| 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 |