Doc's Talk: Auto da fe in Paris: it's no joke (Part 2)

Monday, November 14, 2011

Auto da fe in Paris: it's no joke (Part 2)

The Iconoclast
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Auto da fe in Paris: it’s no joke (Part 2)

Nidra Poller

[NB: “Ch” is pronounced “sh” in French, which is how “Sharlie Hebdo becomes Sharia Hebdo.]

Over a hundred rockets were fired from Gaza in the space of a few days, aimed at civilian targets, reaching deep into Israel, licking at the road to Tel Aviv when France, in a shocking about-face, voted in favor of the admission of “Palestine” to UNESCO. The Palestinian Authority is licking its chops at the prospects of getting unesco to declare the Tomb of the [Jewish] Patriarchs a Palestinian holy site. Just for starters. A few days later, on the eve of publication of a special Charia Hebdo issue with Mohamed as guest editor, Charlie Hebdo’s brand new unmarked premises were fire-bombed. Would you be surprised to learn that the same moral and strategic confusion that produced a travesty of cultural justice at unesco informs the Charia issue of the vulgar sardonic weekly that provoked Islamic ire? In voting to admit the unformed state of “Palestine” to unesco, France was presumably trying to balance out its planned abstention on the UN Security Council vote to admit “Palestine.” Wouldn’t the Palestinians magically become a state overflowing with art, culture, and education, if only they were brought into the bosom of the UN organization? And, if Charlie Hebdo could make fun of Islam, wouldn’t it become as tame as Christianity? Why can’t the Israelis see the light?

The 15th page of the 16-page Charia Hebdo is wholly devoted to an interview with David Chemla, French president of Peace Now and European director of JCall [http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/27501 ]. The interview is illustrated by a three-stage drawing of a billboard standing in front of a barren landscape. Stage 1 announces the construction of a Palestinian state in 2011 with the support of Peace Now. Stage 2: one corner of the billboard is broken off, the date is changed to 2023 with the support of Peace Soon. Stage 3: the top 2/3 of the billboard is broken off, the date is changed to 2041 with the support of Peace Someday.

Asked if Abbas is weakened because the “Hebrew State” negotiated the release of Gilad Shalit with Hamas, David Chemla replies that this might lead Hamas to abandon military action and enter into a political process. In any event, he says, no peace agreement can be made without Hamas approval.

What about shari’a in the Islamic rump state of Gaza? Might that have something to do with the delayed construction of a Palestinian state? Don’t expect a Charlie Hebdo journalist to even dream of the possibility. What about the deterioration of relations with Israel when shari’a becomes the foundation of Arab Springtimed governments in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia? What about the persecution of Christians? None of the above would enter into the line of reasoning of Charlie Hebdo. If you can call what they do “reasoning.”

Charlie Hebdo is a below the belt, grabass, gross, laboriously disgusting, sex-cremental niche publication, an outdated survival of a 1960s rebellion against the bourgeoisie, the church, and the powers that be. Such outworn throwbacks are a staple of French culture, kept warm by fresh blood from a constant trickle of young people. We have 16 year-olds who are 100% pure Communists and 60 year-olds who think it is funny to belch in writing.

The Charlies don’t deal in nuance. They call everyone con. Con means stupid, idiotic, dimwit but it has a sexual connotation—another throwback—because it is, literally, c__t, the female sex organ. Calling everybody con is a way for the Charlies to deflect attention from their own slapdash approximations. Like boisterous children, they take pride in their sloppiness. How can you take issue with them, when they are deliberately crude, clumsy, and offensive?

love / stronger than hatred declares the cover of the “rebuttal” issue published on November 9th, a week after the firebombing. A bearded guy with a big nose and Islamic cap, apparently dressed in a kamis, gives a drooling kiss and bearish hug to a juvenile Charlie with a pencil behind his ear. A similarly bearded, similarly dressed Muslim appears on the back page but this time he’s enraged. Arm in arm with an enraged Catholic brandishing a “fundamentalist Bible,” the Muslim brandishes a “fundamentalist Koran.” The legend is “one god…two suspects.”

This week’s issue features countless messages of support, including these words from novelist and filmmaker Gérard Mordillat who sums up the Charlie Hebdo credo: “Religions deserve no respect …. All religions are instruments of oppression that we must combat…” The Charlies gleefully lump together rabbis, priests, and imams for collective spanking. Though, as I mentioned in Part 1, they repeatedly insist that they have nothing against Islam.

Page 15 of the November 9th issue is devoted to Cabu’s friendly sketches of the Occupy Wall Street folks at Zucotti Square. No such indulgence for the Catholics currently demonstrating in front of the Parisian theater that is running Romeo Castellucci’s Sul concetto di volto nel figlio di Dio [On the concept of the face of the son of God] in which a huge portrait of Christ is juxtaposed with a scene in which a son deals with his aged father’s incontinence, leading to confusion between the man’s bed drowned in excrements and the face of Christ soiled with, according to the playwright, India ink. For Charlie Hebdo the small group of Catholic protesters is no less dangerous than the thousands of death threats in the name of Islam. And if the sweetie pies in Zucotti Square are more like the avenging Muslims than the offended Catholics, it doesn’t count. They’re not religious.

Commentators outside of France, unfamiliar with the editorial line of Charlie Hebdo, have imagined a champion of free speech courageously standing up to the jihad battalions. Close up it looks more like a fools-rush-in operation. Infatuated with the illusion of an Arab springtime, the Charlies thought that Muslims are like us. Making fun of Islam was a friendly gesture. They believe Islam is divided like French Catholicism into a liberated, secularized majority and a fringe group of retrograde cons deserving of contempt.

On other issues—President Sarkozy and his government, capitalists, American imperialists, police, Zionists—the usual Leftist dislikes prevail. Charb—the boss-- almost had to apologize for shaking hands with Interior Minister Claude Guéant. He was honest enough to admit that he also has to endure police protection when he appears in public.

Will the scatological, let it all hang out, grossly genital treatment of shari’a fare better than more serious well-informed works of art and politics that have left their authors in limbo when they weren’t brutally slaughtered? A French professor, Robert Redeker, has been in hiding for years, after writing a few simple truths about Mohamed. http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/refugee-in-his-own-country-february-09-france-islam-rushdie-threats A host of writers and intellectuals have discretely retired from public view because of physical attacks and credible death threats. Writers who dare to broach the subject of Islamization are vilified and marginalized. Most publishers turn down their manuscripts; when their works do appear they are not reviewed and many bookstores refuse to handle them.

The torching of Charlie Hebdo’s offices caused a flare up of awareness of the dangers of shari’a. Free speech, including the freedom to criticize Islam, became a cause célèbre supported all across the political spectrum. Leftists circulated petitions. There was a modest demonstration in front of the Paris City Hall. (The joke within the joke is that an official of the anti-racist establishment tried to exclude the vocal apostate Pascal Hillout of Riposte Laïque, accusing him of being on the Far Right.)

What will come of this unexpected shift in public discourse? Is it a flash in the pan? Or a sign that French people are beginning to stand up for their culture and their rights? Has the clumsy half baked punch from a marginal tabloid accomplished what dozens of brilliant thinkers weren’t able to do? History, you know, happens as if it were written by a novelist, not a historian!

Patrick Pelloux, an M.D. who writes for Charlie Hebdo, said “threats don’t scare us.” If so, bravo. But it’s going to be a long hard fight and this first skirmish was deceivingly simple. Remember, the initial reaction to the Mohamed drawings in Denmark’s Jyllands Posten was low key. It took months for a few imams to mobilize the “spontaneous” outburst of rage throughout the Muslim world. We can only hope that all the contingents that rushed to defend Charia Hebdo will be present and accounted for when jihad strikes again.

Part 1 was picked up on the UK Telegraph blog http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardlandes/100116383/nidra-poller-on-the-charlie-hebdo-bombing-its-no-joke/#.TrpyYr53vs4.email

For another Charlie Hebdo incident see Tempest in a Trash Can September 2008:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/25151/sec_id/25151

Posted on 11/12/2011 9:12 AM by Nidra Poller

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk