestinian Arabs to another Arab state is not a new idea. In 1937, the Peel Commission concluded, "An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible... Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State." If partition is to succeed, the Commission said, drawing new boundaries and establishing two separate states will not be sufficient. "Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land, and as far as possible, an exchange of population." For numerous reasons, transfer never took place. In his book on the international proposals to transfer of Arabs from Palestine, Chaim Simons found that a number of leading Zionist leaders entertained such ideas, as did president Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, Czechoslovakian President Benes, and three Nobel Peace Prize winners Sir Norman Angell, Christian Lange and Philip Noel-Baker. Dr. Grobman's book Nations United: How the UN Undermines Israel and the West will be published by Balfour Books will be in late November. Contact Dr. Alex Grobman by email at Agrobman@nj.rr.com |
|
IRANIANS ARE FRIENDS OF THE JEWS
Posted by Amil Imani, December 31, 2006. |
|
Is there anyone left in the world that does not know the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hates the Jews? His welcoming of representatives of an extremist branch of Orthodox Judaism to his conference denying the Holocaust reminded us of the Nazis' use of some Jewish community leaders to facilitate the deportation of the Jews to the death camps. This devout man of Allah, Ahmadinejad, known affectionately by Iranians as "The Monkey" for his non-stop silly and embarrassing antics should be given a fair hearing, never mind the fact that he would not even think of doing the same for others. What makes The Monkey more than a laughing stock is what he represents and the power he wields at arousing millions of his co-Islamofascists against the "undesirables" of the world. For some reasons, Jews are on the top of The Monkey'ss hit list as they have been in the same position of "honor" with other past fascists of the world. Perhaps precedence by itself constitutes the basis for arriving at a verdict, as is sometimes the case in the law. And when it comes to the Jews' guilty verdict, there is no shortage of precedence. Jews have been around for a long time and have been a convenient target of scapegoating. People being people have a difficult time looking at themselves for their problems. It is by far easier to find others to blame than to try to mend one's own ways. So the Jews became convenient scapegoats for bigots, the fascists, and all manners of malevolent louts. This is neither the place, nor is it necessary for the purpose of this article to provide an exhaustive documentation of the historical suffering of the Jewish people. The main purpose of this article is to tell the world that Iranians are proud of their historical friendship with the Jewish people. The bond of friendship goes back to the landmark action of King Cyrus the Great of Persia. In 537 B.C., having conquered Babylon, the benevolent King Cyrus freed the Jews from captivity and empowered them to return to the Promised Land and build their temple. For his acts of kindness, Cyrus the Great is immortalized in the Bible in several passages and called "the anointed of the Lord." The Jews throughout the recorded history looked to Cyrus's people, the Iranians, as their friends and protectors against oppressors such as the Seleucids and the Romans. There existed, in the ancient world, a universal admiration for the beliefs and practices of the Persians as enshrined in Cyrus Charter of Human Rights. Even the Greeks, the traditional adversaries of the Persians, called Cyrus "The Lawgiver." The return of the Jews to the Promised Land did not mark the end of their ordeal. Successive waves of ill-wishers, notably the Romans and then the savage Muslims unleashed their unjustified wrath on the Jews. The Jewish people, in spite of suffering huge losses at the hands of their enemies, remained resilient and, with one exception, outlived their tormentors. The Pogroms in Russia, the ghettoization in much of Europe, and even the genocidal Hitlerism failed to wipe out the Jews. One diehard enemy, Islam, has been hard at work for some 1400 years to complete the work of finishing off the Jews that Muhammad himself had started. Iranians are saddened and ashamed by the appearance of Ahmadinejad on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe out the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not an Iranian. Numerous photos show him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck -- a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the Jews as well as non-believers of all stripes. Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian people any more than his turbaned-colleagues presently ruling Iran do. What needs to be understood is that in fact Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, above all else, are true Muslims and despise anything "Iranian" and its ancient "pre-Islamic" heritage. You can tell a true Muslim by the ferocity of his hatred. Islam is driven by hate. And the Islamic hate is so intense and blind that it consumes even its own adherents. Just consider, for instance, the rocketing of mosques full of Friday worshippers by one sect of the religion of peace against another sect of the same religion. Or, the raging gun battle between the Hamas thugs and the Fatah murderers in the Palestinian territory. Iranian Muslims are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in them their traditional respect for diversity. It is the Iranian ancient fundamental belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia. The diverse people who give Iran its enduring strength include Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Baluchis, Torkemans, Arabs and more: one and all have their allegiance to Iran as an idea and a nation. Iranians are spiritual children of Cyrus the Great and adherents of his Charter -- the first Charter of Human Rights -- that clearly proclaims the equal rights and worth of the beliefs and practices of all people. Islam overtook Iran and brutally strived to replace the traditional lofty Iranian belief in human rights with its barbaric exclusionary dogma of the primitive Bedouin Arabs. Regrettably, the forced subjugation of the Iranians succeeded to some degree in transmitting the Islamic psychosocial virus to many Iranians. The virus transforms the person into a bigot -- one who sees only his way and his belief as the right way and the only right mandate. Any and all people who do not see things his way are wrong and must be reformed by whatever means, including eradication, if the bigot sees fit. True Iranians have remained friends of the Jews by both belief as well as deeds. During the shameful Hitlerian campaign of exterminating the Jews, for instance, Iranian missions in Europe, notably the one in France, issued Iranian passports to facilitate the flight of French and other European Jews from the claws of Nazis and their gas chambers -- the very gas chambers that the true Muslim, disgracing Iranians, Ahmadinejad, denies ever existed. Iranians stand for the right of the Jews as well as the equal rights under the law for any and all religious and secular people. Iranians believe that Islamofascism is a present and imminent danger and call on all free peoples of the world to do all they can to frustrate its "Pogrom," heeding Martin Niemoller's warning: "They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist; They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist; They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me." Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. He maintains a website, http://www.AmilImani.com |
|
THE BLAME ISRAEL FOR EVERYTHING SYNDROME
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 31, 2006. |
|
The very fact that the so-called Palestinian Israeli conflict infiltrates so many debates concerning far removed Islamic issues, invariably used as a cudgel to indict the Jewish State as an abusive even Hitleresque occupier of hapless Palestinian waifs, suggests that Israel is the all purpose effective scapegoat conveniently showcased to divert attention from relevant facts mostly unfavorable to movers and shakers of Muslim policies. Exploitative fundamentalist governments, both Sunni and Shiite, in say polar opposite jihad friendly regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, do not differ in their willingness to bash Israel/Jews in educational textbooks, media broadcasts, public pronouncements, newspapers, and in general all forms of communication. Likewise, propagandizing leaders manipulating naïve populations in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, chaotic Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, many more Islamic nations, Muslim neighborhoods throughout Western Europe and in fact throughout the world vilify the far removed Jewish shlamazal and homeland mostly to divert attention from real localized concerns that otherwise would threaten the credibility of those leaders perhaps leading to their demise. Logically, the so-called Palestinian Israeli conflict has as much tangible bearing on all other planetary enclaves and nations as the constellation Orion has on their gross national products, except perhaps for neighboring Jordan and a few other nations who refuse to repatriate their morphed citizens, however the humiliation inflicted upon the psyches of so many programmed Muslims worldwide by this skillfully exploited conflict transcends physical reality and the rational reasoning process, the latter apparently not the strongest suit of that duped populace. Amazingly, hand wringing non-Muslim intellects, some anti-Semitic some not, accept the duplicitous arguments of Machiavellian Muslim manipulators, annexing the concept of Middle East peace to that limited conflict. The recent Baker Hamilton 'how to fix Iraq' proposals to the Bush Administration is an example of such skewed thinking, as if one instigating factor for a Sunni Shiite war, dating back to the 7th century, somehow was based on a prophesy extending into the far future circa 1948. Then again perhaps Muslim scientists of the 7th century were privy to time travel, beamed down on the birth of modern Israel circa 1948, got their turbans in such a twist watching all those scurrying Jordanian Arabs their minds became poisoned, lines of succession after their prophet Mohammad bifurcated into opposing viewpoints respectively adopted, hostility broke out between the time travelers who returned to century 7 spreading the infection into Sunni and Shiite strains. That scenario makes about as much sense as today's worldwide 'blame Israel for everything' sentiment, but no one ever said we live in a logical world. Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
WHY YOU SHOULDN'T SHOP AT THE BODY SHOP
Posted by Join the Boycott, December 31, 2006. | |
|
Why shouldn't you shop at the Body Shop? Because during the Lebanon War the Body Shop founder broadcast that there was "No Justification" for Israel's actions In Lebanon. The founder of The Body Shop and now a consultant to it, Anita Roddick, signed and promoted a letter of an extremist anti-Israel Coalition that said Israel had "no justification" for its actions in Lebanon and did not even mention Hezbollah. This is what she wrote on her website:
That same Coalition now accuses Israel of "barbarism" in Gaza and ignores PLO rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. We urge you to shop elsewhere and, if you have not yet done so,
please sign The Body Shop Petition
by
clicking here
Contact Join the Boycott by email at jointheboycott@inbox.com or go
to their website:
|
|
MARY A 'PALESTINIAN REFUGEE'? MSM KNOW IT'S A LIE, BUT THEY PUBLISH IT ANYWAYS
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 31, 2006. |
|
Joseph Farah is a Christian Arab American of Lebanese origin. He writes about the extreme idiocy of some western journalists who regurgitate whatever anti-Israel line their Arab Moslem Palestinian stringers give them.....uncritically, often enthusiastically. They don't even bother to check the material for the most obvious of errors. The Jewish Mary, Holy Mary, Mother of God...a "Palestinian refugee"...even as the Muslim Palestinians torch Christian villages, gang-rape Christian women, stone churches and church leaders, and drive Christians from the West Bank with their terrorist threats and intimidation. Farah says it is "silliness". I call it hate-mongering. The journalists know that such blatant mendacious manipulation of history for current political propaganda is a sacrelegious bald-faced lie which will stir hate for Israel and Jews. They present it to their publishers anyway. The publishers know that such blatant mendacious manipulation of history for current political propaganda is a sacrelegious bald-faced lie which will stir hate for Israel and Jews. They publish it anyway. and millions of un-informed read it, believe it, and hate Israel (and in some cases hate Jews too) because of it. That's hate-mongering. If one would ask the question honestly: what would Mary encounter if she tried to enter Bethlehem today?...the answer would be more akin to: She would be delayed at a check-point until the IDF could determine that the bulge in her abdomen was indeed her pregnancy, and not explosives or a suicide bomber belt; and then she would get in to Bethlehem where either: a.) she might get a face-full of acid from the Palestinian (mostly Hamas) modesty police if she was not wearing a veil....or.... b.) if they found out she was a Jew, Palestinian terrorists would kill her, making sure to put half-a-dozen rounds from their kalatchnikof rifles in to her abdomen, to make sure that her unborn was dead. But such images do not play well with the western media's commitment to support the terrorists in their vilification of Israel. So they publish the anti-Israel black fantasy instead. This article is called "Mary, 'Palestinian refugee'" and it was
written by Joseph Farah, Editor of World Net Daily (WND). It appeared
in WND December 30, 2006 |
|
When it comes to the politicization of the Christmas story, I thought I had seen it all. But the London Independent's shameless mischaracterization of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as "a Palestinian refugee" takes the proverbial cake. The story by Johann Hari published Dec. 23 begins: "In two days, a third of humanity will gather to celebrate the birth pains of a Palestinian refugee in Bethlehem -- but two millennia later, another mother in another glorified stable in this rubble-strewn, locked down town is trying not to howl." It goes on to describe a 5-year-old tale of an Arab woman who claims she was stopped from entering Israel to deliver her twins and forced to go 20 minutes in another direction to an Arab hospital. It's amazing. It's bizarre. It's breathtaking at what passes for Western journalism in the Middle East today. First of all, was Mary "a Palestinian refugee"? No, Mary was a Jew, living in the occupied territory of Israel. She wasn't trying to get to a Roman hospital to have her child. She was traveling with her husband from her home in Nazareth to Bethlehem, where the Roman authorities decreed those from the House of David would pay their taxes. By the way, neither the area of Bethlehem nor Nazareth had ever been considered Palestine or, more appropriately, Philistia, up through the time of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. In fact, it was not for another 100 years that the Romans would think about renaming Israel as Palestine in an effort to make the world forget about the Jews who had been slaughtered and dispersed. There no were Philistines or Palestinians around. They hadn't been heard from for over 500 years. It's beyond silliness. Who are these anti-Israel activists the Western press dispatches to cover the Middle East? Where do they come from? Where are they trained? Where are they educated? How is it possible that such drivel is actually published? What is it exactly that the so-called Palestinians want? Do they want their own homeland or not? It seems to me they've got it. But now they want to be able to travel into Israel for medical care? What's wrong with their own hospitals? Why is it that they don't decide to buy more medicine and fewer guns? Don't get me wrong. I don't blame "the modern-day Mary" in this fable for wanting first-class medical care in Israel. And had Bethlehem remained under Israeli governance, that's exactly what the people of Bethlehem would have received. But the so-called Palestinians demanded their own country. Unfortunately for them, that means Palestinian hospitals, too. The Palestinian authorities are also demanding that no Jews be permitted to live in their territories. Yet, there is shock that Arab Palestinians should not be able to cross into Israel at all hours of the day and night without facing checkpoints and security. Is this a tragedy? Yes, it is. I would much prefer to see these poor Arabs live freely, as they did under Israeli governance. But, for heaven's sake, they rejected that option with extreme violence and terrorism. Is that context not important for people unfamiliar with the region to understand? Is it not important for reporters covering the region to understand? Let's call this what it is: Deliberate deception. It is the worst form of propaganda. In another time, we labeled it agit-prop. What is the purpose? Is it to stir up more hate and violence? Is the purpose of such lies to immunize those serving them up from terrorist attacks? One can only speculate. But one thing is certain: This is not journalism. On a side note, as one of those Christians referred to in the reporter's lead paragraph, I wasn't aware that one-third of humanity celebrated Mary's birth pains on Christmas. Silly me. I was under the impression we celebrated the birth of the Savior. David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com |
|
AULD LANG ZION 2007; JIMBO CARTER
Posted by Steven Plaut, December 31, 2006. |
|
Should auld accomplice be forgot,
For betraying auld lang Zion, my dear,
We yids hae run aboot the world,
Save auld land Zion, my dear,
2. To the Tune of "Cheers to the Bus Driver" Cheers to the Hangman
Several prominent scholars have taken issue with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," cataloguing its historical inaccuracies and lamenting its lack of balance. The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg also critiqued the book's theological purpose, which, he asserted, was to "convince American Evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel." Mr. Carter indeed seems to have a religious problem with the Jewish state. His book bewails the fact that Israel is not the reincarnation of ancient Judea but a modern, largely temporal democracy. "I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures," he recalls telling Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first tour through the country. "A common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of the Labor government." He complains about the fact that the kibbutz synagogue he enters is nearly empty on the sabbath and that the Bibles presented to Israeli soldiers "was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit." But he also reproves contemporary Israelis for allegedly mistreating the Samaritans -- "the same complaint heard by Jesus almost two thousand years earlier" -- and for pilfering water from the Jordan River, "where ... Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist." Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
FILM MAKER PIERRE REHOV ON THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND SUICIDE BOMBINGS
Posted by Michael Travis, December 31, 2006. |
|
This article comes from the CounterTerrorism Blog
Counterterrorism's new blogsite is |
|
On July 15, I appeared on MSNBC's "Connected" program to discuss the 7/7 London attacks. One of my fellow guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to my request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film. Many thanks to Dean Draznin and Arlyn Riskind for helping to arrange this special interview. What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film? I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up. Why is this film especially important? People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem -- showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has became their only certitude. What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know? I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution. What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings? It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy. You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power? Not death as an end, but death as a door open to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword. Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology. Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the after life in Paradise. Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction? Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do. Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way? All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and their is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their life time, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists. Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers. Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior. What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings? Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel). Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision? There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide. Why are so many suicide bombers young men? As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman? What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation? The UN is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communists countries. Their hands are tied. The UN has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the UN leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the UN is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the UN has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four-hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred"). You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean. Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it. How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general? Stop being politically correct and stop believe that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people. Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East? Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam is expands there is regional conflict. Right now, their are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
TIME FOR ISLAMIC WORLD TO CLEAN HOUSE: THE BALL IS IN THEIR HANDS
Posted by The Reality Show, December 31, 2006. |
|
How to win the global war
The picture of global terror with Iran as a major player Iraq 2006-2007 The major political talk is all about Iraq, on the most brutal violence the world has seen in recent years one group of Muslims inflicts on the other, the major target as civilians, the heinous crimes in which the way these people are killed, the torture squads, the death squads, the mass kidnapping, etc. It is evidently clear that Iran, the Shiite 'super power' is arming and pushing it's proxy: M. Al-Sadr mehdi army in the major chunk of the bloodshed, the recent arrest of Iranians (December 25, 2006) of Iranians in Iraq is of course nothing but a a tip of the iceberg, US officials say he is the major culprit. Yes, it is more about Muslim sectarian violence and mutual Arab ethnic cleansing as most describe it but you can't ignore the factor of the moderate government backed by the west battling the radical Islamists, which is exactly why the radical mullahs of Iran keep pushing it even further, aside from their interest in the Shiite vs. Sunni factor. Last but not least in Iraq, there is little talk about the mass persecution of Iraqi Christians and of mass exodus. Lebanon The same militant Iran that uses Huzbullah in its war on Israeli and Lebanese civilians (2006) or together with Syria, assassinating top Lebanese officials that seem to be anti-Syrian, or rather anti-Syrian-dictatorship, spelled: pro west. I doubt that many were surprised at the documents showing Hezbullah's pledge for mullahs in Iran to establish an all Islamic Lebanon. The horn of Africa The same Iran with its mighty long arm, that uses Hezbullah extremists to arm and help Islamists in places far way as Somalia, shedding the blood of so many over there too, in the name of Islam. "We might have another Taliban situation in Somalia", Vincent Mugabi on BBC (December 25, 2006). When you see worrying non-Muslim Ethiopia attacking Islamists (December 25, 2006), As Islamists in Somalia call for all Muslims to help them in a "holy war" (Jihad) against Ethiopia, as well as their declaration of a 'greater Islamic Somalia' galvanizing Somalis in Eastern Ethiopia, Djibuti & in parts of Kenya, in other words more Islamization in Africa, you see the globalism of it all, reaffirmed again in basically every corner of this planet. 'Palestinians' vs 'Palestinians' Though the core "Palestinian" violence on their own is their old tradition, however, when you see lately (December 2006) more and more 'Palestinians' fighting 'Palestinians', or civil war, what do you see? Whether you were for or against the idea of Sharon's agreeing to a 'disengagement plan' (2005), even though it involved rewarding 'Palestinian' terrorists, you have to content that it has some logic in the 'war on terror' as well. The logic of taking it from purely western hands to them, of transferring the battlefield to its natural/original place if you will, as in the (Egyptian) 'Muslim brotherhood' the almost direct father of today's modern Islamic sword, or militant Islam, which is Muslim fighting Muslim extremist. Guess who is helping the 'Palestinian' Islamo-facsist Hamas and its call for genocide? Iran, again, and again. The war on the 'evil ideology' Of course Sunni Al Qaeda is no better than Shiite Iran, which is why radical Islam is the issue. Congratulate those that keep reminding us that the 'war on terror' is mistakenly spelled, terror is only ONE tool Islamists use in their war on the world, think of more methods by them like: rape used by Arab Muslim racist militias on Sudanese that practice a different branch of Islam (asides from the Arabization - Arab racism motive there), if nukes in the hands of mullahs are the most horrific nightmare of humankind, the power of oil for example is used by Iran already. Some Muslim leaders get offended at 'spelling it out', 1) Too bad, and mainstream Islam does have a part in it, especially in providing excuses (directly or indirectly) for terrorists as 'legitimate issues against the west'. 2) Spelling it out is so important, identifying the enemy is the first important thing in fighting it. Islamofascism means, the violent intolerance on all that is not Muslim or not AS Muslim enough or 'not my kind of Muslim' (Shiite VS Sunni), no one can argue against this global (blown in their face) factor. In this harsh factor, it matters little if you are Shiite Iran that wants to wipe off non Muslim nations, Huzbullah's Nassrallah or 'Palestinian' Hamas' admission on 'war on all Jews', or as Hamas put it "we are a nation that drinks blood, and we know there's no better blood than the blood of the Jews", Sunni Al Qaeda's Bin Laden on the "crusaders" (i.e. Christians), Islamic protesting to honor Muhammad's name (cartoons, 2005) threatening with a 911 attack on Europe & praising Hitler, Muslims' attacking innocent Jews in Paris, Jemma Islamiya's war on Australian youth in Bali (2002), militant Islamists massacring in Madrid, in Jerusalem, in Bombay, or in London, Arab Muslim gang raping Christian Australians & shouting Allah Akbar, beheading Christians in Indonesia, offended 'Palestinians' at pope's branding Islam as violence - killing Christians, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Abu Hamza types that teach that all non-Muslims are cows, Bakri's permission to slaughter non Muslim civilians, Saudi Arabian teaching that Christians are pigs and Jews are apes, that it's OK to rape women or 'unveiled meat', that it's OK to enslave still today in age (Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, etc.) And just who can ignore their ambition and plan for global Islamization, for world domination, the Caliphate? One might want to take more notice when they tell you 'Islam will dominate the world'. This entire global war is exclusively in the name of Islam, whether moderate Muslims (fortunately) disagree with their interpretation is irrelevant. Moderate Muslims should worry less about being "offended" -- that actually interferes with success that's in everybody's interest in the 'war on terror' -- and more about cleaning it out. Wider moderate Muslims vs radical 'brothers' So is the Pakistani war on terror, the Afghani, the Saudi, the Yemenite, the Jordanian, the Egyptian, and even Iranian internal political fight, etc. You can not disconnect the phenomenon of the Algerian war that claimed more than 100,000 dead. Clean up YOUR act! The west shouldn't do it alone, it can back up moderates but: The message is clear: Clean up your own act! After all, radical Islam is a 'Muslim' thing, by Muslim in the name of Islam and in many cases backed by so many Muslims, yet it is only natural that it will involve Muslim vs Muslim atrocities, too bad that the extreme case of it, is what it takes to wake up the mainstream Muslim governments. Islamists come home to roost Actually, Islamic terrorism was nourished by "moderate" Islamic governments like Saudi Arabia themselves, now they 'come back home to roost', Just what did these Wahabbists think? or What did the Jordanians - that have been rationalizing for too long the crimes of Palestinian butchers - expect, when Zarqawi turned on his fellow Jordanian Muslims in bombing Amman? And if you ever thought that these leaders learned the lesson, think again, Saudi support for Sunni killers inside Iraq is still going on to this day. Still shooting themselves in the foot It's not bad to see moderate Muslim countries fighting terrorists, as well as Saudi Arabia standing up against Iran, although in a cowardice way so far. The bigger problem is of course Muslim mainstream, official and government run media that still demonizes the west, especially the Zionists, Will these tyrants in the Islamic world ever see the danger this campaign possesses to their own security, or they'll just continue to lose any logic and even basic sense of survival when it comes to their cult of hate? Locating/spotting (taking on) the enemy - victory Don't forget that the war is on its venemous ideology. Start with 'what they teach in their madrasas' what they show on TV, That's where the seeds of evil are planted. When the day will come and you will see a significant overhaul change in the textbooks and TV programs that an average Muslim child is exposed to, a significant reduction in the hate & rationalization of violence on non-Muslims in the sermons of the Mullahs/Imams, you will know that the battle is where is it should be thus bringing with it the tangible hopes for victory. Contact The Reality Show at therealityshow@mail.com. Or visit his website: http://lightonthings.blogspot.com |
|
THE BIGOTRY OF ANTI-ISRAEL
Posted by The Reality Show, December 31, 2006. |
|
Facts & Causes The obvious, or the 'should be obvious' This is not really all about the Arab Muslim world, who's anti Israel feeling and action is motivated (not by any feeling to help fellow Arab Muslims, fact is, the Arab "Palestinians" are persecuted all throughout the Arab world) by Arab racism (just as the Kurds, Maronites, Sudanese and other non Arabs suffer from the global Arabization) & Islamofascism or Islamic-Fascism, the evil ideology as Tony Blair calls it (just as non Muslims in general, dhimmi or kuffars, non-believers suffer, global wide, take it straight from the horse's mouth, the Iranian fanatical Islamic leader Ahmadinejad's call for genocide & ethnic cleansing on Israel that though has no regional or territorial disputes with Iran of course, "doesn't belong on 'Muslim land', in the all Muslim middle east", this anti-Israel facsism still infects most moderate Muslim countries that blindly refuse entry to anyone with an Israeli passport). Nor is it about the few neo/old Nazis that hate all Jews (even those that tell you they hate "only Zionists"). But this is about the bigotry of anti-Israel infected in the mainstream. Jumping to conclusion before knowing the facts This happens on a regular basis, but a few examples might serve as highlights if you wish: The rush into harsh words by UN's Secretary general Kofi Annan (before he semi-apologized for it) when some UN officials got hurt in the cross fire between Huzbullah terrorists and Israeli defense forces (Hezbullah initiated war and invasion 2006), even after realizing that the UN post was used by the Huzbullah as a tool. The overwhelming bashing Israel in Arabs' deaths, like the very icon the "Palestinian" propaganda machine used, as in the Arab kid Muhammad al-Dura (2002), which we all know by now, was nothing more than staged by Arabs themselves, and it was Arab shooters that killed that boy. The rushing media in "blaming Israel" for the death of an Arab family on Gaza beach (2006), again Israel promised/asked to wait until a full investigation is complete, that concluded it was the "Palestinian" Hamas' led mines that brought about that incident. No matter how many times the media sees the transparency in the fake images produced and invented by the 'Palestinians', "PALLYWOOD" (http://seconddraft.org), it seems to "forget", each time a new case appears. Demanding from Israel the victim of terror more than from the perpetrator The words an anti-Israel 'activist' told me, resonates throughout this conflict: "I can't expect from the Arabs any better, but Israel/ should know better!". In other words, it is part of demanding from the west ever more then from the Islamic world, when it comes to morality. The only problem is that it is not presented in this open way, it is presented as Israel is the "bad" guy, period. As opposed to endless condemnations by the UN on Israel's self defense, When was the last time the UN has condemned the very Arab "Palestinian" crimes on their own people that they try to pin on Israel, like: Using its kids as human shields (which Huzbullah, in 2006, picked up very quickly, copied them in their war on Israeli civilians, using Arab civilians) and as human bombs? Legitimizing and even glorifying mass murder and genocide as a 'good holy act' in their mainstream and official media? The Lie of "natives" is bought How many have fallen prey to the powerful sell of "indigenous" Arabs in the land of the Judea? The picture of an all out 'Arabs in the middle east', is one of the misconception misleading clarity of history, never forget that most today's 'Palestinians' have no more than 3 generations "history" in this ancient land of the Jews. Absolutely no one has disputed the fact of Arab immigration that saw an upsurge with Zionists' immigration (the latter only, limited by the British) in the late 1800. The fact that the most "Palestinian" - icon of all time: Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian born fighting for "his homeland" in Israel... is so classical. By the same token, it is not well known the fact that over 50% Israeli Jews are of children of indigenous Jews in the middle east (http://jimena.org). The Global Goliath Islamo Arab power The very fact that there was so much talk and selecting/picking on one lobby out of so many different types and different interests - lobbies that operate in Washington but the utter silence on the enormous Islamo Arab lobby that basically occupies, threatens, incorporating so many in their anti-Israel racist boycott, uses oil as a weapon and dictates the international arena, including the UN, shows you just how great of bully they are. So is the fear of European nations for unrest by the Arab Muslim (immigrant) population, (terrorism works!) that effects or rather impairs their stand on the middle east conflict. The wrong picture of seeing Israel as the "aggressor" and the 'Palestinian Arabs' as the "underdog" Question #1 Who has more power, the cynical Arab adult shooting behind a kid's back, behind a woman's squirt, or the Israeli humane soldier facing a terrible dilemma? Question #2 When you see the biased media showing a tank vs. kid, A) do you ever stop and think what the message is behind it? B) Does this suggest that the Israeli soldier is really after an unarmed person? C) Did you ever stop to think that the very fact that you can see the Israeli soldier but you can NOT see the Arab terrorist makes the invisible much more of a menace? Nothing more like the situation in Iraq (2003-2007) demonstrates that you might have the most powerful army in the world, you are weaker (in many ways) than the invisible coward terrorists hiding among civilians that has no rules of basic regards for ANY human lives. Outrageous use of baseless drama language and hollow bombastic terms on Israel's multi-racial beautiful democracy Take for example the admission of anti Israel Arabist: Jimmy Carter that (on December, 2006 - CNN) has admitted that Israel is a great democracy with freedom and equal rights for all, and that (in an interview to Larry King he said that) he used provocative words like "apartheid" (only) in order to provoke discussion. All those bombastic empty words like "racism' or "apartheid" the anti-Israel Arab racist propaganda machine is selling, has of course no support in facts on the ground, there is nothing "racist" about fighting terrorists for being terrorists, there is nothing "apartheid", especially that they are the same Arab race and group, Israeli Arabs and "Palestinian" Arabs, with different identification cards that has nothing but security implications. Since when is concern for security considered "racism"? The same "Judenrein - Palestine" that is trying to ethnic cleanse all Jews, that does not even permit any Jew to live in their 'territories', is lecturing multi-racial, multi-religion, multi-color Israel, that has all colors and races from the darkest black to the whitest blond, that has a whopping 20-25% Arabs in its population, with equal rights and representations in high offices (and even more rights than Jews, giving the fact that Israeli Jews are obligated to serve in the army whereas Israeli Arabs are not). The racism behind "questioning" Israel's right to exist Can you name one other country that is subject to even a question of being 'recognized'? Why do you think it is? If you want to talk about history as a supposed reason, 1) Even if you are a naiive student of 'Palestinian' propaganda in revising history, You don't see anyone denying the unmistakenly settlers like most European, or American or Australians right to exist. 2) speaking even about history, for the record: No matter on which political side you are on, you have no right to deny rights of a nation to exist, no one can ever erase Jews' history to the land of Israel, at the same breath no one can claim that there was ever a sovereign Arab-Muslim "Palestine", in fact, the same nazis or Jew-haters that used to tell the Jews in Europe: 'Go back where you came from, go to Israel-Palestine', the ones continue the evil torch of Nazism today ironically deny the Jews coming back to their original roots-origin. The dehumanization of Israeli victims Seeing Israel as nothing but a "tank", is another racist element coming through, in brushing off Israeli victims as a "side details" at best. When was the last time the BBC (for example) has shown any drama pictures of injured Israeli kids at a fraction of the time, passion dedicated to any Arab kid that was killed (usually) because of an Arab adult's fault? Can you remember reporters of the mainstream media visiting Israeli hospitals as much as you can remember them strolling down Arab ones? And Why not? Numbers are not the reason, percentage wise you will see time and time again, Israel loses by far in media's favoritism. -- Contact The Reality Show at therealityshow@mail.com. Or visit his
website: http://lightonthings.blogspot.com
|
|
ANNOUNCING NEW GOOD BLOGS
Posted by Bernice Lipkin, December 31, 2006. |
|
These are new blogsites that are definitely worthwhile: 1. OUT OF THE BOX THINKER -- http://www.NGThinker.typepad.com A new website by Nurit Greenger She writes: Dear Friends: A new blog from Jacob Richman. He also has a blog with photos of some major events in Israel. He writes:
http://esseragaroth.blogspot.com/2007/01/haveil-havalim-101.html This is run by Soccer Dad. It's not a new website but it is always different. Ya'aqov Ben Yehudah will host it in a week or so. Ya'aqov writes: To check out what's going on in the Jewish Blogsphere, check out this week's edition of the "Haveil Havalim" Blog Carnival. Currently, it's: |
|
ANOTHER LESSON IN DHIMMITUDE -- ANOTHER NAIL IN OUR COLLECTIVE COFFIN
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 30, 2006. |
|
I had a conversation recently with an intelligent, concerned, well-educated non-Moslem person about Islamofascist intollerance. She could not understand how it is that so many leaders in the Moslem world will make Islam look ridiculous (her word, not mine) by behaving so immaturely (her word, not mine). After all, don't they (the Muslim leaders) see that when they tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and then threaten to genocide Denmark because of some cartoons, they are making Islam look like a religion of violence and hatred and intollerance and genocide (her words, not mine)? After all, don't they (the Muslim leaders) see that when they issue death warrants against writers and TV producers and political leaders because they (the Muslim leaders) don't like the message that these people are giving about Islam, they are making Islam look like a religion that fosters intollerance and hatred, and making Muslims look like a people who are so weak in their faith and so lacking confidence about their religion and their culture that they cannot tolerate any, even the mildest and most well-intended, criticism (her words, not mine)? After all, don't they realize that when they riot and run amok on college campuses, intimidating facutly and students and governance, in order to prevent free speech and free inquiry, even as they demand the right not only of free speech but also of hate speech for themselves, they make themselves and their religion look not just foolish and hypocritical, but downright paranoid (her words, not mine)? So....why do they do all that? my answer to what I think are some pretty intelligent and insightful questions: THEY DO IT BECAUSE:..... a. IT SHOWS US THAT WE ARE DHIMMI: they (the Muslim leaders) don't care what we think of them (them = the Muslim leaders and the rank-and-file who do the aforementioned stuff). We are infidels, we are either current or future dhimmi. Either way we are inferior. According to them (I'm paraphrazing here from a speech by Ayman ez-Zawahiri on el-Jezeera) we are "harbi" (residents of dar-el-harb, the realm of war where Islam is not paramount; and the Muslims living in the dar-el-Islam, realm of Islam where Islam is paramount, must make war agiant dar-el-harb until Islam is paramount). The lives of "harbi" are forfeit. Harbi have no rights, not even the right to life.....unless they convert to Islam. b. IT TEACHES US THAT GOOD DHIMMI DON'T CRITICIZE: their purpose in doing all that stuff is not to curry favor with us or to educate us so that we better appreciate the sanctity of the Qur'an and their delicate sensibilities regarding Islam....no more than the Duke seeks to curry favor with his butler. Their purpose is to teach us, the non-Muslim world, and various parts of the not-Muslim-enough Muslim world, a very important lesson: the dhimmi does not criticize Islam, the dhimmi does not disrespect the Qur'an, the dhimmi does not insult Mohammed (ABUH), the dhimmi does not demean the Holy Shari'a, the dhimmi does not criticize Muslims (even terrorist child-murderer mass-murderer Muslims), the dhimmi does not offend Allah (a tough job since by virtue of his being dhimmi his very existence is an offense to Allah)...........the dhimmi does not criticize -- period! c. IT SPELLS OUT THE PUNISHMENT FOR BAD DHIMMI: So if/when the dhimmi (or soon to be dhimmi, i.e., you and me and the rest of the non-Muslim world) dares to criticize, there is hell to pay with Muslim wrath, wrath which puts the dhimmi in his place, and puts the future dhimmi on notice about how a good dhimmi behaves. This wrath drives home the point of our own inferiority as dhimmi by means of violence and threats of violence -- hence violent steet riots, churches burned in Iraq and West Bank, nuns and priests murdered, embassy buildings burned throughout the Muslim world, and murders of those offenders who can be reached by the long arm of Saracen wrath. d. ALTHOUGH MANY MUSLIMS DON'T THINK OR FEEL OR ACT THIS WAY THE ONES IN CHARGE ARE THE ONES THAT THINK AND FEEL AND ACT THIS WAY: There are, of course, many fine, honest, up-standing, ethical, nice, peaceful, equinimious, egalitarian Muslims world-wide who condone nothing of the above and want nothing more than to live a normal life, raise crops and a family, give their kids as good a start as possible in life, and leave the world a bit better off than they found it -- same as most of us. But they are not running things in the Muslim world. And they seem to lack either the power or the will, or both, to challenge the Muslims who are running things [did anyone ever see a Muslim street demonstration against bin-Laden, or Muslim women in green demanding an end to suicide bombers, or a petition demanding an end to the funding of terrorists (with thousands of signatures) nailed to the door of the Saudi Embassy in Washington?]. We are NOT talking about those Muslims. e. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ONES THAT DO: We are talking here ONLY about the Muslim leaders who are NOT fine, honest, equinimious people. f. THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT WORKS: And, last but by no means least, THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT WORKS!!. Now newspapers and publishing houses and TV producers and authors and journalists and teachers and university faculty and political spokespersons all over the Western world (no need to worry about Muslim Asia and Africa, they were dhimmified centuries ago) are so frightened of any adverse Muslim reaction to anything (drama, opera, movie, book, speech in parliament, etc.) that they rewrite movie scripts, refuse to publish 'controversial' books, distance themselves from offensive writers or teachers or politicians.....in short: WE ARE LEARNING TO BEHAVE LIKE GOOD DHIMMI. g. AND DOING IT SO THAT IT WORKS MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO WIN IN THEIR ENDLESS RELENTLESS ETERNAL JIHAD: and, the purpose of making the lessons in dhimmitude work, be effective, achieve the desired result of our submittion, or as important or moreso, the submissioin of our intellectual and political and religious leadership, is to make sure that there is a broad and heavy mantle of silence on the truth about Islam and the truth about its Islamofascist leaders. With no one to raise a voice of protest, the Islamofascists and their apologists can inculcate us, our leaders, our children, with the lie that Islam is a religion of peace, and a religion that respects other religions. then, with at least a critical number of our leaders silenced and most of us lulled in to the complacent mind-set that really we don't need to worry about Islam, the Islamofascists can more easily advance their agenda of "Islam uber Alles" -- just as Hassan el-Banna and Sayed Qtub and the Ayatolla Ruhola Khoumeini and Ali Akhbar Rafsanjani and Osama bin-Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri and Abu-Yusuf el-Qaradhawi and Sheikh Akhmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantizi and Yassir Arafat and Isma'il Haniyeh and Khaled Masha'al and a host of other Islamofascist terrorist leaders have told us in words and deeds for the past 75 years. Bottom Line: As more and more of our leaders and those who are influenced by them learn that they must behave like good dhimmi, or else, our society will be, step by step, deprived of the freedoms and benefits and advances in social justice that we have worked toward for almost 1000 years; that we have fought for on battlefields and in street demonstrations and in courts of law to canonize in to our laws and constitutions. From the Magna Carta to the US Constitution's 22nd amendment, our society in the west has, through evolution and revolution and education and legislation, created the rubric (we are not there yet, but we are going in the right direction, following the right instructions) for a truly egalitarian society in which all of its members have equal opportunity of access to its resources and positions of power and leadership. And how do we know that we have done such a good job (despite the fact that we are far from where we want to be)?.....because some ten million people every year swarm to our gates and clamour to get in, so that they too can benefit from our society's advances and equal opportunity of access. And many of these millions are from the countries were Shari'a is the law and Jihad is the priority. We lose a bit of what we have worked so hard and so long to gain, we are pushed a step back, driven in the opposite direction, every time a cartoonist must now think twice or thrice before composing a lampoon on some aspect or another of Muslim hypocricy. They do it because it works. And if it works, they will win. David ML |
|
From: "Campus Watch" "Is a Professor's Job to Teach or Obstruct? [on Kathryn Babayan]"
For the University of Michigan community, it must come as some relief that the three people arrested by campus police for repeatedly disrupting a lecture on Iran last Thursday by Michigan professor of politics emeritus Raymond Tanter have no connection to the university.
But the role played by another Michigan professor leaves little room for celebration: Kathryn Babayan, an associate professor of Near Eastern studies, sat with the demonstrators as a sign of solidarity and insulted Tanter personally from the floor.
Speaking by telephone from his home in Washington, where he now teaches at Georgetown University and oversees the Iran Policy Committee, which he founded, Tanter stressed that Babayan didn't disrupt his talk: "She didn't prevent me from speaking," he said.
But he found her actions "particularly disturbing," because, "she aided and abetted a group that prevented the scholarly transmission of knowledge."
"The paradox is that a scholar from Princeton [where Babayan earned her Ph.D.] would be part of a group that denies free speech on a university campus," Tanter said, adding that, "students have rights, and faculty have an obligation to teach, not to obstruct the teaching of others."
"The issue," insisted Tanter, "is freedom of speech for students."
Tanter's topic was "Stalled International Diplomacy and Problematic Military Options for Iran," but hecklers prevented him for delivering his talk as he had planned. A Power Point slide show was rendered useless by constant interruptions and shouts, which included "Tanter is a pig."
Students in attendance were disappointed that Tanter was unable to speak, and that a Michigan professor would ally herself with protesters whose goal was to shout down a lecturer.
Tamara Livshiz, a sophomore majoring in history and anthropology-zoology who attended the lecture, said in a telephone interview that Babayan held a poster protesting Tanter's appearance. Later, as Tanter attempted in vain to accommodate the hecklers by answering their questions, Babayan stood up, raised her hand, and gave a "long narrative" before asking an insulting rhetorical question.
Livshiz said that "a speaker should inform, but the protesters charged him with trying to enforce his views on everyone else."
According to Tanter, Babayan accused him of knowing nothing about the Shia in Iran and of being condescending, and claimed that she had "too many young students" at the lecture who she feared, "could be misled" by his views.
Josh Berman, who graduates next week with degrees in psychology and political science, is chairman of American Movement for Israel, a student group that sponsored the talk. Speaking by phone, Berman said that Michigan students who are harsh critics of Israel "tend to be more respectful" of speakers with whom they disagree than were the off-campus hecklers. Yet he was more disappointed in Babayan than in the protesters, whom he says numbered around seven.
"Faculty have an obligation to be respectful toward their colleagues," said Berman. "You might not agree with a speaker, but students have a right to hear a lecture by an invited guest, who ought to be given the opportunity to speak without being interrupted."
Tanter seems an unlikely target for such protest. He speaks twice weekly with the Arabic language branch of Al-Jazeera and appears often on the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. and Al Arabiya, a Saudi-controlled news station based in Dubai. He says he's on good terms with many scholars with whom he disagrees, including controversial Michigan historian Juan Cole and former Carter administration official Gary Sick.
But his sponsorship by Jewish students was sufficient to send self-professed "anti-Zionist" agitators into action. Livshiz, the sophomore who attended the lecture, said that one protester held aloft a poster that read "No More Wars for Israel," with the "s" in the word Israel written as a swastika.
Tanter mentioned Israel only tangentially by noting that it may preempt American policy by striking Iranian nuclear facilities on its own.
Tanter's efforts to be polite in the face of unprovoked rage were noted by an Ann Arbor police officer in attendance who told him: "I found your lecture interesting and informative. It is unfortunate that we had to take action relative to the disruptive individuals at the event. ... I felt you addressed the concerns and questions in a respectful manner, despite the harshness and negativity expressed by some of those in attendance."
But neither Tanter's irenic nature nor his decades spent in university life, matter to hecklers bent on denying students their right to hear scholarly lectures on university property, nor to professors like Kathryn Babayan, whose behavior so violated the obligations of her vocation.
David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com |
|
IMAGINE ALL THE WORLD AS GUSH KATIF
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, December 30, 2006. |
|
Imagine all the world as Gush Katif,
Imagine the Jewish nation
Imagine! Gush Katif redeemed,
Imagine no imperialists,
Imagine all the world like Gush Katif,
You may say this is a dream,
Evelyn Hayes is author of The Plague Series: "The Eleventh Plague,
TWINS, because their hearts are softened to accept the unacceptable"
The Twelfth Plague, GENERATIONS, because the lion wears stripes." and
"Thirteen, REDEMPTION, if" Contact her This was written May 29, 2005. Lyrics written by Evelyn Hayes,
Music and Vocal by Riva Schertzman, winner of RCRF Music Writing
Contest for Gush Katif.
|
|
WILL 2007 BE THE "YEAR OF SILENCE" BECAUSE WE FEAR MUSLIM REACTION TO OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 30, 2006. |
|
In all likelihood, our snooty elites do not to have the slightest clue how devastating it will be for ALL OF US to come under Islam customer and rules that will destroy our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization.
It is increasingly clear that the snooty elites don't know the difference between an Islamic order and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization -- or even that there is a difference! We must make sure they know there is a difference and, in any way possible, teach them the difference.
Placating Muslims' anger at the West and or those who are criticizing Islam with West silence is DANGEROUS for the West! Meaning, the Muslim continues uproar has ONE goal: to prohibit Christians and others criticism of Islam, thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should WE, the Westerners, accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. US retaining free speech about Islam represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order or becoming a Dhimmi of Islam! The thought itself is sickening to me!
Islamic immigration brings Islamic law! To preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America, we need to immediately adopt strict immigration policies that will greatly restrict Muslims immigrating to the USA.
The gross intolerance of the Islamic tradition and their callous tactics, designed to shut up free speech, brings us to ONLY ONE conclusion: when is comes to Islam, the word tolerance does not exist!
In the year 2007, our motto should be,"Enough is enough! We are fighting 'Islam Order' and we will WIN!?
This article is called "A question for 2007" and was written
by Diana West. It appeared
December 29, 2006
in the Washington Times
Happy New Year |
|
Taking a whack at prognostication at the end of 2005, it wasn't hard to imagine, as I did, that 2006 would be a rotten year for freedom of speech. Both inside the Islamic world and, more alarmingly, outside the Islamic world, Shariah laws prohibiting criticism of Islam were already working smoothly. When in 2005 we watched the death -- penalty-seeking prosecution of editor Ali Mohaqeq Nasab for "blasphemy" in U.S. -- liberated Afghanistan, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state. When in 2005 we watched the early stages of what later became known as "Cartoon Rage" in Denmark, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state of mind. It wasn't exactly going out on a limb to predict things would only get worse. And, of course, in 2006, they did. Just ask Abdul Rahman if you can find him. The "apostate" fled Afghanistan for his life last spring. Or Robert Redeker, if you can find him. The teacher who published a critique of Islam in September still lives in hiding in France. Or maybe Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. The Bangladeshi journalist faces the death penalty when he goes on trial in January for "blasphemy" and treason for writing favorably about Israel and unfavorably about Islamic terrorism. Of course, such censorship is "Over There" and beyond, not in the United States of America, right? And it can't, as they say, happen here. Right? Please, right? I called 2006 "The Year of Speaking Dangerously," and that was before anyone likely imagined seeing "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" placards on jihadist display outside the Danish Embassy in London. What kind of year will 2007 be? What I fear most is that it will turn out to be "The Year of Shutting Up." As in: Why speak dangerously when you can simply not speak at all? In fact, the Year of Shutting Up probably began back in September when Pope Benedict famously argued that the practice of forced conversion -- key to Islamic expansion over the centuries -- is inimical to both faith and reason. The eruption of anger among Muslims at such criticism was instantaneous and severe. Just shut up, the umma exclaimed. Basically, the Pope did exactly that. At the time, Daniel Pipes explained why placating such anger with silence was dangerous for the West: "The Muslim uproar has a goal -- to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order." Mr. Pipes' language -- "shariah norms in the West," "the imposition of an Islamic order" -- evokes a potential transformation of our culture that is nothing short of revolutionary. Our elites seem not to have the slightest clue how devastating such a change, which comes under the rubric of Islamization, would be to our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that they don't know the difference between "an Islamic order" and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization -- or even that there is a difference. There are exceptions. In November, there was Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, who stood up for constituents' free speech under CAIR pressure. Now Rep. Virgil Goode, Virginia Republican, has become both the lone standard-bearer of free speech about Islam and the favorite whipping boy of the PC elites. In a letter to constituents about the decision of Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, to use a Koran at his swearing-in ceremony, Mr. Goode expressed what I take to be his recognition that the laws of Islam -- which prohibit religious freedom, freedom of speech and conscience, equality before the law and women's rights -- do not augment but rather contravene the founding principles of the United States. He also wrote: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." It's difficult to argue with Mr. Goode's logic. Indeed, the test case of the age -- Europe -- demonstrates that Islamic immigration brings Islamic law, which is demonstrably at odds with American values and beliefs. Forgoing debate, however, Mr. Goode's critics have resorted to name-calling and platitudes about "tolerance," failing utterly to notice the gross intolerance of the Islamic tradition. Worst of all, their tactics seem designed to shut up Mr. Goode, and anyone else who might follow his bold example. Will they? It's the question of 2007. |
|
DR. YUVAL STEINITZ WARNING -- BEWARE OF EGYPT!
Posted by Joseph Puder, December 29, 2006. |
|
While the current hot topic in Israel is whether or not to respond to the alleged "peace overtures" from Bashar Assad - the Syrian dictator, a serious existential threat to Israel is being ignored. Egypt's strategy of weakening Israel has been systematically overlooked by Israel's political elites, not however by Likud Knesset Member Dr. Yuval Steinitz. Steinitz, former chairman of the Security and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knesset, has been a consistent critic of Egypt's military build up against Israel. This week, Steinitz riled against Egypt's attempts to question Israel's sovereignty in Eilat and the Southern Negev region. Steinitz has demanded that the Israeli government decline to meet with Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Jerusalem until he is ready to declare Egypt's recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Eilat-Israel's southernmost city. Recent reports of a special discussion in the Egyptian Parliament concerning Eilat and, Foreign Minister Gheit's subsequent declaration that "Eilat is Palestinian territory," is a direct attempt to undermine Israel's sovereignty, according to Steinitz. He added, "Israel cannot be silent in the face of a Foreign Minister that cannot recognize Israeli sovereignty over Eilat - it is the same as not recognizing Israel sovereignty over Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Beersheba. It is unbelievable that after 25 years of peace, an Egyptian Foreign Minister would question Eilat's status. If he had questioned our sovereignty over Nablus, it would have been one thing, but Eilat?" Egypt's strategy of eroding Israel's sovereignty goes back to 1995 when Egypt's President Mubarak secretly assembled experts to build a case for Egypt's right to the Southern Negev. These subservient "experts" provided Mubarak with "proof " that Egypt could demand large portions of Israel's Negev. The Israeli Foreign and Security ministries knew about it and kept it to themselves, fearing a storm in Israel. Ultimately, President Clinton pressed Mubarak to drop the whole idea, and the matter received no publicity. Steinitz is concerned that this attempt by Egypt to build territorial claims on the Southern Negev will serve as a pretext for an Egyptian military attack on Israel. He therefore insisted that Israel demand Gheit set the record straight regarding Eilat. During Gheit's visit to Israel this past Wednesday he praised Israel's restraint in the face of continued Kassam rockets raining on Israel. He excused the transfers of money from Egypt to Gaza by Hamas operatives. The ever-pliant Israeli politicians including Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni and Defense Minister Peretz, failed to raise the Eilat issue, or Egypt's military build up and the Egyptian aid to Hamas in their meetings with Gheit. Prime Minister Olmert has eagerly accepted President Mubarak invitation to meet him next week in Cairo in spite of the fact that Mubarak has never accepted an invitation to visit Israel. Steinitz has been vocal about Cairo's aid to Hamas, and regards Egypt as Hamas' most reliable long-term supporter. "They do it cleverly, while covertly supporting Hamas they appear openly as supporting the moderate Palestinians." He accused Egypt of looking the other way and allowing 20,000 automatic rifles to be smuggled into Gaza, enough he said to arm four to five divisions every year. Egypt provides 99% of the weapons that reach Gaza. Steinitz further noted that, "While Jordan has the longest border with Israel, there has been no weapon smuggling from Jordan. Egypt on the other hand, is intent on arming the Palestinians to fight against Israel." In various international forums, and especially at the U.N., Egypt, more than Iran or Syria is the lead attacker of Israel. Egypt's educational programming is replete with anti-Semitism, which is being reinforced by television productions that screen variations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Tsarist forgery more than 100 years old. School children in Egypt are taught that the Jews are the source of all the evil in the world. Egyptian school maps substitute Palestine for Israel and little is taught about the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace or Camp David Peace Accords. Secular-leftist Israeli politicians are more interested in maintaining the façade of peace than recognize the facts on the ground. The Israeli architects of the Oslo Accords protected their "peace" in spite of obvious breaches of the accord by Arafat's incitement of the Palestinian masses to murder Israelis. The Palestinian schools taught and continue to teach hatred towards the Jewish State and its people, and still the Israeli leftists persisted in claiming that peace must be given a chance. Western Europeans found out after two bloody world wars, that teaching tolerance and outlawing hate propaganda are prerequisites for a real peace. Egypt's constant hate propaganda against Israel does not promote true reconciliation much less a permanent peace. American administrations are not blameless either. America has provided Egypt with over $70 billion in aid, including military. If America seeks a meaningful peace in the Middle East, it is time to hold regimes such as Mubarak's in Egypt and Abu Mazen's of the Palestinian Authority accountable. Peace requires more than a signature on a piece of paper - it is a state of mind and hinges on the values youngsters learn. While Israel's military planners are focused on Iran, Egyptian military exercises have Israel as its declared target. In the last five years Egyptian military units, including logistical support services and infrastructure, have been transferred to the Suez Canal area, on both the eastern Sinai and the western sides of the Sinai. They have transferred anti-aircraft units, aircraft, and missile batteries -- an enormous expense - that the U.S. largely underwrites through our aid packages. Recognizing that Egypt does not face an external threat, there can only be one explanation for Egypt's massive build up. It is time for Israelis and Americans to listen and react to Dr. Steinitz timely warnings. Joseph Puder (jpuder2001@yahoo.com) is ITAI Executive Director. The Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI) provides information and education on the threat to America from Jihadist Islam and the religious nature of the Arab-Muslim world war currently against Israel to mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy and congregants directly to their churches. Make a tax-deductible contribution to: ITAI 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1832, Philadelphia, PA 19109. |
|
THE LESS MONEY THE TERROR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE, THE LESS JEWS THEY CAN KILL!
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006. |
|
Simple formula: the less funds the terror organizations Hamas, Fattah and Hezbollah have the less Jews they can kill! Nitsana Drashan, esq., Director of the Israel Law Center-Shurat Ha'Din wrote this explanation. |
|
Under the Oslo Accords Israel agreed to collect the taxes and duty on goods brought through Israeli ports and imported into the PA. The PA has no ports. Israel also collects taxes on PA workers in Israel and gives the funds to the Palestinians. It amounts to something like $50 million a month. Since 1995 Israel has been transferring the funds every month. During the intifada PM Barak and Sharon would periodically freeze these transfers of tax money and then eventually be pressured by the EU and the US to turn them over to the PA. We, and other law firms, have been successful in placing pre-trial liens on about $250 million of this money. However, the funds that aren't attached by terror victims are given each month to the PA. When Hamas took office Olmert again froze these tax money transfers. Olmert told everyone he would not allow the terrorists to receive the money. Now this week under US pressure he did indeed agree to provide Abu Mazen with $100 million of the frozen tax money. They are trying to distinguish between the funds going to Hamas and to Abu Mazen's office to be supervised by Abu Mazen. Fatah is okay, Hamas isn't. They also claim there are all sorts of guarantees about the money being used to essential humanitarian items like food, gas and medical supplies for the Palestinians. The lawsuits we are doing against the PA have primarily placed liens on Palestinian money outside of Israel. We have many hundreds of millions of dollars in PA money frozen with post-judgment liens in banks around the world. We assisted in tying up almost all of their funds in the US and other places. Until they pay off all the terror victims with judgments they will be unable to utilize US banks and many of them in Europe as well because the court ordered the banks to freeze the PA funds until all of our collection cases are sorted out. The short answer is that even though Israel from time to time agrees to transfer some funds to the PA, we are managing to freeze large amounts of it. The pursuit of terror funding never ends and all that can be done is to constantly chase after it and attempt to seize as much of it as possible. The Israeli intelligence branches acknowledge that some funds get through to Hamas and other terrorists but their job is to vigilantly try to block as much as possible. In this way the terror organizations' abilities are greatly reduced. The less funds they have the less Jews they can kill. Nitsana Drashan, esq., Director
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
MORE ON THE "WALL" IN NATIVITY SCENES
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 29, 2006. | ||
|
Father Paul Maddison of St Ives (frpaul@sacredheart-stives.org) was kind enough to send me a response to my initial email. Below is the sequence: My initial letter to him, his response and my own response to his response. Since he is using a form letter, it is clear that he is getting many complaints about the creche and crib scenes and the "wall". So, feel free to add your own, making whatever use of my material you may feel will be constructive. David ML | ||
|
From: David Meir-Levi [mailto:david_meirlevi@hotmail.com]
Most honorable Father Maddison: Would you be kind enough to confirm your receipt of Mr. Carew's letter [See below.], and CC me in your response to him?. I report to tens of thousands world-wide on my email list, and I have received many queries as to how you will answer Mr. Carew. Your church's creche with a wall symbolically representing Israel's defensive barrier is an obscene affront to rational thought and to human history. To fault Israel for protecting itself against the constant invasion of suicide bombers is not only unjust, it is beyond irrational, and most assuredly unchristian. Do you not know that many of the Arab world's leaders, and Iran, are committed to a second genoicde of Jews -- another six million, the Jews of Israel? Do you not know that Hamas still enthusiastically endorses the commitments of its founding document to utterly annihilate every Jew in the world? Do you not know that Israel has offered peaceful resolution to the conflict dozens of times, and every olive branch that Israel proffered has been torched by Arab leaders who prefer to destroy Israel and build their "Palestine -- from the river to the sea'', on the corpses of Israel's six million? Do you not know that there was never a wall, nor a fence, nor a barrier until after almost 1,600 Israelis were blown up or burned alive or shot or stabbed (and more than 6,000 wounded) by the terrorists whom Arafat unleashed, in a terror war that has averaged more than 6 attacks per day (almost 28,000) since 1993; and this despite the fact that he signed the Oslo Accords in which he promised to seek diplomatic and negotiated resolution to all grievances? Do you not know that the fence/wall/barrier has effectively stopped c. 90% of the terror attacks since even before it was completed, thus saving un-numberable Israeli lives? Do you not know that Muslim terrorism is aimed at Christians in the Holy Land as well? Have you never heard the Muslim taunt that intimidates and terrifies the Christians of Bethlehem: today is Saturday, but tomorrow is Sunday (i.e., when we finish with the Jews, the Saturday people, we start on the Christians, the Sunday people)? Does it not seem obvious to you that if Holy Mary Mother of God, big with God as a child in her womb, were to attempt to enter Bethlehem today, she would face only minor inconvenience from the Israeli forces; but she would be threatened by far far more danger from the Islamofascist modesty police who would throw acid in her face if she did not wear a veil and a full-body burqa to cover her 'condition'? Or worse, since she was a Jew, they would simply shoot her outright, being sure to aim for her abdomen to kill the unborn, behead her, mutilate her body, and hang her naked from a lamppost for all to see....as they have done to other Jews, and "collaborators", who ventured into their territory. Father Maddison, can you not see that by condemning Israel's defensive barrier which stops terror attacks, you are supporting the terror attacks? Where do you want the casualties, Father Maddison? With the "wall", the casualties are the inconvenienced and delayed Palestinians. Without the "wall" the casualties are the tens or scores or hundreds, or maybe thousands, of Israelis blown up or burned alive or shot or stabbed by all the terrorists whom the wall would have stopped. When you decry the "wall" with your church's creche, you tell the world that you prefer that more Jews should die. Is that what you want to tell the world on the birthday of the Prince of Peace? Are you not aware that the Christian population of the West Bank is fleeing because of the threats and murders and arson and rape and kidnappings perpetrated against them by the Arab terrorists. Today there are more Lebanese Christians living outside of Lebanon than inside of Lebanon....because of the anti-Christian attacks of the Lebanese Muslims. The same is happening now to the Christians of the West Bank....because of the threats and attacks from Hamas. Have you forgotten Lev. 19:16, "stand not idly by when your brother is in mortal danger". Silence in the face of evil is complicity. Complicity with evil is evil. I hope you recall too your Savior's admonition in Matthew 25: " ... to the extent that you did not do this for the least of My brethren (the Jewish people under attack in Israel, or the Christian Arabs under attack in the West Bank), then you did not do it for Me." Remember Jeremiah: "Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully", (Jeremiah 48:10). Do not fall prey to the deceit of the Arab spin-meisters. "Blame the Jew" is one of the oldest of Jew-hatred ploys. Remember Isaiah: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness...., Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away justice from the righteous man!"(Isaiah 5:20-23). Terrorism is evil. Mass murder is evil. Genocide is evil. Incitement to genocide is evil. Teaching children to hate is evil. The Palestinian national movement is the only one of its kind in the entire world and across all of world history whose sole defining paradigm is terrorism, and whose unique and unrelenting goal is the destruction of a soveriegn state and genocide of its Jews. That, sir, is evil. If you love God, you must hate evil (Psalm 97:14). David Meir-Levi
Thank you very much for your very prompt and comprehensive response to my emails of this morning. My admiration for your so very quick and very long response was somewhat mitigated by the fact that it soon became apparent that you are using a form letter....a fact that became obvious when one of my own email addressees sent me a copy of your so very prompt and comprehensive identical reply to his missive to you on the same topic. None the less, I appreciate your taking the time to compose even a form letter for replies to what I am sure are many querries about this issue. It is most gratfying to learn that you are in contact with Mr. Carew; and that your church does not feature the "wall" in any crib scenes. I am also very pleased and greatly re-assured to learn of your sentiments regarding Israel's right of self-defense, and the need to find a way to assist both sides in reaching agreements that will allow for everyone to live in peace and in mutual cooperation and constructive co-existence. I have no doubt that you are right when you say: "...that we are both working for the same end and ...it is truth and justice which must underpin our working for peace...(such that) ... our actions are concerned with the promotion of peace for ALL the people who live in the region". You can rest assured that you and I are in true partnership regarding those goals. However, there are two points in your letter that are in need of re-formulation, in my opiniion. One is misleading by innuendo, and the other is factually incorrect. So I have taken the liberty of offering you some input that I hope will be of value to you. I most sincerely urge you to read carefully my comments below, and incorporate them in to a re-formulation of your letter. Knowing, as I now do, that you are as committed as am I to a just and peaceful resolution for both parties in the conflict, I trust that you will take the temerity of my imposition of this commentary in the spirit of good will and an honest quest for truth and accuracy which it is intended. 1.) Innuendo and unclarity You wrote: "The number of Christians living in the holy Land has indeed declined, from some 17% in 1900 to less than 2% today, this decline is as a result of a number of factors. The Christian presence in Jerusalem -- according to statistics from the Committee of bishops of the Holy Land -- has increased since the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967". Your first paragraph is correct, but it omits important information. Among the "number of factors" for the very precipitous decline in Christian population between the 19th century and 1967 is the constant harrassment and intimidation of Muslim Arabs against Christian Arabs in all areas of the Holy Land NOT under Israeli control. In Israel, Christians, as well as Muslims and members of the c. 70 other faiths practiced in Israel, are free to worship as they choose. The Christian population in Isrel grew rapidly under Israeli sovereignty and tolerant governance. However, between 1967 and 1994, when Israel held legal sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Christian population there too began again to grow....for the first time in almost 100 years. This was due to the Israeli government's extending its tolerant and supportive laws regarding religious freedom to the territories that it conquered during the Six-Day war. Israeli presence prevented the Muslims from harrassing the Christians. Conversely, from 1994 until now, under the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority, the Christian population of the West Bank has plummetted from c. 85% of Bethlehem in 1993 to less than 15% today. The Christian population of the Gaza strip has almost completely disappeared. The single most powerful impetus for Christian flight is the threat of Islamofascist anti-Christian terrorism which I described in my first email. Ironically, many Christians flee the West Bank and come to Israel for religious freedom. By omitting these facts, your paragraph quoted above, when read in conjucntion with the paragraph that follows (see below), can be easily misconstrued to indicate that it is Israeli security measures that are causing Christian flight. In your second paragraph, you wrote: "Christians in Israel and the Occupied Territories are often prevented from freely worshipping by the system of permissions and passes that are required for them to visit their holy places. At Easter this year, over 3,000 Christians were prevented from following the traditional path of Christ from the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem; despite the fact that they had obtained the necessary permissions." This is a true statement. But it is de-contextualized. I most sincerely urge you to beware of de-contextualization. De-contextualization is one of the prime tools of the demagogue and diatribalist. As I am sure you must know, from the earliest days after the June, 1967 war, and until Israel ceded sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority per the Oslo Accords of 9/1993, Christians and Muslims traveled freely throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip and all of Israel. And Israelis traveled freely in the West Bank and Gaza strip. During those years, the economy of the West Bank and Gaza Strip grew by leaps and bounds, with an average annual GDP of almost 13%, 300,000 Arabs crossed the "green line" daily to work in the Israeli infrastructure, seven universities built where none had existed before, up-graded sewerage and water purification, 20th century telephone and radio and TV, sky-rocketing tourism, and a moer than tripling of population (from c. 950,000 Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 to c. 3,200,000 in 1993). And this was all due to Israel's "Mini-Marshall" plan which infused hundreds of millions of dollars in to West Bank and Gaza Strip development for its Arab populations. All of this prosperity and freedom came to a grinding halt when Arafat took over in 1994. And as soon as he took over, he started his war of intimidation and threats against Christians, and he also started his terror war agianst Israel. It is ONLY in the context of Israel's restrained and measured defensive responses to the Palestinian Authority's terror war that Christians find their access to holy sites limited. Prior to the terror war, there was no such limitation. Were the terror war to end, the limitations too could end. With regard to this year's 3000 Christians denied access to the Via Dolorosa, you must surely know that Israel did that because its military intelligence learned of Palestinian terrorist plans to attack Christian pilgrims and religious sites during Holy Days. To not place restrictions on religious traffic in East Jerusalem at that time would have been a severe and illegal and immoral abdication of the government's responsibility toward its Christian citizens. Happily, a number of planned attacks were nipped in the bud thanks to timely arrests in a variety of West Bank and Gaza Strip terror centers (primarily Qalqiliya, Jenin, and Hebron). There is evidence, too, that planned attacks were cancelled when the terrorists became aware of the Israeli security measures. I most sincerley urge you to include some cogent summary of this information in your revised letter. Otherwise, you are blaming the victim, confusing the fire fighter with the arsonist, and misleading your readers. 2.) Erroneous data You wrote: ".... (the wall's) route -- especially around Bethlehem is destroying lives and livelihoods of the people who live there. What is unacceptable, and has been declared so by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, is that Israel has chosen to build its security wall on Palestinian land, in places making detours of up to 14 kilometres to the east of the 1967 "Green line". In these circumstances it is difficult to see the wall as little less than an exercise in redrawing internationally accepted boundaries, an action which can only lead to further frustration, anger and possible violence." The question you pose here, why is the fence built on "Palestinian land", has built into it a number of hidden and fallacious assumptions, which must be addressed and evaluated before the answer can be understood: Incorrect assumptions: a.) that the green line means something. Recall that the green line is an armistice line (per Rhodes armistice conference, 2-7/49), not an internationally recognized border. There is no internationally recognized border between the West Bank and Israel because the majority of the Arab world (all of the Arab world before 1967) refused to make peace, negotiate borders, and recognize those negotiated borders. Egypt and Jordan, upon making peace (1979 and 1994 respectively), specifically excluded issues of the West Bank from their agreements with Israel. Thus per international law and UN resolutions (Chapter VI: UNSCR 242 and 338), there is no political or legal relevance to the green line. In the absence of a willingness of the belligerents on one side of the conflict to make peace, the armistice line is a temporary and convenient line to divide belligerents. It says nothing at all about sovereignty or ownership. Therefore, there is no legal reason to use the green line as a base line or bench mark in the definition of Israel's boundaries vis-à-vis the west bank. b.) That Israel has no right to land east/south/north of the green line on the west bank. Despite the rantings of pro-Palestinian propaganda (which, by the Goebels principle have taken on the mantle of axiom), Israel's sovereignty in the West Bank is completely legal. Before 1917 the sovereignty was under the Ottomans. From 1917 to 1947, the sovereignty was under the British mandatory government by virtue of the peace agreement that ended belligerence between the Ottoman Empire and the UK, and by virtue of the preamble to the League of Nations founding documents. On 11/29/47 the UN voted (UNSCR Resolution #181) to partition the land into two states, Israel for the Jews and an Arab state for the Arabs. The Arab world's leadership rejected the partition and successfully occupied the Arab territory, but was not successful in occupying the Israeli territory. Having accepted the partition plan, Israel's legal sovereignty over the land allotted to it by the UN was enshrined in international law (Balfour declaration, League of Nations charter pre-amble, UN charter pre-amble, and UN resolution, chapter VI, #181 of 11/29/1947). Regarding the land meant for the new Arab state, Israel captured some in the context of its defensive war of 1948-9. At the Rhodes Armistice talks, Israel offered to return the captured land in exchange for recognition, negotiations, and peace. The Arabs said no. Then Jordan occupied the West Bank, and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip: both were areas intended by the UN to be part of the new Arab State in former British Mandatory Palestine; and both territorial occupations were illegal and flagrant violations of UN 181 and international law. These illegal occupations were not recognized by the world community (only UK and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation of the west bank) nor legalized in any way. In the absence of a peace treaty, and in the presence of continued belligerence and threat of belligerence, Israel's continued holding of those parts of the UN-designated Palestine that were in its control after 2/49 is legal. With the continuation of belligerence via terrorism for 19 years, it has been long clear to the world community that Israel's sovereignty over these UN-designated Palestinian lands captured in 1948-9 has become permanent. None but the most rabid anti-Zionists suggest a retreat by Israel to the 1947 partition lines. The same is now true of the Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza strip. After 37 years of continued terrorism, warfare (1973), and refusal to make peace, Arab leadership has lost any rational claim to any sort of sovereignty over that territory. And keep in mind that, as in 1949, Israel offered to give the West Bank and Gaza strip and Sinai back to the Arab countries that had illegally annexed them, per Abba Eban's speech in the UN in late June of 1967.... but the Arabs said NO (Khartoum conference, 8-9/67). It is only because of Arab obduracy and Jew-hatred, and the cherished Arab dream of destroying Israel and genociding its Jews, that Israel maintained its control of the West Bank and Gaza strip. We are talking international law...not real life. In real life, the leadership of Arab countries can vociferously make just such claims, as does the PA. But in light of the above, it is clear that these claims are not based in law or morality or history. They are motivated by a goal of political gain via revisionism, mendacity, and the strategy of deceit with the tactic of serial lying. So, any land in the West Bank and Gaza strip that is not privately owned is de-facto and de iure legally owned by the State of Israel. The highly publicized and stridently advanced claim that Israel is stealing Arab land is simply false. It is great PR against Israel, but it is false. c.) that the west bank land belongs to Palestinians, or Arabs: Per #b, West Bank and Gaza Strip land that is not privately owned belongs to the State of Israel. Only land that is privately owned can be rationally referred to as Arab land or Palestinian land (although currently under Israeli sovereignty). Private land ownership has been thoroughly, copiously, and fastidiously documented since the 15th century under the Turks, British, and Jordanians. Both the British and the Jordanians created special programs to encourage the registry of land ownership by those who lived on and/or worked that land. In 1967 when Israel took over the west bank, it made the formal announcement that it was not going to annex that territory. It was going to give the territory back to Jordan when/if Jordan was willing to make peace (per above). So it did not, initially, do anything with or to private Arab land. Re claims by the PA (used to be known as the PLO) to "historic Palestine" and assertions that the West Bank should be considered PA land, one need only look at the hundreds of years under Ottoman and British rule when there was no Palestinian people, no Palestinian state, no claim to Palestinian statehood, and no movement with or against the sovereigns (legal or illegal) of those territories before 1967, to create any sort of 'national self-realization" for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian national movement began only when the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip fell under Jewish control, and the concept of a Palestinian people deprived of its land became another PR whip with which to flagellate Israel. Thus, West Bank land that is not privately owned is legally Israel's land now, not Palestinian or Arab land. d.) that Israel should be considerate of Arab belated (like 35 years belated) re-considerations of UN resolutions and peace offers long rejected by Arab leaders and to which Arab response was war and terror, murder and intimidation. Especially UN 242: It is beyond dis-ingenuous for Arab leadership to now claim that Israel should conform to UN 194, 242, and/or 338, when the Arabs then rejected these resolutions and expressed their rejection in war and terrorism and continued belligerence. Such assertions that after 55 or 35 years the Arab leadership should have the right to force Israel to abide by the resolutions that Israel accepted and the Arabs rejected are palpably belated political opportunism. Moreover, Israel has, technically speaking, already fulfilled 242's and 338's requirements re territorial concessions. 242 calls for return of '...territories' (not THE territories); and this in the context of peace agreements. World-class international jurists Lord Carendon and Eugene Rostow (the drafters of 242) assumed that there would be peace talks, and then there would be some border adjustments while Israel gave back most of the land. In the absence of peace talks, no land was given back and no adjustments made. When there were peace talks, land was given back (Sinai to Egypt in 1979, and area south of Sea of Galilee and south of Dead Sea to Jordan in 1994) and adjustments made. So Israel has actually lived up to the letter of 242; and while in spirit some or much or even most of the West Bank should have gone to some entity (Jordan had no legal claim on it), in the absence of any entity willing to talk peacefully about this issue, the land remained under Israel's legal sovereignty...known in international law as "disputed territory". No nation in the world would acquiesce to such egregiously outrageous demands as are made now by the Arab nations and terrorist leaders of the PA -- give up everything that you gained in your defensive war (i.e., go back to the 're-67 armistice line) by which we sought to annihilate you; and do that in exchange for nothing at all.... just do it and then we'll see what happens. But this is the essence of what the Arab world and the PA demand. e.) that Israel is forever barred from taking unilateral steps to resolve the issue of borders: Arafat and his minions had 9 years since Oslo to settle via negotiations the issue of borders (per Oslo). Instead, he chose to wage a terror war that reached its acme with the 2nd Intifada. Having failed in that war, he has no legal, moral or rational right, now, to go back and say -- wait guys, I really do want to do what I said I would do 9 years ago, before 1300 Israeli dead and 6000+ wounded (not to mention c. 4,000 of my own people dead and tens of thousands wounded). f.) that the fence creates a political reality: In 1979, when peace was made with Egypt, Israel removed the 6 settlements in Sinai, and carried out its recalcitrant Israeli settlers in handcuffs. Ariel Sharon, who completely supported the peace treaty with Egypt, was in charge of the military units that dragged out those settlers. In 1994, when peace was made with Jordan, Israel gave back to Jordan several hundred square miles of land in the Arava (south of the Dead Sea) and in areas east of the Jordan river to the south of the Sea of Galilee: land that was hitherto owned and worked by Israeli kibbutzim. To allow the kibbutzim to continue their livelihood (since they had reclaimed the land from desert and build up a successful farming enterprise on hitherto unarable swamp land), Jordan agreed to let the kibbutzim continue working the land, but pay rent to Jordan. Israel agreed. A peaceful resolution that benefited both sides. Bottom line: with a political entity that is willing to make peace, and to enforce and maintain that peace, Israel makes peace, dismantles settlements, gives back land. In the presence of a Palestinian leadership that can, and is willing, to put a stop to terrorism, run its society by rule of law, stop incitement and Jew hatred, and negotiate honestly and openly, face to face, peace can come into being. Then the fence can be moved, in accordance with whatever final legal recognized borders are decided upon in the negotiations. Today, more so than ever before, it is beyond ridiculous to assert that the fence creates political reality. After Israel's unilateral and unconditional withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005, with the dismantling of 21 communities and the exile of 9000 people (some of whom had to be overpowered by police and soldiers and dragged from their homes in handcuffs), it should be obvious that if there were a leadership that could lead its people to peace with Israel, the fence could be moved to accord with the peace agreement. Now that the hidden assumptions are exposed, we can address the erroneous nature of your paragraph cited above. Israel builds the fence where it feels the fence will be most effective in protecting its citizens from the endless, relentless, brutal terror war that Arafat and his cohorts, and now Hamas, have waged and continue to wage even as I write. There is no legal, historical, rational or moral reason for the fence to go anywhere except where the Israeli government thinks it should go in order to be most effective as a deterrent to terrorism. The fence convolutes torturously in many places to avoid trespass on private Palestinian land, but where privately owned farmland is traversed, 'farmer gates' are created in order to not deprive Palestinians of their livelihood. In the context of a peace agreement, the fence may be moved, or may not, depending upon the negotiations; and if land that was formerly owned by a Palestinian ends up on Israel's side of the border, compensation can be made in the form of money or land elsewhere, as decided upon by the peace treaty. Such actions are consistent with morality, international law, the history of similar territorial resolutions world-wide, and a rational review of the absence of any willingness on the part of the leadership of the Palestinian people to advance any peace plan other than genocide of Israel's Jews. Israel has declared its willingness to dismantle the fence when there is peace. It must build the fence now where it sees fit, to protect its people in time of war. As I noted in my first email, the fence does cause pain and suffering on the Palestinian side. But what is the alternative? Where do you want the casualties? I encourage you to mention as well, in your revision of your form letter, the reason why the fence is a wall around Bethlehem (and several other segments, making up a total of only c. 6% of the barrier being wall, and the remainder being chain-link fence). In the areas around Qalqiliya and Bethlehem, there is high ground to the east of the barrier. Prior to the construction of the wall, Arab terrorist snipers used to sit on the hillside and shoot randomly down in to Israeli homes, cars, pedestrians. Many were killed. Many more wounded. The 30-foot high wall, made of 6-foot thick concrete, stops the snipers. Elsewhere, 94% of the barrier's length, the land contour does not favor such sniper activity, so there is no need for a wall. Finally, the fact that the ICJ condemned the "wall" has absolutely no legal or moral valence. The ICJ acted completely outside of its realm of legal jurisdiction. Any jurist familiar with international law and the founding documents of the ICJ will confirm that. The ICJ can adjudicate ONLY where both sides in the dispute agree to its adjudication. Israel did not agree because the ICJ insisted upon excluding from its considerations all of the factors that I have discussed above. Such a de-contextualization of the issue renders the ICJ's findings not only moot, but deeply bigoted and legally impaired. Your conclusion of this paragraph, that ".....it is difficult to see the wall as little less than an exercise in redrawing internationally accepted boundaries, an action which can only lead to further frustration, anger and possible violence..." is understandable. You have been mis-informed by many sources (media, politicians, academics, Arab propagandists). The goebellian tactic (tell the same lie often enough, and people will believe it) really does work. The issue is complex, and it is not easy to unravel the many levels of lies and de-contextualization and half-truths in order to get a realistic picture of the true dynamics of the fence. I most humbly suggest that my input above may be useful to you in doing exactly such an unravelling. So, again, I most sincerely urge you to review my input, and incorporate some abbreviated form of it in to your revised form letter. If you need additional information, or references to sources, let me know. David Meir-Levi
Father Maddison of St. Ives (UK) was thoughful enough to send me a response to my email of yesterday.
He expresses his openness to input, interest in getting the facts straight, and willingness to change his form letter. All very commendable. Since most of what he and I wrote in our last exchange is already known to y'all, I have not reproduced it here. More important, however, are the following observations: 1.) note his reference to hate mail. anyone who wrote him (wihether as a result of my email, or independently), using inappropriate language or hateful accusations, has done a disservice to father Maddison, to Israel, to Jews, to other of our allies, and to those who are open to honest dialogue (and to me, in this case, since the hate mail makes him warry of all input, thus making my work with him all the harder). hate mail is never a constructive response. It merely lowers the writer (and, by extension, others who can be associated with the writer, like me, in this case) to the level of diatribe and demagoguery. 2.) he took the time to research my assertions, found contrary statements, reported those to me, and left an opening for me to respond....that is civil dialogue ( and certainly no proper target for reprehensible accusations or harsh language). 3). he revised his form letter in response to my input. #2 and #3 are exactly the responses that I want from an interlocutor: openness to dialogue, willingness to engage in Q & A, respnsiveness to input, enough interest in the issue to motivate his taking the time to read and think and research and write back to me, and an honest approach to facts and logic. David ML SELECTION FROM THE www.fco.gov.uk under "Countries and Regions", "Middle East Peace Process", "FAQ's" LITERATURE TO WHICH YOU REFERRED ME. I DO NOT INTEND TO BE DISPARAGING OF THE UK'S POLITICAL STAND; BUT MERELY TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS A POLITICAL ONE, AND NOT A STAND BASED UPON HISTORY. POLITICS, ESPECIALLY INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, RESONATES TO FORCES THAT OFTEN TRUMP TRUTH AND ACCURACY. THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE WORLD: AKA 'REALPOLITIK'. What is the Government's view on Israeli settlements? Settlements are illegal under international law. THIS IS A POSITION TAKEN BY THE EU AND UK. BUT, EXCEPT FOR PRESIDENT CARTER, AMERICAN PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESS HAVE SAID THE OPPOSITE. PER MY EXPANATION IN MY PREVIOUS EMAIL, MOST (NOT ALL, BUT MOST ) ISRAELI COMMUNITIES ON THE WEST BANK (AND THOSE THAT WERE IN THE GAZA STRIP) ARE LEGAL. IF YOU WISH TO PURSUE THIS ISSUE, I WILL SEND YOU THE LEGAL RESEARCH FROM INTERNATIONAL JURORS UPON WHCH I BASE MY SUMMARY. Phase One of the Quartet Roadmap calls on Israel to freeze all settlement expansion, including natural growth, and to dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001. THIS IS SOMEWHAT DIS-INGENUOUS. THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PART ONE OF SECTION ONE OF THE ROAD MAP SAYS UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY MUST IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY STOP TERRORISM AND INCITEMENT. AT THE END OF THE SECTION DEALING WITH PHASE ONE, THE ROAD MAP DOES INDEED SAY THAT ISRAEL MUST STOP SETTLEMENT GROWTH. ISRAEL AGREED. THEN, EVEN BEFORE THE ROADMAP TEXT WAS PUBLIC, ARAFAT AND QUREI'A AND ABBAS BEGAN, IN ARABIC, TO THEIR OWN, CALLING FOR AN INCREASE IN TERRORISM, EVEN AS THEY WERE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO THE ROAD MAP. AND, INDEED, THEY DID EXACTLY THAT. ISRAEL THEN SAID: IF THE PALESTINIAN LEADERS ARE NOT GOING TO FULFILL THE VERY FIRST AND MOST CRUCIAL OBLIGATION OF THE ROAD MAP, THEN THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON FOR ISRAEL TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT SETTLEMENTS. THE ROAD MAP EXPECTS, PER ITS PROLOGUE, THAT BOTH SIDES WILL PROGRESS TOGETHER TOWARD ITS MILESTONES. WHEN ONE SIDE (THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY) DECLARES THAT IT WILL DO THE OPPOSITE, THEN THERE CANNOT BE PROGRESS. THUS, IT IS SOMEWHAT MISLEADING FOR THE UK'S POLICY ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS TO STATE THIS ONE SENTENCE IN THE ROAD MAP AS ITS REASON FOR DECLARING THEM NON-COMPLIANT....AND OMIT THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE PROVIDED. Settlement activity around east Jerusalem, and throughout the West Bank, threatens the territorial contiguity of any future Palestinian state, and combined with the construction of the barrier on occupied Palestinian land, is an obstacle to peace. AGAIN, NO DISRESPECT TO THE UK. BUT THIS IS A PATENTLY FALSE STATEMENT. I AM SURPRIZED TO SEE IT IN A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT. I SUGGEST, SPECULATIVELY OF COURSE, THAT IT REFLECTS THE PRESSURES ON THE UK FROM THE EU AND ARAB OIL-SHEIKHDOMS. ONE NEED MERELY TO LOOK AT A MAP TO SEE THAT THE ISRAELI COMMUNITIES AROUND JERUSALEM DO NOT THREATEN TO INTERFERE WITH PA TERRITORIAL CONTIGUITY. THAT STATEMENT ORIGINATED FROM SA'EB EREKAT (THE PR SPINMEISTER FOR THE PA AND ARAFAT'S RIGHT-HAND SPOKESPERSON FOR 40 YEARS). IT IS JUST ANOTHER IN THE LONG LIST OF PALPABLE TRANSPARENT LIES THAT THE PA PROFFERS TO THE WEST. MOREOVER, THE CLINTON 'BRIDGE PLAN' WHICH PRESIDENT CLINTON OFFERED AT CAMP DAVID 2 (JUNE 2000 - JAN 2001) ACTUALLY CUT ISRAEL IN TWO....IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE WEST BANK AT ITS SOUTHWESTERN CORNER TO THE GAZA STRIP AT ITS NORTHEASTERN CORNER. BARAQ WAS WILLILNG TO ACCEPT THAT; ARAFAT REJECTED IT. IF IT IS OK TO INTERFERE WITH ISRAEL'S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, WHY IS IT A PROBLEM TO DO SO FOR THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY'S TERRITORY? The Foreign Secretary has said on many occasions that settlements are illegal and that it is wrong for the Israeli Government to continue to extend them. We continue to call on the Israeli Government to end settlement expansion. Maaleh Adumim/E1 The Israeli press reported on 21 March 2005 Israeli Government plans to build 3,500 housing units in E-1 -- an area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim (a large settlement just East of Jerusalem). The implementation of this plan would effectively split the northern and southern West Bank in two. We continue to raise our concerns with the Israeli authorities and will monitor the situation closely. PER ABOVE, THIS IS SIMPLY FALSE. JUST LOOK AT ANY MAP. THE EXPANSION OF MA'ALEH ADUMIM DOES NOT CUT THE WEST BANK IN TWO. I CANNOT BUT CONCLUDE THAT AT LEAST ON THIS ISSUE, THE UK FOREIGN OFFICE IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED TO PROFFER TO THE PUBLIC THOSE STATEMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE ARAB PROPAGANDA....EVEN THOUGH A GLANCE AT THE MAP PROVES THE STATEMENT WRONG. How has the Government responded to the construction of the barrier? We fully recognise Israel's right to self-defence and agree that a barrier is a reasonable way to achieve this. However, we call for the barrier to be built either on or behind the Green Line. The route, which the Israeli Cabinet approved on 20 February 2005, takes in a number of Israeli settlements, whose presence is illegal under international law. HERE TOO, THE ISSUE OF THE GREEN LINE IS GIVEN PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, ALTHOUGH THE LINE WAS NEVER RECOGNIZED AS A BORDER BY ANY ARAB COUNTRY, NOR IS IT TODAY. THERE ARE TWO THINGS TO CONSIDER HERE: 1. ISRAEL'S PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO STOP TERRORIST INCURSIONS. THE FENCE MUST THEN RUN ALONG A LINE OF CRESTS ON HILLS, HIGH POINTS OVERLOOKING VALLEYS, AND SOMETIMES EVEN FENCING IN ARAB CENTERS OF TERROR ACTIVITY (SUCH AS QALQILLIYA) ON THREE SIDES, IN ORDER TO FULFILL ITS PRIMARY MISSION -- STOP TERROR, SAVE LIVES. THE GREEN LINE DOES NOT FOLLOW SUCH A COURSE. 2. PER MY EMAIL, THE GREEN LINE WAS AN ARMASTICE LINE. ISRAEL OFFERED TO NEGOTIATE BOARDERS (1949) AND THE ARABS REFUSED. AGAIN IN 1967 AFTER THE 6-DAY WAR, ISRAEL OFFERED TO NEGOTIATE BORDERS WITH ITS OFFER TO CEDE MOST OF THE WEST BANK BACK TO JORDAN. JORDAN REFUSED. NO ARAB COUNTRY HAS EVER ACCEPTED THE GREEN LINE AS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED BORDER. THE ISSUE ARISES NOW ONLY BECAUSE IT SERVES ARAB PROAGANDA TO DO SO. THUS, IN SUM RE #1 AND #2, TO DEMAND THAT THE FENCE FOLLOW THE GREEN LINE IS BOTH TO UNDERMINE THE FENCE'S ABILITY TO STOP TERROR, AND TO DE FACTO GIVE THE FENCE A VALENCE AS AN OFFICIAL BORDER THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE. It also threatens to split the West Bank in two, FALSE, PER ABOVE. which in turn undermines the prospects for a two-state solution. We are profoundly concerned at the impact the barrier has on the lives of Palestinians, and deplore the destruction of Palestinian homes and the confiscation of land associated with its construction. YES. SO ARE WE, ME, MOST ISRAELIS, THE ISRAELI GOV'T ETC. BUT NOTE: 1. THE PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF ITS TERROR WAR ON THE WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENRY. ARAFAT SYPHONED OFF C. 20% OF THE 5 BILLION DOLLARS HE RECEIVED IN AID FROM ARAB COUNTRIES - AND HIS WIFE NOW LIVES OFF OF THAT MONEY IN PARIS. OF THE REMAINING 80%, MOST HAS GONE TO SUPPORT THE TERROR WAR, AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE ARE FAR FAR WORSE OFF NOW THAN THEY WERE UDNER ISRAELI RULE. HAMAS, ELECTED ON A PLATFORM OF TRANSPARENCY AND NON-CORRUPTION, IS NOW DOING THE SAME THING. MONEY MEANT FOR THE NEEDS OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IS DIVERTED TO TERROR USE. NOTE THAT TEACHERS ARE STRIKING BECUASE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. BUT THE TERRORISTS ARE PAID, AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN HAMAS COFFERS TO BUY THE TONS OF WEAPONRY THAT COME IN TO THE GAZA STRIP DAILY. THE INDIFFERENCE, OR EVEN DISDAIN, OF ARAB LEADERSHIP FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE IS WELL KNOWN, AND IS DOCUMENTED OVER CENTURIES. FOR A QUICK SUMMARY, SEE MY ARTICLE, ATTACHED. We have made our concerns extremely clear to the Israeli government and will continue to do so. 2.) BEYOND PERFUNCTORY STATEMENTS CONDEMNING GENERIC TERRORISM, VERY FEW GOVERNMETNS WORLD-WIDE HAVE MADE THEIR CONCERNS EXTREMELY CLEAR TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF ARAB TERRORISM ON THE WELL-BEING OF ISRAELI CITIZENS. THERE IS A CLEAR, AND REPREHENSIBLE, DOUBLE STANDARD HERE. PER ABOVE, MY SUSPICION IS THAT THE UK STATEMENTS ARE PALIATIVES TO ARAB OIL ALLIES. Does the Government support the International Court of Justice ruling on the barrier? The International Court of Justice published an Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004 stating their view that the building of the barrier on occupied territory is illegal. This echoes the consistently held position of the UK, European Union and United Nations. The UK voted in favour of United Nations General Assembly Emergency Session-10/15 acknowledging the receipt of the Advisory Opinion and making clear that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must abide by international law. The UK will continue to urge Israel to route the barrier away from occupied territory. PER MY EARLIER COMMENTS, THE UK WENT ALONG WITH THE EU AND UN. I PRESUME THAT THEY DID SO FOR POLITICAL REASONS. THE ICJ, BY ITS OWN CONSTITUTION, CANNOT ADJUDICATE IF ONE OR MORE OF THE PARTIES REFUSES. SO THE UK VOTE WAS IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ICJ FOUNDING DOCUEMNTATION AND LEGAL LIMITATIONS. IF YOU WANT TO LEARN MORE, LET ME KNOW. I HAVE LOTS OF STUFF ON MY HARD DRIVE.
David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli,
currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern
studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director
of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org).
Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com
|
|
IDF TO FUTURE ISRAELI VICTIMS OF QASSAMS:WE PREFER THAT YOU DIE, NOT PALESTINIANS
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 29, 2006. |
|
I have long asserted that Israel is the only country in the world, and across all of world history, to value the lives of its enemy civilian population more than it values the lives of its own citizens. The article below makes it official. The main thrust of the argument is the opposite: killing palestinian civilians in the course of stopping an arab terrorist attack is OK, if the number of paletinan civilians killed is likely to be smaller than the number of Israelis who would have been killed by the attack. Hence: "When you are in a tragic situation where you have to choose between the lives of your own people and the lives of others, you choose Israeli citizens first." And, indeed no nation has ever done otherwise....especially when that nation is a victim of agression and its military actions are self-defense. However, note the opening paragraphs: "The government's policy of restraint regarding Kassam rocket launchings from Gaza is legitimate from an ethical perspective, Prof. Asa Kasher said this week in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post. "The chances that a Kassam rocket will kill are relatively low compared to a suicide bombing," said Kasher, co-author of the IDF code of ethics. "Therefore, use of targeted killings to prevent terrorist attacks that threaten the lives of dozens of Israelis (i.e., a suicide bombings, DML) is an obligation of the state that has nothing to do with political policy decisions. But the decision to exercise restraint against Kassam rocket launchings is a legitimate policy decision." The essense of these paragraphs is: Israel's military ethicist recommends to the government and the IDF, and to all the Israelis who will die or suffer injury in future qassam attacks, that it is better for a few Israelis to be killed (and hundreds wounded) than for the IDF to engage in retaliatory or preventative strikes that may kill Palestinian civilians....because a smaller number of Israelis is likely to die from qassams than from other forms of more lethal terror attacks. So, the amazing, and I believe unique, message that the IDF ethicists have just given to the IDF, the Israeli government, and to the world is: If the number of dead is likely to be smaller on the Israeli side than on the Palestinian side, we prefer to have the Israelis die. This is called "IDF ethicist: Restraint policy is legit" and was written by Matthew Wagner. It appeared in The Jerusalem Post Dec. 28, 2006. David ML |
|
The government's policy of restraint regarding Kassam rocket launchings from Gaza is legitimate from an ethical perspective, Prof. Asa Kasher said this week in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post. "The chances that a Kassam rocket will kill are relatively low compared to a suicide bombing," said Kasher, co-author of the IDF code of ethics. "Therefore, use of targeted killings to prevent terrorist attacks that threaten the lives of dozens of Israelis is an obligation of the state that has nothing to do with political policy decisions. But the decision to exercise restraint against Kassam rocket launchings is a legitimate policy decision." Kasher, professor of professional ethics at Tel Aviv University and academic adviser at the IDF College of National Defense, added, however, that each Kassam rocket that landed on Israeli territory was an attack on the State of Israel. He also said the government had a moral responsibility to combat the fears of its residents in the south who were threatened by the Kassam rockets. Kasher who, together with head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin authored the IDF's doctrine on the war against terror which is taught to high-ranking officers in the IDF College of National Defense, commented on the recent Supreme Court decision on targeted killings and other issues involving military ethics and the war against terrorism. Is the IDF too careful? There was a case a few years ago in which seven members of Hamas's military arm were together in one place. But they were in a residential building. So we shot a missile through the window instead of destroying the entire building. The missile blew up the wrong room and they all got away. You have to calculate how many Israelis were killed because we did not kill those terrorists. How many people were killed because we were compassionate with the neighbors of those Hamas terrorists? Do these mistakes happen often? No. Is there any contradiction between last week's Supreme Court decision on targeted killings and the ethical code you and Yadlin wrote? No. We analyzed the issue from an ethical and moral perspective while [former president of the Supreme Court] Aharon Barak and the Supreme Court used legal criteria. But we reached the same conclusions. What are your conclusions? We said that as long as a person, whether he is a civilian or a soldier, is endangering me and is involved in enlisting terrorists, gathering explosives, giving orders to other terrorists, he is considered someone directly involved in the war effort and can be killed. What about the inadvertent killing of civilians? I have to try very hard not to hurt civilians. If necessary I will delay the targeted killing if I can do it later in a way that will not harm civilians or at least in a way that will reduce collateral damage to civilians. Research is done to determine what is possible to minimize collateral damage. People in operation research sit and plan exactly how to kill the terrorist. What type of bomb or missile to use, whether to shoot from a helicopter or a drone, what angle to send it in, at what time of day, whether to destroy the whole building or only the room where the terrorist is, whether to send the missile through the window etc. Barak mentions in his decision the necessity to refrain from using targeted killings if it is possible to arrest the terrorist. Does the IDF code also demand this? Yes it does. Arrest is better for two reasons, First, because you refrain from killing in recognition of his human dignity. That is what the right to human dignity means - that I cannot kill him unless he is endangering me. We need very good reasons to carry out a targeted killing. Keeping him alive is in itself a value. Second, keeping him alive allows you to interrogate the terrorist and gain important information. What about endangering the lives of soldiers to arrest him instead of killing him? Are you obligated from an ethical perspective to do that? No. He is a terrorist. He is in the process of planning a terrorist attack. He is endangering me right now. I do not have to endanger my own soldiers to protect his right to human dignity. Barak says in his decision that the killing must meet the criteria of proportionality. Does the IDF have the same demand? The most problematic criterion when deliberating a targeted killing is proportionality. What benefit do I derive from a military attack as opposed to the damage I cause? It is very difficult to compare the benefit to the damage. In our article we write that the state is more responsible to its own citizens morally speaking than it is to citizens of other countries. That point does not come across in the Supreme Court decision. True. The Supreme Court does not mention this point. But the decision does not challenge this assumption. We learn this principle from the accepted practice of states. We see that the state has a special responsibility to its own citizens in times of famine, epidemics etc. When Israel buys medication against a certain disease and there is a shortage you don't see Israel passing out the medication to citizens of Italy or some other foreign country before it gives to its own people. When you are in a tragic situation where you have to choose between the lives of your own people and the lives of others, you choose Israeli citizens first. Does that mean that in theory it is morally acceptable to stage a targeted killing even if more civilians are killed on the Palestinian side than the number of Israelis that would have been killed by that terrorist? Yes. But the reality is much different. We have reached the point where in most cases the civilians that are inadvertently killed in a targeted killing are fewer than the number of Israeli citizens that would have been killed if that terrorist was not stopped. We are talking about no more than a few people who are killed together with the terrorist in most cases. |
|
1970 LIFE MAGAZINE COVER - PALESTINIAN KIDS WITH GUNS
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006. |
|
The year was 1970 and the picture appeared on Life Magazine cover page... "New Pride and Unity...Changing 'Careers in the Middle East'..." Never more true! For sure the Palestinians "changed" careers they never really had! Already in 1970, on Life Magazine Cover, a picture that rattles us all each time we see it. The date, over thirty years ago -- 1970 -- is worth 1000 words! How many more words and/or pictures do we have to see jumping at us, or repeatedly heard, before we finally believe what is happening all over the world? Is it that terrifying that most people simply do not have it in them the courage to admit or believe the simple truth looking right at them? I am aghast! Are you?
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
THE "WALL" IN NATIVITY SCENES VS RATIONAL THOUGHT AND HISTORIC FACT
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 29, 2006. |
|
This letter is Tom Carew's 14-point analysis of the current Arab-Israeli conflict and the "wall" that is now part of the nativity scene in front of some churches in Ireland and England. It was sent to Fr. Paul Maddison, Sacred Heart, in St. Ives. |
|
Dear Father Paul, I am deeply troubled at the ongoing, indeed increasing pattern of very one-sided attacks on Israel from more and more Christian leaders. The Cardinal and Anglican Primate in the UK, like yourself with a wall in your Crib, and this morning, Bishop Raymond Field [Chair of the Irish Commission for Justice and Social Affairs, a commission of the Bishops Conference] in both an article in our largest selling daily, the Irish Independent, and in a letter to all Parish Priests. Hardly a whisper about the systematic Palestinian suicide-bombing of civilians, in cafes, discos, buses, etc, which led to the Barrier in the first place, and which the leader of the European Fatwa Council, Qatar-based Sheikh Qaradawi supports; their secretariat is at Clonskeagh Sunni Mosque in Dublin. The same predictable one-sided chorus comes from some academics, who never think of a boycott of any other State, of eg Iran, or mention the "religious freedom" in Saudi Arabia, or boycott Sudan over their Darfur genocidal massacres. There is also a general principle, that to endorse ANY controversial particular judgment by associating it with the Crib, is a gross abuse of the Gospel - the certainty of any moral judgment decreases as you move from the general principle to detailed, contingent applications. As an Irishman, and the proud son of a police officer who policed that Border during WW II, I rejoiced at [a] Border Checkpoints with Northern Ireland, and [b] at body-searches in Belfast Stores, when IRA gangs were deploying their car-bombs and nail-bombs against civilian "legiitimate targets", and [c] at the Belfast "Peace Line" which hindered sectarian assassins and riots. And if you were to place a wall in your Crib, apart from the fact that it is not aa wall for most of its length, but a fence, where in the Crib have you the shatterd limbs of a young Arab or Jewish child, the fruits, no, the very purpose, of every suicide-bomb atrocity? Balance? Or equating the perpetrator with the victim? In life, you are either with the Arsonist or the Firefighter, with the Drug Gang, or the Drug Squad, with the Car-bomber, or the Bomb Squad. The Good Samaritan knew who was the aggressor. The following are my considered thoughts on the situation, and I have carefully studied it for very many years. I am also a member of SPME - Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com |
|
STILL NOT THERE YET...
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, December 29, 2006. |
|
New York Times syndicated columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, has gained some wisdom over the years. For a journalist, he has achieved a level of knowledge on matters pertaining to the volatile Middle East that most others in his profession seldom achieve. Having said that, what I have forgotten over the decades at professional and academic levels, Tom will never come to know--regardless of how many free trips his boss sends him on. First, let's look at the good side... He's correct when he states in a recent op-ed that America must end its oil addiction as it attempts to exit Iraq and presumably try to solve other issues in the region as well. And, in another recent article, he proclaimed that Iraq is so severely fractured, that it is beyond being the Arab Yugoslavia anymore. I can agree with all of that and have written the same things much earlier in many of my own widely-published articles--including ones showcased by the Kurdish Regional Government itself in Iraq. But Tommy fails to make necessary connections to what he himself writes. While repeatedly expecting Jews to bare the necks of their kids in a return to the Auschwitz/armistice lines (which made Israel a mere 9-miles wide at its strategic waist)--not borders--of 1949 with an Arab enemy sworn to the destruction of Israel no matter who is at the helm of the Arabs' proposed state # 22, here's what he had to say to some 30 million truly stateless Kurds, who have been slaughtered and displaced by the hundreds of thousands over the last century by Arabs both in Syria and Iraq (and many more by others as well) in a March 26, 2003 op-ed. Friedman advised that the Kurds in Iraq should be told point blank: "What part of 'no' don't you understand? ... You Kurds are not breaking away." Just imagine if Israel was to say that under no circumstances would another state be permitted to be created for Arabs in "Palestine" (Jordan having been carved out, in 1922, of some 80% of the original borders of Mandatory Palestine as Britain received it on April 25, 1920). Tommy would have a bloomin' fit. Yet he told Kurds, who were repeatedly massacred by Arabs, that they were not entitled to even one of what he claims Arabs are entitled to some two dozen of--most created, by the way, by the conquest and forced Arabization of non-Arab peoples and their lands. I guess, for Friedman, imperialism is only nasty when non-Arabs are engaged in it. But I will give him his due. In another op-ed which appeared in my local Florida paper on March 12, 2006, he finally came around a bit and stated that we should now tell the Kurds, "You've behaved most responsibly...If Iraq falls apart, we will make sure you're taken care of." Notice, however, he still doesn't call for a roadmap for Kurdistan. That's still only reserved for his Arab buddies. You know...such a Kurdish state would be "destabilizing" and all that stuff. Of course, we all know that a murderous Fatah or Hamas-run state (makes no difference--despite what the Foggy Folks say), set up in Israel's very backyard after its forced return to its nine-mile wide existence, won't be destabilizing... And would you also like to buy a bridge I'm selling? Now, I'm sure Tommy knows that, besides the Jews, the Kurds are the one people in the region whom Foggy Bottom has shafted over and over again the most...with often bloody results. And since President Truman was correct regarding where the buck stops, that means American Presidents have gone along with this as well. Which brings us at least partly back to Friedman's correct observation regarding petroleum politics. While it's well known that the very rebirth of the Jew of the Nations was opposed by the Foggy Folks, it perhaps is not as well known that British petroleum politics--in collusion with Arab nationalism--put the kiss of death on the one best chance Kurds ever had--before right now--at independence with the break up of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I. Kurds were indeed promised that independence, but after the Brits received a favorable decision from the League of Nations regarding Mosul and the oil around it in 1925, Kurdish hopes and dreams were aborted. A British-supported, united, and Arab-ruled Iraq emerged in all of the Mandate of Mesopotamia instead. While the Brits' other Mandate, the Mandate of Palestine (which was smaller than Mesopotamia) could undergo successive partitions and partition plans to address the needs of competing nationalisms, the Kurds were told that their cause was not worthy. And it has remained this way for three quarters of a century now. Where have Friedman's op-eds been over the decades regarding this tragic issue? After all, he likes to write from an alleged position of morality, ethics, and such. He's not afraid, for example, to demand that Jews return to those Auschwitz lines, while anyone truly familiar with the goings on after 1949 (after Israel survived a massive Arab attack on its miniscule rebirth) would realize that this just ain't so. A reading of the U. N.'s Ralph Bunch's '49 armistice dealings would help Tommy as would readings of Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, U. N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, Britain's U. N. Ambassador, Lord Caradon, and other architects of U. N. Security Council Resolution # 242 after the Six Day War in '67. They all explained why Israel was not expected to return to the status quo ante and was entitled to secure and real borders--not indefensible armistice lines. Yet that's what Tommy continues to chastise Israel for. Here's Lord Caradon, for example... " It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them." In Friedman's most recent op-ed which appeared locally on December 26, among other things, his Rule #11 ( Mideast Rules For U.S. to Live By) proclaims that the Arabs have really "...been hurt by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land." True, he also mentions the Arabs own faults here as well. So, there's Tommy's continuing problem...despite some admitted improvements. Forget the fact that most of his so-called "Palestinians" were newcomers themselves into the Mandate--to the point that the very word refugee had to be redefined by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) to accommodate all of the Arab newcomers...some only arriving a mere two years before the combined Arab assault on Israel. But, just where does Friedman think those territorial rectifications (allowed by 242, etc.) of the travesty of Israel's 1949 armistice line existence are to be made if not in Judea and Samaria---aka, only via British imperialism in the last century, now known as the "West Bank?" Israel has already totally withdrawn from Sinai and Gaza. Again, Tommy needs to read Rostow & Co. very carefully. And if he has already done so, why does he act otherwise? And why has he repeatedly championed the Arabs' twenty second state and still has not come out for even one for tens of millions of victimized, stateless Kurds--who predate the Arabs in both Syria and Iraq by millennia? I can understand--but not like--the real politik, use and abuse, games of the Foggy Folks and such. But for a justice for poor Arabs (who now have "only" over six million square miles of territory under their rule) Friedman to take this hypocritical stance is beyond nauseating. He perpetually worries about Jewish settlements in Judea ("land of the Jews"), but is mum about the majority of Arabs who were newcomers there themselves, i.e. Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements. A look at the Records of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission only tells part of this story. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence and solid documentation for this if one is truly interested. And has Tommy read Ismet Cherif Vanly's The Syrian (Arab) Mein Kampf Against the Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968), accounts of the Arabs' ANFAL Campaign against Kurds in Iraq, the Arabs' decades' old genocide against black Africans, their continuing subjugation of Assyrians, Berbers, Copts, native kilab yahud "Jew dogs," etc. and so forth in what Arabs proclaim as purely Arab patrimony? While Mr. Morality complains about colonialism as well as settlements in his latest op-ed, why does he ignore all of the Arabs' own victims mentioned above who were and are still subjected to the same thing--but only far worse--at the hands of his alleged Arab "victims" of injustice? Where are Friedman's op-eds about them and their share of justice? He's written many articles--reaching millions of readers--taking Israel to task for not unilaterally caving in to Arab demands regarding disputed territories which he incorrectly calls "Palestinian." Again, a reading of Rostow on this is a must. Well, this article must now come to end (while there's still much more to write)--or my publishers will have a fit. But I think you get my drift. Tommy has improved...a dose of reality seems to have set in. But he still has much to learn. One day he'll arrive at being able to point the finger of blame in the right direction without trying to look politically correct by "balancing " it with defaming the Jew of the Nations' mere attempts at survival as well. Few nations--if any--would show the restraint Israel is repeatedly expected to display to those who deliberately try to kill and maim its people and destroy its very national existence. One day, perhaps...but as of December 26, 2006 Tommy obviously isn't there yet. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php This article is archived at
|
|
PAPER TIGER IMAGE; NY TIMES BACKS BAKER PANEL; WASHINGTON INSTITUTE ON IRAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 29, 2006. |
|
BOLTON OUT Thanks to Democratic partisanship, Ambassador Bolton's nomination for reappointment did not get confirmed by the Senate nor even put up for full debate and vote. At least one corrupt UNO official whom he had tried to reform publicly was jubilant. So was the NY Times. It reiterated one of the original arguments against him, that since he thinks the UNO should be disbanded, he would not be effective in reforming it. The editors did not come up with any indication that he was counter-productive in that effort. Their omission is telling. If they had anything to cite in that respect, they would have. There were left with a theoretical argument that subsequent events disproved. He tried hard to reform the UNO, like trying to solidify a cesspool. Who could succeed with a UNO collection of vicious and corrupt governments and a bureaucracy geared to non-accountability? He got some movement. His efforts were complicated by a general hostility to the US, largely due to confronting jihad while the rest of the word averts its face. The Times, like many Democrats, doesn't understand that. It imagines that the US is wrong to confront a war being made on it. It supposes that the rest of the world is virtuous, but it is vicious or cowardly. Boltan had been depicted as readily losing his temper. At the UNO, he didn't. Let us remember him as the one who did accomplish something there, for a while, in an earlier period, when he shamed the UNO into rescinding its "Zionism is racism" resolution. NY TIMES BACKS BAKER PANEL After writing about the Baker panel report's absurdities, and noting that the Times gave it little coverage and no analysis, I found that the Times thinks the report is practical. It particularly commended a suggestion that I particularly ridiculed. The suggestion is that the US use diplomacy to persuade Iran and Syria to stop supporting the Iraqi insurgency. We can't "persuade" fanatical rogue states bent on national and Shiite hegemony, global jihad, and genocide against the Jews. The supposition that we can disqualifies the Times from editorializing about international jihad. THE PAPER TIGER IMAGE It is a pity that in an era of increasingly destructive weapons and declining natural resources, some major powers still act like traditional warlords, seeking foreign territory and influence abroad. But they do, and the US and Israel, which do not seek territory, must figure out how to stop them. The imperialists size up the risk in challenging us. If they find we are consistent in rebuffing their advances, they desist. If they find we negotiate, they negotiate advances, and then try again, nothing solved for us, score one for them. If they find we let them advance, they set out again. What do they think of us? They think of us as paper tigers, or at least as old and tired ones. We threaten them, but they don't believe we would fulfill our threats. That means more war than otherwise. Thus our pacifist instincts induce war. PRECEDENT FOR ISRAELI RETENTION OF GOLAN In 1938, Turkey seized the Alexandretta/Hatay region from the Syrian Mandate. Syria has claimed that region ever since, until now. Now Syria relinquished its claim and agreed that the area is to remain Turkish. That is precedent for the Golan (IMRA, 12/8). U.S. DEMANDS ISRAEL NOT ARM VENEZUELA Israel was set to sell Venezuela missiles and to upgrade its fighter jets. The US demanded that it not do so. Israel seems to be going along (IMRA, 12/7). That's strange, the Harvard study alleged that Israel dictates what is in its interest to the US, but in this case, the US is dictating to Israel. I agree with the US, in this. Venezuela is an enemy of the US. Israel should refrain from building up Venezuela's military. RUSSIA ARMING IRAN After having denied intent to ship defensive missiles to Iran, Russia now has announced that it already shipped some, and others are to follow. The missiles would protect the country's nuclear facilities (IMRA, 12/7). What do they mean, "defensive" missiles? Their purpose is to protect the development of nuclear weaponry, that would be offensive. Does Russia want Iran to launch a-bombs? RELIGIOUS TEST FOR OFFICE? Conservative talk host show Dennis Prager belongs to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. He asserted that the first Muslim elected to Congress should be sworn in on a Bible, not a Koran. He proposed it in the name of national culture. Affirmation without a religious book is acceptable, just as it is for jurors. Congress usually swears in groups of members without individual resort to holy books. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called Mr. Prager's remark "bigoted, intolerant and divisive," rendering him unfit to serve on the Council that educates Americans against bigotry. Speaking of bigotry, CAIR has links with terrorist fronts, three of its officials have been convicted for terrorism-related crimes, and has denounced almost every prosecution of terrorists (Josh Gerstein, NY Sun, 12/5, p.4). I think Prager meant well, and was not bigoted, but didn't understand the issues here. The remedy of dismissal is too severe for his mistake. Any mistake, and someone demands firing. That is excessive. Now, the purpose of swearing in on a holy book is to put one's religious ethics behind the oath. The Bible would be meaningless affirmation for a person who does not see it as holy, and it would amount to an unconstitutional religious test for office. Muslims, should be allowed to use their own holy book. Problem is, they do not consider their word to infidels binding and they may work against the US. WASHINGTON INSTITUTE ON IRAN An Institute reports warns the Administration against complacency on Iranian nuclear development. It advises persuading Iran that we mean to stop it by force if necessary, and suggests various ways. The idea is to convince Iran's leaders that their regime would not survive further threats to use such weapons. We should plan strikes and follow-up strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. "The report, authored by Michael Eisenstadt and Patrick Clawson, urged the administration to enhance the U.S. military's ability to counter Iranian naval mine, small boat and submarine warfare capabilities, halt smuggling of special materials and dual-use technologies, identify and neutralize Islamic insurgency cells and detect and interdict weapons of mass destruction shipments to Iran." The last recommendation should involve the help of the Gulf Cooperation Council. "The United States and its allies can more aggressively prosecute individuals and firms that provide Iran with dual-use technologies that can be used in its nuclear program." The Gulf Cooperation Council needs improvements "in an air and missile defense early warning system as well as command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence architecture. "This means bolstering the littoral warfare and aerial precision-strike capabilities of these states, particularly their ability to counter Iran's mine, submarine, and naval special-warfare forces. Countering these Iranian capabilities will also require a significant U.S. military presence in the Gulf for the foreseeable future." (IMRA, 12/7.) The report contributes much, but like most, assumes that the US would act unopposed. Seldom is discussed potential counter-measures or other problems. A US presence there arouses antagonism among Muslims and is vulnerable to Iranian attack. It becomes untenable as the Shiite majorities in some of the sheikdoms gain power. U.S. technology may fall into Islamist hands. HUMANITARIAN ISRAEL Israel has given about a thousand Palestinian Arab children heart operations, and treats about a thousand P.A. patients a month. The EU partially subsidizes this. Sometimes terrorists use the program to get inside Israel and kill Jews (IMRA, 12/7). The Europeans know about this humanitarian operation. How can they think that the same Israeli government deliberately attacks civilians in Gaza and Lebanon? I oppose this program, because it helps a population that wholeheartedly supports its governmental goal of destroying Israel. They are at war. JIMMY CARTER'S NEW BOOK Prof. Kenneth Stein of Emory U. remains on university faculty but has resigned as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University, which he helped shape. He does not want to be associated with Carter, whose book reiterates statements at meetings that Stein witnessed and did not occur as stated. The book is inflammatory and meant to provoke, but suffers from lack of sources and understanding (IMRA, 12/7). |
|
NAUSEATING WORLD
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006. |
|
These days, I regularly feel nauseous, and the discomfort rarely subsides. What makes me feel so ill? I am simply disgusted with the world! I had expected the "fight for what is right" to be difficult, but I am surprised by how lonely a battle it is. I had hoped that by now many more people, even millions, would have joined the struggle to preserve our way of life, which might have turned the tide in our favor. Instead, the struggle has gotten tougher. All the while, the danger has gotten and will continue to get closer. Here at home, the behavior of American politicians scares me. The "public servants" we elect to represent us wind-up serving only their own interests. They, regardless of party affiliation, are paralyzed and inept. Politicians fail to keep the endless promises they make. They are nothing more than lying bureaucrats perpetrating an agenda of duplicity. Our supposed leaders fight for what is expedient not for what is right. They are misguided, which clearly implies that the nation is misguided as well. I have burning and seemingly obvious questions that do not get the attention they deserve. Why, for instance, does the US not demand that the Saudis stop muddling with terror? Does our insatiable need for oil outweigh our personal safety? Why are US efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons so very meek? After taking such a strong position against terror, is the administration softening on Islamo-fascism and the war against terror? Will anyone on Capitol Hill tell us the truth about anything? I watch with terror the continuing Islamization of the United States. Some American institutions, such as banks, have already adopted principles of Sharia'a law as part of their daily operations rather than standing firmly by American values. No one seems to be doing a thing to stop Islam from steamrolling us. I feel so horribly knowing that America will not survive the Muslim onslaught if it continues to do nothing. We are watching Europe succumb through inaction. We will suffer a similar fate unless we take the present threat seriously and realize that is worthwhile to fight. If the United States does not prevail, the world will become oppressive and hellish for everyone but the few Arab elites, and even they will not always be safe from the radical lunatics. If the radicals should prevail, I shudder to imagine the consequences. The world we know today will certainly plunge into the Dark Ages again, if not worse. This speaks nothing of what may arise should Iran make good on its desire to incite a nuclear holocaust. I wonder why the US has stopped shipments of armaments to Israel. What will weakening Israel accomplish? Should Israel still depend on the US as a friend and ally? It is becoming apparent that the vaunted United States is turning against Israel for its own lack of fortitude. Jews are culpable too. I am unhinged by those Jews who lack faith, who choose secularism over Judaism, who assimilate, who deny Israel, and who are passive and complacent. Oh, strong Jews of old, where have you gone? The behavior of Israel sickens me too. What has happened to the soul of Ahavat Erez Yisrael? It has been replaced with secularism and a decline in patriotism. Israel has forgotten the value of its turbulent history. And the poster child for this degeneration is Ehud Olmert. If his words ring true, then Israelis have indeed lost their will to persevere. They, under these circumstances, are losing their right to the ancient land of Israel, and pathetic Israeli leadership appears intent on selling them and Israel down the river. Israel is lonely. Does Israel need to find new friends? Definitely not! First, Israelis must befriend one another. They must rediscover national unity. Then, nations will be seeking Israel's friendship and leadership out of respect rather than mock sympathy and self-interest. Israel must now show concern for its mere survival. Without Israel and with rising anti-Semitism, Jews may not find safe places to hide as they have done in the past. The **Yiddish song "Tell Me Where Shall I Go" that was written prior to the establishment of the State of Israel should be given more weight now. The devil is at play with humanity, and survival is at stake. Friends, the current state of world affairs is truly nauseating. While I may be feeling ill now, everyone will sicken if things continue as is. The goal of war, in which we are certainly engaged, is to have the enemy lose more of its soldiers for their country than us. Fighting for survival requires us to destroy our enemy. We did not start this war. We are being blamed for the failings of the Muslim world. We are under constant attack, whether we like it or not, and we are taking more casualties than we are inflicting. Fighting for others and for myself by myself is a daunting challenge. Walking through the darkness is much harder by one's self than with friends. I sincerely hope that more people will wake up to the dangers all around us and see fit to join me in our fight for survival. **First line: Tell me, where shall I go, there's no place I can see
Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
ISLAM - THE FOLLY OF APPEASEMENT
Posted by Janet Lehr, December 29, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Serge Trifkovic and it appeared December 10, 2006 in Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com). It is one in a series of articles adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic's new book The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam. Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His articles have appeared in many of the major news media. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles. |
|
Our political and intellectual elite is remarkably inflexible in its secular liberal ideological assumptions. Having no serious religious faith of its own, its members refuse to take seriously the faith of others. Instead of pondering the complex problem of the relationship between the world's great religions - the West and the rest - they assure us that no religious problem exists. The most outspoken character witnesses for the hastily nicknamed "Religion of Peace and Tolerance" were, unsurprisingly, non-Moslems, Sunday-morning popular entertainers, academicians steeped in political correctitude, and politicians. Their hasty claims about the distinction between "real" Islam and its violent aberrations were crudely ideological. They were based on their simple conviction that all faiths, having equal legal privileges, must in some sense be equally good, and "true," and hence capable of celebrating all others in the spirit of tolerance. Why is the liberal elite so eager to vindicate Islam? It is a sign of the infinite arrogance of this elite that it imagines even at this late date that it can use and manipulate Islam to its own purposes. The rulers of the British Empire, in the days when more Moslems lived under British rule than under any other government, were arrogant enough to think they could "manage" Islam and get it to do things like accept the establishment of Israel. But even they never had the idea of using Islam as a tool to do their bidding outside itself, and they never suffered from the delusion that Moslems were really Englishmen under the skin. Today, having enlisted militant Islam in the destruction of the communist threat to its world-wide dominance, our ruling establishment aspires to use it to erode the reliquiae reliquiarum of the Christian culture in the Western world, which it despises and would like to replace with a multicultural globalism that trivializes all cultures and thus liquidates the possibility of any resistance to a world organized solely for its profits. The twin spearheads of this attempt to co-opt Islam as a tool are multiculturalism and mass immigration. It is the dirty little secret of our present global civilizational conflict that large sections of our own elite are ambivalent about which side they are on because Islam is an objective ally in their own struggle for globalism. (Of course, this marriage of convenience won't work for the globalists in the long run, but as with all doomed policies, this doesn't stop them from trying in the short run.) Let's take immigration first. Leeds and Leicester have acquired the sight and sounds of Peshawar and Rawalpindi, Marseilles and Toulon the suburbs of Dakkar or Algiers, Berlin and Stuttgart a growing slice of Istanbul or Adana. This social experiment -- Britain's Roy Jenkins, a liberal Home Secretary in the mid-sixties, admitted slyly that his contemporaries "might have considered matters more carefully" -- antedated America's Cold War expedients, but the consequences of the experiment and the expedient have fused. The assumption all along has been that the Islamic genie released by Carter National Security Adviser Dr. Brzezinski's "excellent idea" -- enlisting radical Islam to fight the USSR in Afghanistan -- could be controlled. Supposedly, it would be reduced to yet another humanistic project in self-celebration through its adherents' immersion in the consumerist subculture and through their children's multicultural indoctrination by state education. We were going to use Islam to fight Marxism, then destroy it by means of McDonald's and MTV. Liberal Christianity, i.e. intellectually-bankrupt forms of Protestantism like the fast-declining "mainline" protestant denominations like the Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, has collaborated in the whitewashing of Islam. They have been abetted by post-Vatican-II Catholics. The World Council of Churches shares the same worldview. It seeks "dialogue" with Islam "in order to learn from each other and to accept one another." How have Western attempts to co-opt and manipulate Islam fared? Decades of covert and overt support for "moderate" Islamic movements, countries, and regimes, whenever they were deemed useful to Western foreign policy objectives -- and especially if they have lots of oil, or prove willing to make peace with Israel, or both -- have been an unmitigated moral and political disaster. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, the Gulf states, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nigeria, Indonesia, and a few others have become the darlings of U.S. policy, valued as supposed bulwarks against "fundamentalism" of the Saudi or Iranian variety (Iran itself having formerly been a member of the favored group.) Operationally, this means not only overlooking the radical activities of the supposedly "moderate" Moslem states -- for example, Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and assistance by virtually all Islamic nations to the thinly disguised radical regime in Sarajevo -- but also a consistent American bias in favor of the Moslem party in virtually every conflict with a Christian nation.[i] So we bombed Serbia, a nation that has never done anything to the US, in support of the Bosnian Moslems. Among its sorry preconditions of the Bosnian war was the capture of the leadership of the Moslem people by a group of untypical Islamist bigots: Izetbegovic was an extremist in any sense of the word; the Chechen leadership were far worse: unhinged fanatics who forced Russia into a war she was extremely reluctant to fight. The Kosovo UCK (a.k.a. KLA) were brigands financing their warfare by drug smuggling and slavery-prostitution rackets whom the Americans had on their official terrorism list until just a few weeks before going to war on their behalf. Appeasement of Saudi Arabia in particular, and the string of related little despotic sheikhdoms along its eastern rim, is continuing even in the aftermath of September 11. It is as detrimental to peace and democracy in all affected regions as it is detrimental to the long-term security of North America and Europe. It does nothing to help the Moslem world come out of its state of deep denial about its responsibility for the worst terrorist outrage of all time, the denial as irrational as the culture that breeds it. The beneficiaries of three decades of Western appeasement have been Osama bin Laden, his ilk, and his co-religionists all over the world. Conceivers and executors of Brezhinski's "excellent idea" paved the way for September 11 by failing to grasp Islam's inherent link with violence and intolerance. The unspoken assumption of the architects of failed Western policies, that generosity would be rewarded by loyalty, is mistaken: loyalty to unbelievers is not a Moslem trait. Cynical pragmatism, however, is -- and, as Yohanan Ramati has remarked, "pragmatism prescribes that when dealing with fools one milks them for all one can get, demoralizes them until they are incapable of protecting their interests, and then deprives them of any influence they have left." Islam might have been made much less threatening if the West had not conciliated or sponsored its most threatening exponents. Islam was exposed to a devastating collapse in credibility within the Arab world itself in the middle of the twentieth century. The forces of secularism were very strong indeed. But America opposed them every time because they were socialist, communist, or simply anti-American nationalist. America gave whole-hearted support to the worst fascist freak-show in the region: Saudi Arabia. As the economies of real states faltered and halted in accord with Islam's eternal difficulty in establishing a viable economy upon a predator mindset, the Saudi petrodollars were poured into establishing violent fanaticism as the big alternative. Inexorably, the people who could have moderated Islam have been pushed aside by raving sheiks congratulated by US diplomats. The Moslem world today has no love and very little respect for the Western powers in general and for the United States in particular. It was for many years a bitterly divided world, where individual rulers competed with each other for wealth, influence and sometimes territory. This was why the wealthy states of the Gulf Cooperation Council were ready to accept protection from American and other Western forces. But four decades of prattling about decolonization and "globalism" have made their mark. If globalism is a good reason for uniting Europe, preventing it is a better reason for uniting Moslem states (which have much more in common than the Europeans) on a policy to wrest power from the unbelievers.[ii] The Moslem states are aware of Western greed and its political repercussions, and they trust that they will not be hindered in increasing their military, political and economic capacity to a point at which they can blackmail the West into accepting their political, cultural, or religious demands. After September 11, they are hoping that the US will settle for destroying Bin Laden and the Taliban and gradually resume its oil-dictated pro-Moslem policies. The crack whore of Western petro-consumerism will always return to her john for her next fix, however much she complains about how he treats here. Such policies, drastically manifested in the "great game" under Presidents Carter and Reagan, have had their apologists in each subsequent American administration. Under Bush I, they were summarized in a statement by then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and North African Affairs, Edward Djerejian, who declared that the United States did not regard Islam or Islamic movements as the enemy, and recognized their right to participate in the political process.[iii] The spirit of the statement was reiterated and expanded upon by his successor, Robert Pelletreau, under Clinton. Pelletreau lamented in 1996 the fact that the "image of Islam in the minds of the average newspaper reader is often one of an undifferentiated movement hostile to the West and ready to use violence and terrorism to achieve its ends."[iv] He distinguished the many "legitimate, socially responsible Moslem groups with political goals from Islamists who operate outside the bounds of law." A generation ago it was understandable, even excusable, for bone-headed God-fearing CIA bosses of the low-Church Protestant kind to work up a hatred of atheism and enjoy dealing with believers. They used Moslems in just the way they used the Roman Catholic Church in the early 1950s, the time of the Gladio. But appeasement by their feeble successors in our own time only breeds the contempt and arrogance of the Islamic radicals and fuels their limitless ambition. Changing the self-defeating trend demands recognition that the West is in a war of religion, whether it wants that or not and however much it hates the fact. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep and unshakeable condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of their demographic deluge enhances the image of "a candy store with the busted lock," and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for biological self-perpetuation is indeed finished. Even after its unfinished victory in Afghanistan, America is viewed as a paper tiger, with F-16s and dollars but no strong heart and no long-term stamina. Indeed, it is uncertain that anything significant has taken place in Afghanistan: the Afghan Talibs were forced to change their coats as one set of Islamists took a lot of money for replacing another. Mr. Bush may be hoping to domesticate Islam under the aegis of the non-denominational deism that is professed in his rhetoric. In the last century Americans, inspired by Protestant missionaries, conceived the ambition of getting closer to the Arab world and the Chinese than the imperialist Europeans. The attempts failed, but they left echoes in American thinking. The wish to patronize Islamic modernism is one. Hence the enduring fantasy of an American-Islamic alliance against extremism. The Islamists are often quite worldly and some have accommodated themselves to the appropriation of great wealth. Nevertheless, the alliance Mr. Bush may be looking for is less available than ever. There may be no homo Islamicus - a Moslem is certainly not a programmed fanatic - but saying so is too often a preface to evasive talk about tiny minorities with no power. There is need for a new policy. The West cannot wage "war on terror" while maintaining its dependence on Arab oil, appeasing Islamist designs around the world, and allowing mass immigration of Moslems into its own lands. It risks being the star actor of a Greek tragedy in which the Gods make the unfortunate rulers mad before they destroy them. On the ground, the reversal of existing policies means, inter alia, active Western help, diplomatic and when necessary military, to relieve Indonesia of West Papua and the Christian parts of the Moluccas, to expel Syria from Lebanon and create a Christian state in part of Lebanon, to create an independent Christian state in southern Sudan, to detach the Serb-populated and Croat-populated parts from Moslem-dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, to stop Albanian attempts to take over Kosovo or Macedonia and to force the Arabs to give "land for peace" to Israel. It also means supporting India against Pakistan and independence for oil-producing, Christian provinces of Nigeria. The inevitable argument against such a policy reversal will be that it will set off Islamic terrorism "on a never before experienced scale." It is as spurious as the logic that combines "globalization" and "promotion of democracy" with support of Moslem dictatorships. Islamic terrorism has been thriving because the existing policy is perceived as a sign of Western weakness. The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed -- this doesn't mean you personally, Pres. Bush, but it does mean some of your slimy oil-patch friends whispering in your ear -- is a prerequisite for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam and indeed for maintaining US superpower status at all, as a nation that can be put on the run by these people simply is not a superpower.[v] Just as in 1936 with the Nazis, checking appeasement requires a revolution in the West's political thinking. It requires a realization that safeguarding Western elites' economic interests from Moslem encroachment or confiscation may become impossible if such encroachments continue to be tolerated or encouraged. It also requires understanding that, as Reagan impolitely observed about Marxism, Islam regards lies, violence, and threats of violence as legitimate means of gaining political ends and that the only capacity Islam respects in an unbeliever is the capacity to use diplomacy or military force successfully against it. Pandering to Islam's geopolitical designs, and sacrificing smaller Christian nations -- Timorese and Sudanese yesterday, Serbs and Orthodox Cypriots today, Bulgars and Greeks tomorrow -- is counterproductive: such morsels will only whet the Islamic appetite, paving the way to a major confrontation some time in this century. The price of delusions is going up. The time to sell off is now. Footnotes [i] James Jatras, Chronicles (1999), op. cit. [ii] Yohanan Ramati: The Islamic Danger to Western Civilization http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001.htm [iii] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/briefing/dispatch/1993/html/Dispatchv4no21.html [iv] http://www.usis-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd2_8-28.htm [v] Yohanan Ramati, op. cit. Contact Janet Lehr at janetlehr@veredart.com |
|
ISRAEL MUST "CEASE" WHILE PALESTINIANS "FIRE"
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 28, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Ricki Hollander and it appeared
yesterday. It is archived at
|
|
Since a cease-fire between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza was announced on November 26, 2006, Palestinians have violated it on a near-daily basis, launching over 65 Kassam rockets toward Israel. These rockets attacks have caused building and car damage, sent several people into hospital for shock and shrapnel wounds, caused a blackout as a result of a direct hit on an electrical substation in Kibbutz Nir Am, directly hit a strategic facility in the industrial area of Ashkelon, and on December 26, severely wounded two 14-year-old Israeli boys in Sderot. For nearly a month, media coverage of these steady violations remained limited as Israel refused to respond to the attacks against its civilians. Even after Adir Basad was critically wounded and Matan Cohen seriously injured in the Dec. 26 attack, coverage remained scant. The New York Times, for example, referred only briefly to the Palestinian violation at the end of a December 27 article entitled "First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Mideast Tension," which highlighted instead Israel's announcement that it intends to settle an army base in the Jordan valley. It was only when Israel announced it would allow pin-point attacks against rocket launchers, that the media sprang into action, running AP headlines and story leads holding Israel responsible for "threatening" the supposed cease-fire. "Israel to renew attacks against Gaza rocket launchers, puts truce at risk" blared a headline to an AP article on USA Today's Web site. According to the article lead, Israel's announcement that it would target Palestinian rocket launchers firing at Israeli citizens "threatens to send a shaky, month-old truce into total collapse." Other AP story leads to articles by reporters Josef Federman and Amy Tiebel, carried by numerous media outlets, similarly blamed Israel for "threatening to derail an already shaky, month-old truce." These AP news headlines and leads imply that the definition of a "ceasefire" is that Palestinians "fire" while Israel "ceases." Palestinian violations just "shake" the truce, while Israeli intention to target rocket launchers would "derail" it. And the story becomes newsworthy only when Israel can be blamed for trying to protect its citizens. News consumers cannot and should not put up with the media's immoral double standards. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) monitors the news and TV media for how fair they are in reporting on Israel. The website address is www.camera.org. |
|
A TEST FOR MR. OLMERT
Posted by Zalmi, December 28, 2006. |
|
It seems that Santa Olmert has lots more in his sack of free goodies for our enemies. On top of the $100 million dollars he paid for the photo-op with Abbas, and the gift of thousands of automatic rifles for the unrepentant Holocaust-denier's 'Force 17' presidential guard, there now looks to be a unilateral release of hundreds of security prisoners. All of this bonhomie - as usual - for nothing in return. Not the release of our kidnapped soldiers. Or even the release of a letter or tangible sign of life and wellbeing. Apart from being the most incompetent and arrogant prime minister that Israelis never elected, Ehud Olmert has demonstrated, within his few short months in power, how very little he cares for ordinary Israelis: be they citizens or soldiers. No caring prime minister would have gone to the lengths of unleashing a bloody Cossack attack on pliant settlers in Amona just to impress his wife and to show us how he could be tougher than even Ariel Sharon. And no caring commander-in-chief would announce the future surrender of settlement towns to our enemies even as their residents were fighting his disastrous war in Lebanon. What caring prime minister could contemplate releasing Marwan Barghouti? An unrepentant murderer of our people, sentenced to 5 life terms. It is a near-certainty that the release of this animal will not only bring about more killing but will also embolden other killers to take ever-greater risks in terrorizing our people, knowing that they can be assured of due process and a life-sentence that means nothing. But why should Olmert care? He doesn't ride buses. He doesn't go to discos or buy pizzas. In fact he doesn't go anywhere that hasn't been sanitized by his security detail. And that security protection will be with him long after he has been kicked out of office. So, I challenge Mr Olmert to prove that he does care about the security of ordinary Israelis. Let him convince us that he is prepared to take the same risks as his citizens. If he is so foolish as to release Mr. Barghouti ... let him free one other prisoner the same day: Yigal Amir. Contact Zalmi at zalmi@zalmi.net or go to the website: www.zalmi.net |
|
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL, DO IT RIGHT
Posted by Michael Travis, December 28, 2006. |
|
This was written by Barry Shaw and it appeared in Front Page
Magazine |
|
OK. So I understand that you are ticked off at Israel, and in love with the Palestinians. That's fine with me, as long as you have truly weighed up all the facts. So, you want to boycott Israel? I'll be sorry to miss you, but if you are doing it - do it properly. Let me help you. Make sure that you do not have tablets, drops, lotions, etc., made by Abic or Teva. It may mean that you will suffer from colds and flu this winter but, hey, that's a small price for you to pay in your campaign against Israel, isn't it? While we are on the subject of your Israeli boycott, and the medical contributions to the world made by Israeli doctors and scientists, how about telling your pals to boycott the following.... An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis. So, if you know anyone suffering from MS, tell them to ignore the Israeli patent that may, more accurately, diagnose their symptoms. An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralysed hands. This device electrically stimulates the hand muscles, providing hope to millions of stroke sufferers and victims of spinal injuries. If you wish to remove this hope of a better quality of life to these people, go ahead and boycott Israel. Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood. This innovation replaces the inhalation mask with an improved drug delivery system that provides relief for child and parent. Please tell anxious mothers that they shouldn't use this device because of your passionate cause. These are just a few examples of how people have benefitted medically from the Israeli know-how you wish to block. Boycotts often affect research. A new research center in Israel hopes to throw light on brain disorders such as depression and Alzheimer's disease. The Joseph Sangol Neuroscience Center in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer Hospital aims to bring thousands of scientists and doctors to focus on brain research. A researcher at Israel's Ben Gurion University has succeeded in creating human monoclonal antibodies which can neutralise the highly contageous smallpox virus without inducing the dangerous side effects of the exisiting vaccine. Two Israelis received the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Doctors Ciechanover and Hershko's research and discovery of one of the human cells most important cyclical processes will lead the way to DNA repair, control of newly produced proteins, and immune defense systems. The Movement Disorder Surgery program at Israel's Hadassah Medical Center has successfully eliminated the physical manifestations of Parkinson's disease in a select group of patients with a deep brain stimulation technique. For women who undergo hysterectomies each year for the treatment of uterine fibroids, the development in Israel of the ExAblate 2000 System is a welcome breakthrough, offering a non-invasive alternative to surgery. Israel is developing a nose drop that will provide a five year flu vaccine. These are just a few of the projects that you can help stop with your Israeli boycott. But let's not get too obsessed with medical research, there are other ways you can make a personal sacrifice with your anti-Israel boycott. Most of Windows operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel. So, set a personal example. Throw away your computer! The Pentium NMX Chip technology was designed at Intel in Israel. Both the Pentium 4 microprocessor and the Centrium processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel. Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 in Israel by four young Israeli whiz kids. Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R.& D facilities outside the US in Israel. So, due to your complete boycott of anything Israeli, you now have poor health and no computer. But your bad news does not end there. Get rid of your cellular phone! Cell phone technology was also developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its biggest development center in Israel. Most of the latest technology in your mobile phone was developed by Israeli scientists. Feeling unsettled? You should be. Part of your personal security rests with Israeli inventiveness, borne out of our urgent neccesity to protect and defend our lives from the terrorists you support. A phone can remotely activate a bomb, or be used for tactical communications by terrorists, bank robbers, or hostage-takers. It is vital that official security and law enforcement authorities have access to celluar jamming and detection solutions. Enter Israel's Netline Communications Technologies with their security expertise to help the fight against terror. A joint, non-profit, venture between Israel and Maryland will result in a 5 day Business Development and Planning Conference next March. Selected Israeli companies will partner with Maryland firms to provide innovation to the US need for homeland security. I also want you to know that Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita - 109 per 10,000 - than any other nation. Israel has the highest number of start-up companies per rata. In absolute terms, the highest number, except the US. Israel has the highest ratio of patents filed. Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies outside of Silicon Valley. Israel is ranked 2 in the world for venture capital funds, behind the USA. Israel has more museums per capita. Israel has the second highest publication of new books per capita. Relative to population, Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation on earth. These immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom or expression, economic opportunity, and quality of life. Believe it or not, Israel is the only country in the world which had a net gain in the number of trees last year. So, you can vilify and demonize the State of Israel. You can continue your silly boycott, if you wish. But I wish you would consider the consequences, and the truth. Think of the massive contribution that Israel is giving to the world, including the Palestinians - and to you - in science, medicine, communications, security. Pro rata for population we are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth. We can't be all bad.... Contact Michael Travis at Michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
PALESTINIAN STATE WITH PROVISIONAL BORDERS WITHIN THE NEXT 2 YEARS
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, December 28, 2006. |
|
Dear President Bush; It is most troublesome that your administration, that condemns Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad for organizing "The World without Zionism" conference, that labels the Holocaust a myth, and suggests Israel must be "wiped off the map," is the same U.S. administration that sees nothing wrong in considering a plan to declare an independent Palestinian state with provisional boarders within the next 2 years. The administration is also entertaining handing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fateh, an entity that refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, denies the Holocaust ever happened, calls for the obliteration of Zionism, opposes compromise, justifies support for terrorism, champions the use of violence, and just like Hamas, defies in words and deeds, 'the inadmissibility of use of violence' Fateh, the main faction of the PLO to which Mahmoud Abbas belongs and was one of its founding members -- displays its constitution on its website. It calls under Article 12 for the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and obliteration of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." As for how it will achieve its goal to wipe Israel off the map, Fateh's constitution, Article 19, minces no words: "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated" In light of the Palestinians' history of violence, and their poor performance coping with limited freedom or autonomy -- the equivalent of a "half-way house" to test their readiness to join the Family of Nations should be devised. Because of the support (rather than pressure to 'toe the line') that Palestinians enjoy in the international arena, Palestinian's independence could very well turn into a genuine nightmare. Palestinian promises continue. Palestinian hostility continues. Rejectionism and violence remain the most salient features of Palestinian discourse. Palestinians believe that terror works and expect U.S. support for the creation of a Palestinian state. This Palestinian state is likely to become a rogue state -- the kind of polity our country is currently grappling with in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere. The U.S. administration's model in evaluating Palestinian readiness for statehood, should parallel the European Union's yardstick for Turkey, a peaceful country, asking to join the EU. It demands [of Turkey] far-reaching political and social reform "on the ground", and 10 to 15 years of negotiations while Turks prove democratic change is "irreversible." The fundamental freedoms the EU cites, and which the Palestinians should be required to match, include "women's rights, trade union rights, minority rights, and problems faced by non-Muslim religious communities" and "consolidation and broadening" of legal reforms including "alignment of law enforcement and judicial practice with the spirit of the reforms" and a host of other demands. In fact, the EU demands a complete 'makeover,' from women's rights to recycling of trash. United States yardstick for Palestinians, a hostile society, demanding to join the Family of Nations should start with the demand to execute the letter and intent, of the first set of requirements as spelled out in the " Performance-Based Roadmap," and "10 to 15 years of negotiations" while Palestinians prove genuine democratic changes is irreversible; No short cuts. No discounts. Any other approach will promote Arab support for terrorism and the belief that 'terrorism pays off.' The conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis is not the only adversary Israel faces. Historically, anti-Zionism has been the glue behind Arab nationalism. It has provided a convenient scapegoat for deflecting Arab states' frustration over unsolved domestic problems, but it also stems from a deep innate intolerance that exists throughout the Muslim world to any non-Muslim presence. Israel has no alternative but to remain strong enough to fend off the combined capabilities of all Arab states -- a reality that leaves little room for risk-taking or margin for error in establishing another independent Arab state with provisional boarders in 2 years' time. An end to violence and democratic reform, that Palestinians have not even begun, is intolerable. Establishment of a Palestinian state now would be a genuine danger to a free and democratic Israel and a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security. Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy New Year. With trust,
Contact Eli Hertz by email at today@mythsandfacts.org |
|
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE IN TO BLACKMAIL
Posted by Itimar Marcus and Barbara Crook, December 28, 2006. |
|
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet have found a unique way to celebrate the Islamic holiday of Id al-Adha, the "Festival of the Sacrifice," that commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son. But instead of slaughtering lambs or goats, as millions of Muslims throughout the world will do starting Sunday, Israel's leaders are prepared to sacrifice the lives of countless innocent Israelis. Olmert's willingness to free terrorists in exchange for our kidnapped soldiers, along with his newest plan to release terrorists as a goodwill gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas before the Muslim holiday, will cause more Israeli deaths than if he were to hand a terrorist a loaded gun. Freeing terrorists by giving in to blackmail empowers an entire generation of terrorists with the knowledge that their actions have no lasting consequences, and that even the toughest Israeli prison sentence will never be permanent. They just have to wait for their fellow terrorists to kidnap another Israeli hostage, and kill a few more in the process. Then freedom will just be a matter of time. It's important to recognize that Israel's past behavior has repeatedly proved the effectiveness of these murder-kidnappings and caused them to become an integral component of Palestinian policy and strategy. WHEN ISRAEL released 400 terrorists in exchange for the freedom of Israeli businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah, PA leaders were quick to recognize the effectiveness of Hizbullah's strategy: "Fatah's military branch organized a civilian and military parade yesterday... in gratitude for the efforts Hizbullah made for the release of Arab and Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails as part of the prisoner exchange deal with Israel. In a public statement...Fatah's military wing emphasized the need to follow Hizbullah's example to achieve the release of all prisoners." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 29, 2004). The recurring theme of public proclamations in the months before the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev confirms that Israel's previous surrenders to blackmail have made kidnapping a cornerstone of PA policy: "Islamic Jihad: Kidnapping of Israeli soldiers - the fastest way to the release of prisoners" (Al-Ayyam, May 9, 2006). Said Siam, PA Minister of the Interior: "In the past, Hamas managed to kidnap many Zionist soldiers... I believe that there is no other choice than kidnapping soldiers and exchanging them [for prisoners]" (Abu Thaib TV, January 2006). "[PA Foreign Minister] Mahmoud Zahar, said that his movement [Hamas] would not hesitate to kidnap soldiers in order to exchange them for prisoners" (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, March 7, 2006). IF ISRAEL releases more terrorists this week there will be four waves of Israeli victims - starting with Gilad Shalit. Israel hoped that Hamas would eventually lower its demands for Shalit's release and be satisfied with the symbolic victory of securing the freedom of a modest number of terrorist prisoners. By releasing terrorists to Abbas without getting anything in return, however, Olmert is forcing Hamas to raise the stakes and lessening Shalit's chance of early release. As part of its escalating power struggle with Abbas and his Fatah faction, Hamas must be seen to win more concessions from Israel than its rival. Whatever number of terrorists Abbas receives gratis, Hamas will have to hold out for many times that number. Whatever the crimes committed by the terrorists released to Abbas, Hamas will demand the release of even more dangerous criminals. The result will certainly be much longer and harder negotiations, with Hamas's demands possibly becoming higher than even Olmert can accept. If Shalit is lucky this will merely extend his ordeal by months or years. If Olmert's goodwill gamble fails, Shalit could well become the next Ron Arad. The second wave of victims will be the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Israelis who stand to be killed and maimed by these released terrorists. According to a September 2006 report by the Almagor Terror Victims Association, at least 14 major terrorist attacks in recent years - accounting for 123 murdered Israelis - were carried out by terrorists released from prison through various "goodwill gestures" and Israeli prisoner deals. These terrorists may not have had "blood on their hands" when they were first released, but they were quick to sign their freedom with the blood of Israeli citizens. So will some of the terrorists Olmert is poised to release this week. The third wave of victims will be all those killed by a new generation of terrorists empowered and emboldened by the images of "heroic" prisoners carried aloft as they step to freedom, laughing and cheering Israel's weakness and surrender. And the fourth wave will be those soldiers and civilians who fall victim to the kidnappings and murders that will continue as long as Israel keeps proving to terrorists and their handlers that this tactic works. OLMERT HAS a unique opportunity to break this cycle of killings, kidnappings and ransom by rejecting all attempts at this kind of blackmail, thereby depriving Palestinian terrorists of one of their favorite weapons. But instead, he appears so intent on demonstrating what he describes as "flexibility and generosity" that he ignores the reality of the deadly consequences his actions will inevitably have. "It is customary to make such a gesture on Id el-Adha," Olmert said of his desire to time the prisoner release to coincide with Islam's Festival of the Sacrifice. But it's time for Israel's leaders to stop doing what is "customary," and start doing what is right. As Olmert and his cabinet prepare to make the ultimate sacrifice - with the lives of other people's children - they might want to recall that at the end of the biblical story, at the very last moment, God called off the sacrifice and saved an entire nation. It's not too late for them to do the same. Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -- Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's associate director. |
|
PEACE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE "PALESTINIANS" IS NOT POSSIBLE
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 28, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Yosef (Tommy) Lapid and it appeared
yesteday in the Jerusalem Post |
|
Does anyone really think it is possible to reach a settlement with the Palestinians that will guarantee peace between us? I can understand that there are those who believe it may be possible to reach a settlement. And I can understand that there are those who hope it is possible to reach a settlement. But does anyone really think it is possible to make peace with the Palestinians - I mean, really think so? How can one not see the rift among them, their inability to administer their own lives, Fatah's helplessness, Hamas's abysmal hatred, the murderousness of the popular resistance organizations, the destructive influence of radical Islam, the interference of Iran and the belief - so deeply rooted in almost every Arab heart - that, sooner or later, Israel will disappear off the map? How can anyone see all that and still think there is a chance for a peace settlement? Or that all the different Palestinian factions, so hostile not only to us but to each other, will somehow find a way to cooperate in order to reach a settlement with Israel? EVEN IF Israel agreed to withdraw to the 1967 borders (and it doesn't); even if Israel agreed to allow the refugees to return to Israel within the 1967 borders (and it doesn't); would Hamas ever recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist in the heart of the Muslim Middle East? After all, Hamas's entire raison d'etre is founded on its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. Its members would sooner convert to Judaism than relinquish that principle. True, anything is possible. But not in the foreseeable future. Not in this generation. And if not the Palestinians, then radical Islam will make sure there is no peace agreement with Israel. Iran on one side and al-Qaida on the other are threatening not only Israel, but the regimes in Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well. Israel isn't even their first target, it is their last. WHAT SHOULD we conclude from all this? That the time has come to emigrate from Israel? Maybe give in to the Arabs' demands? Perhaps put an end to the Zionist enterprise and close up shop? Never. Israel will continue to exist and flourish, as it has existed and flourished since the establishment of the state, thanks, among other reasons, to the Arab boycott, which forced it to export computer software to America and Europe instead of making plastic toys for the market in Damascus. (Did any of us ever imagine that the shekel might one day become stronger than the dollar, or that we would export more than we import?) Yet, while the leaders of the Islamic countries have not accepted Israel's existence in principle, they have accepted it in fact - and only because they know they cannot wipe Israel off the map without themselves being wiped off as well. And that, rather than any pie-in-the-sky, illusory hope for the brotherhood of nations, is the basis for the relationship between us. In the entire Muslim world, numbering over a billion people, one would be hard-pressed to find even a dozen willing to stand up and justify Israel's existence. THIS DOES not mean we should forget about striving for peace. We must behave as if we believed that it was possible to achieve a peace settlement. Why? Because if we do not strive for peace, the result will be war. And we do not want war. But even as we strive for peace, even if we follow the road map, we mustn't delude ourselves. We won't arrive at peace, not here. But it may be possible to reach a modus vivendi, a balance of terror and a balance of mutual interests that will enable us to lead our lives more or less normally. And not just for a year or two, but for generations. If we foster no illusions, we won't be disappointed. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
BETWEEN WARS, U.S. TOUGHENING UP ON ISRAEL
Posted by Bryna Berch, December 28, 2006. |
| You have to admit America is consistent. The Palestinian Arabs mourn Saddam's death and can't wait till they can kill more "foreigners." But America can't wait to carve them a state out of Israel? And how does the Bush administraton treat Israel, her only reliable friend in the Middle East? Read this article written for Arutz-Sheva by Hillel Fendel. |
|
The Bush administration and State Department are blocking arms and technology transfers to Israel, Middle East Newsline (MENL) reports. Quoting "Israeli and U.S. sources," MENL reports that the State Department has blocked the transfer of weapons and technology to Israel over the past three months, reflecting deteriorating relations between the two countries since the war in Lebanon in August of this year. The unofficial suspension of U.S. arms deliveries, beginning in late September, halted the airlift of air-to-ground and other munitions that had been ongoing since the war - despite Israel's continuing need for them. Israel says it needs the equipment in order to replenish munitions and other stocks in preparation for a larger war that might include Syria in mid-2007. "Nobody will say openly that there is a problem," a government source said. "But there is a serious problem that reflects the marginalization of Israel in U.S. strategy... The administration has not rejected any Israeli request. Instead, the State Department and Defense Department have said that all requests must be examined." Military cooperation between the two countries has also been hampered in other areas. The State Department recently prevented Northrop Grumman from providing Israel with details of its Skyguard laser weapon, which the company wanted to sell Israel. In turn, Israel suspended negotiations to procure the system, which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and missiles. Two reasons have been given for the deterioration in relations. One is the perceived Israeli loss, or at least non-victory, in the war with Hizbullah, which has undermined U.S. confidence in Israel's military and government. In addition, the U.S. may be trying to assuage Saudi Arabia, whose help the U.S. seeks in Iraq. "There's nothing like stopping the weapons flow to Israel to show the Saudis that the United States means business," a diplomatic source told MENL. |
|
IDF OFFICIALS: PINPOINT OPERATIONS DON'T WORK WITH RESTRAINT
Posted by Hillel Fendel and Hana Levi Julian, December 28, 2006. |
|
IDF officials are not happy with Prime Minister Olmert's new exclusive policy of "pinpoint operations" against Kassam launching cells. Some 27 security checkpoints in Yesha are set to be removed. A senior officer slammed the new anti-Kassam policy, which Olmert decided upon after two boys were seriously wounded in a Tuesday night rocket attack. The government resolved to continue the ceasefire with the terrorists, despite the increasing violations by terrorist rocket crews, but to take action against specific Kassam cells when they are detected. Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Yiftah Ron-Tal told Voice of Israel Radio Thursday morning, "Pinpoint operations are a step in the right direction, but really just partially so. Security forces must be allowed to control the area in a more effective manner." He said the new policy would not even help reduce the number of rockets fired at western Negev communities, let alone end them. Ron-Tal warned that it is extremely difficult to spot terrorists in the act of launching rockets, and almost impossible to attack them once they are identified. The senior officer was discharged from the IDF in October, shortly before his official retirement, after criticizing IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz. Removing Checkpoints, Despite Past Negative Experience Another of Olmert's gestures towards Abu Mazen is also about to get underway. After a delay of a few days, a program to remove 27 military checkpoints in Judea and Samaria has been approved by the IDF. The amount of entry permits for PA Arabs into mainland Israel has also been increased. "The proposed plan is likely to contribute to an improved atmosphere, to the strengthening of moderate forces and the distancing of the civilian population from the circle of terrorism," Prime Minister Olmert said. "This does not mean that we are backing off from our war with terrorism, which we will continue to fight with the same determination." Terrorists have taken advantage of previous gestures in the past to travel freely and perpetrate attacks. Arutz-7's Kobi Finkler reports that just two weeks ago, after the removal of the east-of-Shechem Eyn Bidan checkpoint, a terrorist cell was caught after having passed through that very area with a large amount of explosives. Furthermore, nine months ago, after the same checkpoint was removed - only to be replaced later - a terrorist passed through the area, and later murdered four Jews when he dressed up as a religious Jew and got into a car as a hitchhiker. Senior IDF officers have also criticized the government for turning down a proposal to allow forces to cross the Gaza border and create a security buffer zone. "We have no other way but to control the northern Gaza Strip using [IDF] forces," added Ron-Tal. "Not for a long time, but for a limited time... If our soldiers aren't there, the terrorists will continue to fire from there." Two boys were severely injured on Tuesday night by a Kassam rocket attack on Sderot, one critically. Adir Moshe (ben Bruriah) Basad, who was listed in very critical condition, is no longer considered in immediate danger. He is still listed in serious condition in Barzilai Hospital in the southern coastal city of Ashkelon, where Kassam rockets hit a strategic target this week as well. His friend, Matan (ben Koren) Cohen, suffered moderate wounds - including the loss of four toes - and is being transferred to Shneider Children's Hospital in Petach Tikvah. Released for publication: On April 22 of this year a suicide bombing was thwarted because the Bethlehem terrorist who was supposed to supply the explosives was wounded and arrested in a clash with undercover Border Guard forces. The would-be killer himself was arrested in Halhoul, near Hevron. The next day, three wanted terrorists tried to escape an undercover Border Guard force in the region by shooting at their car, but they themselves were hit, and two were killed. It has also now been publicized that two months ago, another attack was thwarted when the suicide terrorist was arrested by Israeli forces near the Jenin refugee camp. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News). Hana Levi Julian is a writer for Arutz-Sheva. |
|
WHAT BAKER TEACHES ISLAMISTS; ANTI-ZIONISTS ISRAELI COLLEGES; U.S. ARMS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 28, 2006. |
|
"In a nationally-televised address in Tel Aviv on July 31, the Prime Minister declared, 'We will stop the war when the threat is removed... our captured soldiers return home safely and you are able to live in safety and security.'" (Arutz-7, 12/6.) He stopped without them. He has made all sorts of strong-sounding policy statements, only to back down from them. That is common there. What credibility do they retain? INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT (ISM) Speaking of ISM, "The new recruits are called on to stand as human shields before arms caches or shooter hideouts. If through some mishap a young foreigner should be hit, all the better: fuel for international outrage." ISM complains that Israel destroys civilian houses, but in fact the "civilian homes" are weapons depots; or else they are outlets, sometimes with complicit families still in them, concealing tunnels dug from Egypt to Gaza. The tunnels smuggle guns, rocket launchers, explosives; and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is there to stop the flow of arms intended for assaults on Israeli citizens, and to uncover the launchers secreted in olive groves and farms, where the gunmen also hide, or in the houses, where the gunmen hide among women and children (12/6, forgot the source). WHAT JAMES BAKER IS TEACHING THE MUSLIMS His plan is to induce the Muslims to spare Americans by betraying Israel. What does that teach the Muslims? (1) The US lacks honor and brains. (2) Better to be an enemy of the US than a friend. (3) If Baker succeeds in forcing Israel to give up the Golan, in the (vain) hope of stopping foreign support for the Iraqi insurgency, he will have taught the Muslims that the best way to conquer Israelis is by killing Americans (Mark Steyn, NY Sun, 12/4, Op.-Ed.). Baker suggests negotiating with Iran and Syria. That would be as useful as negotiating with Hitler. Just as Hitler sought to take over other countries, and negotiations advanced him into Czechoslovakia, so, to, Iraq and Syria seek to take over other countries, among which is Israel, that Baker would hand them on their way to other countries. He thinks they want stability in Iraq, but it is they who are fomenting instability there! There is no logical linkage between the jihad in Israel and the jihad in Iraq, except that both are jihad and the West needs to win in both. Baker is fabricating a linkage on the theory that if we are easy on the Muslims in Israel, they would be easy on us elsewhere. But Jihad is not a matter of trade-offs. The struggle goes on, wherever Muslims can wage it and whatever some of them have "promised." Baker's notion is unrealistic and stems from his bias against Israel if not also ignorance. He does the US and civilization a disservice. GIVING ENEMIES A SECOND CHANCE Hamas has received more than three hundred million dollars from abroad, during the boycott of it. It smuggles millions at-a-time from Sinai into Gaza. With these funds, it has been able to pay most of the administrative salaries (half of which goes to terrorists). It remits the funds through Abbas. Meanwhile, Hamas officials secretly have been meeting with the Europeans supposedly boycotting it. Apparently, the Europeans are satisfied with a long-term truce Hamas proposes instead of recognizing Israel as legitimate. The Democratic Party, of the US, also has been conferring with the Islamist enemy (IMRA, 12/6). Conferring with such an unrelenting enemy is treasonous. It undermines the boycott. The boycott would be tight, if Israel did not, as demanded by the US, abandon the Gaza border now unguarded. It hardly is accurate to portray the entry of suitcases of cash as "smuggling." They just go right through, with some paperwork. Nobody stops cash or arms. Abbas cooperates with Hamas. He acts far from the candidate to repress Hamas that the US is arming him as. A long-term truce at best means renewed war later, when Hamas is capable of doing well at it. That is no solution to anything. But the Arab Muslims don't keep truces long. They violate them. The violate agreements, because they think that their religious cause permits them to use any means, including deceit. Europe is deceiving itself, if it imagines otherwise. However, Europe does not care what happens to Israel or itself. "U.S. PRESSURE" US pressure is an old excuse by Israeli politicians for working against Israeli national security. Shimon Peres once asked a Secretary of State to pretend that some unpopular and hazardous measure by Peres was done under US pressure. It is a poor excuse. There may be pressure, but it does not have to be yielded to. Israel often has acted in its own behalf, despite US pressure (Dr. Aron Lerner, IMRA, 12/6). Let Israel get word out just what means of pressure the US exerts. We have a right to know. FAR LEFTIST AGENDA IN ISRAELI EDUCATION Israel teaches little geography in high schools, which have low ratings. Education Minister Tamir decreed that Israel's textbooks should show everything outside the old Green Line, the 1967 armistice line, as not within Israel. PM Olmert supports this. Her decision is part of several to promote a Far-Leftist agenda. The old Green Line excludes the Golan and to the New City of Jerusalem, although Israel officially applied Israeli law to them, in effect, annexing them. A companion decision is for Israeli schools to commemorate "Nakba Day," Arabic for catastrophe, meaning Jewish defeat of the Arab attempt to annihilate them in the 1947 war (IMRA, 12/6). Israel now is pro-Arab. DEMOCRATS GONE, REPUBLICANS ON THEIR WAY Syria has become an enemy of the US. Pres. Bush is trying to isolate Syria. Defying him, some Democratic Members of Congress have gone to Damascus to confer with the dictator supplying forces fighting our own in Iraq. GOP Senator Specter indicated he would go. Sen. Nelson, who went, says "he was optimistic Syria's stance on Iraq could be turned around. 'Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and/or the Iraqi Army to be part of the solution.'" (NY Sun, 12/14, p.6). The photograph of a US Senator sitting with a terrorist dictator is a pathetic indication of naivete in the highest reaches of our government. Syria is aligned with the jihadists. It would not reverse its policy unless its regime were overthrown, if even then. The Senators are making America appear divided and indecisive. They harm our national security. Pres. Bush is like democracy. Democracy is a poor form of government, but the rest are worse. HOLOCAUST DENIAL APPROVED & DISAPPROVED "Israel condemns Tehran's Holocaust denial conference...but what about Mahmoud Abbas?" (David Bedein, 12/13.) When the head of Iran denies the Holocaust, Israel condemns him. What about Abbas, who wrote his thesis denying the Holocaust? Why doesn't Israel denounce him? The answer is that the anti-Zionist and appeasement-minded world, which includes Israel's leaders, wants to pretend that there is a Palestinian Arab leader with whom Israel can make peace. Otherwise, Israel would have to respond with all-out war to the war being made on it by the P.A., including Abbas. U.S. UPGRADING EGYPTIAN ARTILLERY The US will modernize Egypt's self-propelled howitzers (IMRA, 12/13). Now tell me that the US is pro-Israel! TRAVEL FROM ISRAEL TO GAZA Israel has made special arrangements to let Israeli citizens visit relatives in the Gaza Strip during an approaching Muslim holiday (IMRA, 12/13). How considerate of Israel! The Arabs of Gaza more or less forced the Jews out, which ruined them. The Arabs stationed rockets where the Gaza Jews used to live, near Israel, and fired them into Israel. But Israel lets Muslim Arabs in Gaza be visited by their relatives from Israel. If Jews are not allowed to live in the P.A., why should Arabs be allowed to live in Israel, which they detest and undermine? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
THIS IS CRAZY
Posted by Andras Bereny, December 28, 2006. |
|
This is crazy. Reading this article I hold my head in my hands in disbelief. That the olmerts should allow the egyptians to supply 2.000 rifles and 20.000 magazins through an unnamed border crossing to our enemies is just as crazy as allowing them to smuggle untold thousands of rifles and bombs under the border, in tunnels. It is clear that the olmerts are selling out this country to the enemy. They must be removed from power now, before they do further damage, and replaced by people who have a connection to the Jewish people, the Torah and to the Land of Israel. This article is entitled "Israel approves Egyptian arms shipment to
Fatah" and it was written by Hanan Greenberg Published today in Ynet
News |
|
PM Olmert heeds calls by President Mahmoud Abbas to allow Egypt to transfer arms to Fatah in attempt to counter Hamas' armament drive Two thousand rifles were transferred from Egypt to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, a move approved by Israel in an attempt to boost moderates in the Palestinian Authority. The rifles, as well as 20,000 magazines were shipped in to the Gaza Strip through an unnamed border crossing. Israel is concerned over Hamas' rising military power as the Islamic group continues to smuggle explosives and arms into Gaza from Egypt through underground tunnels. On Wednesday Abbas called for a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, expressing his readiness to discuss the thorniest of issues with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert . Abbas made the comments following a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. Following his meeting with Mubarak in Cairo, Abbas said serious talks behind closed doors are imperative, adding that the Quartet should participate as well. "For some time now we've been considering the option of opening another channel of communication between us and the Israelis with the participation of one or all of the Quartet members (United States, Russia, European Union, United Nat ions) to discuss issues related to a permanent agreement," he said. Abbas said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to arrive in the region once again on January 13. The two met in Jericho in late November. The Palestinian president arrived in Cairo on the heels of his meeting with Olmert in Jerusalem last Saturday. The leaders agreed that Israel would release USD 100 million in frozen Palestinian tax funds, and also discussed Abbas' request to permit the transfer of arms from Egypt and the transfer of forces from the Jordan-based Badr Brigade to the Palestinian Presidential Guard, this within the framework of the Dayton Plan. Andras Bereny lives in Kfar Tapuach, Shomron 44829 Israel. Visit his websites: www.jewishyisrael.com and www.jewishyisrael.org. Or contact him by email at bereny@tin.it |
|
HOLOCAUST TRIVIALIZER ABBAS
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 27, 2006. |
|
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert attempts to raise Mahmoud Abbas' reputation among so-called Palestinians by releasing 100 million dollars worth of desperately needed tax revenues and removing over two dozen check points thus improving the flow of goods through the Gaza Strip. How nice. No doubt, the two name double game presumably moderate Abbas Mazen and his Fatah brigade seem to be the better option to deal with than Hamas fanatics obsessed with annihilating the Jewish State. Thus ceding Israeli land justifiably secured in 1967 to morphed Jordanian Arabs, better known to the world as Palestinians, is more likely to happen if Abbas' reputation is enhanced so he might break meaningful bread with Olmert. Hmmm! Does that also mean peace in our time will reciprocally occur as a result of that land transfer? Perhaps Olmert should first remove his rose colored glasses, look Abbas squarely in the eye, and insist he apologize for suggesting no gas chambers were used by Nazis in The Holocaust, merely one of his many horrifically false assertions about the most chilling sadistic systematic attempt to destroy an entire people, indeed the most subhuman event of the twentieth century. That's right, multi-decade Arafat understudy Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen (or whatever he calls himself) is a kindred spirit to the other Mahmoud Iranian madman AhMADinejad when it comes to Holocaust denial or trivialization. In 1982 Abbas completed a doctoral thesis, truly an intellectual abomination, 'The Secret Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement', in 1984 published bearing the title "The Other Side", revising details of the Holocaust by estimating the number of Jews killed during World War II to be under one million, raising doubts that Jews were murdered in gas chambers, and most despicably stating Zionist leaders collaborated with Nazis to "facilitate the wide-spread destruction" of Jews, asserting those Zionists were interested in convincing the world that a large number of Jews were killed to "attain larger gains" and divide the "booty", in effect insuring the creation of a Jewish homeland by guilt ridden world citizens. No retraction has ever been made by Abbas in regards to his ignominious slanderous work no doubt precipitated by his hatred for Jews and Israel. How soon some Prime Ministers and cronies forget or perhaps forgive! Might Israeli movers and shakers of policy really believe this well dressed 'moderate' leader would be able or even willing to disarm Hamas and other Arab extremists under his 'presumed' jurisdiction, insuring Israeli citizens a life free from Qassam rockets and homicide/suicide bombers? Would the Jew hating forked tongue smoothie even care about such things once Olmert and his naïve crew cede the farm; namely Judea, Samaria, east Jerusalem, and perhaps even accede to an insidious right of return? Before any negotiations even begin or further concessions are made to succor Abbas, let Olmert demand that the Fatah leader condemn his abominable work, unequivocally and loudly stating to all Muslims that more than six million Jews were butchered by Nazi filth during The Holocaust, that gas chambers were indeed used, and that any mention of a Zionist Nazi conspiracy is anti-Semitic propaganda so vile that it blasphemes Islam's holy Koran. Furthermore, let Olmert demand that Abbas beg Allah to forgive him for crafting such a heinously sinful work. Once that is accomplished, let Olmert demand that any sovereign Palestinian state allow all ethnicities, including Jews, to dwell in peace within negotiated borders, be honored with respect and protected by government authorities, be allowed to engage in political discourse and run for political office, much like non-Jewish ethnicities including Muslims are treated in Israel. If Abbas agrees to all this, perhaps the State of Israel will have a true negotiating partner. Otherwise, there is no point in conducting a charade that would only result in tzuris for beleaguered Israel. Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net |
|
HOW TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER
Posted by Boris Zubry, December 27, 2006. |
|
For years I hear of ideas coming from every corner of the world and claiming the solution to the Middle East problem. Some of these ideas were not too bad and a number of good people tried to work on them. Well, unfortunately, all of them failed so far ending with huge set backs. It never was pretty usually quite bloody. What ideas did I hear over the years? Let me see. No Israel, no Jews, no Palestinians, no Arabs, one-state solution, two-states solution, the Iranian solution, the Hezbollah solution, the Hammas solution, the Hitler's solution and a few more. Did I miss any? Did they work? Did any of them work? Well, not exactly. Jews would not go anywhere. There is no where to go. Why should they go anywhere when this is their land and for a few thousand years already? It does not sound right. Arabs would not go anywhere. There is no where to go. Why should they go anywhere when this is their land and for a thousand years already? It does not sound right either. Palestinians are relatively new comers in that region and they result from the Ottoman Empire's policies and the lack of them. Are they entitled to this land? No and yes. Historically they are not entitled to anything but they are there already and there is no other place for them to go to. Turks irresponsibly made it that way. Arabs hate Palestinians more than they hate Jews and would not take them in. Arabs want to get rid of them and rather pay for Palestinians to become martyrs. Palestinians are being sold a fairytale heavily supported by the false religion values and the non-existing passages from Koran. Great. Definitely something worth to die for. Would not you say so? So, no one goes anywhere and killing has to stop. That's a must. The one-state solution does not work due to tremendous internal problems it presents and the two-state solution would not work due to tremendous external problems it would present. We can't grant the status of the state to terrorists. This is wrong, very wrong. Even more -- crazy. But Arabs and Palestinians would not leave Israel alone. Iranians are salivating already in anticipation of the mass murder of Jews. After all, why not to kill a few million helpless Jews just to cover your country's internal problems, the leader's political impotence and the numerous religious shortcomings? The show must go on. Is not the way it's been always done? Yes, it was but no more. This time many of us, if not all would fight back. There is a good chance that some of us would be "the last standing" and not some of you. I'll bet on that. Who is with me? But still this is not the answer. At the end, no one wins in wars. Each side loses so much that the little gains are worthless. No, we need something else. We need something more tangible, something that would give peace a chance. We need something that would create alliances powerful enough to hold the enemies at bay but yet be economically wise and feasible. We need a totally new arrangement for what may sound as an old accord. What if Israel becomes a member of the European Union? As a full member of this powerful organization Israel would be protected and at the same time controlled by the full might of it. Arabs would have to think twice before financing the anti-Israeli terrorism again. Russians would think twice before supplying weapons and the explosives to fuel the terror. Israel would have to control its anger and curb down the violations Israel has been guilty of. Economy? The whole world would benefit from integration as this. Brains previously forced to stay local and in a very small and quite limited locality would once again become accessible to the whole world. So, if Israel becomes a member of the European Union, the Middle East terror would start to slow down and eventually die. Peace would get a chance because some other very powerful forces would be included in to negotiation process. The economic situation of the region would improve dramatically and the whole world would benefit from it. Is not it what we want? Am I missing anything? Am I wrong in any assumption? Is this better that everything else we tried and that failed before? Shell we try this one? This could be the right answer. Shell we present it to our leaders helping them to navigate this process? Do you see a better option? Contact the author at BorisZubry@comcast.net or visit his website: www.boriszubry.us |
|
THE TIME HAS COME TO MAKE WAR, NOT LOVE
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 27, 2006. |
|
The following is the greatest description of our foolishness that has already come to hunt us NOW, in real time! Who likes to be a fool? Not me and not you! So why do we let our [no] leadership make us look the biggest fools ever lives?! President Bush now stands alone, as Churchill did, but unfortunately, President Bush does not have what Churchill had: 101% conviction that he was the ONLY one RIGHT...and boy was he RIGHT! President Bush, you have the final opportunity to change history and make it RIGHT...We, Americans WANT TO WIN and this is a war we can proudly WIN with the WILL to WIN! So all that remains to say: Mobilize the minds of ALL Americans, ACT decisively and DO IT RIGHT! This article was written by Khaled Abu Toameh and the Jerusalem Post Staff. It appeared in the Jerusalem Post December 19, 2006. |
|
Hamas gunmen killed two Palestinian policemen loyal to the rival Fatah movement early Wednesday, just hours after the sides agreed to a new cease-fire meant to end more than a week of factional fighting... President Bush has repeatedly asserted that we are in a war, although he shrinks from naming the enemy: totalitarian Islam. However, his State Dept. and Defense Dept. seem to have a peculiar understanding of what "war" means. Our Generals and our diplomats all seem to have been trained in the art of therapy rather than the art of war. They take enormous pride in their cultural sensitivity, rather than in their killing skills. Not a Patton or a Curtis LeMay among them. No way someone like Patton could rise in today's military bureaucracy. The model of a modern General is Colin Powell. His bureaucratic skills helped him get to the top of the State Dept., an organization of therapeutic wordsmiths who believe we have no real enemies, only people who misunderstand our good intentions. Let us perform a thought experiment: imagine that assorted State Dept. bureaucrats wake up tomorrow and realize we're in a war to the death and that our enemies are jihadists of every stripe -- Sunnis and Shia, Fatah and Hamas, ayatollahs and sheiks and their assorted followers. Our networked enemies are bound together in a death cult whose aim is a perfect sharia world. In its pursuit, they have been killing one another for 14 centuries. Now they've turned their sights on us. Our foes are barbarous and are incompetent at most life tasks -- hence their envy and hatred of Israel and the Jews. It's humiliating to be smacked in the face by reality; fantasy is far more comforting. While these backward fantasists appear to be skillful at waging guerilla war, that is illusory. It takes no great warrior talent to hide among civilians, detonate bomb belts while disguised as women, launch RPG's into hospitals, and blow up small children on playgrounds. The correct word to describe such behavior is 'cowardice'. We collude in the illusion that our foes are terrifyingly powerful, our therapeutic mindset resembling the stance of a masochistic wife "explaining" that her violent alcoholic husband had a difficult childhood. We play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, pulling our punches while our foes hide in mosques, disguise themselves as civilians and hide their weapons in apartment buildings. Anyone who grew up dealing with playground bullies knows that bullies are cowards. They're weaklings whom we are treating as if they were strong men, thereby supporting their delusions of adequacy. Until now we've fought with one hand tied behind our backs as if we were afraid someone we targeted might get angry. How awful, we could blow up a mosque serving as a munitions dump! We carefully avoid targeting one of their designated "Holy Cities." Incidentally, what makes their 'holy' cities more sacred than my city, New York? Instead of issuing pathetic appeals for Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad to stop killing each other, we should be encouraging this internecine war among our foes. If we simply used the word 'war' as it has been used before our Post-Modernists gave it a kinder, gentler meaning, we would stop our endless attempts to intervene when our enemies are killing each other. Then we might cease referring to our "war on terror", an absurd p.c. way of disguising the true enemy: totalitarian Islam. Why is Condi Rice begging Hamas to stop shooting at Fatah and vice versa? Why are we endlessly palavering with Shiite ayatollahs and Sunni clerics when both of them regard us as infidels to be killed or forcibly converted? Why is our State Dept. eager to talk with the Iranian leadership, instead of encouraging revolution against it? All of these absurdities are the product of our Post-Modern therapeutic view of the world, which is really a symptom itself of our wavering confidence. Do our advanced military thinkers now read Lacan and Derrida instead of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu? "If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient -- at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve."- Karl Von Clausewitz Notice, Clausewitz does not suggest that the enemy's grievances need to be sympathetically addressed. Nor does he urge a multi-cultural egalitarian approach to conflict. All of James Baker's and Lee Hamilton's deep thinking produced nothing as useful as those two sentences of Clausewitz. Clearly, we have not made the situation unpleasant enough, nor have we convinced the enemy we are going to stay. Quite the opposite. Our latest plan -- to "surge" more troops to Iraq is offered with the implicit promise that it will be followed shortly by a drawdown of troops. Furthermore our troops fight within the constraints of rules of engagement that seem designed to persuade our enemies that we are delicate and sensitive souls, more concerned with avoiding collateral damage than with defeating them. If we could rediscover our martial vigor, then we could win this war rather quickly. President Bush now stands alone, as Churchill did, against the counsel of all his cautious advisers. This is probably his final opportunity to change history. And in truth it's not that difficult to discern what he ought to do. If we grasp the nature of our enemy -- 8th century minds, steeped in fantasy, then we know where to strike them. Notice how enraged they become when their symbols are mocked or destroyed. Their rage is the rage of the frightened and vulnerable. They are more afraid of women than the average member of the BLGT alliance. The great Heavyweight champ Joe Frazier told how to win a fight: "Kill the body and the head will die." That should be our motto for the war against totalitarian Islam. Horsefeathers has observed human nature closeup and personal for many years, and the kind of infantile rage emanating from Islam is not -- contrary to the great Mark Steyn -- a mark of self assurance and growing confidence. It is the collective tantrum of vulnerable and frightened children unable to keep up with the other kids who've mastered arithmetic and are moving on to more difficult subjects. The further and further Islam has fallen behind the rest of humanity, the more fearful and humiliated its practitioners have come to feel, and the more they collectively retreat into fantasy and symbols. Thus an attack on those symbols, the body of Islam (reminding them they attacked our secular ones at the WTC), would constitute a blow to their primitive collective faith and a corrective to their grandiose utopian fantasies. As a further "reality check" we hope the President puts aside political correctness and emulates Churchill, not with words but with deeds. All he need do in his national speech is explain that we are in a World War, that Iraq is one battlefield on which we have suffered defeats, just as we did many times in World War II, but from this defeat we've learned the nature of our enemies and will use the full range of our power, up to and including nuclear weapons to utterly annihilate them. Furthermore, the United States, as the guardian of Western civilization will not permit a second holocaust. Then let us hear that our air power has removed the symbols the jihadis worship, the mosques they make pilgrimages to in Mecca and Medina, as well as the nuclear program undertaken by the Iranian Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If the President acts decisively the country will support him. The media typically misunderstands the results of the recent elections. Americans want to win. This is a war that can be won, but only if we possess the will to fight. Hurry up, please Mr. President. |
|
TWENTY-YEAR PLAN F0R USA: ISLAM TARGETS AMERICA
Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006. |
|
This was written by Dr. Anis Shorrosh, D.Min, D.Phil and a member of Oxford Society of Scholars. He has traveled in 76 countries and is a Palestinian Arab Christian American who is an author, lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. Islam Revealed is a best seller which has been printed eight times already. His forthcoming tenth book will be available spring 2003 entitled Islam: A Threat or a Challenge. |
|
When we immigrated from Jerusalem, Jordan in January, 1967, little did I imagine that Islam would become center-stage in world news. As my sincere interest in the growth of Islam in America intensified, I began to discuss, dialogue, and then debate Muslim leaders throughout the world from an Arab Christian's view of Islam. So far, I have had the privilege of participating in over 20 debates and discussions on every continent plus T.V. and radio. Islam Revealed was released in 1988 and is now in its 8th printing. The True Furqan is now in its third printing in the three years it has been published. It is the only book which challenges the Quran in substance, style, language and contents. The True Furqan can be located on www.answers-to-islam.net or www.islam-exposed.org. The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020! Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11? 1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with hate crime bills state-wide and nation-wide. 2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities to promote Islam as the original African-American's religion while Christianity is for the whites! Strange enough, no one tells the African-Americans that it was the Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same, "Abed." 3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith. 4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office for favorable legislation to Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting. 5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock. 6. Yield to the fear of imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America -- the black gold. America's economy depends on oil, (1000 products are derived from oil), so does its personal and industrial transportation and manufacturing -41% comes from the Middle East. 7. Yell, "foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un-American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran" anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena. 8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way. Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America? 9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via: 1. Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961) 10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are 300 exclusively Muslim schools with loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. 11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish "Centers for Islamic studies" with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher education institutions. 12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have high-jacked Islam, not the truth, which is Islam high-jacked the terrorists. Furthermore in January of 2002, Saudi Arabia's Embassy in Washington mailed 4500 packets of the Quran, videos, promoting Islam to America's high schools--free. They would never allow us to reciprocate. 13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards the Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries. 14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls. (We have experienced this too often since 9-11.) 15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not American's justice system. 16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars. 17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting that freshman take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the writer is a bonafide American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran and express the peaceful, spiritual and religious aspect only. 18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media of their visibility. 19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook. 20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
GLAD TIDINGS OF PEACE PROCESSES
Posted by Dawntreader, December 27, 2006. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post yesterday. |
|
You have to wonder what thoughts passed through the minds of Bethlehem's Christians as Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah commander Mahmoud Abbas appeared at the Church of the Nativity for Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. On April 2, 2002, as IDF forces swept into Bethlehem to root out the terrorists who had taken control of the city, between 150 and 180 Fatah terrorists under Yasser Arafat's command shot their way into the Church of the Nativity. For the next 39 days they held the sacred site and some 150 clergymen hostage. Three weeks into the siege, three Armenian monks escaped from the church through a side entrance and revealed what was happening inside. Friar Narkiss Koraskian told reporters: "They stole everything. They stole our prayer books and four crosses. They didn't leave anything." When the siege ended, the released hostages told of frequent beatings of clergymen. The terrorists, they told The Washington Times, "ate like greedy monsters," gorging themselves on food and slurping down beer, wine and Johnny Walker scotch they stole from the rectory as their hostages went hungry. CATHOLIC priests said that the terrorists used their bibles as toilet paper. Franciscan priest Nicholas Marques from Mexico reported: "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold." Thirteen of the ring-leaders of the siege were deported to Cyprus and then dispersed to European countries. Twenty-six were sent to Gaza. Bethlehem's Christians could not hide their relief at the expulsions. They spoke of a "reign of terror," of rape, murder and extortion that the men had waged against them over the previous two years. Helen, a Christian woman, told The Washington Times, "Finally the Christians can breathe freely. We are so delighted that these criminals who have intimidated us for such a long time are going away." On Saturday night, as part of his massive effort to "strengthen" Abbas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to convene a joint committee to discuss the return of these terrorists to the city. Speaking of his good friend Mahmoud on Sunday afternoon to a Kadima audience in Ashkelon, Olmert allowed that "Abu Mazen [Abbas] is an adversary." But, he explained, he is an enemy Olmert can do business with. IT IS TRUE that business sometimes can be done with enemies. But what business can Olmert do with Abbas? And how does any of this business advance Israel's national interests? At the cabinet meeting Sunday, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin embraced Olmert's decision to "strengthen" Abbas, by, among other things, giving him $100m. and agreeing to release terrorists from Israeli prisons even without receiving so much as a sign of life from IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage by Abbas's underlings and their Hamas pals in Gaza for the past six months. Diskin warned the ministers that if elections were held today in the PA, Hamas would win hands down. Not only would they retain their control over the PA government, they would no doubt rout Abbas himself and take over his presidency. In light of the Palestinians' apparent satisfaction with their lot at being governed by genocidal jihadists from Hamas as opposed to corrupt genocidal jihadists from Fatah like the ones who took over the Church of the Nativity, the government believes that it needs to make the PA irrelevant - a mere school district - as one government official put it. In the meantime, the real power will be placed in the hands of the Fatah-controlled PLO. There are of course, two problems with this. First, that "mere school district" will be armed to the teeth and controlled by an Iranian- (and Saudi-) trained, funded and armed regime that is overwhelmingly popular among its "students." This little backwater will continue to serve as a nexus for global jihad that is little different from Somalia. Hamas has made clear that it will fight to the last man to protect its regime. Yet in the interest of "strengthening Abbas," Israel is doing nothing to weaken Hamas either militarily or politically. THE SECOND problem with the "school district" strategy is that the edifice of power the Olmert government seeks to replace the PA with has no interest in making peace with Israel. To the contrary, far from seeking to transform the PA into a liberal, pacific democracy committed to peaceful coexistence with Israel (or for that matter, just freeing Shalit from captivity), Abbas seeks to strengthen the terrorist character of Palestinian society. Abbas's demands of Olmert make this fact perfectly clear. If Abbas were interested in peace he would not be demanding that Israel release terrorists from prison; stop arresting wanted terrorists; make it easier for terrorists to operate in Judea and Samaria by suspending IDF counterterror operations and taking down roadblocks; bring more terrorists into the areas from Jordan; arm terrorists through Egypt; and give him money to pay the salaries of terrorists. If Abbas wanted peace he would be asking the IDF to escalate its fight against the terrorists. He would prefer that they rot in jail and not be released to enjoy the freedom to kill again. In other words, if Abbas were interested in peace he would be doing precisely the opposite of what he is doing. THERE ARE three reasons why Olmert and his government are acting as they are. First, they are doubtless bowing to pressure from the Bush administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated several times over the past week alone that the US has decided that its interest is advanced by Israel giving things to Abbas. But is US pressure a reasonable justification for Olmert's treatment of Abbas? Olmert justifies his refusal to negotiate with Syrian dictator and Iranian toadie Bashar Assad by noting that the Bush administration strenuously objects to holding such talks. Yet this is a flimsy excuse for not negotiating with Syria. Even if the US were pressuring Israel to negotiate with Syria it would make no sense to engage Assad because Israel has absolutely nothing to gain from doing so. As is the case with Abbas, by holding talks with Syria Israel would be conferring unwarranted legitimacy on Assad while receiving nothing of value in return. If Syria agreed to the handover of IDF hostages Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser and to ending Syrian sponsorship of Palestinian terror groups and Hizbullah in return for negotiations with Israel, it might make sense to confer such legitimacy on Assad even if the US objected. But Assad will do no such thing, and so there is nothing to be gained from talking to him. So too, were Abbas to agree to fork over Shalit and end Fatah terrorism and indeed cooperate with the IDF in fighting Hamas and Islamic Jihad, there would be something to be gained by meeting with him - regardless of the US's position. Although US pressure is real, it would be relatively easy to brush off simply by publicly pointing out the obvious. Aside from Washington's carping, Olmert's decision to "strengthen" Abbas stems from the fact that his government has no strategic vision whatsoever. Cast adrift, Olmert is moved by the prevailing winds. FOR THE PAST two weeks or so, since Assad began chirping about his wish to negotiate, the leftist-controlled Israeli media has been excoriating Olmert for bowing to Washington by refusing to meet with Assad. The weekend papers were full of condemnations by the chief diplomatic commentators in the major papers demanding that Olmert give the Golan Heights to Assad regardless of what the fuddy duddies in Washington think. And so, Saturday night's kissy-kissy meeting with Abbas was aimed, among other things, at shutting them up. And it worked quite nicely. Both Ma'ariv and Yediot Ahronot merrily proclaimed in their Sunday editions that Abbas was a stand-in for Assad - but he'd do for now. Finally, it is impossible to ignore the contribution the apparent stupidity of Israel's leaders made to Olmert's decision to embrace Abbas. Sunday morning, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni exposed this idiocy when she asked Diskin whether he thought that Hamas was strong enough to stop the rocket attacks on Sderot and the Western Negev. In response, Diskin gently pointed out that Hamas is a terror group that is dedicated to destroying Israel, and so while it could stop the rockets, it has no interest in doing so. GEE, HOW COME she didn't think of that? But then Diskin inanely opined that if Israel responds to the rocket attacks on Sderot's kindergartens, elementary schools and apartment blocks, Hamas will get really mad at us for breaching the cease-fire that only the IDF upholds and will continue to attack us. In light of his schoolhouse analysis, Diskin concluded that there's nothing we can do except pretend that the terrorists will change their minds about attacking us after we reward them for doing so by giving them money to pay themselves, bullets and rifles to shoot us with, send their terrorist buddies home from prison to join them in attacking us, and maintain the imaginary ceasefire to enable them to shoot at us with impunity. In the meantime, while Olmert is planning to spring terrorists from prison next week in honor of the Islamic holiday, Gaza's Christians were too terrified to go to their Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. So the mass was cancelled. And in Bethlehem, as the dwindling Christian population reeled with the news that their tormentors may soon return to rape, murder and extort them again, Manger Square stood near-empty on Christmas. But at least the peace process is getting back on track. Contact Dawntreader at Dawntreader3@yahoo.com |
|
WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS...TAKE ISRAEL PLEASE
Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006. |
| This article was written by Ruth King of AFSI. It appeared in Outpost November 20, 2006. |
|
Here is a brief quiz. Who said the following and when? "Peace will require compromises by all. The solution is the return of occupied lands in exchange for security and recognition of Israel's right to exist..." Secretary of State Richard Rogers said it first on December 9, 1969 while President Nixon was bedeviled in his efforts to end the Vietnam War. It became a mantra repeated by every consecutive administration... invoked especially when other policy initiatives failed. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, flush with betrayal of Vietnam, the Kurds and Israel, whose victory in the 1973 war he aborted, repeated it often. During the brief administration of Gerald Ford, Kissinger threw in crude threats about "reassessing" the America-Israel relationship. Jimmy Carter whose presidency was a shambles due to the Iran hostage crisis and the failure of his tragic-comic opera military operation to free them, put all his efforts into cementing Camp David on Sadat's terms. Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State Schultz repeated the magic formula in 1982, naming it "The Reagan Plan," which they announced to great fanfare while James Baker was chief of staff. They vainly scrambled to implement the plan after the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon to cover over the undignified and cowardly American exit from Beirut. In 1992, with James Baker as secretary of State, George Bush Sr. made the mantra the cornerstone of his heavy handed demands on Israel following America's withdrawal from Iraq following Gulf War I and the embarrassing slaughter of those who responded to what President Bush would later claim was an "ad lib" invitation to rise against Saddam, which he never thought Shiites and Kurds would take seriously. Bill Clinton restated this policy in the "Parameters for Peace" drawn up in 2000 when the Oslo Accords were flouted by Arafat and his legacy was clouded by scandal. We have here true bipartisan idiocy. Madeleine Albright, Dennis Ross, Sandy Berger, Tony Blair, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell have all repeated the axiom ad nauseum and Thomas Friedman has been reciting it since his birth on July 20, 1953. And now, James Baker, stuffed shirt and pomaded hair intact, fresh from his "Iraq Study Group" fact finding mission, has let it be known that his recommendations will also "explore" a broader U.S. initiative for tackling the Middle East conflict. Anyone fail to know what that means? As a senior observer of Baker during the presidency of the first President Bush notes: "There is no Arab dictator or terrorist that James Baker will not talk to. The only country he will never have a reasonable discussion with is Israel." Never mind the chaos in Iraq; never mind a militant, nuclear and mad North Korean dictator; never mind an even madder Iranian apocalyptic disciple of the 12th Imam; never mind the strife in Africa which has killed, injured and dislocated millions; never mind Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega; never mind the growing bellicosity of Putin; never mind that a Chinese sub has been stalking our navy in the Pacific. Faced with the abject failure of the President to pursue victory (dissipated in the effort to achieve a delusory "democracy" in Iraq) and stymied by the intractable problems listed above, Jim Baker is dusting off the "do it yourself peace kit" -- solve the world's problems through Israel's surrender. Believe it or not, Mr. Ripley, this is being touted as a "new" initiative. Doctors, scientists, businessmen, even lawyers, are all expected to retool and change strategy when old theories and modalities fail. So called statesmen, when it comes to the Middle East, no matter how often the plan fails, are incapable of entertaining any alternative other then territorial withdrawal. What makes it more frustrating is the fact that no Israeli leader, not a single one, has had the courage and the principles to say that the Rogers Plan and all its subsequent clones reside in cloud cuckoo land. To his credit Prime Minister Menachem Begin initially tried (he was accused of lecturing to his hosts for his pains), but his efforts were upended by the international romance with Anwar Sadat whose "peace" initiative with respect to the Arab Palestinians can only be likened to Admiral Tojo and the architects of Pearl Harbor demanding autonomy for Samoa after World War II. Nonetheless, Sadat got every concession he demanded from a bedazzled Israel and American public and an insistent Jimmy Carter. Since that time, Israel has agreed in both principle and practice to the territorial surrender mantra. Her leaders have scuttled Israel's historical, religious and strategic rights, endlessly recycling the "land for peace" nonsense. Now it is called a two state solution when, in fact, it is a three state solution: Jewish Palestine, Arab Palestine aka Jordan, and a putative Palestinian Arab terrorist state between them. And what did Israelis gain for their acquiescence in Camp David, Oslo, Wye, the removal from Gaza? Terrorism, death, destruction, escalating demands and the terrible knowledge that they must face the same enemies all over again. Emboldened by Western acquiescence, Arabs are spreading jihad and barbarity in the Middle East and Africa. But the media only announce "breaking news," which turns out to be the same old "broken news," of a new initiative which is always an old initiative... almost four decades old. Even the headlines are the same: "signs of moderation" mixed in with reports of Arab nations "exploring ways to break the impasse; stop the cycle of violence; end the occupation; form a unity government... blah, blah, blah... Most ridiculous of all, pundits, statesmen, academics, media all agree on one thing: If Israel commits suicide, Arabs will recognize Israel's right to exist. It is actually hilarious. Well, as a member of the executive committee of Americans for a Safe Israel, I declare herewith we will not recognize France's right to exist unless and until France agrees to make Provence an independent Sharia Moslem state, with Paris as its capital, in the interest of bringing stability to Europe as it faces the increasing threat of Islamic jihad. Just kidding folks... but think... Israel is as legitimate a state as India, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, and a host of other post-colonial states whose "right to exist" is never questioned. It is a democracy with advanced institutions and a staunch ally of the very nation which sought to bring democracy to Iraq...but seems determined to weaken the only real democracy in the entire Middle East. All this in the name of a failed, outmoded and dangerous policy which gets dusted off and trotted out every time an administration's other policies falter. It is astonishing that this endlessly resuscitated "plan" is not met with contemptuous belly -laughs, but no, here we go again, and again, and again. AMERICANS FOR A SAFE ISRAEL
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
SHOULD US SUPPORT ARAB DISSENTERS?; ISRAEL TO BUILD ARAB BUSINESSES; HAMAS HEAD CONFIRMS TRUCE IS PHONY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 27, 2006. |
|
ISRAELI PROPAGANDA What Israeli propaganda? Hizbullah fought its war with Israel mainly by the two chief kinds of war crimes. One is to attack civilians outright. The other is to fight from among civilians, using them as human shields. Not realizing this, most W. Europeans, whose media does not inform them of it, hate Israel. Israel does not publicize these war crimes. It carries out no public education about this, to speak of. It lets itself be thought the war criminal. The Muslims have found a decided advantage in warring criminally. The West needs to find a way to counter it. One way is to apply the remedy within international law of war. That would mean firing back at the attackers, regardless of civilian casualties. Israel did so only to a limited extent. First, Israel has a suicidal notion of human rights and ethics. Second, the world would think it is committing war crimes. Israel fears world public opinion, which in this case would become sincerely but mistakenly enraged. Thus the remedy is out of reach. It is beyond reach because Israel does not use the propaganda weapon. Part of the propaganda Israel needs to make should describe the human shields as willing participants in the war crimes. The Muslim population wholeheartedly supports this. Casualties among those civilians are not to be lamented. To lament them is to go too far for people who support genocide. (On 12/5, the NY Times described an Israeli video that shows Hizbullah using human shields, etc..) WHAT IS THE POPE UP TO? The free world needs a leader against jihad. The Pope seemed to be the bold candidate. Instead of warning of the danger, however, he has called for dialogue based on truth, logic, and discussion, and not on violence. There is no chance for his kind of rational dialogue with the hate-bearing, violence-prone, exclusivist Muslims. Islam doesn't operate that way. Doesn't the Pope know this? Perhaps he does, and is making the Muslims' lack of truthful, rational, non-violent discussion apparent, before leading a campaign against their jihad. AMERICANS DON'T GET IT Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq; the Bush Administration thinks it can sacrifice Israel to buy peace there. They don't get it. This isn't ordinary war, and Islam isn't an ordinary culture one can trade diplomatically with. This is holy war. A Muslim victory anywhere strengthens the jihad everywhere. A Muslim defeat anywhere weakens jihad everywhere. Therefore, the US needs to win in Iraq and Israel needs to win in the Territories; a victory in either place would help attain victory in the other. Syria tries to induce the US to think it may help calm Iraq, even as it panics Lebanon. Assad has taken in the State Department's present and past leaders. EGYPT & OTHER ARAB STATES' ATTITUDE TOWARDS ISRAEL Egypt is cited as exemplifying Arabs' ability to make peace with Israel. After the leading Arab state did it, why did only one other, Jordan, follow that example? The answer is that Egypt pressured them not to (IMRA, 11/4 from MK Steinitz). IRAN'S NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT: Update Iran has accelerated nuclear development, building of bunkers at those sites, and replacement of older anti-aircraft equipment with advanced Russian equipment and lots of it. The effort seems to be close to fruition. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found evidence that what Iran is working on is weapons development. It downplays the finding. The details in the news brief support this conclusion (IMRA, 12/4). A WORLD GONE MAD "The world has gone mad." Syria is engineering a takeover of Lebanon by Hizbullah. The P.A. is progressing in its buildup for an Iranian-sponsored war on Israel. What do US and British officials suggest? They suggest that the US let Iran take over Iraq, too. What does Israel do, with US encouragement? PM Olmert plans to release hundreds of terrorists for one Israeli and expel thousands of Israelis from Judea-Samaria and let Hamas take over their land. This is in addition to Olmert's decision not to counteract terrorist cease-fire violations in the form of firing rockets into Israel. He doesn't want to end the ceasefire that they are breaking and using to start a bigger war, later. Olmert seems to be doing this for the same reason Sharon did. It is to avoid being prosecuted for corruption. By embarking on appeasement, the media ignores his corruption and the prosecutors do not charge him with it. As with Sharon, they don't want to upset the ship of state that he is scuttling (IMRA, 12/5 from Caroline Glick). ANOTHER DEAL PROPOSED Environment Min. Gideon Ezra (Kadima Party) proposed exchanging prisoners for promises. The P.A. would promise to stop arms smuggling and to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. The interviewer did not ask him how wise it would be to release prisoners in return for the very promises that the P.A. has made and broken before. Min. Ezra did suggest that for enforcement, Israel could shut off the flow of water and electricity from Israel to the P.A.. The interviewer did not ask him whether Israel would do that, given that it kept the Army from carrying out full military operations, because the government was afraid of negative world public opinion (IMRA, 12/5). IMRA raises good questions. They show that officials are rationalizing or are failing to think matters through. They also show that the media is too easy on them. At least, let the Arabs destroy terrorist militias, before Israel gives them anything -- since the Arabs never have fulfilled their promises, so why should Israel go first. Another question is how many Israelis would the thousand terrorists, released for one Israeli, slay? IRAN THREATENS U.S. BACK If the US attacks Iran, Iran would sink the heavy, non-maneuverable US warships, attack US troops on their vulnerable bases in the Gulf, mount suicide attacks (didn't say where), and call for a general Iraqi uprising (IMRA, 12/5 from MEMRI). The nominated Defense Secretary said that the US would not attack Iran except as a last resort and only involving nuclear development. He does not think that Iran would start a nuclear war against Israel. On the other hand, he admits not knowing what the religion-obsessed President of Iran would do. A US attack would cause an upwelling of warfare against the US in the Mideast. Iran has not made the most trouble for us that it could. He finds credible their threat to close off the oil sea lanes (IMRA, 12/5). He may be right, but consider this. Shall we let Iran fight us successfully in one country after another, lest they fight us harder? SHOULD THE U.S. SUPPORT DISSENTERS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD? Democratic-minded reformers have brought peaceful regime change in dictatorships. Should the US help such dissidents, or would US support alienate their followers? The record indicates that legitimate dissident groups that have built themselves up welcome US moral and financial support. It is their dictatorial governments that portray their acceptance of foreign aid as unpatriotic (Michael Rubin, MEF News, 12/5). Mr. Rubin writes essays about jihad and foreign policy frequently. They usually are well thought out, factual, original, and useful. That is scholarship! I think that US support for dictatorial regimes or partisan groups backfires, but not for genuine reform. ISRAEL TO BUILD ARAB BUSINESSES The Office of the Prime Minister announced a policy of investing in the Arab business sector so that it can integrate into the national business environment and the Arabs can reach their potential in Israel (IMRA, 12/5). This is discriminatory. It treats all Arabs as needy and all Jews as not. Many Jews have difficulty in business in Israel. The government over-regulates, runs or allows monopolies, and over-taxes. Let it remove those obstacles that harm all. It is harmful to the Jews and to stability to be well-meaning towards the Arabs in Israel. The Arabs are a lawless fifth column. They are moving for community independence in Israel. They take the side of the external Muslim enemy. In various cities they attack Jews; in the forests they commit arson. Their Islamist Movement is a major organization for jihad. Anything that strengthens their hold in the country helps them to take over the country or to enable invaders to do so. Government policy should be to enforce the law and ultimately to get the Arabs to leave. ARABS TRYING TO TAKE JEWS' LAND For years, Arabs within Israel have been after a Jewish cattle rancher's land. They tore down his fences and burned his crops. The police did nothing about it. Recently, three Arabs approached him under some pretext, clubbed and shot him. He survived. Now the police are investigating. The rancher points out that local Arabs, defeated in the 1947 war, never abandoned their goal of taking over the country. Now that Israel makes concessions to its enemies in the hope of having temporary peace, the Arabs more boldly resort to violence, within Israel, itself (Arutz-7, 12/5). Israel made a big mistake in allowing a large number of the defeated Arab enemy to stay, others to come in, violate the law, and import radical imams. How ironic that while the Arabs complain that their rights are not sufficiently recognized in Israel, they don't recognize Jewish rights! That is the Muslim way. HAMAS HEAD CONFIRMS TRUCE IS PHONY Meshal said that the truce is not a step towards peace but a way of managing the war effort (ie., it lets Hamas bring in enough arms for a major war). He warned that unless there is an international plan to transfer from Israel to the P.A. all the land it acquired in 1967 and let all the refugee descendants in (to destroy the Jewish state), Hamas would launch a major war (Arutz-7, 12/5). In other words, surrender and die, or war. PM Olmert and Sec. Rice thought that the truce with Gaza should be extended to Judea-Samaria, and would lead to a peace agreement. What do they say, now? If they were honest and intelligent, they would suggest that Israel end the truce and smash Hamas, before it is able to inflict more casualties upon Israel. ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO MAKE WAR ON AMERICA? Thousands of professors "'...think the university is a political platform to teach anti-American, racist, sectarian creeds'...." "They teach that 'their country is the enemy and that terrorists are freedom fighters." (NY Sun, 12/6, p.2.) The US doesn't have a perfect record, but what those professors teach is not factual or scholarly. It is indoctrination, not academic. Does academic freedom give them a right to pervert our history? Why do universities hire these non-scholar enemies? What kind of higher education do we get for the $70 billion a year the federal government spends on it? COUNTER-TERRORISM TRAINING IN ISRAEL Magen Yehuda is a privately funded, volunteer organization that is training "first responders" and people who live along the line of likeliest terrorist attacks, in how to deal with those attacks (Arutz-7, 12/5). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
NO PEACE WITH AMALEK
Posted by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, December 27, 2006. |
|
The Bible (Tanach) states that God battles with Amalek from generation to generation. "Because the Lord has sworn: the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17:16) Most Israelis believe that in some way they must in the end be for peace with their enemies. Nothing at least in the eyes of Israel's God is further from the truth. There have been many instances in the course of Israel's history as told in the Tanach where God's word and advice to Israel's leaders was the very opposite. I remember my son one day saying to me in refreshing honesty after another dastardly terrorist attack: 'Daddy, I don't want to live in peace with such people.' And when Shimon Peres often quipped, making the seemingly true but highly deceptive statement that "Peace one makes with one's enemies," thereby excusing all the massacres, cruelties, lynching and lying committed by those enemies he in fact made a historical blunder. Throughout history, peace has been made with conquered enemies OR with enemies who underwent a change of heart and mind, and were therefore willing to live in peace with their former foes. But none of this is true insofar as virtually all of Israel's present enemies are concerned. They have never been truly defeated and they have shown no change of heart. They are eaten up by al all-consuming hatred f the Jews. For Israel to stretch out her hands to them is not the way to go and certainly not the way to peace! Just as the Nazis were soundly defeated by the Allied forces, so Israel's enemies need to be defeated before there is even a chance of living in peace with them! And this is precisely what God repeatedly spells out in the Tanach throughout Israel's history: Do not make an alliance or a peace treaty with those who have shown again and again that they are your sworn enemies. Here are some of the words: Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully, and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10) Even contemporary history abundantly bears out the truth of this, God's wisdom. Churchill, not Chamberlain, became the instrument that secured peace for Europe through the total defeat of Nazism. For where Chamberlain's way was a treaty with Adolf Hitler that was full of holes, Churchill's was to bring a complete victory over the evil of the Nazi's philosophy. In that way the living God of Israel has shown right throughout history that He knows what is best for His people. And it is not to trust the untrustworthy, as even Joshua, -- Israel's Sharon-like commander allowed himself to be deceived into trusting the Gibeonites enough to make a peace treaty with them. God firmly upbraided him for doing so. And yet this has been Israel's modern history through the outcome of the suicidal foolishness of OSLO, when Israel's leaders made "peace" with the instigator of all terrorism, Yasser Arafat trusting him enough to give him guns and weapons to guard this lie a peace that never was his intention nor that of his Palestinians. For this treaty Arafat, together with those Israeli leaders, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in Oslo!! This, then, is the end result, as Israel has sadly and bloodily experienced in all the years that followed OSLO: death and destruction and the breaking of all promises made to Israel by Arafat and the Palestinian leadership. For peace, Mr. Peres, is not made with sworn enemies but with conquered enemies as we in Europe experienced after, not before, the Nazis were defeated! May peace then come to Israel these days, not in man's way, but in God's way as expressed in the ancient but still true and appropriate words of the Psalmist: A Song. A Psalm of Asaph. Do not keep silent, O God! Do not hold Your peace, and do not be still, O God! For behold, Your enemies make a tumult; and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, "Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more." For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You: The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moab and the Hagrites; Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assyria also has joined with them; they have helped the children of Lot. Selah For, as Isaiah already prophesied, there comes a day when for the sake of His people and because of "the controversy of Zion," God will inflict His judgment on all these enemies. And when He does then, as so often in the past as even in Europe that will bring the hoped for peace, at last! Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org |
|
THE IMAM SCAM AND THE DEMOCRATS' HOUSE OF GAMES
Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006. |
|
This article was written by Marc Sheppard and it appeared January 03,
2007 in the American Thinker
|
|
Remember when fear of flying was a normal, human response to an inner doubt that a 3 quarter million pound hunk of metal had any business being 30,000 feet in the air? Of course, that was before 19 men - all Mideast Muslims - ended their miserable lives on September 11, 2001 and took nearly 3,000 innocent victims along for the ride. Since that dreadful day, it's doubtful that even the most ardently PC liberal has boarded any airplane without carefully evaluating all fellow passengers - and not to evade inebriated conventioneers. It is that same indelible angst of their brothers' making which a group of Muslims exploited last month to perpetrate a hideous apparent hoax. And the soon-to-be empowered Democrats and their gullible accomplices in the media proved the perfect patsies for this odious plan to make the skies ever more dangerous for Americans. In a swindle blending the shakedown tactics of Jesse Jackson with the outright fabrications of Al Sharpton, the flying imams helped provide Democrats the perfect cover to breathe life into a deservedly dying bill -- The End Racial Profiling Act. Passage of this absurd waste of paper would all but assure terrorists unfettered access to our greatest of vulnerabilities - particularly airlines. Step 1 -- The Plan Our story begins in Minneapolis on November 18th, where approximately 150 imams attended the annual conference of the North American Imams Federation. The stated theme was "Towards Improving Imams Professionalism and Community Outreach." But their immediate and visible effect was an event that would dupe their enemies into enacting law which would be tantamount to suicide. It's clear that modern Jihadists have learned to utilize liberal intolerance to inflict collateral damage and civilian casualties when waging public opinion wars abroad. But here at home, they know the secret lies in exploiting liberal intolerance of, well -- intolerance. With just that in mind, this pack of terror-sympathizers hatched the perfect plot to outrage their weak-kneed allies on the left into a quite predictable course of action. These architects of fear included such stand-up "American" Muslims as: * Siraj Wahhaj - an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 plot to blow up several New York Landmarks and a "character witness" for Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. The "Blind Sheikh," now reportedly on his death bed, is serving a life sentence in the U.S. Medical Center for Prisons in Springfield, Mo. He was the "spiritual leader" of the terror cell that carried out the first World Trade Center bombing and was planning to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. Of definite note was the presence of guest speaker Rep. Keith (Hakim Mohammed) Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress. The Minnesota Democratic freshman and unrepentant radical Muslim - he has announced he will be sworn in next month with his hand on the Koran - is, not surprisingly, a strong backer of the ERPA. Rounding out the conspirators were the Shills -- including CAIR and innumerable other Islamic activists and web-sites, which were strategically placed to play their parts in fueling the impending arsonists' media fire. Bunko Team ready -- Let the games begin. Step 2 - The Setup On November 20th, Shahin led 5 fellow Imams to the U.S Airways gates at Minneapolis-St Paul International airport purportedly to catch a flight to Phoenix. Once there, they quickly set the stage for their flim-flam. In the words of Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport, the six assembled in the gate area prior to boarding and "were praying loudly and spouting some kind of anti-US rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq and Saddam Hussein." Witnesses reported that they shouted "Allah" loudly and repeatedly. Imagine the anxiety this disturbance caused ticket-holders who were all too aware of the historic last words shouted by lunatic suicide bombers - including the 9/11 murderers. Upon boarding the plane, the imams each sat in separate sections. But according to passengers and flight attendants, they then moved without crew permission from their assigned seats to 2 in the front row of first-class, 2 in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle, and 2 in the very rear of the cabin. Those paying attention reportedly recognized this as the identical seating pattern used by the 9/11 hijackers. Commenting on this dispersion model, a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous told reporters, "That would alarm me. They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." Frankly, it's difficult to imagine any reasonable person not being alarmed by this now-familiar stratagem. Sure, liberals would have us treat Muslims behaving strangely on airplanes the same as we'd treat similarly misbehaving frat boys returning from spring-break. It's the very fact that such lunacy goes against every human survival instinct that moves them to legislate us into their quixotic and suicidal world. Now, there appears to be some controversy as to whether 3 or all 6 had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. Also in dispute is whether 1 or none had been legitimately bumped to first class, where 2 of them eventually sat. No matter -- once the flight was delayed due to their outrageous behavior they moved about the cabin and conspicuously spoke Arabic in a deliberate effort to further heighten passenger terror. They also requested seat-belt extensions from the flight attendants, though neither necessary for nor actually used by any of them. Instead, they were placed on the floor for all to see, brandished as potential weapons or restraints. As expected, at least one horrified passenger opted to obey the now familiar airport sign demanding "If you see something, say something!" Surely, everyone on flight 300 had seen more than enough. Once notified, the pilot calmly asked the six to disembark for further screening. They refused. Again, likely according to plan, police were called onto the plane and the men were forcibly removed, taken into custody and quickly released when no weapons or bombs were found by the FBI. Setup complete -- the pigeons were cooped. Step 3 - The Sting Within hours, Muslim-rights groups, readily available, launched complaints of "religious harassment" which were quickly and obediently gobbled up by eager media. The complicit MSM predictably carried out their their duties by depicting the 6 as innocent imams returning home from an Islamic conference in Minneapolis, who were persecuted for praying prior to flying. Yeah, and Hyman Roth was just a retired investor on a pension returning to the U.S. Nonetheless, cries of "Islamophobia" were stridently shouted from the rooftops and the outrage immediately morphed into a plethora of proposed remedies. CAIR quickly issued a statement demanding Congressional hearings to investigate this and other incidents of "flying while Muslim." And, according to Investor's Business Daily, just 2 days after the mock-hijacking, incoming Judiciary Chairman Conyers (D-MI), whose district includes one of the largest Islamic populations in the country, [had] already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections. This was an addendum to an already security-weakening bill Conyers had promised his Muslim constituency he'd see passed. What's more, taking political correctness to the verge of mental illness -- Pelosi (D-CA) and Ellison publicly called for criminalizing the act of profiling. The potentially compromised Speaker had already promised Muslims in 2004 to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible, adding that, "Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal" Exactly one week after what looks a lot like a mock-hijacking, and in an effort to heighten visibility and thus liberal outrage, an "interfaith pray-in" was staged at the U.S Airways ticket counter in Reagan Washington National Airport. The event gave ringleader Shahin another opportunity to proclaim his version of the incident. Claiming it to have been the "worst moment of [his] life," he again flatly denied that any of the imams had done anything suspicious. Shahin then called upon Muslims to boycott the airline, which might have an ironic impact - knowing that Muslims are avoiding U.S Airways has caused many to believe it to be the safest method of air travel. The next day, Mahdi Bray, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, attempted to seal the terror-abetting deal when he told IslamOnline.net that, ".. we are desirous of large financial compensation for the imams, civil and federal sanctions for their conduct, and new broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling"Such legislation is exactly what Pelosi, Conyers, et. al. had in mind - for starters anyway. Step 4 - The Expected Payoff: The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 S. 2138 provides federal funding defaults and potential civil penalties for any agencies which, when challenged, cannot prove that they did not racially profile anyone they questioned, detained, searched, or seized contraband from. It broadly defines the offense as (emphasis mine): relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure.... It further requires that law enforcement agencies keep records as to the race, ethnicity, national origin and religion of all stops and searches. This data will be analyzed regularly by designees of the DOJ to determine if that agency is engaging in profiling. These inane determinations will be made based upon percentages of encounters compared to percentages of the population. Such folly would keep our courts busy entertaining frivolous lawsuits driven by cherry-picked data and our law enforcement agencies more concerned with sticking to quota than solving and preventing crimes. Daniel Horan of the LAPD, who spent 6 years at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues agrees: "A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety." Moreover, such a law would ultimately provide exclusionary cause for captured terrorists, as well as yet another "blame the victim" modus for ACLU-molded lawyers to confuse low IQ juries. Coincidently, in a July article exploring the same inherent flaws in the gathering of racial information at traffic-stops for analysis by Suffolk County, NY cops, I sarcastically concluded: What next - a similar program at airports to affirm that Muslims, who comprise nearly 100% of the terrorist population, are not searched in numbers greater than the percentage they represent of the flying population? Has this country gone completely mad? Last month's election results may both create the hypothetical and answer the rhetorical questions in that paragraph. Of course, even should the idiocy and mind-blowing danger of this legislation somehow manage to escape both Houses, it's unlikely that the president's veto pen would remain MIA. Surely Pelosi, Conyers, and even Ellison know this - they're likely laying the groundwork for what they predict as a post 2008 power Troika. And that's exactly why this bill, which has been terminally ill for over 4 years, must be killed once and for all, along with those it would ultimately help to destroy us,. Furthermore, if Conyers wants special consideration for Muslims, he should have it. Specifically -- legislation must be considered which would make the actions perpetrated by these Imams at least comparable to crying "fire" in a crowded theater or otherwise inciting a riot. The Next Speaker of the House of Games Finally, nothing which took place on that airplane even remotely qualifies as religious or racial profiling. What was "profiled" -- to use the ridiculously misleading term du jour -- was intentionally suspicious behavior. Indeed, if 6 men walked into a bank wearing ski-masks, an alert teller would not wait to see their weapons before tripping the silent alarm: They were, after all, behaving in a manner highly consistent with that of armed robbers. Now that Islamic males of Mideastern extraction have defined manners equally consistent with murderous plane-hijackers, behaving as such should and must be met with similarly appropriate defensive maneuvers. Whether the eager-to-oblige co-sponsors of the original act, Rep. Conyers and Speaker-to-be Pelosi were merely "marks" or something more is still open to conjecture. Then again, which would be worse - control of the House by those who would conspire with our enemies or those who would be so easily duped by them? That's some choice. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
PALESTINE, THE POLITICS OF CONCESSIONS AND INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS
Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, December 27, 2006. |
|
If the current state of violence between the Palestinian groups is any indication of breakdown, then perfect lawlessness could be said to reign in the P.A. territories. The Hamas, the Fatah and other groups competing for control over resources and ideology (of hatred)seem to have lost all sense of direction or purpose. Ever since the inception of Palestinian autonomy mooted by the Oslo Accords of 1994, the territories administered by the PA have been subject to mis-government,corruption, extortion and kidnappings. Arafat, the god-father of Intifada,was said to have embezzled millions. Sometime back a research scholar trying to dig up relevant information of the scam was severely roughed up by Fatah men. This being the current state of affairs, it's little wonder that there is very little to do on the part of the PA bigwigs except keeping up the tempo of hatred of Israel among the disenchanted unemployed young Arabs. So whenever, protests against malpractices seem to be in the offing, the attention is diverted to Israel. The result is that the frustrations among the youth are carefully needled to encourage suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism. The situation bears a stark similarity to the Kashmir problem, where Pakistan plays on religious and ethnic sentiments to foment terrorism against India. Unemployment among the youth in Pakistan is utilised by the military rulers and clerics,in ways similar to Palestinian radicals, to foster the culture of jihad. Just as Afghanistan under the Pak-sponsored Taliban became the training ground for countless jihadis, so the PA territories are being subverted with the willing collaboration of its rulers to launch terrorist attacks on Israel. The International community has so far being one-sided,using the UN for Israel baiting while turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism. Even the US is believed to have suspended crucial arms shipments to Israel sorely needed during the Lebanon war. Thus indirectly, it gives concessions to its new found allies in the Middle East, who are making the most out of the war on terror, but keeping up the heat on Israel to give more and more concessions. A consensus is thus being cooked up in which the complicity of major powers and international bodies cannot be overlooked. Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in |
|
"PROVISIONAL PALESTINIAN STATE" HUH!
Posted by Dr. Jerome S. Kaufman, December 26, 2006. |
|
Evidently the newspaper, the Forward, is cooperating with the American State Department and the recently demolished Bush Administration in sending up a trial balloon article written by Nathan Guttman in the December 22, 2006 paper. The article presents the possible formation of a "Provisional Palestinian State!" In utter disbelief, I read in the article that such an idea has been "kicked around" by the American State Department for several weeks. But, why should I be surprised? Has not the American State Department opposed the creation of a Jewish State, attempted to weaken its influence and power, hindered its development and obstructed its ability to defend itself since its rebirth in 1948? Was this trial balloon not just an extension of the immediately discredited Baker Iraq Study Group? Is this not just another shot by the Let's Get Rid of Israel Study Group? Israel, the United States and the immediate world have been unhappy with the outcome of the January 2006 Palestinian election. The relatively moderate, and let us use that phrase advisedly, Fatah party, was virtually destroyed by the Palestinian electorate in their January 2006 election. The results - Fatah is now in a death struggle with Hamas for survival or more accurately, is now in its death throes. The newly anointed political party, (aka terrorist organization), Hamas badly defeated Fatah in an open and ostensibly legitimate election. The vote gave Hamas 74 seats in the Palestinian parliament while the 40-year-old Fatah party with Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" Holocaust denier and long-time Yasir Arafat second in command, received only 45 seats. Hamas did allow Abbas to remain as President despite the election but only because they had not a clue as to how to run a government themselves - not that Abbas does either. Palestinian governance under Arafat, Abbas and the like has always consisted of simply extorting money out of an insane Israel and a naïve frightened West. These Palestinian "leaders" then give all the Fatah Arafat/Abbas henchman a made-up job and a "salary" of graft to temporarily buy their loyalty - at least until the next paycheck. Those further up the hierarchy of graft also receive government contracts for public works programs that have been designated as such by the donors to benefit the general population. Of course, these funds never see the light of day - more often ending up in personal Swiss Bank accounts. Now that the graft money from Israel and the West has stopped, the phony jobs have disappeared and the whole system has deservedly collapsed. But, instead of allowing events to take their natural course and allowing the Palestinian electorate and the warring factions to make their own decision and thus allow the true colors of the conflict to present themselves, the misguided State Department, the Bush Administration and the frightened, dutiful Israelis are again getting in the way. And, as usual, they are backing the wrong horse. Abbas and Fatah were the ones resoundingly defeated in the last election and bearing gargantuan interference from the US, will be defeated even worse this next time. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration is trying to get $100 million dollars released by the Congress to aid Abbas while the destructively inept and totally unprincipled Ehud Olmert is about to do the same thing - coercing the Knesset to release another 100 million in PA tax collected dollars to shore up the rejected Abbas. Again the United States and Israel are interfering with the Palestinian electorate because they cannot handle the truth. The Palestinians hate our guts and are delighted to elect Hamas, a party dedicated to destroying the little Satan Israel first and then doing the very same to the Great Satan, us, as soon as Allah presents that glorious day. As far as Israel is concerned, the trial balloon quotes an unidentified "diplomatic official" (how convenient a news source!) who rejects Israeli leaders' demand that the PA renounce terror and dismantle their terror infrastructure before any peace overtures are considered. How unreasonable and inconsiderate! The official says these demands are no longer relevant since it is clear that there is no Palestinian leader who can deliver on the issue of fighting terror! And that is the reason the Israelis should go along with a "Provisional Palestinian State." Could you vomit? Then, the final indecent, preposterous proposal for Israeli acquiescence: Another un-identified "diplomatic source" in the Forward article said "last week that the most significant advantage the plan has is that it would allow President GW Bush to achieve his goal of a two-state solution within a reasonable time frame." So, Israel is to lie down and die to improve upon GW's historical legacy ala the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak suicidal plan or allow GW to join the completely overrated achievements of the pathetic anti-Semite, Jimmy Carter at Camp David. Hopefully, the Israelis will quickly find a Prime Minister - certainly not Ehud Olmert - that will have the brains and courage needed by both Israel and the United States to tell the originators of this latest "plan" exactly where to put it. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
WHY BUSH FAILED AND HOW HE CAN YET BECOME GREAT
Posted by Harry W. Weber, December 26, 2006. |
|
Recently the Iraq Study Group, that august collection of Democratic and Republican politicos brought together to find a graceful U.S. exit out of the Iraqi quagmire, came up with its recommendations. At first glance, and even before getting into its detailed recommendations, it seems highly suspect that any political problem, whose recommended solution requires no less than 79 steps, has any chance of being solved via those steps. For no political problem is that murky, that fuzzy and that dependent on so many lateral and/or sequential steps. So what went wrong with Bush's Iraq war initiative, and more generally with his entire foreign policy -- post 9/11/2001? Firstly, the President must be given full credit for the proper diagnosis of the "disease". The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center was the post-World War II version of the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. It revealed to all that the West has been attacked by a new and heretofore misunderstood enemy -- Islamic jihad, or holy war -- bent on no less than the military and economic defeat of Western civilization. The signs that radical Islamic terrorists were out to disrupt and de-stabilize the West were already out there earlier -- witness the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam in 1998, and the attack on the S.S. Cole in 2000. Actually, the first clue to the existence of Islamic terrorist cells in the U.S. should have been detected after the 1990 murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane. But ironically, the man most closely associated with the platform for expelling Moslems out of Israel because they threaten its existence, was murdered by them in the U.S., and even in his death was unable to wake up the U.S., or anyone else for that matter, to take the global Islamic terror threat seriously. After belatedly identifying the threat, President Bush looked for Islamic terrorist targets to attack in order to prevent future 9/11s on American and European soil. The primary hiding place of Al-Queda -- Afghanistan -- was the natural first target, and correctly so. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda and Bin-Laden had local support in Pakistan, and there was scarce cooperation from the Pakistani government in hunting down Al Qaeda on its side of the border. This lack of cooperation prevented the U.S. and its allies from hermetically sealing off Al Qaeda from all directions and slowly moving in for the final kill. The war there goes on and on, because the U.S. and its allies refuse to cross into Pakistan in pursuit of Al-Qaeda. Bush's next step in the war against Islamic terrorists, was, in hindsight, very flawed. He confused the secular dictator in Iraq, who for all his blustering, was no Islamic ideologue ready to march on the West, with his neighbors next door. They, the Iranians, are radical Shiites who fervently believe in the coming of their "Messiah" -- the twelfth Imam -- after they begin the global war to subdue all infidels under Islam. The Iranians are the terrorists Bush should have taken on next -- not Saddam Hussein. Had President Bush allowed the U.S. commanders in Iraq to pursue the terrorists entering Iraq from Iran to their bases in Iranian territory, he would have corrected his initial strategic error of failing to identify Iran as the logical next terror target, by means of a simple tactical decision that should have been inevitable. This was Bush's big blunder -- and that is clearer today than ever before. Today Iran is on track to manufacture nuclear weapons within six months. Iran's number one foreign policy objective is to become firstly a regional, and then a global military force that will lead the war on the "satanic" West. Iran's immediate plan is to eliminate Israel, the West's proxy in the Mideast. That is why Iran supported Hizbollah, Lebanon's Shiite terrorist party, with billions of dollars in arms since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. And that is why it is collaborating with Syria in its joint efforts of sending terrorists into Iraq. Iran's plan is to cause maximum sectarian bloodshed in Iraq, thereby forcing the U.S. to withdraw. So far the plan is working very well, witness James Baker's recommendation that the U.S. engage diplomatically with Iran and Syria -- the two greatest exporters and supporters of Islamic terrorism. The inevitable conclusion so far is that Mr. Bush had the proper diagnosis of the problem and the proper goals to deal with it, but botched up the execution of the strategy to solve the problem. In contrast, the Iraq Study Group is focused solely on the tactical issue of a graceful exit from Iraq, and completely ignores the huge strategic problem facing the West -- the World War declared on it by radical Islam. The Iraq Study Group does not see the wave of radicalization that is sweeping the entire Moslem World. Sunni and Shiite Moslems in Africa, Asia and Western Europe are united in their antipathy of all that is Christian and Jewish. They are prepared to kill and be killed, to murder and commit suicide for their "lofty" goal of Islamic global domination. Mr. Baker didn't understand or simply ignored that reality, thereby earning his Study Group an F. Had his group read the Koran, had it interviewed Western experts on Islam -- not Islamic apologists or Islamic clergymen -- it would have learned the truth about the political goals of Islam, that peace is not a value in Islam, nor is democracy, and that all peace treaties with "infidels" are meant to be broken as soon as pragmatically feasible. So the question still remains: where did President Bush go wrong? The answer is ironic, for the President is a born-again Christian, and as such a person who should be familiar with the Bible, for whom the Bible is not just a history book, but the book of life -- a book relevant at all times in all places. The Book, in Genesis 16:12, says of Ishmael, the ancestor of all Arabs: "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." Maimonides and other sages interpret that to mean that he will prey on others and others will prey on him, and that his descendants will grow and will be at war with all the nations. That is Ishmael and this is the eternal character of the Arab-Moslem world, forever. Such a nation has no need for democracy, has no interest in peace, for it is at war with everyone, forever. Mr. "F--- the Jews" Baker may be forgiven for not knowing or wanting to acknowledge that, but Mr. Bush should have read the Bible with more present day insight, and should have understood the Moslem world as described eternally in God's book. With that understanding it is now clear that the plan to bring democracy to Iraq in particular, and to the Arab world in general, was doomed from the start. Democracy is not for everyone, and certainly not for the Arabs. The proof: there is not one Arab state in the entire world that is democratic. However, Bush's biggest mistake occurred when he invented his "roadmap" for peace between Israel and a future "Palestinian democratic state". A more ridiculous oxymoron cannot be imagined. Firstly, there are no "Palestinian" people. The Moslems living today in Judea and Sammaria are simply descendants of Arabs who came to populate the area, looking for work among the Jews, after the latter began their historic return to their ancestral homeland about one hundred and twenty years ago. Secondly, even if there is a "Palestine", Jordan was established as the Arab successor to it on 76% of historic "Palestine". So there is a Palestinian state already, today -- Jordan! Thus Bush's "roadmap" is really a plan for three states for two peoples. It's high time the President realized that Israel, sitting on land that Moslems once controlled, was the first target of radical Islam. Israel is simply the forerunner victim of Islamic terror, preceding the U.S. and Europe by some fifty years. And just as all Moslems are religiously precluded from making permanent peace with Israel (they are forbidden by Islamic law from accepting a treaty or ceasefire with infidels for a period of more than ten years), so are they incapable of making peace with the West. It is interesting to note that the war in Iraq was started on March 20, 2003. The President declared his "roadmap" for Israel and the "Palestinians" on April 30, 2003. The idea then was to bring forth Arab support for the Iraqi invasion by forcing Israel to make life-threatening concessions to an implacable enemy -- and call it peace. The moral and geopolitical disconnect the President committed between America's war on terror and Israel's war on terror was untenable -- and unbearable. For whom? For Him - for God Almighty! Even putting aside the Bible and the Koran as keys to understanding human history, what about learning from recent history itself? What about World War II? Then Britain tried to placate Hitler by offering up Czechoslovakia. Bush, in his "roadmap", and Baker in his Iraq Study Group recommendations, are repeating the same colossal mistake -- this time offering up Israel. Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton propose no less than the immediate destruction of Israel -- geographically by carving it up, demographically by allowing the Arabs to overrun it via the right of return, and completely, by allowing Iran to build the bomb on the excuse that it is needed for its defense against Israel's bomb. Hitler was unappeasable and so is Ahmadinejad! And not just Ahmadinejad, all Arabs! God will not forgive Mr. Bush or America if they ever accept the Baker Holocaust plan. I stated in March 2003, with the publication of President Bush's "roadmap", that there is a geopolitical rule in effect since 1948 -- the Israel Principle. The principle states that any U.S. president who takes actions that intend to violate the territorial integrity of land held by an Israeli government as part of its divinely ordained boundaries, or acts to threaten its security, will be ranked as a bad U.S. President by the American people -- the more anti-Israel, the lower his ranking, the more pro-Israel, the higher his ranking. The principle has been proven statistically valid for all elected U.S. presidents since World War II. On that basis, I alone predicted, in March 2003, when the President's approval was nearly ninety percent, that the "roadmap" will be his undoing, and that he will be ranked extremely low among post-World War II presidents. Unfortunately, I was right -- and I take no pleasure in it. What can President Bush do in the last two years of his presidency to reverse course and save the West, save Israel and save his legacy? In a nutshell, he should reject the Iraq Study Group proposals outright; he should attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and then, and only then, get out of Iraq. America's current job is to make the world safe from Islamic Jihad, not bring democracy to Arabs who inherently reject it on religious and national character grounds. He should abandon the "roadmap", call Jordan "Palestine", help Israel break up the Palestinian Authority, and help financially in the resettlement in Jordan of all Arabs living in Israel and Judea and Sammaria. The president has two years to implement this plan. It is the only plan worthy of a great president, a Churchillian president, a president who knows the truth, wants true peace, and is prepared to bring it forth --- for now and for generations in the future. Harry W. Weber is a C.P.A. (U.S., Israel) and a political commentator whose articles have appeared on many websites. Contact him at @sandyirv@netvision.net.il |
|
MY 10-STEP PROGRAM FOR FORSTALLING DEFEAT IN WORLD WAR 4
Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 26, 2006. |
|
Daniel Pipes has resurrected a theme that the Wall Street Journal (and I) dealt with last year: what happens if we lose this war? Pipes quite accurately puts his finger on three characteristics of social malaise and over-confidence that could render us prey to the depredations of the Jihadist Islamofascist imperialist supremacist triumphalist tyrannical totalitarian terrorist Muslims who are currently waging war against us. The articles below his, dating back to March of this year and December of last, all explore different aspects of this war, what defeat will look like, and why we may be defeated if we do not, as a nation, take more seriously the need for our own defense. My 10-step program is detailed in the last article of the group. It is important to keep in mind that no nation in the entire world, across all 1,374 years of Muslim history, has ever successfully withstood the two-pronged assault of Islamofascist Jihad described by Pipes and myself. If we want to be the first, we need to get our act together, pull together, work together to support our government, and address the three pitfalls that Pipes describes. If we do not do that soon, we may live to see our grand-daughters in full-body burqas. |
|
"How the West Could Lose"
After defeating the fascists and the communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists? On the face of it, the West's military predominance makes victory seem inevitable. Even if Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the gulag? Yet more than a few analysts, including myself, worry that it's not so simple. Islamists (defined as those who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam) might do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them -- pacifism, self-hatred, complacency -- deserve attention. Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has taken hold that "there is no military solution" to current problems, a mantra applied to Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions. What were the defeats of the Axis, America in Vietnam, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan if not military solutions? Islamists deploy formidable capabilities, however, that go far beyond smallscale terrorism:
Pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses can left-leaning Westerners overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been. Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, sticking instead to the lawful, political, nonviolent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will stop them. Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Miniatures" (Transaction Publishers).This column will be on hiatus until mid-April while Mr. Pipes teaches at Pepperdine University. This very astute Wall Street Journal editorial (below) prompted
me to add to it the letter from the Air Force officer below, and my
own essay written last year.....all relating to the consequences of
not taking this war seriously enough.....and not doing what it takes
to win this war.
A few nations have been victorious in traditional High Intensity wars against Islam (France 736, Tri-country alliance in Austria led by Jon Sobieski of Poland 1682).
Most nations coming in to Islam's high intensity warfare cross-hairs have fallen (all the Arabian peninsula nations, north african nations, spain, Israel, syria, mesopotamia/iraq, turkey, iran/persia, most of the Hindu-Kush sub-continent and Pakistan, gujarat, and Kashmir).
No nation has ever been victorious over the Islamic PR/infiltration/low-level terrorism- take-over war. that's why Indonesia, Malaysia the various 'stans' of what was once Soviet Central Asia and central Asian countries further south and east....are all Moslem today.
Western civilization is currently engaged in a multi-tiered war with Terrorist Islam.
PR, political maneuvers, Academia, media outlets, high schools, all are now subject to growing Islamic pressure to present Terrorist Islam in a positive light.
Demographic expansion most visible in Europe, but happening in the USA too, subject the host populations to pressures to accept a Moslem independent entity as Shari'a-ruled enclaves in an otherwise democratic western country ..
and the more high-profile terror war that began in November of 1979, reached its apogee on 9/11/2001, and continues to this day.............
.......all add up to the unpleasant reality that we in the West (Christians and Jews and Hindus and aetheists..etc) are at war with Terrorist islam, just as were spain and Persia and India. they and many others lost that war.
So we need to take the possibility of our defeat in this war very seriously.
"What if We Lose? The consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq."
The third anniversary of U.S. military action to liberate Iraq has brought with it a relentless stream of media and political pessimism that is unwarranted by the facts and threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it goes unchallenged. Yes, sectarian tensions are running high and the politicians of Iraq's newly elected parliament are taking a long time forming a government. But the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra several weeks back has not provoked the spiral into "civil war" that so many keep predicting. U.S. casualties are down over the past month, in part because Iraqi security forces are performing better all the time. More fundamentally, the coalition remains solidly allied with the majority of Iraqis who want neither Saddam's Hussein's return nor the country's descent into a Taliban-like hellhole. There is no widespread agitation for U.S. troops to depart, and if anything the Iraqi fear is that we'll leave too soon. Yet there's no denying the polls showing that most Americans are increasingly weary of the daily news of car bombs and Iraqi squabbling and are wishing it would all just go away. Their pessimism is fed by elites who should know better but can't restrain their domestic political calculations long enough to consider the damage that would accompany U.S. failure. A conventional military defeat is inconceivable in Iraq, but a premature U.S. withdrawal is becoming all too possible. With that in mind, it's worth thinking through what would happen if the U.S. does fail in Iraq. By fail, we mean cut and run before giving Iraqis the time and support to establish a stable, democratic government that can stand on its own. Beyond almost certain chaos in Iraq, here are some other likely consequences: -- The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn't have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD. Watching the Saddam example, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi decided he didn't want to be next. Gadhafi's "voluntary" disarmament in turn helped uncover the nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran's two decades of deception. Now Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that might yet be headed off by the use or threat of force. But if the U.S. retreats from Iraq, Iran's mullahs will know that we have no stomach to confront them and coercive diplomacy will have no credibility. An Iranian bomb, in turn, would inspire nuclear efforts in other Mideast countries and around the world. -- Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America's deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Syria would feel free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists. -- We would lose all credibility with Muslim reformers. The Mideast is now undergoing a political evolution in which the clear majority, even if skeptical of U.S. motives, agrees with the goal of more democracy and accountable government. They have watched as millions of Iraqis have literally risked their lives to vote and otherwise support the project. Having seen those Iraqis later betrayed, other would-be reformers would not gamble their futures on American support. Nothing could be worse in the battle for Muslim "hearts and minds" than to betray our most natural allies. -- We would invite more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden said many times that he saw the weak U.S. response to Somalia and the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings as evidence that we lacked the will for a long fight. The forceful response after 9/11 taught al Qaeda otherwise, but a retreat in Iraq would revive that reputation for American weakness. While Western liberals may deny any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, bin Laden and the rest of the Arab world see it clearly and would advertise a U.S. withdrawal as his victory. Far from leaving us alone, bin Laden would be more emboldened to strike the U.S. homeland with a goal of driving the U.S. entirely out of the Mideast. We could go on, but our point is that far more is at stake in Iraq than President Bush's approval rating or the influence of this or that foreign-policy faction. U.S. credibility and safety are at risk in the most direct way imaginable, far more than they were in Vietnam. In that fight, we could establish a new anti-Communist perimeter elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The poison of radical Islam will spread far and wide across borders if it can make even a plausible claim to being on the ascendancy, and nothing would show that more than the retreat of America from Iraq. We still believe victory in Iraq is possible, indeed likely, notwithstanding its costs and difficulties. But the desire among so many of our political elites to repudiate Mr. Bush and his foreign policy is creating a dangerous public pessimism that could yet lead to defeat--a defeat whose price would be paid by all Americans, and for years to come. "This WAR is for REAL!" MG Vernon Chong, USAFR March 22, 2006 Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start?
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorists attacks worldwide). 2. Why were we attacked?
3. Who were the attackers?
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
The same, exactly, with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? 6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate whom you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations; for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished; too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but through out the world. We are the last bastions of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect; we are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. "What does victory look like? More important that we recognize the
price of defeat and make surewe win."
Concern about Bush's wire tap and other possibly illegal actions is well meaning and well founded. We do not want to see our liberties eroded. And one of the very good questions that comes up when one argues (as I have) that we can put these liberties back into place after the war is.......how will we know when we have won? How do we know what victory looks like in a strange new war such as this? Here's my answer: Since this is a new kind of war for us in the West, one that western nations have never experienced, it is difficult to describe exactly what victory at the end of this war will look like. But.. a.) this is not a new kind of war for many countries that faced Islamofascist aggression in the East. Most of what we once called Soviet Central Asia is Moslem today because they faced this kind of war centuries ago....and we'll never know what victory would have looked like, because they lost. So what will it look like here? I'm not sure. there has never been a victory against this type of amorphous terrorist guerrilla Moslem imperialist supremacist triumphalist Islamofascist Jihad. Never...So right now no one knows what such a victory would look like. But describing the victory is an issue that we have plenty of time to resolve. And its resolution may change with the nature of the conflict. A victory over a massive Jihad army, with innumerable enemy casualties and the leaders dead or in jail and the survivors prisoner or disarmed and scattered ... may look very different from a victory over an amorphous terror guerrilla warrior gang that is driven by considerations of religious extremism and sincere belief in an afterlife where Jihadi are rewarded with virgins. But...bottom line....the question of victory's demeanor is not the question that we should be worrying about now. Now we are faced with a much more sobering and dangerous problem..... we may indeed lose this war. So I suggest that we turn our attention not to what victory may look like in the future, but to what are the consequences of our defeat now. go back to my 'a' through 'e' above. Look carefully at what life is like for Jews, for women, for Christians, for any non-Moslems, and even for Moslems, in most of the Arab world today. Look at the impact of Moslem imperialist triumphalist supremacist aggression on the Byzantine Empire, the civilizations of north Africa (Coptic, Berber) and Spain, the eastern civilizations of the Mesopotamian area, the Sassanians (ancient Persia), and India. None of those thought that they would fall to the brutal barbaric and culturally retrograde Moslem invaders.....but they all did. And a great darkness descended upon them....their cultures lapsed into a dark age for hundreds of years following their defeat. So, I'm much more concerned that our defeat will look a lot like theirs....and I suggest therefore that we concentrate on not being defeated. That is far more important as our immediate concern now than is what our victory may look like later. so...to increase the likelihood of our victory, and reduce the likelihood of our defeat, our military and law enforcement groups must indeed do wire taps, surveillance in mosques, infiltration of groups that are openly supportive of Jihad and Arab terrorism, strict border controls to catch the terrorists entering our country from Mexico.....because if we do not do these things, we increase the chances of their winning. And if they win, then all the liberties that one may be fearful of loosing now, and much much more, will be lost....unless you are male and Moslem. So I suggest that: 1.) as soon as Osama and zawahiri and qaradawi and mash'al and masawi and nusralla are all either dead or in jail, ......then, we can engage in a fruitful argument about whether or not we stand at the threshold of victory (and can thus pull the plug on the wire taps et al), or whether or not we need to continue the pursuit of those Jihadi who want us either dead or Moslem. That is a good topic for discussion then. But for now, let's concentrate on winning. David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com |
|
FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF JEWS (BY JEWS)
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, December 26, 2006. |
|
Perhaps the idea of forcing Jews from their Land, first implemented by Arik Sharon with Ehud Olmert and Dan Halutz is a method worth considering with modifications as follows: Having set the precedent of forcibly removing Jews from their homes, presumably, Olmert would find it acceptable to use this example to forcibly remove himself, Amir Peretz, Halutz and all others who wish to de-Judaize the Jewish State of Israel and turn the Land that G-d gave to the Jews over to the Muslim Arabs. These should be emergency measures put before the Knesset, given that IDF Intelligence forecasts a two-front war against Israel as early as this coming spring. After all, Olmert, Peretz and Halutz anointed themselves as role models for what Jews should do to each other. I recall that "The Olmert Plan of Disengagement" was foisted upon Ariel Sharon (when he was probably ill already) to keep his seat as Prime Minister instead of being indicted for the criminal use of his official powers to cut illegal deals as he was charged and his subsequent removal from power. I recall Chief of Staff Dan Halutz posing arrogantly during a TV interview. While leaning on a Jeep, he told all that driving out the Jews of Gush Katif from Gaza would be "no problem". A nation and her people have first rights of survival when their leaders repeatedly prove that their incompetence is killing the people whom they were voted into power to protect. Instead, Olmert, Peretz and Halutz are putting all of Israel at risk. All the time Dan Halutz should have been training the IDF (Israel Defense Force) soldiers to defend the country from the surrounding hostile Muslim Arab countries, including even Iran who may to soon have nuclear weapons. Halutz was misusing 55,000 soldiers by training them to forcibly drive 10,000 Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria. This planning was initiated by Sharon and Olmert, plotting together with Halutz. Then there was his plan, with the help of Olmert, to viciously attack the Jews of Amona, trampling them huge imported German horses ridden by Russian Cossack Jews, swinging long clubs and breaking the heads of unarmed boys and girls, men and women defending the homes they built. They even trampled members of Knesset, thereby establishing force as their chosen method of how government affairs were to follow the methods of fascists and dictatorships. Here again, Olmert and Halutz were role models in teaching the Israeli public to hate the government as they behaved like latter-day Nazis - making force the rule of Law. Now Defense Minister Amir Peretz is pushing to drive the Jews from Migron (near Beth El) by attacking these Jews and forcibly driving them from their Land. Keep in mind that wherever Jews were forcibly removed, that vacuum was quickly filled by incoming Terrorists and increased flow of advanced weapons. We are again reminded of Sharon-Olmert-Halutz misusing the limited resources of the IDF to plan, train and then attack Jews who, unlike them, believe in the Land G-d gave them. Amir Peretz, an unschooled thought-impaired Defense Minister, appointed by a twisty lawyer, is planning to leave his mark by driving Jews from their own Land and homes. Even as Hezb'Allah and Hamas are filling their weapons' depots, digging more bunkers, Olmert and Peretz are focusing on forcing more Jews from their Land. Olmert is still sub-dividing the Gush Etzion area with fencing so in the near future he can set the IDF upon the Jewish communities outside of his Ghetto Fence/Wall. Here again, Olmert is creating a role model to follow, mainly in the techniques to use force to evict Jews. Clearly, Olmert and his collaborators believe in using force to empty the Land of real Jews who are dedicated to their Jewish Heritage. Therefore, if they believe in using force against their fellow Jews for whom they are responsible, under common law, then force should apply to Olmert's fellows in his Government. As they say: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." IF forcible removal of Jews is Olmert, Peretz, Peres Doctrine and, since they are part of the Jewish nation, their removal by force should apply within common law - as established by them. IF they removed Olmert from the PM's office, that is merely what would be called common sense. As is often said, Israeli Jews have no obligation to commit national suicide because of current aberrant leadership. The Jews killed and those to be killed in the near future due to the inability of government leaders makes those corrupt leaders co-conspirators to murder and fratricide - killing their own brothers and sisters. Assisting the enemy by restraining the Peoples' Army can only be defined as treason for their own political and financial benefits. Why the people do not march to the Knesset and remove this suicidal government is baffling. Why the Knesset sits quietly and allows this to happen is the mark of a people desperately in need of a gigantic Freudian couch. Allowing greedy political incompetents, to direct their very existence with the equivalent of the life-threatening policies, tells us that "Never Again" is happening again! The suicidal and grossly incompetent government of Olmert and his rag-tag party of Kadima, the defeatist Left must be evacuated immediately. Time is of the essence - as Iran and Syrian Proxies: Hezb'Allah and Hamas - are arming under the plain view of Olmert and his bumbling Minister of Defense Peretz. Israelis cannot wait to pull Olmert and his gang out of their "spider hole" hiding places after perhaps (G-d forbid) thousands are killed in the forecast coming war. Putting Olmert and Kadima members on trial after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drops a nuclear bomb over Tel Aviv may be satisfying to the survivors but it will not help the dead and dying. It's long past time to eject the Olmert gang for placing Jewish Land and the Jews they are elected to protect in clear and present danger. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@interaccess.com |
|
SCHAMA SETS THINGS STRAIGHT ABOUT BOYCOTTING ISRAEL
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 26, 2006. |
|
Simon Schama is a great British historian. You may have been fortunate to watch his brilliant BBC/PBS series on The History of Britain. This superb scholar is not prone to inaccuracies nor to sweeping statements. Whatever he writes is always thoroughly researched and exceedingly accurate, unlike our former peanut farmer President Jimmy and his ridiculous and laughable recent book (I hope you did not spend any money on this trash). Together with Anthony Julius, Prof. Schama published an article in The Guardian newspaper (it is amazing that this usually biased paper printed it), dealing with the accusations of Israel as an Apartheid state and the comparison made by charlatans, the kind of Jimmy Carter, between Israel and South Africa. I urge you to read this very important article and keep a copy of
it for future reference. It was written by Anthony Julius and Simon
Schama and it is called "John Berger is Wrong." It appeared December
22, 2006 in the Guardian Wishing you a great new year, free of bias and prejudice. Your Truth Provider,
|
|
Recent call by John Berger and others
Advocates of the boycott of Israel repeatedly invoke the boycott of South Africa. The parallel they draw between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false. The Palestinian, Druze and other minorities in Israel are guaranteed equal rights under the basic laws. All citizens of Israel vote in elections. There are no legal restrictions on movement, employment or sexual or marital relations. The universities are integrated. Opponents of Zionism have free speech and assembly and may form political organizations. By radical contrast, South African apartheid denied non-whites the right to vote, decreed where they could live and work, made sex and marriage across the racial divide illegal, forbad opponents of the regime to express their views, banned the liberation movements and maintained segregated universities. In any event, the relations between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank are not governed by Israeli law, but by international law. "Apartheid," as a set of discriminatory laws governing the nationals of one state, is simply not the appropriate model here. Last, and very importantly, since the 1920s, a substantial component of the Palestinian war against the Jewish community has been terrorism, that is, the intentional harming of civilians. The second intifada consisted of nothing more than terrorism. By contrast, the South African ANC expressly repudiated attacks on civilians. As the authors of a recent study of the parallels and differences between Israel and South Africa point out, not one suicide attack was committed in the 30 year armed struggle against apartheid. The boycott call has several unappealing characteristics. First, it has no stated objectives, other than a vaguely expressed hope for a "just peace." This is a phrase without ascertainable content. Do the boycotters wish for a single state, in which Jews will be an embattled minority? If they do, let them frankly say so, and openly champion the cause of the anti-Semitic Hamas. (A PA minister recently told students at Gaza University, "the conflict with the Jews is a religious, existential struggle and is not a conflict over borders"). Or do the boycotters wish for a two-state solution? If they do, they endorse the views of a majority of Israelis and, according to most polling, Palestinians too - and the boycotters thereby expose the absurdity of their call for a boycott. One does not boycott the efforts of majorities in each community as they struggle for peace. Second, it is one-eyed. It complains of violations of the Lebanon ceasefire by Israel but says nothing of the cause of that war nor the violations of the Gaza ceasefire by Palestinian terrorists, who continue to fire their rockets into Israel's villages, deliberately targeting civilians. It says nothing about the kidnapped soldiers. It ignores the Israeli children murdered by suicide bombers. It puts in quotation marks "Israel's legitimate right of self-defence," as if to deny that right. It is utterly ahistorical. It casts the Palestinians as pure victims, the Israelis as pure aggressors. The very language it uses when addressing Israeli casualties is obfuscatory. "Ten Palestinians are killed," they write, "for every Israeli death." And from what is it that these Israelis have died? Third, though the call purports to affirm universal, human rights values, it is incapable of explaining why it seeks a boycott of Israel, alone among the nations of the world. It says nothing about the abuses and human rights breaches inflicted on Israel's citizens. It says nothing about the egregious human rights abuses committed elsewhere in the world (Darfur, Chechnya, and many other places). The boycotters are incapable of generalising the principles that govern their call. They cannot - they will not - universalise it. They will not, that is, apply it to every other nation that acts in a comparable manner to Israel - let alone, to those many nations that behave far worse than Israel. A boycott would thus punish disproportionately; it would make pariahs of the citizens of one state alone in the entire world. Fourth, in its own trivial way, by putting up barriers between Israelis and Palestinians it weakens the prospects for peace. Paul Frosh, in a posting on the admirable Engage website, has listed many examples of co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian institutions. It is also worth recalling that Terje Larsen, a Norwegian social scientist, facilitated the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, signed following secret talks between Israeli academics and senior PLO officials. Larsen is just the kind of person exhorted by the boycotters to have no dealings with Israel. Last, it has a creepy desire to demonstrate its pro-Jewish credentials - especially in support of its most defamatory allegations and implications. A Primo Levi quotation insinuates that most obscene of anti-Israel tropes, that relates Zionists to Nazis; a reference to "the Jewish Ronnie Kasrils" supports the apartheid analogy. What possible relevance, we ask, is Kasrils' religion of birth to his stance on Israel? Ethnicity is not a criterion of competence in moral judgment. In any event, history is full of examples of Jews who have made common cause with anti-semites. This is not the first boycott call directed at Jews. On April 1, 1933, a week after he came to power, Hitler ordered a boycott of Jewish shops, banks, offices and department stores. In 1945, barely 12 years later, the Arab League initiated a boycott of Jewish Palestinian businesses. One year later, the ban was extended to prohibit contact with "anything Jewish" (as the Palestine Post reported, quoting a League announcement). This economic warfare continues to the present day. Of course, while self-declared enemies of the Jews imposed the 1933 and 1945 boycotts, the 2006 boycotters are anxious to demonstrate that they have Jewish support. But this does not free this latest boycott of the taint of anti-semitism. Indeed, the boycotters' language is drawn, as if irresistibly, toward anti-semitic formulations. As one supporter put it, "Let [Israel's] citizens feel the rejection from Europe." Well, Europe's "rejection" has been experienced once before - lethally - by many Israeli Jews, and many more of their immediate forebears. In the very week when the President of Iran hosted a conference promoting Holocaust denial and once again anticipated with pleasure the end of Israel (events which apparently escape the notice of our boycotters), we do not shrink from the conclusion that any boycott of Israel is reprehensibly deaf to those practices of stigmatization and exclusion that characterized anti-semitism's offence against Jews for two millennia. The Palestinian cause, still less the cause of peace, is not served by promoting discrimination against Jews. It is indecent to call for the shunning of the Jewish state. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
CIVILIZATION VS BARBARISM; EGYPT THRILLS AT US CASUALTIES; ISRAELI RAIDS INTO GAZA; RICE ON DEALING WITH HAMAS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 26, 2006. |
|
DEMOCRATS' NERVE TO CRITICIZE BUSH'S WAR POLICY The Democrats at first approved of the wars, but failed to make it a bipartisan effort. They waited until it ran into trouble, then carped at it. They failed to authorize more money for troops instead of for boondoggles. Now they complain that it doesn't have enough troops and simultaneously want to withdraw the troops. The problems there are almost as much theirs as the Republicans'. They make the problem worse, with their defeatism. If not for Democrats' defeatism, the enemy might have quit, but the enemy holds on, counting on American public opinion to back down, as it did in Vietnam. What is Democratic public opinion but media reflection of European opinion? The US and Israel are supposed to be democracies, but Democrats and Israeli leftists insist on abiding by foreign non-voters (and laws and courts). They call Pres. Bush stupid, especially for running afoul of foreign public opinion. I think their reliance upon the opinion of Europe, which is letting the uncivilized Muslims take it over for lack of faith in their own civilization, is stupid. The Democrats are partisan in the face of, and oblivious to, the Islamic threat to our own civilization. What could be more stupid than that? POPE BACKTRACKING? The Pope still talks in Vaticanese code. Journalists struggle to make meaning of it. His consistent point -- have religious dialogue with truth and tolerance instead of violence -- is lost upon the Muslims. Meanwhile, the Muslims are scrutinizing everything the Pope says, to see if he shows them an inkling of the disrespect they show him. A point not lost, however, was his recommendation that the EU admit Turkey. If Turkey were admitted, millions more Muslims, increasingly Islamist (or Kurdish criminals), would flood into Europe. No political correctness should allow that. To save Western civilization and Christianity, he would have been justified in intervening to recommend that the EU not admit Turkey. That recommendation should not be made in Turkey and not yet. The Pope has to build credibility in Europe, which is more anti-Christian secularist than Christian. The secularists focus on emancipation from Christianity to an extent disgusting in its hedonism and suicidal in its failure to reproduce its population. They fail to focus on the rising Islamic flood, because it is easier to keep beating a fading foe than to start beating an approaching one. Actually, the Pope merely sympathized with Turkish Westernization, but the Prime Minister deliberately misrepresented that as support for EU membership and the media failed to note the falsehood (Daniel Johnson, NY Sun, 12/4, p.5). WOULDN'T WANT TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE The NY Times displayed a photograph of Sec. Rice smiling alongside Abbas, terrorist chieftan. She acts as if he were a decent person instead of Arafat's former "bag man," who should be on criminal wanted lists. At what point to US officials soil their hands and stain ours by shaking the hands of such dirty criminals? WALT & MEARSHEIMER CLAIMED ISRAEL INVULNERABLE Their study claimed that Israel was invulnerable. Hizbullah demonstrated Israel's vulnerability. Iran has missiles, is developing nuclear weapons, and threatens to annihilate Israel. (But also claims its nuclear development is just for electricity.) Does Iran mean it? Pres. Ahmadinejad is not kidding. He is a fanatic, who denies the Holocaust and that Jews ever lived in the Land of Israel. Where does Iran think Christianity arose from Judaism? Unlike the USSR, which could be deterred, because it wanted to survive, Iran cannot be deterred, because it thinks that death in religious war is martyrdom and eternal life (Amnon Rubinstein, NY Sun, 10/31, Op.-Ed.). Part of the antisemitism syndrome is the myth of an all-powerful Jewry. Ironically, Jews get persecuted more than most other groups. Where is our power when we need it? SEC. RICE ON DEALING WITH HAMAS IN THE P.A. She wants to persuade Hamas to give up terrorism and just govern. "But I see no alternative than to continue to press the democratic enterprise and to try and deal and mitigate against some of its most -- some downsides." The same situation preceded Hamas, when Arafat and Abbas had terrorist militias and official polices (IMRA, 11/6.) She studiously ignores that and the jihadist purpose of Hamas. Nor has the US persuaded Muslim terrorists to behave civilly. How could it? Islam doesn't believe in civilized standards. It believes in total, unrelenting, even terrorist war. If the US did any mitigation, the Republican candidates would have touted it. She is giving democracy lip service, while giving the P.A. arms that will end up being used against Israel. EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT JOURNALIST ON U.S. CASUALTIES Muhammad Foda, who works for the Egyptian government evening newspaper Al-Masa', said, "I Am Very Happy When I Learn That an American or British Soldier Has Been Killed." (IMRA, 11/6 from MEMRI.) But Britain prefers the Arabs to Israel. Fools! Americans should protest that. The Egyptian government would deny responsibility for what the press publishes. But Egypt lacks press freedom. Even it if had it, the culture is almost monolithic. That is why democracy there wouldn't be good, if they had it. DIFFERENCES AMONG THE THREE RELIGIONS Western politicians uneducated about Islam and illiterate in Arabic have been defining Islam for us (as a religion of peace and having a few bad apples). What are the differences among the three related religions? Judaism seeks national salvation -- the Jews in their own country ruling themselves, serving God, and setting an example. Christianity wants to save every individual from his sins and has other benign goals. Islam: "Allah sent Mohammad with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.49 from Ezra HaLevi in Arutz-Sheva, 9/15). There it is, conflict is built into Islam. Those are over-simplifications but the crux of Islam is violent rivalry. ISRAELI RAIDS INTO GAZA Israel ended its stay in Beit Hanoun, a pro-Hamas city in Gaza. It achieved its objectives, not expecting to eliminate all rocket-firing at Israel. Indeed, soon afterwards, more rockets from Gaza struck Ashkelon in Israel. The terrorists concentrated on using schools, mosques, residences, women, and hospitals to attack the troops. The troops concentrated on sparing civilians and on restocking the hospital. "Besides the destruction of eight Kassam rocket squads and several launchers ready for use - a one-week result without precedent in the last two years - the commander said the army destroyed vast quantities of RPGs, bomb making materials, assault rifles, grenades, and other contraband. In addition, 'high quality' fugitives had been handed over to the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) for further interrogation." "'There is almost no house in Beit Hanun that we did not reach,' he said." "He said the troops did not enter sensitive civilian sites but that there were large quantities of weapons and fugitives hidden there." (IMRA, 11/7.) "Almost no house?" The IDF should have liquidated the "large quantities of weapons and fugitives." That is what war is for. Are their future Israeli victims not "sensitive?" I think the government of Israel is criminal towards its own people, in a misguided attempt to be civilized. Misguided, because the law of war doesn't require it. Nobody appreciates it. The few civilian Arab casualties, that Israel minimizes, leads to criticism of Israel. Let Israel minimize its own casualties by maximizing enemy military casualties! How dare Israel urge foreign Jews to immigrate to a country that is so "sensitive" to alleged Arab civilians that it lets many terrorists and their arms supplies stay! THE POPE'S REAL MESSAGE The Pope's controversial message was about the relationship between reason and belief. He said they should be in balance. Otherwise, mankind suffers from fanaticism. He explained that reason is integral to the Christian concept of deity. He questioned whether Islam had a balance of reason and faith. He asked for dialogue based on acceptance of reason and rejection of irrational violence. In the course of his thesis, he quoted a Byzantine Christian emperor's reference to Muhammad's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Muslims and others took that quotation out of context, emphasizing the first part of the quote that Muhammad's theory was evil, such as that command. They then engaged in violence, which is what the Pope warned against (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.45 from Wall St. J. Ed., 9/19). Violent challenge is central to Islam. Most people reacted to the quotation without hearing the full message. They jumped to conclusions. I think the Pope should have been plainer for the masses and the media, but his message was valid and, by subsequent Muslim and other reaction, validated. I hope he pursues his theme, just as firmly but more clearly. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
LETTER FROM HEBRON TO IRENE KHAN, DIRECTOR OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Posted by Noam Arnon and David Wilder, December 26, 2006. |
|
Amnesty International
Dear Ms. Khan, Amnesty International's declared objective is a "vision of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards". [http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng] Accordingly, we have no choice but to express our deep dismay at the fact that during your recent visit to Hebron (December, 2006), you did not see fit to visit the Jewish Community of Hebron and speak with representatives of the community. As we are sure you are aware, Hebron's Jewish community dates to the days of antiquity, with a continuous Jewish population for thousands of years. In August of 1929 sixty-seven Jews were slaughtered and over 70 injured by their Arab neighbors. The survivors were expelled from the city. Men, women and children were butchered, raped, burned and tortured. The ancient Jewish quarter was destroyed and its holy sites desecrated. Some 25 years ago Hebron's Jewish community was renewed in parts of the destroyed Jewish neighborhoods and Jewish families returned to live in Jewish homes following transfer of ownership deeds by the property's owners to the community. The Hebron Jewish community has suffered tremendously as the result of constant attacks by Arab terrorists belonging to terror organizations. Unfortunately, it seems that you are unaware of this fact, as a result of your decision to see Hebron from a very prejudiced point of view, speaking with one side only, thereby ignoring the human rights and suffering of the city's Jewish residents. You write [http://blogs.amnesty.org/blogs/israelot_dec06/2006/12/08/1165575600000.html]: "the movements of tens of thousands of Palestinian residents depend entirely on the decision of the Israeli soldiers. Often the Palestinian residents are placed under curfew, which do not apply to the 500 Israeli settlers who live in the area." This is untrue. An overwhelming majority of Hebron and Hebron's Arab residents are under rule of the Palestinian Authority. Arabs have free access to the entire city, whereas Jews have access to only about 10% of Hebron. Also, Hebron's Arabs have not been placed under curfew in years. Curfews are imposed only following massive terror attacks in the area. When there is no terror, there are no curfews. You write: Wire nets have been placed over the narrow alleys, separating Jewish settlers from Palestinian shops, to prevent the settlers hurling objects and excrement at the Palestinian and international visitors. Perhaps the wire nets have been placed to prevent Arabs below from hurling rocks, hand grenades, and bombs into Jewish homes, or to prevent terrorists from easily climbing into the Jewish neighborhoods? You write: We keep our visit short because it is past sunset and it is not advisable to stay in the area after dark. Why is it not advisable to stay in the area after dark? Who are you afraid of? Who told you that night is dangerous in Hebron. When was the last time an Arab was shot at or attacked by Jews in Hebron, during the day, or at night? We strongly protest the description of your visit in Hebron, the conclusions you so arbitrarily reached, and the fact that you refuse to meet and discuss the issues involved with representatives of Hebron's Jewish community. Should you decide to fulfill Amnesty's "vision," as quoted above, and objectively examine current issues in Hebron, we would be happy to invite you to meet with us in order to show you, first-hand, the hardships that Hebron's Jews have to deal with on a daily basis. It would be advisable for Amnesty International to remain a neutral, objective organization and not act so irresponsibly as to draw conclusions before carefully examining the facts and hearing all the parties involved. Sincerely, Noam Arnon and David Wilder
David Wilder and Noam Arnon are spokesmen of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
ROGER STERN INTERVIEW ON IRAN'S OIL INDUSTRY
Posted by Derry Ledoux, December 26, 2006. |
|
I caught the Roger Stern interview on CNBC. Like the young woman interviewing him I was completely startled by the implications that he had made about Iran's oil industry falling apart at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/5/1650. It's eight pages and provides a different perspective on matters. If he is right it opens up an entire range of possibilities for American policy in the Middle East. In any case it is a point that should be more carefully examined in view of the situation in Iraq and the price of oil. Take the time to read it. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/5/1650 Contact Derry Ledoux at DLedoux30@comcast.net |
|
LOST LOGIC -- BEFRIENDING THE "BETTER" ENEMY
Posted by Daryl Temkin, December 26, 2006. |
|
It's time for America to enroll in a graduate course in advanced logic. The professor presents the following problem. You have two terrorist enemies, Fatah and Hamas, and both hate you and most of what you stand for. Both terrorist groups support the nations that will be capable of achieving destruction upon your shores. Furthermore, both organizations are known leaders and supporters of international terrorism and suicide bombers. Both groups danced in the street and passed out cake and candy when your Twin Towers were aflame and your 3,000 citizens were killed. Now, here is the difference, one group, Fatah, was in power for years and was financially corrupt beyond the expected level of corruption for a terrorist organization. The other terrorist group, Hamas, is extremely popular, won a landslide election victory and gained even more popularity following its victory. Although the Fatah Party has a major military force from past years of development, somehow, the relatively new Hamas party has smuggled enough additional military equipment to build its own armed force which is now considered a threat to Fatah. Both groups hate each other and murder each other daily. They live with a clan-like hate-filled rivalry among their families and social groups. They refuse to cooperate and stop their inter-group killing, even though they both have in common their "greater enemy", Israel's existence, and they share the dream of Israel's ultimate destruction. One small sore point for the normal rhetoric -- this deadly rivalry among the Arabs has nothing to do with Israel's alleged "occupation", "oppression of human rights", "the fence", or "checkpoints". The logic professor asks, "America, how do you want to proceed?" America, demonstrating its "logic", responds, "We will support Fatah. Our logic is that Fatah is the lesser of the two enemies." The professor then asks, "Why would you chose to support your enemy?" To the disbelief of many concerned, it has been reported that America is preparing to send to Fatah, $100 million dollars. Let's say that again, "$100 million dollars" plus hundreds of assault rifles and thousands of bullets, plus American military trainers to help Abbu Mazan strengthen his army. The American hope is that with a strengthened Fatah army, Abbu Mazan will be able to destroy the "impossible to negotiate with" Hamas military and will then gain control of Gaza. Once Hamas is defeated, the hundreds of millions of dollars waiting to be sent to Gaza from America and the EU will be allowed to flow through an open spigot. The guaranteed bloodbath between Fatah and Hamas will be like the "good old days" in the Roman Coliseum. As sure as gravity exists, Israel and America will be blamed for this blood letting, just as Israel was blamed for the 1982 Muslim slaughter or massacre of Christians in Lebanon. But in this case, America will be responsible for actively arming the unpopular minority political terrorist party, as well as bank-rolling Fatah in order to cause the defeat of the "democratically" elected people's choice, the Hamas government. In Lebanon, we just saw how Iran and Syria supported Hezbollah. If America supports Fatah, would not Syria and Iran, come to the aid of Hamas? This does sounds somewhat explosive. So, the logic professor questions, "Why are you claiming to the world that you encourage democratic elections and then you support the military defeat of the people's choice? What will this do for your attempt to be respected other than give the majority of the Arab populace another reason to hate you for your hypocritical behavior and what they will call your "imperialistic" intervention? Have you considered how your behavior will inspire the feelings or rather the wrath of the surrounding 22 Arab states? Why do you feel an obligation to interact with, support, and strangely befriend the very people who frequently declare their disgust with your existence?" Then, the logic professor concludes, "Supporting the lesser of the two enemies who both hate you but do want your money has significant consequences. By supporting the minority power, it will guarantee that you will be hated and blamed by the remaining Gazan majority. The only certainty is that whoever survives this bloody battle will still hate you. In time, they will even blame you for "making them kill" their family. And, once their brethren are killed, just as was done in the past, they are bound to turn on you and your "friend" Israel. Again, your kind gifts of guns and ammunition as well as the military training you expertly provided, will be used against your interests. How many Israelis will then be killed by your weapons? Your logic is unsound, fallacious, and potentially catastrophic. How do you expect to get a passing grade if this is your logic?" "Logic would prevail if your premise could protect your friends as well as your own citizens; however, your logic fails to recognize that your support of your enemies who want to destroy you will only lead to their success!" Now, within hours of your model of this type of failed logic, the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, followed in your footsteps, and offered another $100 million dollars to Mr. Abbas. A stunned Israeli populace learned that not only was this financial gift presented, but also, that Palestinian flags decorated the Jerusalem home of Mr. Olmert in order to properly and graciously welcome Mr. Abbas to a fully kosher dinner. And, what did Israel get for the $100 million dollars? Did Mr. Olmert require that the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit be freed? Did Mr. Olmert require that the daily rockets shot onto Israel be totally and immediately stopped? Did Mr. Olmert demand that the barrage of teaching anti-Israel hatred be stopped? The logic professor states that when a significant question is answered by silence or by changing the topic, it can be concluded that the answer is "no". We are witnessing America, as well as Israel, display deeply troubled logic and there is a most serious and critical need for this insanity to be stopped. Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews throughout the world. He can be reached at: DT@Israel-Institute.com. |
|
THE JEWS OF ASSIMILATION: OUR WORST ENEMIES
Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 25, 2006. |
|
The "elite" American Jews of German descent opposed the establishment
of a Jewish State, before, during, and after WWII. They aligned with
many European Jews and favored assimilation as a way of (hoping)
stopping anti-Semitism. They believed that an independent Jewish State
would lead to more anti-Semitism elsewhere in the world. In support of
universalist elements in Jewish belief, they preferred "Cultural
Zionism" and "True Zionism", under which only Jewish cultural
institutions in Eretz Ysrael should be developed.
The sabotage the idea of an independent Jewish state then, by Jews like Martin Buber**, and the sabotage of the State of Israel today, by Jews like MJ Rosenberg and organizations like Israel Policy Forum (IPF) continues and is relentless. Today, when we have a flourishing Jewish State, perhaps, Buber could be forgiven for his views that precede the Holocaust but MJ Rosenberg, living in the 21st century, simply cannot be forgiven for stressing Israel's surrender. He cannot be allowed to do what he is doing, which is killing Israel. MJ Rosenberg and Israel Policy Forum (IPF) -- www.ipforum.org -- are dangerous and scare me. I hope they scare you too! Israel Policy Forum represents the greatest threat to Israel emanating from the USA For your not so leisure reading: http://www.jewishindy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6283 **Martin Buber: a philosopher and Hasidic theologian stressed Jewish universalism and did his utmost to sabotage the idea of an independent Jewish State; Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com |
|
TOM FRIEDMAN'S MIDEAST RULES AND DAFNA YEE'S RESPONSE
Posted by Dafna Yee, December 25, 2006. | |
|
Thomas Friedman's article appeared December 24, 2006 in the
International Herald Tribune | |
|
These is Friedman's article, which was entitled "Mideast Rules To Live By - Holiday Present For Bush And Olmert."
Dafna Yee writes,
Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog |
|
FRENCH CANDIDATE ABROAD; WHAT EGYPT SHOULD DO IS IRELEVANT; LINKAGES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 25, 2006. |
|
IDF ORDERED NOT TO PROTECT ISRAELIS Israel's security cabinet decided that the IDF shall not attack Arab crews seen about to launch rockets at Israel, in violation of the truce, nor to attack them after the launching. PM Olmert said there are "other considerations." He did not elaborate (IMRA, 12/3). Israeli leaders usually offer abstract justification for concrete concessions. The concessions mean death for Israelis. The justification has no meaning. ANOTHER PERESISM "Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel should talk with moderates in the Palestinian Authority as if there was no Hamas, and fight Hamas as if there were no moderate elements in the Authority." (IMRA, 12/4.) Other Israeli leaders have uttered other such Churchillian statements that seem balanced like that. Analyze them, however, and one finds illogic. If Hamas is the main power there, then moderates can not make decisions for their people. Why negotiate? What "moderate elements" among the Muslim Arabs? Certainly, Abbas, the Holocaust-denying terrorist, is not moderate. The Left and the US, both hostile to Zionism, pretend he is, so there would be someone to whom Israel could offer dangerous concessions. What point to negotiating with jihadists, who use negotiating for paving the road to war? FRENCH CANDIDATE ABROAD The Socialist candidate for the presidency of France, Segolene Royale, made two observations. One is that she can understand the need for some IDF reconnaissance flights over Lebanon. The other is that she can understand the need for Israel's security fence, but that the route should be planned by both sides (IMRA, 12/4). It would make no sense for the P.A. to help set the route of the fence that is supposed to provides provide security against the P.A.! The route is planned by anti-Zionists in the leftist regime, the leftist Supreme Court, and the anti-Zionist US. Zionists have no say in it. If Royale understands the need for some IDF reconnaissance flights over Lebanon, then she should urge the French commanders of UNIFIL to stop threatening to shoot them down. She also should demand that UNIFIL stop the arms smuggling that the overflights monitor. Otherwise, UNIFIL simply is giving Hizbullah time to rearm for another round of war. PARTIAL U.S. WITHDRAWAL? It would signal weakness. Iraqis would join up with the Islamists, seen as the winning side (Barry Rubin, MEF News, 12/4). ISRAEL, LAND OF PERSECUTION OF JEWS "Knesset Members of the National Religious Party-National Union visited Acco a month ago, warning of the deterioration (of security) in the city. The police claimed at the time that the violence and clashes were of a criminal, not nationalistic nature." "it was claimed that we are provocateurs and looking for trouble." "Several days ago, a band of Arab youths attacked and cruelly beat a Jewish girl. Six months ago, local Arabs burned trees standing at the entrance to the Talmud Torah, and during the recent Simchat Torah holiday, Arabs surrounded students from the local Yeshivat Hesder [who combine Torah study and army service] and threatened them, until one student was forced to fire in the air to disperse them." Most recently, the school was the victim of hate-vandalism -- holy books strewn about, valuable equipment stolen, and pro-Hamas graffiti smeared on the walls. The police should be asked how come Arabs feel confident enough to confront Jews as they do (Arutz-7, 12/4). Because, as in France, police prefer to blame the Jews. Is it up to the police? Perhaps, since they try to pass off antisemitic jihad as ordinary crime. The student fired into the air, not at the menacing Arabs. The Jews are inhibited; consequently, the Arabs are not. Jihadists are vicious. The answer is more than law-enforcement. It is to ease the Arabs out of the country. WHAT EGYPT SHOULD DO IS IRRELEVANT Defense Min. Peretz said it is critical that Egypt act to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza (Op.-Cit.). Year after year, Israeli and US officials state what the Arabs should do. But the Arabs don't do it. Decent and intelligent officials would stop depending on urging the Arabs to do what it is obvious the Arabs won't. They would not pretend that futilely asking the Arabs to comply is equivalent to Israeli compliance, but would plan policy on the basis of the Arabs not doing it. Jihad makes no compromises and keeps no promises. The answer here is for Israel to re-take Gaza and guard the border, itself. With State Dept. prompting, Israel makes snowballing concessions that start small and gain in momentum, until they become difficult to turn back. It would be difficult to re-take Gaza, now that the world is used to the status quo. Every antisemite, except the ones running the State Dept., believes that the State Dept. acts in Israel's behalf at Israel's behest. The outside antisemites never ask why, if the State Dept. is controlled by Zionists, are its policies anti-Zionist? They don't ask why the State Dept. doesn't denounce the Arabs for their violations, encourage Israel to crush Muslim terrorism, stop plumping for Arab statehood and for minimal utility for the security fence, and start suggesting that the answer is to move out the Arabs instead of the Jews. Antisemitism is a kind of willful obliviousness to reality. Unfortunately for America, it combines with the oil industry and indirect Saudi bribing of our diplomats to embed dual loyalty in officials just when we are losing a world war of jihad. OLMERT: LETTING ISRAEL BE BOMBED SAVES LIVES PM Olmert won't let the Army fire upon terrorists about to fire a rocket in violation of the ceasefire (and the rules of war) or even after they launch it. He claims that this Israeli restraint saves Israeli lives. He thinks he is clever in letting the Arabs fire at Israelis. Here is how he rationalizes it. The Army raided various points in Gaza, but the rockets continued to be launched at Israel anyway. Therefore, he agrees to a ceasefire during which the Arabs shoot somewhat less than before it, and fewer Israelis get bombed. Here is the fallacy in his premise. The IDF raids were scattered, not thorough. Arms continued to pour into Gaza from the Sinai, because Israel did not re-take the border and did not raze houses alongside it, to render arms-smuggling tunnels impractical. He thus cites restrained Army raids that are impractical, as evidence that fighting back is ineffective. That is not logical. All he cares about is for the time being to avoid complaints that he is not curbing Muslim aggression (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 12/4). Another fallacy in his premise is to assume that when the ceasefire ends, as the Arabs always threaten to end it and do, the strategic situation would revert to what it was before the ceasefire. Before the ceasefire, Israeli forces could roam through Gaza almost at will. During the ceasefire, the Arabs have been building bunkers and importing weapons under Iranian tutelage. They would be able to obstruct an Israeli advance somewhat as well as did Hizbullah, their role model. They also would have many more rockets and of a more devastating caliber. Then they would take many more Israeli lives. They would kill many more Israelis later, due to Olmert's "restraint," now. LINKAGES & ENTICEMENTS The Saudi king told V.P. Cheney that his country would need a reward if it were to help stabilize Iraq. Pres. Bush linked Iraq to Israel (linkage being the reward), by saying, "There's no question that if we were able to settle the Palestinian-Israeli issue, it would help bring more peace to the Middle East. And therefore our government is focused on helping develop the two-state solution." (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 12/1, p.5.) Nonsense! Iran is leading a Shiite bloc that threatens to turn areas originally controlled by Sunnis against the Sunnis. S. Arabia is quaking over this threat. It needs to have Iraq stabilized as a neutral country. If it can help achieve that, it would. It does not need to be rewarded beyond stabilizing its own region. But the Muslims like to get paid for doing what is in their own interest. Payment would be Israel's head on a platter. If Israel fell, the terrorists there would be free to pour into Iraq. Bush has described this so-called "two-state solution" as a democratic P.A. co-existing with Israel. That would require a complete re-education of the entire, hate-filled Muslim populace. They are getting deeper into war with Israel; their entire religious creed is based on intolerance, violence, and deceit. There is no reform in sight, just non-stop indoctrination in jihad. Bush appears to be deluding himself, but probably is seeking an excuse for a respite in Iraq so Iraq won't fall while he is in office and his successor would be blamed when Iraq does fall. He puts a false reputation before our national security. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A GIRL FROM HEBRON
Posted by David Wilder, December 25, 2006. |
|
Yesterday morning I was getting ready to leave our Beit Hadassah apartment. It was just after eight. At 8:30 I usually spend about half an hour learning with my friend Rabbi Yisrael Shlissel in the Ohr Shlomo Kollel (Torah study hall) in Tel Rumeida. My cell phone rang. It was Rabbi Yisrael: "We won't be able to study together this morning. The police are all over the neighborhood. I think they're looking for my wife. They were wandering around on our porch. I don't want to leave the house." I, of course, asked: "Why do they want Tzippy?" "I have no idea," he responded. I drove up to Tel Rumeida to see what was happening. On the way up the hill the police car was making its way down. However, two cops were still in the neighborhood. "Who are you looking for today," I queried? Their answer: "Who are you? Where is your ID card? Show me your driver's license." After carefully examining them, they ignored me. Someone else started yelling at them: "Who are you looking for today -- our children. When was the last time you caught a terrorist, a murderer?" After I while I left, and a few hours later drove up to Kiryat Arba. Who was just inside the town gate, waiting to greet me? You guessed. Another police car, signaling me to pull over to the side of the road. The cop gave my car and my passenger a good once-over, and then, not having discovered what, or who, he was searching for, smiled a cute smile and told me to have a good day. Thanks a lot. I later heard that the police were swarming around the outside gate of the girl's religious high school building. Early afternoon. My daughter's friend and classmate, Bitya Shlissel, fifteen years old, was walking from the high school to the lunch room, a few minutes away. Together with a couple of other girls they walked past a group of plain-clothed detectives. Suddenly a police car stopped behind them and one of the detectives yelled, "Batya, get over here fast!" Bitya's two friends, being experienced in such matters, quickly grabbed her arm and started pulling her, just as the detective caught her other arm and too began tugging. Bitya had enough. She told her friends, "why should they arrest you too?" and they let her go. The detective threw her into the back of the car and sped off with his criminal of the day. A fifteen year old tenth grader. Not just any tenth grader. Bitya is the grand daughter of Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan, who was murdered by terrorists in Tel Rumeida over eight years ago. Sixty three at the time of his death, Rabbi Ra'anan was the grandson of Israel's first Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Avraham Kook. Her parents, Rabbi Yisrael and Tzippy, moved to Hebron following the killing and the Rabbi became the dean of the new study hall, opened in his father-in-law's memory. The Shlissels lived in the Mitzpe Shalhevet neighborhood, formerly the "Arab Shuk" or market. Until they were expelled, with eight other families almost a year ago. A short time later they moved into the newly purchased Beit Shapira, not far from their old home. There too, they were expelled by the police, with several other families. One can image that the kids haven't had an easy time of it. And yesterday, Bitya found herself being dragged away by the police. At the Kiryat Arba police station, when asked her name, Bitya responded. However, when they police started with other questions, she ignored them. As a rule, a person who is to be interrogated is presented with an official request to appear for questioning. No such order had ever been issued to Bitya or her parents. She had no idea why she had been swooped up by the police while on her way to lunch. The police packed her into another car and drove the fifteen year old to Jerusalem for further questioning. Only then did Bitya understand why she'd been kidnapped by the police. Last summer three Hebron girls, Bitya's friends, were being held in prison as the result of a demonstration in Hebron. One night Bitya and a few of her friends staged a demonstration by the home of Supreme Court Justice Ayala Prokatchia, who was instrumental in keeping the girls in jail. The girls hung some signs outside and chanted some slogans before being chased away by the police. As a result of this demonstration, an arrest warrant was issued against Bitya Shlissel on July 2, 2006 and charged her with: threatening and offending a public servant, trespass, and inciting violence or terror. It seems that yesterday the police suddenly remembered that the warrant had been issued a half a year ago and decided to act quickly, before the terrorist criminal could escape. So, Bitya was arrested. Of course, her parents weren't notified until after the fact, when she was already in Jerusalem. Bitya told me that during the interrogation she kept her eyes on one of the plants in room and refused to say anything. When the police woman questioning her became bored with her answers, she told her she could go home after her parents came and signed a bond note guaranteeing her appearance in court. Bitya told her: "No way are my parents coming here to sign anything." The police woman then called Bitya's mother, Tzippy, who, as you might imagine, had nothing good to say to her. So the police finally agreed to allow Bitya to sign for herself, and then led her to the door. "Wait," she exclaimed, "how am I supposed to get home? I don't have any money or anything. You swiped me from the street on the way to lunch." The police response: Our only responsibility is to notify your parents. It's your problem how you get back home. Period! After a while one of the Shlissels' neighbors, who was in Jerusalem, picked Bitya up and drove her home for a belated lunch and dinner. A day in the life of a girl from Hebron. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |