The Covenant of the Hamas: Main Points
The Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the HAMAS, is an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization with de-facto control over Gaza and a strong presence in the West Bank. Its Covenant, issued on August 18, 1988, is a comprehensive manifesto comprised of 36 separate articles, all of which promote the basic HAMAS goal of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad (Islamic Holy War). The following are excerpts of the HAMAS Covenant:
Goals of the HAMAS:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." (Article 6)
On the destruction of Israel:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (Preamble) The exclusive Moslem nature of the area:
"The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it." (Article 11)
"Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be." (Article 13)
The call to jihad:
"The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised." (Article 15)
"Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about." (Article 33)
Rejection of a negotiated peace settlement:
"[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." (Article 13)
Condemnation of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty:
"Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of struggle [against Zionism] through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. The Zionists are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements in order to bring them outside the circle of struggle. ...Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act." (Article 32)
Anti-Semitic incitement:
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
"The enemies have been scheming for a long time ... and have accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world media... With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the globe... They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we hear about... With their money they formed secret organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions - which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests... They stood behind World War I ... and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it." (Article 22)
"Zionism scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River. When they have finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'." (Article 32)
"The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism... Islamic groups all over the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews." (Article 32)
Thanks to Nurit G
Friday, April 29, 2011
The Welfare State and the Selfish Society
Dennis Prager
In the contemporary world, where left-wing attitudes are regarded as normative, it is a given that capitalism, with its free market and profit motive, emanates from and creates selfishness, while socialism, the welfare state and the "social compact," as it is increasingly referred to, emanate from and produce selflessness.
The opposite is the truth.
Whatever its intentions, the entitlement state produces far more selfish people -- and therefore, a far more selfish society -- than a free-market economy. And once this widespread selfishness catches on, we have little evidence that it can be undone. Here's an illustration: Last year, President Obama addressed a large audience of college students on the subject of health care. At one point in his speech, he announced that the students will now be able to remain on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26. I do not ever recall hearing a louder, more thunderous and sustained applause than I did then. I do not believe that if the president had announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered that the applause would have been louder or longer.
It is depressing to listen to that applause. To be told that one can be dependent on one's parents until age 26 should strike a young person who wants to grow up as demeaning, not as something to celebrate.
Throughout American history, the natural -- or at least hoped for -- inclination of a young person was to become a mature adult, independent of Mom and Dad, and to become a grown up. But in the welfare state, this is no longer the case.
In various European countries, it is increasingly common for young men to live with their parents into their 30s and even longer. Why not? In the welfare state, there is no shame in doing so.
The welfare state enables -- and thereby produces -- people whose preoccupations become more and more self-centered as time goes on:
How many benefits will I receive from the state?
How much will the state pay for my education?
How much will the state pay for my health care and when I retire?
What is the youngest age at which I can retire?
How much vacation time can I get each year?
How many days can I call in sick and get paid?
How many months can I claim paternity or maternity care money?
The list gets longer with each election of a left-wing party. And each entitlement becomes a "right" as the left transforms entitlements into the language of "rights" as quickly as possible.
What entitlements do, and what the transformation of entitlements into rights does, is create a citizenry that increasingly lacks the most important character trait -- gratitude. Of all the characteristics needed for both a happy and morally decent life, none surpasses gratitude. Grateful people are happier, and grateful people are more morally decent. That is why we teach our children to say "thank you." But the welfare state undoes that. One does not express thanks for a right. So, instead of "thank you," the citizen of the welfare state is taught to say, "What more can I get?"
Yet, while producing increasingly selfish people, the mantra of the left, and therefore of the universities and the media, has been for generations that capitalism and the free market, not the welfare state, produces selfish people.
They succeed in part because demonizing conservatives and their values is a left-wing art. But the truth is that capitalism and the free market produce less selfish people. Teaching people to work hard and take care of themselves (and others) produces a less, not a more, selfish citizen.
Capitalism teaches people to work harder; the welfare state teaches people to want harder. Which is better?
In the contemporary world, where left-wing attitudes are regarded as normative, it is a given that capitalism, with its free market and profit motive, emanates from and creates selfishness, while socialism, the welfare state and the "social compact," as it is increasingly referred to, emanate from and produce selflessness.
The opposite is the truth.
Whatever its intentions, the entitlement state produces far more selfish people -- and therefore, a far more selfish society -- than a free-market economy. And once this widespread selfishness catches on, we have little evidence that it can be undone. Here's an illustration: Last year, President Obama addressed a large audience of college students on the subject of health care. At one point in his speech, he announced that the students will now be able to remain on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26. I do not ever recall hearing a louder, more thunderous and sustained applause than I did then. I do not believe that if the president had announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered that the applause would have been louder or longer.
It is depressing to listen to that applause. To be told that one can be dependent on one's parents until age 26 should strike a young person who wants to grow up as demeaning, not as something to celebrate.
Throughout American history, the natural -- or at least hoped for -- inclination of a young person was to become a mature adult, independent of Mom and Dad, and to become a grown up. But in the welfare state, this is no longer the case.
In various European countries, it is increasingly common for young men to live with their parents into their 30s and even longer. Why not? In the welfare state, there is no shame in doing so.
The welfare state enables -- and thereby produces -- people whose preoccupations become more and more self-centered as time goes on:
How many benefits will I receive from the state?
How much will the state pay for my education?
How much will the state pay for my health care and when I retire?
What is the youngest age at which I can retire?
How much vacation time can I get each year?
How many days can I call in sick and get paid?
How many months can I claim paternity or maternity care money?
The list gets longer with each election of a left-wing party. And each entitlement becomes a "right" as the left transforms entitlements into the language of "rights" as quickly as possible.
What entitlements do, and what the transformation of entitlements into rights does, is create a citizenry that increasingly lacks the most important character trait -- gratitude. Of all the characteristics needed for both a happy and morally decent life, none surpasses gratitude. Grateful people are happier, and grateful people are more morally decent. That is why we teach our children to say "thank you." But the welfare state undoes that. One does not express thanks for a right. So, instead of "thank you," the citizen of the welfare state is taught to say, "What more can I get?"
Yet, while producing increasingly selfish people, the mantra of the left, and therefore of the universities and the media, has been for generations that capitalism and the free market, not the welfare state, produces selfish people.
They succeed in part because demonizing conservatives and their values is a left-wing art. But the truth is that capitalism and the free market produce less selfish people. Teaching people to work hard and take care of themselves (and others) produces a less, not a more, selfish citizen.
Capitalism teaches people to work harder; the welfare state teaches people to want harder. Which is better?
Government’s Own Statistics Show Claims of Limited Moratorium Impact Are Lies
Scott McKay
Yesterday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics put out a spate of unemployment information broken out by metropolitan area, and the table it released enables us to compare unemployment rates from last month to March of 2011.
It’s quite obvious, from looking at the Louisiana data, that claims by the Obama administration and the Left of a limited or nonexistent impact on jobs arising from the president’s post-Deepwater Horizon policies are simply untrue.
The moratorium on offshore drilling, and the subsequent permitorium in which oil and gas exploration in the Gulf has been strangled by federal red tape in the permitting process, has had a devastating effect on the state’s economy. Unemployment is up from 2010 in every one of the state’s markets. Take, for example, the New Orleans area. In March 2010, that market was sitting on a 6.6 percent civilian unemployment rate. This year, it’s at 7.9 percent. That’s a 1.3 percent jump in 12 months, which is gigantic. In fact, it’s one of the largest jumps in the country.
But New Orleans’ ugly number isn’t the worst in the state. That would belong to Baton Rouge, which saw a jump from 6.6 percent to 8.2 percent. That 1.6 percent jump was the worst in the United States over the course of the one-year period. That makes Baton Rouge the worst job market collapse in the United States of America over the last 12 months.
In Lafayette, the jump was sizable as well – from 5.5 percent to 6.3 percent. Things were even worse in Lake Charles, which went from 6.3 percent to 7.2 percent. In Houma, the figure went from 5.0 percent to 5.8 percent.
North Louisiana didn’t fare any better. In Alexandria, the jump was from 6.5 percent to 7.7 percent, in Monroe it was from 7.1 to 8.4 and in Shreveport it went from 6.3 to 7.2.
On the whole, Louisiana saw its unemployment rate go from 6.8 percent in March of 2010 to 8.0 percent last month. The number of unemployed reported in March 2010 was 139,500; last month it was 164,600. That’s a jump of 25,000 jobless folks in 12 months. Are there factors other than the moratorium driving unemployment? Probably. Some of those might be positive factors, though. If there is another major economic driver which has moved the state’s economy south other than the federal government’s shutdown of the state’s leading industry in the last 12 months, we’re not aware of it and we probably would be since we tend to watch this stuff pretty closely.
The eight metro areas in Louisiana are eight of the 11 worst-performing areas in the country in terms of unemployment jumps. The only three non-Louisiana markets at the bottom of the chart are Idaho Falls and two border towns ravaged by the Mexican drug cartel war – Brownsville-Harlingen and Yuma.
We already know that the state’s unemployment rate in April was 6.2 percent. Our economy was moving up fairly rapidly last spring, and it was the energy industry leading the way.
During the course of the Obamoratorium/Permitorium saga, defenders of the president’s policy have repeatedly said it didn’t have an impact on the economy of the region. Those include the partisan shills at the Baton Rouge Advocate, who in February put out a propaganda piece to the effect that what the administration is doing to the oil patch has had little effect on the economy when that was clearly fantasy.
Louisiana’s economy is being bled to death by this administration and its policies on energy production. That’s pretty clear in the administration’s own numbers. Isn’t it about time somebody started telling the truth about it?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Scott McKay, a sales, marketing and business consultant, is the Publisher/Blogger at TheHayride.com, a news/commentary blog about Louisiana and national politics.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9370/pub_detail.asp
The views expressed in the articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office.
COPYRIGHT 2011 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
The Dearborn Islamist Political Machine and Pastor Terry Jones
Alan Kornman
The non-violent actions of Terry Jones are being claimed as the cause for the threat of violence by Dearborn Michigan’s Islamist political machine. This is a clever lie. Terry Jones’ trial in Dearborn illustrates how the Dearborn Islamist community tried to blame Terry Jones for their illegal threats and potentially violent behavior. The Dearborn Chief of Police, Ron Haddad and Prosecutor Kym Worthy, did the bidding of the Islamist majority in that city, by enforcing Islamic Blasphemy laws, and negating Terry Jones’ and Wayne Sapp’s Constitutional First Amendment rights. Jones is the victim of a direct assault on his First Amendment right to free speech by a municipality that is 46% Muslim. The Dearborn Islamist political machine should itself be on trial, for using the threat of violence to achieve a political end, by silencing Pastor Terry Jones and Rev. Wayne Sapp. During cross examination at the Pastor Terry Jones trial on April 23, 2011, Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad testified that Imam Al-Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America said, “that for some members of his Mosque, burning the Quran was considered a crime.” Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Robert Moran, stated at the trial that Al-Qazwini said, “burning the Qur’an is worse than 1000 deaths. That’s what the citizens of this society believe.”
Robert Spencer writes,
“Liaquat Ali Khan teaches commercial law, arbitration and international law at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. He argues that Muslims should petition Congress to outlaw the burning of the Qur'an because doing so incites violence -- in contrast to the burning of the American flag, which, he says, the Supreme Court declined to outlaw because "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur."
Pastor Terry Jones, according to court testimony, received 300-400 death threats related to his scheduled protest in front of the Islamic Center of America. Four of those death threats originated from the Detroit area and one of those four was traced by law enforcement officials to the South End of Dearborn Michigan. These death threats were ignored as an important element of this story, as reported by the mainstream press.
The only threats of violence were from the Islamist community. During cross examination by Rev. Wayne Sapp, Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad begrudgingly testified, that Pastor Terry Jones gave him no indication they were going to burn a Qur’an or do anything provocative or violent. Court records indicate Jones testified his intention was not to protest the Mosque but to protest Jihad and Shariah (Islamic Law).
Who is really guilty of inciting violence, the Muslim community with their threats, or Pastor Jones, by his actions? Because it would be self defeating, I do not endorse the burning or desecration of the Qur’an. There are enough incriminating revelations from Allah himself in the Qur’an if anyone opens the book and reads the text.
Pastor Jones burned a book that was his own property. Jones, to my knowledge, has never threatened or harmed anyone. According to court testimony, Jones has a clean record and passed a government security check to obtain his concealed weapons permit. The First Amendment guarantees Jones freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. How the Dearborn community responds is the sole responsibility of the community and government officials.
How individuals react to someone exercising their free speech falls squarely on the individual’s shoulders, regardless of race, religion, sex, creed, or national origin. Each person must take responsibility for their actions, according to the law in the USA. Al -Qazwini states Jones’ burning the Qur’an is considered a “crime” by some in his community. During court testimony Police Chief Haddad said he denied Jones’ permit for fear Muslim violence would occur. Chief Haddad came to that conclusion through discussions with Al-Qazwini and upon learning of the 300+ death threats against Terry Jones.
Liquat Ali Khan got it right when he implied that if you want to stop an offensive action, just threaten violence.
Dearborn Police Chief Haddad, Wayne County Prosecutor Moran, and Judge Somers’ responses to the Islamist communities’ threats of violence, violated Jones’ first Amendment Rights. Al-Qazwini said that what Terry Jones is doing is a crime in “our society.” Good Islamists are duty-bound to avenge a crime against Shariah Islam. Al-Qazwini accused Pastor Jones of committing a “crime” against Shariah Islamia. Judge Somers chose to acquiesce and in doing so failed to uphold American laws, which are the Supreme Law of the Land, not Shariah. The judge also failed to acknowledge the Dearborn Muslim communities’ responsibility to observe American law.
The crime Al-Qazwini was referring to is blasphemy. The Dearborn Islamists claimed to be defending insults against Muhammad and Allah, by Terry Jones. They also believed he might continue to do so in the future. The Imam or Sheikh is the supreme leader of the community in matters both civil and religious. Most all good Muslims will blindly follow their Imams’ directives to remain in good standing. The individual Muslim is under great pressure to conform or unthinkably lose their honor and standing in the eyes of their family and community.
J.Mark Campbell filmed a juror who stated that the jury reached their guilty verdict by concluding that Jones’ protest, if allowed, could possibly be the spark that would ignite Dearborn’s Muslim community to violence or riot. The juror who said this was in violation of Judge Somers deliberation instructions.
Juror instructions by Judge Somers:
“Non violent expression of an unpopular or unwelcome political or religious belief, by itself, is not enough to find a Breach Of The Peace. Even if the expression of that belief causes someone else to react with anger or alarm.”
Judge Somers should have thrown out this case from the beginning. Judge Somers, Police Chief Haddad, Asst. Prosecutor Moran, Prosecutor Kym Worthy, should all be fired for violating their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp knowingly or unknowingly exposed how far the city of Dearborn will go, to advocate on behalf of their Muslim majority. They did so by enforcing Shariah blasphemy laws because of fear, intimidation, and threats of violence. Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp challenged the Islamist machine in Dearborn, exposing how we must stand up against threats of violence to prevent a Shariah compliant outcome. Our Freedom of Speech is too precious and fragile to be disregarded and shredded by the Dearborn Islamist Political Machine.
The Thomas More Law Center is defending the First Amendment rights of Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp. The mainstream media and general public must demand that Islamists in Dearborn are held accountable for their threats of violence and riot. The strategic use of threatening violence by the Dearborn Islamist Political Machine to achieve a Shariah compliant political end, is the conversation we will have as this case moves forward.
Family Security Matters Contributor Alan Kornman of The United West - Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty can be contacted at: abovepar5@gmail.com.
Why Palestinian Unity Won't Lead to Peace
Dore Gold
These concerns come on top of other serious European reservations. For example, the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, also known as Oslo II, clearly established: "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations." The EU signed Oslo II as a witness. If the EU supports the Palestinian initiative at the U.N., it will be violating a core commitment of the peace process, which is that the territories' fate should be determined only by direct negotiations between the parties. The problems with including Hamas don't stop there. Abbas's hope is that a General Assembly resolution will reference the pre-1967 boundaries, which have assumed almost holy status among Palestinians. (Never mind that these were only armistice lines from the 1948 war, and were not regarded as final political borders.) In Jerusalem, the pre-1967 line will put the entire Old City, with its holy sites, like the Western Wall, under Palestinian control. Israelis will not agree to such a division of their capital in any case, but will European governments risk putting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre under a regime even partly controlled by Hamas? They know that many members of Gaza's small Christian community have been seeking refuge abroad in order to flee Hamas rule.
The last time Abbas co-governed with Hamas was after the Palestinian legislative elections in early 2006, which Hamas won. By June 2007, their power-sharing arrangements broke down and Hamas overthrew Abbas's forces in the Gaza Strip. Israel is concerned that, in the aftermath of their new agreement, Hamas will try to exploit Abbas's weakness and take over the West Bank as well. If, under the agreement, the Palestinian Authority releases Hamas operatives from its prisons in the West Bank and at the same time calls off security sweeps against Hamas, the terrorist group's power in the field will undoubtedly rise. And what will happen to the Palestinian security forces that were trained by the United States and Jordan and have been acclaimed in the West in recent years?
Abbas needs to choose his priority: working with Hamas, or working with Israel. Faced with the departure of his old regional ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas's parent organization, Abbas appears to be recalculating his interests. He must also make a final decision about how to proceed in dealing with his differences with Israel -- through unilateral action that seeks to mobilize support at the United Nations, or by sitting down and negotiating with Israel, as past agreements require.
The pathway to peace is open. But by reaching out to Hamas, Abbas has plainly moved even further away from it.
I was wrong about Syria
Op-ed: Sever Plocker admits he was wrong, says Israel must not make peace with killers
Published: 04.29.11
I was wrong and I admit it. Three times in the past three years I wrote articles in favor of a peace treaty between Israel and Syria. I wrote, based on numerous conversations with senior security officials, that Israel can achieve peace with Assad’s regime in exchange for willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights, whose security significance has become dubious, if not wholly non-existent.
While making this argument, I did not take into account the Damascus regime’s tyrannical character. I fooled myself. Even when Assad won 98% of the vote in the last elections I did not wake up and say: We must not make peace with this man. I believed in peace so much to the point of being blinded to reality.
I should have seen reality. As one who researched and wrote about the fall of tyrannical regimes, I should have realized that Arab affairs experts are wrong, just like Soviet experts were wrong before them. The people of Aleppo are no different than the people in Gdansk. Both want to live as free men, and the thirst for freedom is like the thirst for water: It has no substitute. Sooner or later, it overflows and brings down any dam. Nikita Khrushchev appeared to be a decent statesman, until he sent his tanks to repress Hungarian democracy. Leonid Brezhnev appeared to be a level-headed and rational dialogue partner, until he too sent tanks to repress democracy in Czechoslovakia, and later in Afghanistan. Those reaching out to tyrants were wrong, and former American president, the late Ronald Reagan, was right: One must not make peace with the empire of evil.
Benjamin Netanyahu was also right in his first speech before the two houses of Congress in Washington on July 10, 1996, when he said that viable peace between Israel and its neighbors is impossible without Arab world democracy. The time has come to place the issues of democratization and human rights at the top of the Middle East’s agenda, Bibi said at the time. He added that while Israel can make peace with non-democratic Arab states, it will not be full-fledged peace and will rely on restrictive security arrangements.
Peace for generations can only be made with democratic regimes that honor human rights.
Look at Egyptian case
However, the absence of democracy and tyrannical rule in the Arab world does not legitimize our continued control over another people and land that does not belong to us. The end of the occupation is a national and strategic interest for Israel and it is not an abstract notion. It is very practical and depends on the question of who our peace partner is. I forgot this historic lesson when I voiced unqualified support for a deal with the murderer Assad.
Would Israel’s current situation be worse with an Israeli embassy in Damascus and the Golan Heights mostly under Syrian sovereignty? I believe so. In that case, the Syrian rebellion would have taken a radical anti-Israel shape. The oppression and massacre by Assad’s troops against his own citizens would have been perceived as a means to enforce the peace deal. A new regime – and after all, such regime will eventually rise in Damascus – would have annulled such treaty at once.
In this respect, we should be looking at Egypt. Even though Mubarak was not toppled because of his (weak) hold on the peace treaty with Israel, and while peace did not play a key role in the revolutionary discourse, the belligerent attitude to Israel on the part of some of Egypt’s free media has been reinforced ever since democracy won. As result of the incitement, only about half of Egyptians support the peace treaty in public opinion polls.
A peace treaty with Assad would have fully collapsed a day after the Assad regime collapsed.
I am not writing on behalf of Israel’s leftist camp. I was not authorized to do so. I am writing on behalf of myself: I need to engage in some self-reflection. I need to remind myself and not forget, as I did indeed forget, the following principle: A dictator is a dictator is a dictator, and peace with him would always be handicapped, flawed, and unstable. Peace with such tyrant is immoral, undesirable and dangerous for Israel.
Published: 04.29.11
I was wrong and I admit it. Three times in the past three years I wrote articles in favor of a peace treaty between Israel and Syria. I wrote, based on numerous conversations with senior security officials, that Israel can achieve peace with Assad’s regime in exchange for willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights, whose security significance has become dubious, if not wholly non-existent.
While making this argument, I did not take into account the Damascus regime’s tyrannical character. I fooled myself. Even when Assad won 98% of the vote in the last elections I did not wake up and say: We must not make peace with this man. I believed in peace so much to the point of being blinded to reality.
I should have seen reality. As one who researched and wrote about the fall of tyrannical regimes, I should have realized that Arab affairs experts are wrong, just like Soviet experts were wrong before them. The people of Aleppo are no different than the people in Gdansk. Both want to live as free men, and the thirst for freedom is like the thirst for water: It has no substitute. Sooner or later, it overflows and brings down any dam. Nikita Khrushchev appeared to be a decent statesman, until he sent his tanks to repress Hungarian democracy. Leonid Brezhnev appeared to be a level-headed and rational dialogue partner, until he too sent tanks to repress democracy in Czechoslovakia, and later in Afghanistan. Those reaching out to tyrants were wrong, and former American president, the late Ronald Reagan, was right: One must not make peace with the empire of evil.
Benjamin Netanyahu was also right in his first speech before the two houses of Congress in Washington on July 10, 1996, when he said that viable peace between Israel and its neighbors is impossible without Arab world democracy. The time has come to place the issues of democratization and human rights at the top of the Middle East’s agenda, Bibi said at the time. He added that while Israel can make peace with non-democratic Arab states, it will not be full-fledged peace and will rely on restrictive security arrangements.
Peace for generations can only be made with democratic regimes that honor human rights.
Look at Egyptian case
However, the absence of democracy and tyrannical rule in the Arab world does not legitimize our continued control over another people and land that does not belong to us. The end of the occupation is a national and strategic interest for Israel and it is not an abstract notion. It is very practical and depends on the question of who our peace partner is. I forgot this historic lesson when I voiced unqualified support for a deal with the murderer Assad.
Would Israel’s current situation be worse with an Israeli embassy in Damascus and the Golan Heights mostly under Syrian sovereignty? I believe so. In that case, the Syrian rebellion would have taken a radical anti-Israel shape. The oppression and massacre by Assad’s troops against his own citizens would have been perceived as a means to enforce the peace deal. A new regime – and after all, such regime will eventually rise in Damascus – would have annulled such treaty at once.
In this respect, we should be looking at Egypt. Even though Mubarak was not toppled because of his (weak) hold on the peace treaty with Israel, and while peace did not play a key role in the revolutionary discourse, the belligerent attitude to Israel on the part of some of Egypt’s free media has been reinforced ever since democracy won. As result of the incitement, only about half of Egyptians support the peace treaty in public opinion polls.
A peace treaty with Assad would have fully collapsed a day after the Assad regime collapsed.
I am not writing on behalf of Israel’s leftist camp. I was not authorized to do so. I am writing on behalf of myself: I need to engage in some self-reflection. I need to remind myself and not forget, as I did indeed forget, the following principle: A dictator is a dictator is a dictator, and peace with him would always be handicapped, flawed, and unstable. Peace with such tyrant is immoral, undesirable and dangerous for Israel.
Egypt and Iran Assassinating Middle East Peace Once Again
Seth Mandel
One unfortunate but enduring truth of the Middle East is that the act of making peace with Israel, for an Arab leader—whether Christian or Muslim—is also the act of instantly becoming a target for assassination.
Bashir Gemayel didn’t even get as far as signing Lebanon’s peace treaty with Israel before the Syrians erased him. One man who did get that far was Anwar Sadat, and the legend of his assassin, the Islamist Khalid Islambouli, has been treated as the saga of a hero by Iran’s Islamist leadership ever since.
That reverence has been a point of contention between Iran and Egypt to this day—but that may be changing. Here is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty yesterday: The Islamist army officer who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981 in revenge for signing the Camp David Accords with Israel has long stood as a symbol of the political and ideological divide between the two countries. Executed along with three co-conspirators for the crime the following year, Islambouli acquired pariah status in Egypt — an embodiment of the perils lurking behind Islamic radicalism.
In Iran, by contrast, he is renowned as a hero and a martyr, a privilege reflected in a massive mural painting in central Tehran. One of the capital’s most prestigious streets also bears his name, in what Egyptian officials have regarded as a provocation and a block to restoring long-severed diplomatic ties.
[…]
In what may be a blow to the interests of Israel and the United States, Egypt has declared itself ready to re-establish links with Tehran in the wake of February’s overthrow of former President Hosni Mubarak, who saw Iran’s Islamic regime as a bitter foe.
The new Egyptian foreign minister, Nabil Al-Arabi, signaled a thaw on March 30 when he voiced hopes for an “expansion of ties” with Iran. His comments came a month after Egypt — in the wake of Mubarak’s departure — set Western alarm bells ringing by allowing Iranian naval ships to sail through the Suez Canal for the first time in 30 years.
This is something I touched on in a National Review essay in March. Egypt and Iran have a long history, post-1979 revolution, of deep antagonism. Egypt has since served as a secular bulwark against the spread of Islamist governance in the Middle East—a valuable role, despite Egypt’s many, many flaws.
I offered a note of (very) qualified optimism:
Does the Egyptian defense ministry’s approval for the transit of Iranian warships in the Suez mean the two are coming to terms? Not necessarily. Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said the ships may indicate that for now, Egypt is far too disorganized to stand up to Tehran’s bullying.
But once Egypt is strong enough to stand on her own two feet again, she may challenge Iran’s bid for Islamic hegemony in the region. Though theoretically the balance would be restored, it would be between two unstable and unreliable nations, as far as the West is concerned. “Just because Egypt and Iran compete, it doesn’t necessarily accrue to our benefit,” Berman said.
But now Iran is set to establish an embassy in Cairo just as Egyptian protesters marched on the Israeli embassy there, demanding “the cancellation of normalization.” And that’s not all. RFE/RL reported in the same article that Al-Arabi has also suggested patching things up with Hamas.
That is a double-edged sword, however. The article notes that it could be a source of renewed tension between Iran and Egypt, as the two would compete over Hamas. I think that’s a bit naïve. And even if it does happen that way, would Israel not be alarmed if Iran and Egypt were competing over who could better fund and supply Hamas?
This is not yet reason for panic, but it absolutely is reason for great concern, not to mention some contingency planning for Israel’s energy needs. Additionally, the fact that NATO can’t seem to beat Qaddafi’s band of brigands does not bode well for our side in the mental chess game that takes place beneath the surface of Mideast geopolitics.
Odds are that if, as RFE/RL says, “the ghost of Islambouli is close to being laid to rest,” it will likely rise again—this time to haunt Israel and the West.
One unfortunate but enduring truth of the Middle East is that the act of making peace with Israel, for an Arab leader—whether Christian or Muslim—is also the act of instantly becoming a target for assassination.
Bashir Gemayel didn’t even get as far as signing Lebanon’s peace treaty with Israel before the Syrians erased him. One man who did get that far was Anwar Sadat, and the legend of his assassin, the Islamist Khalid Islambouli, has been treated as the saga of a hero by Iran’s Islamist leadership ever since.
That reverence has been a point of contention between Iran and Egypt to this day—but that may be changing. Here is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty yesterday: The Islamist army officer who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981 in revenge for signing the Camp David Accords with Israel has long stood as a symbol of the political and ideological divide between the two countries. Executed along with three co-conspirators for the crime the following year, Islambouli acquired pariah status in Egypt — an embodiment of the perils lurking behind Islamic radicalism.
In Iran, by contrast, he is renowned as a hero and a martyr, a privilege reflected in a massive mural painting in central Tehran. One of the capital’s most prestigious streets also bears his name, in what Egyptian officials have regarded as a provocation and a block to restoring long-severed diplomatic ties.
[…]
In what may be a blow to the interests of Israel and the United States, Egypt has declared itself ready to re-establish links with Tehran in the wake of February’s overthrow of former President Hosni Mubarak, who saw Iran’s Islamic regime as a bitter foe.
The new Egyptian foreign minister, Nabil Al-Arabi, signaled a thaw on March 30 when he voiced hopes for an “expansion of ties” with Iran. His comments came a month after Egypt — in the wake of Mubarak’s departure — set Western alarm bells ringing by allowing Iranian naval ships to sail through the Suez Canal for the first time in 30 years.
This is something I touched on in a National Review essay in March. Egypt and Iran have a long history, post-1979 revolution, of deep antagonism. Egypt has since served as a secular bulwark against the spread of Islamist governance in the Middle East—a valuable role, despite Egypt’s many, many flaws.
I offered a note of (very) qualified optimism:
Does the Egyptian defense ministry’s approval for the transit of Iranian warships in the Suez mean the two are coming to terms? Not necessarily. Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said the ships may indicate that for now, Egypt is far too disorganized to stand up to Tehran’s bullying.
But once Egypt is strong enough to stand on her own two feet again, she may challenge Iran’s bid for Islamic hegemony in the region. Though theoretically the balance would be restored, it would be between two unstable and unreliable nations, as far as the West is concerned. “Just because Egypt and Iran compete, it doesn’t necessarily accrue to our benefit,” Berman said.
But now Iran is set to establish an embassy in Cairo just as Egyptian protesters marched on the Israeli embassy there, demanding “the cancellation of normalization.” And that’s not all. RFE/RL reported in the same article that Al-Arabi has also suggested patching things up with Hamas.
That is a double-edged sword, however. The article notes that it could be a source of renewed tension between Iran and Egypt, as the two would compete over Hamas. I think that’s a bit naïve. And even if it does happen that way, would Israel not be alarmed if Iran and Egypt were competing over who could better fund and supply Hamas?
This is not yet reason for panic, but it absolutely is reason for great concern, not to mention some contingency planning for Israel’s energy needs. Additionally, the fact that NATO can’t seem to beat Qaddafi’s band of brigands does not bode well for our side in the mental chess game that takes place beneath the surface of Mideast geopolitics.
Odds are that if, as RFE/RL says, “the ghost of Islambouli is close to being laid to rest,” it will likely rise again—this time to haunt Israel and the West.
Will China's rise lead to the decline of U.S.?
People's Daily Online
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently made a bold prediction that China will exceed the United States and become the world's largest economy as early as 2016 in terms of purchasing power parity. This prediction seems to add new evidence to the popular statements made by some western analysts who believe China's rise is the main cause for the decline of the United States.
"Is the United States really on its wane?" "Will China's rise mainly lead to the decline of the United States?" Experts on international issues in Beijing pointed out that the proposition and judgment regarding the decline of the United States is controversial. Even if the United States is coming down, China's rise is not the main reason. The IMF's prediction shows that according to the current growth rate, China's economic size will reach 19 trillion U.S. dollars in 2016 in terms of purchasing power parity while the U.S. economic size will reach 18.8 trillion U.S. dollars in 2016. Therefore, China will exceed the United States and become the world's largest economy.
"We will reach different conclusions from different angles regarding the proposition of the decline of the United States. I think, more specifically, U.S. power is now in the state of absolute growth and relative decline," said Ni Feng, deputy director of the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Ni said that the United States showed a significant economic growth over the past decade, moving ahead of other developed economies such as the European Union and Japan, while the faster development of emerging economies indeed has brought the phenomenon of the relative decline of the United States.
However, Ni also stressed that the relative decline of the United States is mainly embodied in the economic field. The downward trend in fields such as politics, military affairs and science and technology is not obvious, and its performance in some fields has even become more outstanding.
Data shows that despite the severe economic downturns caused by the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2001 and by the international financial crisis from 2008 through 2009, the GDP of the United States, calculated at constant prices, was up 21 percent during a period from 2000 to 2010. Some economic indicators of the United States have dropped compared with other countries in the world. The proportion of U.S. GDP to the total GDP of the 19 other G20 countries stood at 61 percent in 2000 and dropped to 42 percent in 2010. The U.S. GDP was more than eight times that of China in 2000 and was less than three times that of China in 2010. "The U.S. GDP share of the world's total was once more than 50 percent after the second world war and stands at around 25 percent today. The strength of the United States by GDP has indeed comparatively declined, causing the United States to give up "the dominance of global economic affairs" and seek "multilateral cooperation" to deal with international economic issues."
The G20 including members such as the United States, Japan, China and India has become a major platform for managing the world economy. During the reforms of the World Bank in April 2010, developed countries shifted more than 3 percentage points of voting rights to developing countries. In October 2010, the IMF passed a reform plan transferring 6 percentage points of voting rights to underrepresented countries including emerging countries. With the continuous development of China-U.S. ties and in-depth changes in the international situation, the mechanisms such as the China-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue have emerged.
Yang Bin, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that the international financial crisis and the fall in the economic influence of the United States can be considered a reflection of the "decline" for the United States. However, the key reason behind the "decline" is not the "rise of other countries" but fundamental defects in its economic system and structure.
Yang said that the United States currently features a growing scale of financial monopoly capital, the deepening of economic "financialization," "virtualization" and "hollowing out," as well as the increasing share of speculation in economic activities, the excessive concentration of wealth to financial oligarchs and continued high unemployment rates. "The international financial crisis is just a warning. If the United States does not change its neo-liberal economic system and development mode, the deterioration in its economic strength will continue," Yang said.
The U.S. economy has been faced with increasingly deteriorating problems of high fiscal deficits, high trade deficits, and high debts for a long time. The United States has been the world's largest debtor nation since the 1980s, but has managed to maintain economic growth by overusing the dollar hegemony, running up huge debts, and printing bills beyond reasonable bounds, which led to a lopsided financial development and a declining manufacturing industry.
Manufacturing, the principal part of a real economy, only accounts for about 10 percent of U.S. GDP and corporate profits. By contrast, service industries, mainly consisting of the financial services industry, account for around 80 percent of the country's GDP. The financial and real estate services industries generate over 40 percent of U.S. corporate profits.
The "financialization" of the U.S. economy is in fact "virtualization" and "parasitism." The value of the dollar against other major currencies has dropped significantly. When the dollar falls below a psychologically important level and loses its privileged status, foreign capital will withdraw from the United States quickly, leaving the U.S. economy at risk of collapse.
"The United States' economic power and influence keep falling due to its own perennial problems and the rapid development of emerging economies. While GDP is a good measure of the size of the economy, it cannot reflect the comprehensive national strength of a country. The United States is not really in decline if we fully consider its innovative strength, amount of core technologies, military strength, and other aspects," said Zhu Feng, a professor at the School of International Studies under Peking University.
U.S. military spending has been almost as much as the combined spending of all other countries in the world for many years. According to the statistics recently published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, U.S. military spending rose nearly 3 percent to 698 billion U.S. dollars in 2010, more than that of any other country in the world. Worldwide military spending increased by 20.6 billion U.S. dollars last year, and the United States alone accounted for 19.6 billion U.S. dollars of the increase.
Thanks to its enormous economic size and large lead in business and technology, the United States topped world competitiveness rankings over the past many years. According to statistics from the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States remained the world's largest international patent applicant with 44,855 patent applications filed in 2010.
The "China's National Competitiveness Report" blue book released by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2010 pointed out that the United States still has a relatively large overall competitive advantage, and its advantages in aspects such as global connections and the human resource structure are even more outstanding.
The blue book said that in the context of globalization, China's development took the road of "inclusive growth" and needs a fair, cooperative and open environment. It is inadvisable to equate the prosperousness of China's economy and the enhancement of China's competitiveness with the so-called "China threat theory."
Zhu said that it will not bring substantive changes in the international security system even if China's GDP ranks first worldwide. Measuring the international security system needs to consider more on various aspects such as alliance, overseas troops, delivery capacity of military power, and the breadth and density of global security partners. China currently has no capacity and desire to change the existing international security system.
"China will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development and continue to develop through striving for a peaceful international environment, and will also safeguard and promote world peace with its own development," said President Hu Jintao during his visit to the United States at the beginning of 2011.
By People's Daily Online
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently made a bold prediction that China will exceed the United States and become the world's largest economy as early as 2016 in terms of purchasing power parity. This prediction seems to add new evidence to the popular statements made by some western analysts who believe China's rise is the main cause for the decline of the United States.
"Is the United States really on its wane?" "Will China's rise mainly lead to the decline of the United States?" Experts on international issues in Beijing pointed out that the proposition and judgment regarding the decline of the United States is controversial. Even if the United States is coming down, China's rise is not the main reason. The IMF's prediction shows that according to the current growth rate, China's economic size will reach 19 trillion U.S. dollars in 2016 in terms of purchasing power parity while the U.S. economic size will reach 18.8 trillion U.S. dollars in 2016. Therefore, China will exceed the United States and become the world's largest economy.
"We will reach different conclusions from different angles regarding the proposition of the decline of the United States. I think, more specifically, U.S. power is now in the state of absolute growth and relative decline," said Ni Feng, deputy director of the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Ni said that the United States showed a significant economic growth over the past decade, moving ahead of other developed economies such as the European Union and Japan, while the faster development of emerging economies indeed has brought the phenomenon of the relative decline of the United States.
However, Ni also stressed that the relative decline of the United States is mainly embodied in the economic field. The downward trend in fields such as politics, military affairs and science and technology is not obvious, and its performance in some fields has even become more outstanding.
Data shows that despite the severe economic downturns caused by the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2001 and by the international financial crisis from 2008 through 2009, the GDP of the United States, calculated at constant prices, was up 21 percent during a period from 2000 to 2010. Some economic indicators of the United States have dropped compared with other countries in the world. The proportion of U.S. GDP to the total GDP of the 19 other G20 countries stood at 61 percent in 2000 and dropped to 42 percent in 2010. The U.S. GDP was more than eight times that of China in 2000 and was less than three times that of China in 2010. "The U.S. GDP share of the world's total was once more than 50 percent after the second world war and stands at around 25 percent today. The strength of the United States by GDP has indeed comparatively declined, causing the United States to give up "the dominance of global economic affairs" and seek "multilateral cooperation" to deal with international economic issues."
The G20 including members such as the United States, Japan, China and India has become a major platform for managing the world economy. During the reforms of the World Bank in April 2010, developed countries shifted more than 3 percentage points of voting rights to developing countries. In October 2010, the IMF passed a reform plan transferring 6 percentage points of voting rights to underrepresented countries including emerging countries. With the continuous development of China-U.S. ties and in-depth changes in the international situation, the mechanisms such as the China-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue have emerged.
Yang Bin, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that the international financial crisis and the fall in the economic influence of the United States can be considered a reflection of the "decline" for the United States. However, the key reason behind the "decline" is not the "rise of other countries" but fundamental defects in its economic system and structure.
Yang said that the United States currently features a growing scale of financial monopoly capital, the deepening of economic "financialization," "virtualization" and "hollowing out," as well as the increasing share of speculation in economic activities, the excessive concentration of wealth to financial oligarchs and continued high unemployment rates. "The international financial crisis is just a warning. If the United States does not change its neo-liberal economic system and development mode, the deterioration in its economic strength will continue," Yang said.
The U.S. economy has been faced with increasingly deteriorating problems of high fiscal deficits, high trade deficits, and high debts for a long time. The United States has been the world's largest debtor nation since the 1980s, but has managed to maintain economic growth by overusing the dollar hegemony, running up huge debts, and printing bills beyond reasonable bounds, which led to a lopsided financial development and a declining manufacturing industry.
Manufacturing, the principal part of a real economy, only accounts for about 10 percent of U.S. GDP and corporate profits. By contrast, service industries, mainly consisting of the financial services industry, account for around 80 percent of the country's GDP. The financial and real estate services industries generate over 40 percent of U.S. corporate profits.
The "financialization" of the U.S. economy is in fact "virtualization" and "parasitism." The value of the dollar against other major currencies has dropped significantly. When the dollar falls below a psychologically important level and loses its privileged status, foreign capital will withdraw from the United States quickly, leaving the U.S. economy at risk of collapse.
"The United States' economic power and influence keep falling due to its own perennial problems and the rapid development of emerging economies. While GDP is a good measure of the size of the economy, it cannot reflect the comprehensive national strength of a country. The United States is not really in decline if we fully consider its innovative strength, amount of core technologies, military strength, and other aspects," said Zhu Feng, a professor at the School of International Studies under Peking University.
U.S. military spending has been almost as much as the combined spending of all other countries in the world for many years. According to the statistics recently published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, U.S. military spending rose nearly 3 percent to 698 billion U.S. dollars in 2010, more than that of any other country in the world. Worldwide military spending increased by 20.6 billion U.S. dollars last year, and the United States alone accounted for 19.6 billion U.S. dollars of the increase.
Thanks to its enormous economic size and large lead in business and technology, the United States topped world competitiveness rankings over the past many years. According to statistics from the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States remained the world's largest international patent applicant with 44,855 patent applications filed in 2010.
The "China's National Competitiveness Report" blue book released by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2010 pointed out that the United States still has a relatively large overall competitive advantage, and its advantages in aspects such as global connections and the human resource structure are even more outstanding.
The blue book said that in the context of globalization, China's development took the road of "inclusive growth" and needs a fair, cooperative and open environment. It is inadvisable to equate the prosperousness of China's economy and the enhancement of China's competitiveness with the so-called "China threat theory."
Zhu said that it will not bring substantive changes in the international security system even if China's GDP ranks first worldwide. Measuring the international security system needs to consider more on various aspects such as alliance, overseas troops, delivery capacity of military power, and the breadth and density of global security partners. China currently has no capacity and desire to change the existing international security system.
"China will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development and continue to develop through striving for a peaceful international environment, and will also safeguard and promote world peace with its own development," said President Hu Jintao during his visit to the United States at the beginning of 2011.
By People's Daily Online
“Is it racist to criticize Islam?”
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/09/is-it-racist-to-criticize-islam.html
Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist? She was born in Somalia, from which she escaped to avoid an arranged marriage, and she eventually became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands.
She helped produce a film with Theo Van Gogh which criticized Islam's treatment of women. Van Gogh was shot to death by a Muslim in retaliation, and a note was pinned to his chest with a knife — a note that threatened Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
She made her way to the United States, and has since written two books critical of Islam: Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations. s Wafa Sultan a racist? She was born and raised in Syria, and was trained as a psychiatrist.
On February 21, 2006, she took part in an Al Jazeera discussion program, arguing with the hosts about Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory. A six-minute composite video of her response was widely circulated on blogs and through email. The New York Times estimated it was seen at least one million times. In the video she criticized Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently, and for not recognizing the accomplishments of Jews and other non-Muslims. The video was the most-discussed video of all time with over 260,000 comments on YouTube.
Is Brigitte Gabriel a racist? She's an Arab, born in Lebanon. Gabriel watched her country become an Islamic state. Lebanon was a Christian country and "the jewel of the Middle East" when she was young. But the Muslims in Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran, slowly became more militant until they turned the country into a war zone.
She made her way to America only to find, to her horror, the Muslim Brotherhood here in her newly adopted country, going down the same road. She decided to warn her fellow Americans about the dire results you can expect from appeasing orthodox Muslims, so she founded ACT! for America, a grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about Islam's prime directive.
Gabriel is the author of two books, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, and Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.
Is Ibn Warraq a racist? Warraq was born in India to Muslim parents who migrated to Pakistan after the partitioning of British Indian Empire.
Warraq founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism.
Warraq is the author of seven books, including Why I Am Not a Muslim and Leaving Islam. He has spoken at the United Nations "Victims of Jihad" conference organized by the International Humanist and Ethical Union alongside speakers such as Bat Ye'or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Simon Deng.
Is Tapan Ghosh a racist? The president of Hindu Samhati, he speaks all over India and the United States about the ongoing Islamic invasion of West Bengal.
In an article about him, a correspondent wrote, "A life of 25 years of relentless service has strengthened the resolve of Tapan Ghosh to unite Hindu masses to fight against injustice and the oppressive attitude of the authorities in the face of ever-increasing Islamist aggression."
Ghosh said, "As someone who has suffered enormously from the Islamist onslaught in eastern India, both after the partition of India as well as the partition of erstwhile Pakistan to form Bangladesh, Islamic terrorism has deeply affected my life and the life of millions in the Indian subcontinent. The horrific events of 1971 where nearly 3 million Bengalis, mostly Hindus were exterminated by the Pakistani military regime left an everlasting impression on me. Since then, I have worked relentlessly for the service and upliftment of people reeling under the scourge of radical Islam."
Is Seyran Ates a racist? Born in Turkey of Kurdish parents, and now working as a lawyer in Germany, Atest is highly critical of an immigrant Muslim society that is often more orthodox than its counterpart in Turkey, and her criticisms have put her at risk.
Her book, "Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution," was scheduled for publication in Germany in 2009. In an interview in January 2008 on National Public Radio, Ates stated that she was in hiding and would not be working on Muslim women's behalf publicly (including in court) due to the threats against her.
Ates is the author of the article, Human Rights Before Religion: Have we forgotten to protect women in our bid to accommodate practices carried out in the name of Islam?
(CONTINUE READING HERE FOR PROFILES OF FRANCIS BOK, NONIE DARWISH, MARK GABRIEL, WALID SHOEBAT, SIMON DENG, BABU SUSEELAN, WALID PHARES, ZEYNO BARAN, ZUHDI JASSER, MAGDI ALLAM, FARSHAD KHOLGHI, BASSAM TIBI, KHALED ABU TOAMEH, AND TAWFIK HAMID)
Why Obama was nixed from UK wedding list
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
Very Embarrassing!
The American people can now more readily "understand" why the Obama's were omitted from the guest list to the Royal wedding in April! This is a very sobering article. Our handling of relationships with the Britons over the oil spill didn't help either.
From The London Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign Relations...
Quote:
"Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States . But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue."
One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama's animosity toward Great Britain , presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963).
One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11. He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.
The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America 's closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.
Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified." There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House", said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes. Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable", Mr. Hughes said.
The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina 's specious claim to the Falkland Islands , a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina. When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British -- with strong support from President Ronald Reagan -- expelled them.
"It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history," wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. "Does Britain 's friendship really mean so little to him?" One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?
"I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office," wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. "A lot of hemming and hawing ensued." One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, " Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama."
Mr. Obama certainly doesn't care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense. Honduras and Israel also can attest that he's been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend. Ironically, our relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse. Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama's abandonment of missile defense. Russia and China won't support serious sanctions on Iran . Syria's support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations. The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at "engagement" by deepening its ties to North Korea .
And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him.
For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by its adversaries. Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama's relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community. They soon will.
-- London Daily Telegraph editor -- Alex Singleton
and you thought the world hated George W. Israel, for one, loved him and the British government worked closely with him. More importantly our enemies feared him. Do you remember when Obama was running for President he said he would not hesitate to sit down and speak with Iran. I guess he traded Iran for GB except the Iranians have refused to have any dialogue with him.
Very Embarrassing!
The American people can now more readily "understand" why the Obama's were omitted from the guest list to the Royal wedding in April! This is a very sobering article. Our handling of relationships with the Britons over the oil spill didn't help either.
From The London Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign Relations...
Quote:
"Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States . But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue."
One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama's animosity toward Great Britain , presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963).
One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11. He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.
The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America 's closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.
Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified." There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House", said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes. Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable", Mr. Hughes said.
The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina 's specious claim to the Falkland Islands , a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina. When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British -- with strong support from President Ronald Reagan -- expelled them.
"It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history," wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. "Does Britain 's friendship really mean so little to him?" One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?
"I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office," wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. "A lot of hemming and hawing ensued." One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, " Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama."
Mr. Obama certainly doesn't care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense. Honduras and Israel also can attest that he's been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend. Ironically, our relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse. Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama's abandonment of missile defense. Russia and China won't support serious sanctions on Iran . Syria's support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations. The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at "engagement" by deepening its ties to North Korea .
And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him.
For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by its adversaries. Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama's relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community. They soon will.
-- London Daily Telegraph editor -- Alex Singleton
and you thought the world hated George W. Israel, for one, loved him and the British government worked closely with him. More importantly our enemies feared him. Do you remember when Obama was running for President he said he would not hesitate to sit down and speak with Iran. I guess he traded Iran for GB except the Iranians have refused to have any dialogue with him.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Lying Free Gaza co-founder visits my blog
Elder of Ziyon
I received a comment yesterday from Mary Hughes Thompson, co-founder of Free Gaza, about my post on the terrorist gun-running archbishop who spoke at the funeral of terrorist-supprting Vittorio Arrigoni:
I know this gentle man. Israel tried to frame him, as it has framed thousands of innocent Palestinians. Nobody believes a word that comes out of the mouths of any Israeli leader. Archbishop Capucci is a gentle man, as my friend Vittorio was a gentle man. Israel's lies can never harm men like these. God bless you Vittorio. Your star will shine long after zionist Israel is no more.
Thompson is a serial liar. As far as Hilarion Capucci is concerned, the Washington Post on November 4, 1977 wrote after his release from prison:
There seems to be very little question that Capucci was in fact smuggling arms for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and at least one Israeli is thought to have died as a result. The PLO denies his guilt and has declared him a martyr, but privately many PLO members do not bother to deny his guilt and deplore his carelessness in getting caught. During his questioning, Capucci tried to weasel out of his crimes by claiming that the PLO “forced [him] into guerrilla service by threats of blackmail.”
During the Iran hostage crisis, Capucci visited some of the American hostages. Here's what one of the hostages said:
From his home in Olyphant, Pa., Michael J. Metrinko, political officer, criticized Archbishop Hilarion Capucci of the Melkite Church of the Eastern Rite. He said the Archbishop, who made one trip with Father Rupiper [another priest who had visited the hostages], had seen a few well-treated prisoners ''and spent the rest of the time enjoying himself with the guards.''
''I tried to tell Capucci what things were like, and he just went into a diatribe about how bad things were in Israeli prisons,'' Mr. Metrinko said.
Thompson's lies are not limited to what she writes here about these two, terrorist supporting, "gentle men." She also had written in 2007 that "Palestinian children are killed every day by bombs and bullets from Israeli occupation forces," a statement that is provably ridiculous, as the link shows.
Moreover, she wrote concerning the Mavi Marmara:
I stayed up throughout the night to monitor the spot beacon signals coming from our boat CHALLENGER and the live streaming from the Turkish boat, and to wait for the onset of daylight. Suddenly we began to receive repeated distress signals from the spot beacon, and shortly thereafter we watched in horror and disbelief as vivid color images appeared on the video stream of masked and heavily armed troops firing weapons as they descended onto the deck of the MAVI MARMORA. Israel claims it used paint guns, but no paint was in evidence. Perhaps initially they used stun guns or tasers, though we doubt that too. Passengers were seen trying to get away from the line of fire, screaming in panic and fear. Immediately it became apparent that passengers had been shot as we saw bodies falling and bleeding everywhere, as others tried to render aid to them and move them out of the line of fire. We saw no signs of any resistance.
Later we and the rest of the world began to see the images supplied by the IDF which showed a completely different version of what happened. While showing that the IDF commandos did in fact board the MAVI MARMORA, they deleted the portion showing the violent attack by the troops, showing instead pictures of resistance by some passengers. Clearly there was resistance, as panicked and no doubt angry passengers who had witnessed the wanton shooting of several dozen passengers apparently picked up whatever they could find with which to defend themselves against Israel’s clear intent to continue its murderous rampage. IDF is trying to claim that this resistance from passengers actually preceded the violence from the commandos. Anyone seeing the uncut footage streamed from the MARMORA could have no doubt as to who was responsible for all of the violence, the injuries and the deaths.
The original footage that Thompson was watching was from a satellite feed and it was widely available immediately after the raid on the ship, showing that the passengers were armed ahead of time with iron bars and other makeshift weapons. Other videos also showed that they were prepared well ahead of time. So Mary Hughes-Thompson once again lied.
And she now says that Israeli officials are the liars!
Come back anytime, Mary. It's fun exposing hypocrites, and you're such a easy target.
I received a comment yesterday from Mary Hughes Thompson, co-founder of Free Gaza, about my post on the terrorist gun-running archbishop who spoke at the funeral of terrorist-supprting Vittorio Arrigoni:
I know this gentle man. Israel tried to frame him, as it has framed thousands of innocent Palestinians. Nobody believes a word that comes out of the mouths of any Israeli leader. Archbishop Capucci is a gentle man, as my friend Vittorio was a gentle man. Israel's lies can never harm men like these. God bless you Vittorio. Your star will shine long after zionist Israel is no more.
Thompson is a serial liar. As far as Hilarion Capucci is concerned, the Washington Post on November 4, 1977 wrote after his release from prison:
There seems to be very little question that Capucci was in fact smuggling arms for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and at least one Israeli is thought to have died as a result. The PLO denies his guilt and has declared him a martyr, but privately many PLO members do not bother to deny his guilt and deplore his carelessness in getting caught. During his questioning, Capucci tried to weasel out of his crimes by claiming that the PLO “forced [him] into guerrilla service by threats of blackmail.”
During the Iran hostage crisis, Capucci visited some of the American hostages. Here's what one of the hostages said:
From his home in Olyphant, Pa., Michael J. Metrinko, political officer, criticized Archbishop Hilarion Capucci of the Melkite Church of the Eastern Rite. He said the Archbishop, who made one trip with Father Rupiper [another priest who had visited the hostages], had seen a few well-treated prisoners ''and spent the rest of the time enjoying himself with the guards.''
''I tried to tell Capucci what things were like, and he just went into a diatribe about how bad things were in Israeli prisons,'' Mr. Metrinko said.
Thompson's lies are not limited to what she writes here about these two, terrorist supporting, "gentle men." She also had written in 2007 that "Palestinian children are killed every day by bombs and bullets from Israeli occupation forces," a statement that is provably ridiculous, as the link shows.
Moreover, she wrote concerning the Mavi Marmara:
I stayed up throughout the night to monitor the spot beacon signals coming from our boat CHALLENGER and the live streaming from the Turkish boat, and to wait for the onset of daylight. Suddenly we began to receive repeated distress signals from the spot beacon, and shortly thereafter we watched in horror and disbelief as vivid color images appeared on the video stream of masked and heavily armed troops firing weapons as they descended onto the deck of the MAVI MARMORA. Israel claims it used paint guns, but no paint was in evidence. Perhaps initially they used stun guns or tasers, though we doubt that too. Passengers were seen trying to get away from the line of fire, screaming in panic and fear. Immediately it became apparent that passengers had been shot as we saw bodies falling and bleeding everywhere, as others tried to render aid to them and move them out of the line of fire. We saw no signs of any resistance.
Later we and the rest of the world began to see the images supplied by the IDF which showed a completely different version of what happened. While showing that the IDF commandos did in fact board the MAVI MARMORA, they deleted the portion showing the violent attack by the troops, showing instead pictures of resistance by some passengers. Clearly there was resistance, as panicked and no doubt angry passengers who had witnessed the wanton shooting of several dozen passengers apparently picked up whatever they could find with which to defend themselves against Israel’s clear intent to continue its murderous rampage. IDF is trying to claim that this resistance from passengers actually preceded the violence from the commandos. Anyone seeing the uncut footage streamed from the MARMORA could have no doubt as to who was responsible for all of the violence, the injuries and the deaths.
The original footage that Thompson was watching was from a satellite feed and it was widely available immediately after the raid on the ship, showing that the passengers were armed ahead of time with iron bars and other makeshift weapons. Other videos also showed that they were prepared well ahead of time. So Mary Hughes-Thompson once again lied.
And she now says that Israeli officials are the liars!
Come back anytime, Mary. It's fun exposing hypocrites, and you're such a easy target.
Islam Bashers Repent
Amil Imani
What does it take to make Islam bashers mend their ways? Why don’t these folks come to their senses and see Islam as a religion of peace and praise the God of Abraham for continuing his beneficence on humanity by sending Muhammad to guide and humanize us?
Why is it that some people keep criticizing a religion that has nearly 1.5 billion followers throughout the world? Now, if this faith was indeed what its detractors claim it is, wouldn’t these masses of people see through it and dump it? Didn’t our very own President go around the Muslim heartland and sing the praises of Islam at every stop? Didn’t he bow with great deference to the King of Islam in Saudi Arabia? Didn’t he proudly proclaim Islam as the faith of his dear and near kindred? Didn’t he, time and again, tell us that Islam is indeed the religion of peace? Didn’t he with his captivating oratory skills cite passages from the Quran to show how reverent he was toward this religion? Didn’t he appoint a raft of “devoted” Muslims to sensitive and high posts in government?
Even ignoring the President’s behavior and pronouncements, we have numberless others in the know such as politicians, media experts, academics and what nots who keep preaching to us that Islam is indeed a sanctified religion wrongly vilified by a bunch of hatemongers. After all, its very name means peace. How could anyone possibly have anything but praise for a religion called peace? What is more precious than peace?
Exacerbated, the champions of the religion of peace bemoan: what does it take to convince the detractors of Islam to stop their unceasing effort to present a distorted image of this wonderful world-encircling religion?
Well, just a few problems that makes taking the President’s remarks and actions, as well as all the other Islamic apologists and know-it-alls, difficult.
* Claiming “Islam” means “peace” is fraudulent to begin with. Islam is an Arabic word. And the word for peace in Arabic is “solh,” and not Islam. Islam is derived from the root word “taslim,” which means submission or surrender. Hence, Islam’s true name, surrender, is in fact most descriptive of what it is: total, unconditional submission and surrender of the individual and the community to the will and dictates of Allah as revealed by his “rasool,” messenger, Muhammad.
* Further proof of the fraudulent nature of billing Islam as a religion of peace is the irrefutable fact that Muhammad himself led his followers during his lifetime in 78 battles, only one of which was defensive in nature
* Perusing the religion of peace’s holy book, the Quran, taken by Muslims as the literal revelation of Allah, reads more like a manual of intolerance and war than a divinely-revealed prescription from a benevolent God for a life of brotherhood and peace.
Quran 2:216 "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."
Quran 8:65 "O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"
* * Deeds speak louder than words. From its very inception, Islam was a movement of violence. Violence both within its ranks as well as against the non-Muslims has been the unceasing practice. The minute Muhammad died, jockeying for power among his disciples led to numberless murders and battles. The faith of peace never saw peace even within its own ranks and never allowed the rest of the world any peace at all bylashing out to other lands near and far.
* A quick scan of the daily news shows the adherent of the religion of peace engaged in unspeakable acts of mayhem and murder in much of the world. There is hardly any need to allude to them here. But the Islamists have an answer for that too. Islam is not responsible, they say. It is only a bunch of opportunists who commit these acts for their own political and economic objectives. We are to believe that those daily suicide bombers explode their vests in the midst of marketplaces, funeral processions, and even mosques are doing so to further their own personal agenda.
* All these aside, a recent report from the FBI estimates that of the 2000 mosques in the United States, 10% preach Jihad. Welcome to the religion of peace as it is invading the land of the free to make it the land of submission. This is not some Islam-hating crackpot group reporting. It is the FBI, an agency known for its bending backward to be politically correct in tune with the rest of the administration.
* The Muslim population is rapidly burgeoning in America by high birth rate as well as successful extensive conversion in prisons. Even by the rules of probability, a fraction of these Muslims may be deeply influenced by the Jihad preachers and take upon themselves Islamist missions of various severity and destruction. How many Jihadists did it take to pulverize the NY Trade Centers? It took oneMaj. Nidal Hasan to take the life of 13 and injure 29 others in an outburst of Islamic peace-making.
* Islamist apologists come in all shades. There are true faithful who are out and out in front about it. They believe Islam and its ways are the answer. It doesn’t matter whether it is seen as good or bad by others. Then there are those who are hired mouthpieces who are like lawyers that defend a murderer to the limit of their ability simply because they are paid to do so. That’s their chosen profession. We may not like either of the above two types, yet it is understandable.
* What really is hard to deal with are those who either, through ignorance or a misplaced sense of fairness and multiculturalism, keep saying that Islam itself is not bad, the Quran contains no more violence than does the Bible, and that the moderate Muslims who are the vast majority are good people and need to do something about the criminal minority. These folks go even a step further and call those of us who sound the alarm against Islam in general, as unjustified hatemongers.
But the notion of moderate Muslims is an illusion created by the wishful thinking of a good-hearted yet deluded people. The so-called minority Jihadist-types are indeed the real Muslims. These Jihadists hate the so called moderate Muslims as much as they hate the kefirs – the infidels. And it is always the small group, the militant minority that eventually topples the complacent uncaring majority. History is replete with support of this contention.
In my view, truth and the naked truth should be the only standard. No sugar-coating, no political correctness, no hired-guns to cover up for the Islam menace that has inflicted humanity for so long and keeps marching across the globe for doing more harm.
So who is to repent? A Muslim by any other name is a Muslim. It is the human calling for every Muslim to cast off the chain of Islam and take his or her rightful place along the ranks of the truly peaceful and free people of the world.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (14) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
Print This E-mail This
ShareThis
Comments (14)
Fascinating piece, Amil. Nidal Hasan actually murdered 14 people. One of the people he killed was a 21 year old woman 6 months pregnant. her baby died too. but the Obama administration didn’t count the baby as a person, because had they done so they would have to admit that an unborn child is a person.
Also, a recent survey found that at least 5 % of muslims say jihad is justified. 5 % of 1.5 billion muslims is 75 million ! imagine 75,000,000 people running around in the world ready to commit act of murder for their belief. If each kills as many as Major Hasan did ( he could have potentially killed many more if not stopped ) 14 x 75,000,000 = 1,050,000,000 , that is over 1 billion killed !
posted by: Parviz
Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 05:40 AM
Very good article,
In response I like to say that that is precisely what these Westerners who are politically correct try to do; Put truth-searching, rational, independent thinking, intellectual honesty on top. Trumping any loyalty to their own ethnic groups, even their own co-religionists, compatriots. Staying in some sort of independant, unprejudiced, “refereeâ€-position. As exemplified in many of them trying to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict independently, unprejudiced, totally prepared to judge and criticize fellow-democrats versus potential theocratic dictators.
But many of the Muslims, especially their apologists and hired mouthpieces, first and foremost care about the success, victory or power-maintenance of their religion. And this trumps their intellectual honesty, rationality, logic etc. Which is only used in favor of the ultimate victory of their religion, their “tribeâ€. Or so it seems to me.
We should be called “Islam exposers†instead of “Islam-bashersâ€. But it seems very important to me that we also expose this tribal loyalty, which trumps absolute-truth-searching, intellectual honesty, searching for welfare of whole mankind, in a big part of the Muslims.
posted by: DEMO
Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 05:42 AM
Demo: “In response I like to say that that is precisely what these Westerners who are politically correct try to do; Put truth-searching, rational, independent thinking, intellectual honesty on top.â€
I wish that were correct. I can’t really speak to the situation in the US, but in the UK the evidence for the PC brigade being “truth-searching, rational, independent thinking†or “intellectual[ly] honest†is pretty slim.
The UK PC brigade:
1. Hasn’t got a clue about the teachings of Koran/Hadith/Sunnah as evidenced by their insistence that Islam is THE “religion of peaceâ€, has equality of the sexes, freedoms for all, etc (so much for truth seeking).
2. Leap to defend moslems against a purely imaginary “backlash†every time there is an “incident†involving moslems (so much for rationality).
3. All repeat the same mantras about “Islam being the religion of peace†(which must be really offensive to -eg- Buddhists), the “tolerance†of Islam, how Islam must not be confused with the actions of terrorists, etc (so much for free-thinking).
4. As to whether they actually hold their opinions honestly I can’t comment (since I can’t read their minds), but at best it is an “honesty†formed of ignorance, at worst it is a lie driven from fear.
posted by: Jon
Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 05:47 AM
OK, Jon, thanks a lot for setting me straight and augmenting me, maybe you caught me as being too idealistic.
But I was talking about both my family and friends and what I perceived as very intelligent and ostensibly honest politicians and journalists, tv-interviewers and such, for whom I have great respect. This combined with what I read in Lee Harris’ book: “The suicide of reasonâ€.
And there you have it, I keep thinking; they cannot possibly want a collective suicide of the great democratic states, or a return to pre-enlightenment-times, so it is more their upbringing, conditioning by our culture than any conscious deception or even too much ignorance, because many of these political correct people show they are well informed.
But maybe I am just too naive, I’ll definitely bear in mind your words in future.
posted by: DEMO
Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 05:56 AM
Islam was invented by U'bul Khassim (later annointed as "Muhammad" or "Praised One") in order to recruit pirates, thieves and cutthroats for the raiding of caravans, villages and warehouses. Muhammad reigned over an organized criminal association and called it a religion. All was to make U'bul Khassim a wealthy man. In Islam, there is no concept of sin. How better to recruit thugs than to "convert" them to Islam and license them to spread mayham amongst "infidels." Of course Islam spread by the sword, as people wanted to save their fortunes, their businesses and their necks! By converting to Islam, a degree of security was provided as U'bul Khassim's thugs tended to leave fellow Muslims in peace. From this, came the myth that Islam is a religion of peace.
U'bul Khassim was a wise fellow, in that he borrowed bits and pieces from Jews and Christians, as well as his own pagan tribe, the Quraish Tribe. From his own tribe, he borrowed Allah, the Moon god as well as the crescent (moon) as the symbol of Islam. All of these things lent to the myth of credibility. Even the English translation of the Quran is written in Elizabethan English, so as to mimick the Bible. The use of Thee, Thou, etc. is just an Islamic ploy to "legitimize" an evil bo0k and to mask the hatred that spews forth from it.
Now I am an Apostate, as I have left the faith. According to Muhammad, I must be killed. If my father, or either of my brothers can find me, I will be killed in order to settle a matter of honor in my family. Muhammad said and Muslims continue to believe, "If any man change his Muslim religion, kill him." I have no doubt that my father would do this, if he knew where I was.
So much for the "religion of peace, love, tolerance and learning."
Min. Livnat, at Knesset Session: When Do We Stop the Self-Blame?
Gil Ronen
The Knesset held a special spring break session Wednesday following the murder of Ben-Yosef Livnat at the Tomb of Joseph Sunday.
The opening speaker was Livnat's aunt, Minister of Culture and Sport Limor Livnat, who asked bitterly: "How long will we continue to take all the blame upon ourselves all of the time?
"They murder and we are to blame for not coordinating. They murder a baby, her brothers and parents in their beds at Itamar, and we are to blame for being in Itamar in the first place.
"I want to turn to the Prime Minister and say: Jews must be allowed to pray freely at the Tomb of Joseph, just as there is free access to the Cave of Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel.
"My personal grief and my family's loss will not change our faith, which the overwhelming majority of the public shares, that we believe in the Land of Israel and the State of Israel and we believe in our future, even in troubled times." MK Uri Orbach (Jewish Home) said that those who call the Tomb of Joseph a dangerous place are patronizing the Arabs.
"The Tomb of Joseph is not a dangerous place and Shechem is not a dangerous place. The Arabs are dangerous," Orbach said pointedly. "This is not a river with crocodiles. The person who takes up arms is the one who chooses to be dangerous."
Click here for Minister Livnat's memorial article for her slain nephew, translated from the Hebrew Arutz Sheva.
Comment: Agreed, shift the dialogue-speak up regarding land use and ownership-couple this with proactive statements, no more assuming blame, tell the truth and share with the world who is the agitator and provocateur.
The Knesset held a special spring break session Wednesday following the murder of Ben-Yosef Livnat at the Tomb of Joseph Sunday.
The opening speaker was Livnat's aunt, Minister of Culture and Sport Limor Livnat, who asked bitterly: "How long will we continue to take all the blame upon ourselves all of the time?
"They murder and we are to blame for not coordinating. They murder a baby, her brothers and parents in their beds at Itamar, and we are to blame for being in Itamar in the first place.
"I want to turn to the Prime Minister and say: Jews must be allowed to pray freely at the Tomb of Joseph, just as there is free access to the Cave of Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel.
"My personal grief and my family's loss will not change our faith, which the overwhelming majority of the public shares, that we believe in the Land of Israel and the State of Israel and we believe in our future, even in troubled times." MK Uri Orbach (Jewish Home) said that those who call the Tomb of Joseph a dangerous place are patronizing the Arabs.
"The Tomb of Joseph is not a dangerous place and Shechem is not a dangerous place. The Arabs are dangerous," Orbach said pointedly. "This is not a river with crocodiles. The person who takes up arms is the one who chooses to be dangerous."
Click here for Minister Livnat's memorial article for her slain nephew, translated from the Hebrew Arutz Sheva.
Comment: Agreed, shift the dialogue-speak up regarding land use and ownership-couple this with proactive statements, no more assuming blame, tell the truth and share with the world who is the agitator and provocateur.
Fatah-Hamas Agreement: Another Nail in the “Peace Process’s” Coffin
Barry Rubin
Suddenly, after years of persistent failure, Fatah and Hamas–which means the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas–have signed a detailed reconciliation agreement.
Why now? It’s preparation for the UN and the claim that the PA is sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinians. In exchange for being able to claim it now rules both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Fatah (PA) made huge concessions that it has always refused to give before.
Naturally, the accord will break down. Presumably after the PA gets a lot of support for being an independent country later this year and before projected Palestinian elections in 2012. Why is Hamas going along with this? Because the deal gives it a lot, including a promise of elections in a year. Hamas won the last elections and presumably is confident–especially as it looks at electoral successes for Hizballah in Lebanon and probably soon for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt–that it will win again.
But there’s also another reason. Hamas is probably quite happy with the idea that many countries–and perhaps the UN–will recognize an independent Palestinian state unconditionally. In other words, there will be a widely, or internationally, accepted Palestine without the need to make peace with Israel. No concessions need be made. The Palestinians will get everything and give up nothing. They will not be bound in any way by border changes or security guarantees. The struggle to wipe Israel off the map can continue.
It’s Hamas’s dream come true.
Anyone who thinks this helps the peace process is deluded. Hamas will never accept any peace agreement with Israel and will radicalize Fatah’s negotiating position out of competition between the two rivals to prove their militancy. The race to commit the most bloody terrorist acts would also intensify.
Make no mistake. Whether or not this development has any direct effect on the ground, it’s another step toward the death of any real Israel-Palestinian peace process.
For a detailed account of the deal: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218098
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.
Suddenly, after years of persistent failure, Fatah and Hamas–which means the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas–have signed a detailed reconciliation agreement.
Why now? It’s preparation for the UN and the claim that the PA is sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinians. In exchange for being able to claim it now rules both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Fatah (PA) made huge concessions that it has always refused to give before.
Naturally, the accord will break down. Presumably after the PA gets a lot of support for being an independent country later this year and before projected Palestinian elections in 2012. Why is Hamas going along with this? Because the deal gives it a lot, including a promise of elections in a year. Hamas won the last elections and presumably is confident–especially as it looks at electoral successes for Hizballah in Lebanon and probably soon for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt–that it will win again.
But there’s also another reason. Hamas is probably quite happy with the idea that many countries–and perhaps the UN–will recognize an independent Palestinian state unconditionally. In other words, there will be a widely, or internationally, accepted Palestine without the need to make peace with Israel. No concessions need be made. The Palestinians will get everything and give up nothing. They will not be bound in any way by border changes or security guarantees. The struggle to wipe Israel off the map can continue.
It’s Hamas’s dream come true.
Anyone who thinks this helps the peace process is deluded. Hamas will never accept any peace agreement with Israel and will radicalize Fatah’s negotiating position out of competition between the two rivals to prove their militancy. The race to commit the most bloody terrorist acts would also intensify.
Make no mistake. Whether or not this development has any direct effect on the ground, it’s another step toward the death of any real Israel-Palestinian peace process.
For a detailed account of the deal: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218098
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.
G-d's mysterious ways
David Wilder
The Jewish Community of Hebron
April 29, 2011
Ever since yesterday’s announcement concerning the ‘new’ bond between Hamas and Fatah, Israeli analysts having been breaking their backs attempting to explain the ‘new’ situation Israel finds itself in. Bibi is having conniption fits. Bibi to Abu-Mazen: Choose peace with Israel, or Hamas. So read the headlines. FM Lieberman isn’t far behind: Hamas will conquer Judea and Samaria. Others, on left side of the political spectrum continue lambasting Netanyahu’s policies.
Personally, I believe the agreement is a reason to break out the wine, set up a band, and celebrate. Why? Despite what would seem to be an almost constant disagreement with Shimon Peres, this time he has hit the nail on the head. Latest headlines quote him: “The agreement will prevent creation of a palestinian state.”
Yeah!!! Right on!!!
Bibi has good reason to be upset. His Bar Ilan 2 speech, to be recited before a full house of Senators and Congressmen in Washington in a few weeks was just about finished. Concession after concession, abandonment of more land to our enemies, relinquishment of additional security precautions, a ‘palestinian state’ in temporary borders, perhaps even with a taste of Jerusalem for desert. It was all set. And now – what bombshell can he initiate? Not a one. At least, certainly not in the direction he planned.
First of all, it is mandatory to comprehend the starting point. The conflict between Hamas and Fatah has and did not have anything to do with ideology. Both agree that the state of Israel is an insufferable thorn in the collective throats of the Arabs that must be plucked out of existence at the first opportunity. Abu Mazen certainly hasn’t changed his life’s philosophy, which he expressed while planning the 1974 Ma’alot massacre and funding the 1972 Olympic terror killings in Germany. His present peace doctrine can be best summed up with the names Dalal Mughrabi and Wafa Idris, terrorists who killed Israelis and have been recently honored by the PA.
The major conflicts between Abu Mazen and his friends in Gaza were twofold: Ego – who would rule; and semantics – what is permissible to say? Abu Mazen was willing to play the game initiated by his predecessor Yassir, who was taught the rights and wrongs of diplomacy by Ezer Weitzman and our illustrious president, Peres. Hamas preferred to continue shooting rockets at Israel, making no bones about its intentions to delete Israel from the map.
However, their ties are much stronger and deeper than their disagreements. After all, they do have a common goal. A palestinian state in Gaza, Judea and Samaria is only a stepping stone to their main aim of destroying Israel.
What brings them back together? We can look for and perhaps find multiple reasons. But the TRUE inspiration has nothing to do with what they want. Rather, it is, as happens time and time again during the almost 4,000 year old history of our people, Divine intervention, G-d’s way of saving us from ourselves.
Bibi already announced his acceptance of a palestinian state. But what can he do now? Every rocket now shot into Israel, at Sderot, Ashkelon or Tel Aviv has not one signature on it, rather two: Ismail Haniyeh and Abu Mazen. Gilad Shalit is now a captive of Hamas-Fatah. Every attempted terror attack initiated from Gaza is rubber-stamped: Fatah-Hamas.
The threat of Hamastan expanding into Judea and Samaria has increased a hundred-fold. The possibility of missile attacks from Yosh into Tel Aviv or Petach Tikvah is no longer an ‘extremist’s imagination,’ as is the risk of attempts to shoot down planes flying into and out of Ben Gurion airport. These scenarios are being played out at this very moment on the plates of Israeli intelligence analysts, who have been participating in this banquet at least from the signing of the 1994 Oslo accords. Even Shimon, the chief architect of this cataclysm realizes that the end of his imagined paradise is quickly coming to an end.
Just as G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so too, today, He is throwing dust into the eyes of our enemies, blinding them, dulling their senses, and leading them down a dead-end road, leading, not to Israel’s destruction, rather to their own obliteration.
This does not mean, under any circumstances, that we will have an easy time of it. Far from it. Dead end roads aren’t necessarily short, and they can be quite bumpy. But the chances of another Arab state on our eastern border, created with Israel’s blessings, have hit the lowest level they’ve been at in years. It won’t be easy, but we will prevent creation of a palestinian state.
G-d is watching over us. G-d is protecting us, even from ourselves. Thank G-d!
With blessings from Hebron,
David Wilder
Visit Hebron
www.hebrontours.com
www.hebron.com (English)
www.hebron.org.il (Hebrew)
The Jewish Community of Hebron
April 29, 2011
Ever since yesterday’s announcement concerning the ‘new’ bond between Hamas and Fatah, Israeli analysts having been breaking their backs attempting to explain the ‘new’ situation Israel finds itself in. Bibi is having conniption fits. Bibi to Abu-Mazen: Choose peace with Israel, or Hamas. So read the headlines. FM Lieberman isn’t far behind: Hamas will conquer Judea and Samaria. Others, on left side of the political spectrum continue lambasting Netanyahu’s policies.
Personally, I believe the agreement is a reason to break out the wine, set up a band, and celebrate. Why? Despite what would seem to be an almost constant disagreement with Shimon Peres, this time he has hit the nail on the head. Latest headlines quote him: “The agreement will prevent creation of a palestinian state.”
Yeah!!! Right on!!!
Bibi has good reason to be upset. His Bar Ilan 2 speech, to be recited before a full house of Senators and Congressmen in Washington in a few weeks was just about finished. Concession after concession, abandonment of more land to our enemies, relinquishment of additional security precautions, a ‘palestinian state’ in temporary borders, perhaps even with a taste of Jerusalem for desert. It was all set. And now – what bombshell can he initiate? Not a one. At least, certainly not in the direction he planned.
First of all, it is mandatory to comprehend the starting point. The conflict between Hamas and Fatah has and did not have anything to do with ideology. Both agree that the state of Israel is an insufferable thorn in the collective throats of the Arabs that must be plucked out of existence at the first opportunity. Abu Mazen certainly hasn’t changed his life’s philosophy, which he expressed while planning the 1974 Ma’alot massacre and funding the 1972 Olympic terror killings in Germany. His present peace doctrine can be best summed up with the names Dalal Mughrabi and Wafa Idris, terrorists who killed Israelis and have been recently honored by the PA.
The major conflicts between Abu Mazen and his friends in Gaza were twofold: Ego – who would rule; and semantics – what is permissible to say? Abu Mazen was willing to play the game initiated by his predecessor Yassir, who was taught the rights and wrongs of diplomacy by Ezer Weitzman and our illustrious president, Peres. Hamas preferred to continue shooting rockets at Israel, making no bones about its intentions to delete Israel from the map.
However, their ties are much stronger and deeper than their disagreements. After all, they do have a common goal. A palestinian state in Gaza, Judea and Samaria is only a stepping stone to their main aim of destroying Israel.
What brings them back together? We can look for and perhaps find multiple reasons. But the TRUE inspiration has nothing to do with what they want. Rather, it is, as happens time and time again during the almost 4,000 year old history of our people, Divine intervention, G-d’s way of saving us from ourselves.
Bibi already announced his acceptance of a palestinian state. But what can he do now? Every rocket now shot into Israel, at Sderot, Ashkelon or Tel Aviv has not one signature on it, rather two: Ismail Haniyeh and Abu Mazen. Gilad Shalit is now a captive of Hamas-Fatah. Every attempted terror attack initiated from Gaza is rubber-stamped: Fatah-Hamas.
The threat of Hamastan expanding into Judea and Samaria has increased a hundred-fold. The possibility of missile attacks from Yosh into Tel Aviv or Petach Tikvah is no longer an ‘extremist’s imagination,’ as is the risk of attempts to shoot down planes flying into and out of Ben Gurion airport. These scenarios are being played out at this very moment on the plates of Israeli intelligence analysts, who have been participating in this banquet at least from the signing of the 1994 Oslo accords. Even Shimon, the chief architect of this cataclysm realizes that the end of his imagined paradise is quickly coming to an end.
Just as G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so too, today, He is throwing dust into the eyes of our enemies, blinding them, dulling their senses, and leading them down a dead-end road, leading, not to Israel’s destruction, rather to their own obliteration.
This does not mean, under any circumstances, that we will have an easy time of it. Far from it. Dead end roads aren’t necessarily short, and they can be quite bumpy. But the chances of another Arab state on our eastern border, created with Israel’s blessings, have hit the lowest level they’ve been at in years. It won’t be easy, but we will prevent creation of a palestinian state.
G-d is watching over us. G-d is protecting us, even from ourselves. Thank G-d!
With blessings from Hebron,
David Wilder
Visit Hebron
www.hebrontours.com
www.hebron.com (English)
www.hebron.org.il (Hebrew)
When Enough Means Enough!
Nurit Greenger
There are many times in life when enough is enough takes possession. Take the case of an abused person, he or she will act according to enough is enough.
I thinks that Jews are abused People. I think that Israel is an abused State.
I was born few months before, Friday, 14 May 1948, 5 Iyar 5708, when David Ben Gurion stood in the Tel Aviv Museum, today known as Independence Hall, and proclaimed Israel's independence beneath a large portrait of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.
On that historical day Ben-Gurion stated that the new nation would "uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race." And indeed Israel has been upholding up to its commitments and beyond. The proclamation of Israel's independence ceremony was not widely publicized as it was feared that the British Authorities might attempt to prevent it or that the Arab armies might invade earlier than expected. An invitation was sent out by messenger on the morning of 14 May telling recipients to arrive at 15:30 and to keep the event a secret. The event started at 16:00, a time chosen so as not to breach the Sabbath, and was broadcasted live as the first transmission of the new radio station Kol [Voice] of Yisrael [Israel].
The Declaration was made, the Jewish people danced in the streets and a day later the Arabs attacked the nascent Jewish State Israel and Jews, lacking arms and resources, fought a war until the early months of 1949.
Almost 63 years to that day Israel is still fighting for its independence, now facing dehumanization, demonization, delegitimization and existential threats from north, south and east.
When enough really means enough, one takes measures to alter, to modify, transform, make the difference. This I what Israel needs to do, not only because I have had enough seeing her being abused, but Israel needs to finally realize that this cannot go on.
What do I suggest?
Become as hard as the hardest metal and leave the altruism behind.
If the Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" go ahead and, unilaterally, with the help supporting countries they recruited, declare a "Palestine," Israel must immediately null and void the Oslo accords, the Road Map and any and all preliminary pieces of paper the bloody hands of these Arab murderers put their signature on. Then, immediately annex and put under Israel's sovereignty and law all the land it got back in 1967, based on international law wars' results: you attacked me, I had to go to war to defend myself, I won and I gained land. Now it suits me to keep this land for security and avoidance of another war.
Then Israel must say, I do not begrudge you a state but you need to come to me and negotiate with me, not with people who dislike Jews and live thousands of miles away from your killing fields. We will negotiate according to UN Resolutions 242 and 338, step by step. Israel will be the one to decide the size of this "Palestine" and what land it is prepared to allot for this 22nd Arab state. Israel will dictate the terms of what kind of a "Palestine" it will be, not you, not anyone else. Because it is the lives of 5Million Jews that is at stake and it is the Government of Israel foremost duty to protect them. And these Jews' blood ain't cheap as you made it to be until today.
Now we say ENOUGH -Never Again Is Now! That is what I will say and do.
But there others who have other suggestions we should all keep in mind. Here is one:
Israel must end negotiations altogether, cancel all notion of a "Palestinian" state, annex the entire Judea, Samaria and Jordan Valley with civil rights only for the Arab inhabitants, and limited rights to run their local affairs, subject to Israeli supervision and consent.
Israel must take down all terror organizations, including the PLO and Fatah and kill anyone who don't flee fast enough. Those who Israel knows have murdered or aided in murder should be brought to trial and, if convicted, should be executed and buried with recognizable pig parts. Murderers and terrorist chieftains who flee should be hunted down everywhere in the world.
No international "peacekeeping" forces will enter Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan, only over the dead bodies of Israelis. Israel has already seen what "peacekeeping" forces do: allow Israel's enemies to arm to the hilt and prepare for the next war they plan.
Flotillas, on their way to "save" Gaza that sail against Israel will simply be sunk.
Israel should take the role of world leader of an anti-Islamic Caliphate front, which India might join as well as the Philippines, Thailand and several African countries, including the southern part of Sudan, which is not yet named but will [probably] be independent by July.
All major countries, save for Japan, have Islamic problems, therefore, Israel would find allies with growing power within Europe, such as Geert Wilder, Flamia Nierenstein, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and others of similar ilk, even in Canada and the USA. And Colombia and Sri Lanka, the two countries, with terrorist insurgencies, which Israel helped to win, will join as well. They have a reason to break the siege, as has Honduras, which Barack Obama and Madam Clinton tried to subvert. South Korea also has seen the ephemeral nature of American protection and might cooperate.
Furthermore, the world has to understand that boycotts work in two ways and Israel is 'The Country' for hi-tech munitions and will soon be a strategically located source of energy.
Egypt must be made to understand that Israel will not wait to be attacked but will preempt and will not stand, muzzle to muzzle, with a well armed, well trained Egyptian army numbering in the millions. It will use nukes and there is only one target in Egypt: the Aswan Dam. In 24 hours, 80% of Egypt would be swept into the sea [remember Pharaoh?]. The remaining 20% would have only water contaminated by rotting corpses to drink and no fuel with which to boil it and nothing to eat, except what they can get from the river, which will have a growing population of crocodiles, not trained by the Mossad, accustomed to eating human flesh.
When enough is enough , the message in brief but clear: we have seen what "wonderful" things diplomacy has gotten us. This is time, for revealing the truth and acting according to it, just back off.
When all else has run its course, measure that will mean enough is enough are the only solution.
There are many times in life when enough is enough takes possession. Take the case of an abused person, he or she will act according to enough is enough.
I thinks that Jews are abused People. I think that Israel is an abused State.
I was born few months before, Friday, 14 May 1948, 5 Iyar 5708, when David Ben Gurion stood in the Tel Aviv Museum, today known as Independence Hall, and proclaimed Israel's independence beneath a large portrait of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.
On that historical day Ben-Gurion stated that the new nation would "uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race." And indeed Israel has been upholding up to its commitments and beyond. The proclamation of Israel's independence ceremony was not widely publicized as it was feared that the British Authorities might attempt to prevent it or that the Arab armies might invade earlier than expected. An invitation was sent out by messenger on the morning of 14 May telling recipients to arrive at 15:30 and to keep the event a secret. The event started at 16:00, a time chosen so as not to breach the Sabbath, and was broadcasted live as the first transmission of the new radio station Kol [Voice] of Yisrael [Israel].
The Declaration was made, the Jewish people danced in the streets and a day later the Arabs attacked the nascent Jewish State Israel and Jews, lacking arms and resources, fought a war until the early months of 1949.
Almost 63 years to that day Israel is still fighting for its independence, now facing dehumanization, demonization, delegitimization and existential threats from north, south and east.
When enough really means enough, one takes measures to alter, to modify, transform, make the difference. This I what Israel needs to do, not only because I have had enough seeing her being abused, but Israel needs to finally realize that this cannot go on.
What do I suggest?
Become as hard as the hardest metal and leave the altruism behind.
If the Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" go ahead and, unilaterally, with the help supporting countries they recruited, declare a "Palestine," Israel must immediately null and void the Oslo accords, the Road Map and any and all preliminary pieces of paper the bloody hands of these Arab murderers put their signature on. Then, immediately annex and put under Israel's sovereignty and law all the land it got back in 1967, based on international law wars' results: you attacked me, I had to go to war to defend myself, I won and I gained land. Now it suits me to keep this land for security and avoidance of another war.
Then Israel must say, I do not begrudge you a state but you need to come to me and negotiate with me, not with people who dislike Jews and live thousands of miles away from your killing fields. We will negotiate according to UN Resolutions 242 and 338, step by step. Israel will be the one to decide the size of this "Palestine" and what land it is prepared to allot for this 22nd Arab state. Israel will dictate the terms of what kind of a "Palestine" it will be, not you, not anyone else. Because it is the lives of 5Million Jews that is at stake and it is the Government of Israel foremost duty to protect them. And these Jews' blood ain't cheap as you made it to be until today.
Now we say ENOUGH -Never Again Is Now! That is what I will say and do.
But there others who have other suggestions we should all keep in mind. Here is one:
Israel must end negotiations altogether, cancel all notion of a "Palestinian" state, annex the entire Judea, Samaria and Jordan Valley with civil rights only for the Arab inhabitants, and limited rights to run their local affairs, subject to Israeli supervision and consent.
Israel must take down all terror organizations, including the PLO and Fatah and kill anyone who don't flee fast enough. Those who Israel knows have murdered or aided in murder should be brought to trial and, if convicted, should be executed and buried with recognizable pig parts. Murderers and terrorist chieftains who flee should be hunted down everywhere in the world.
No international "peacekeeping" forces will enter Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan, only over the dead bodies of Israelis. Israel has already seen what "peacekeeping" forces do: allow Israel's enemies to arm to the hilt and prepare for the next war they plan.
Flotillas, on their way to "save" Gaza that sail against Israel will simply be sunk.
Israel should take the role of world leader of an anti-Islamic Caliphate front, which India might join as well as the Philippines, Thailand and several African countries, including the southern part of Sudan, which is not yet named but will [probably] be independent by July.
All major countries, save for Japan, have Islamic problems, therefore, Israel would find allies with growing power within Europe, such as Geert Wilder, Flamia Nierenstein, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and others of similar ilk, even in Canada and the USA. And Colombia and Sri Lanka, the two countries, with terrorist insurgencies, which Israel helped to win, will join as well. They have a reason to break the siege, as has Honduras, which Barack Obama and Madam Clinton tried to subvert. South Korea also has seen the ephemeral nature of American protection and might cooperate.
Furthermore, the world has to understand that boycotts work in two ways and Israel is 'The Country' for hi-tech munitions and will soon be a strategically located source of energy.
Egypt must be made to understand that Israel will not wait to be attacked but will preempt and will not stand, muzzle to muzzle, with a well armed, well trained Egyptian army numbering in the millions. It will use nukes and there is only one target in Egypt: the Aswan Dam. In 24 hours, 80% of Egypt would be swept into the sea [remember Pharaoh?]. The remaining 20% would have only water contaminated by rotting corpses to drink and no fuel with which to boil it and nothing to eat, except what they can get from the river, which will have a growing population of crocodiles, not trained by the Mossad, accustomed to eating human flesh.
When enough is enough , the message in brief but clear: we have seen what "wonderful" things diplomacy has gotten us. This is time, for revealing the truth and acting according to it, just back off.
When all else has run its course, measure that will mean enough is enough are the only solution.
Will Leon Panetta Ensure That America Is Defended?
Heritage Foundation
Amid a continuing war in Afghanistan, a new operation in Libya, ongoing military efforts in Iraq and a failing foreign policy doctrine, President Barack Obama has proposed cutting the already overstretched U.S. military by $400 billion. And today, he is expected to nominate CIA Director Leon Panetta to serve as Secretary of Defense, replacing the retiring Robert Gates. As Panetta stands for confirmation, the Senate must ask whether Panetta is the right man for the job of helping to provide for America’s defense.
The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano, Ph.D., writes that there are five main questions the Senate should pose to Panetta to determine whether he will honestly assess what the U.S. military needs to ensure a common defense or merely go along with the president: 1. Defense budget: President Obama has repudiated his own defense review (the Quadrennial Defense Review), which he delivered in 2010 and which by law is supposed to provide an honest assessment of project needs. Now, his recent decision to pick an arbitrary goal of $400 billion in defense cuts over the next decade—and then ask for a review to justify it—will be your first job in office. Why should we trust you to do anything but rubber-stamp his demands?
2. Vital priorities: Do you agree that instead of cutting defense, the next Secretary of Defense should be focused on helping the U.S. military win in Afghanistan, identifying a clear plan for the United States with and in Iraq beyond December, avoiding mission creep in Libya while actually helping create a coherent strategy for the Arab “Spring,” and crafting a clear, more effective policy toward Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power?
3. China: We need a rational, credible plan to counter the People’s Republic of China’s large-scale military modernization program. Can you deliver on a plan that will ensure that the U.S. remains a capable stabilizing military force in Asia—one that never has to fear intimidation from China?
4. Missile defense: Since entering office, President Obama has negotiated the New START nuclear agreement with Russia that has diminished U.S. stature as a nuclear power. He has cut back U.S. missile defense posture to what he believes is just-enough, just-in-time missile defense, rather than building robust defenses that would answer potential threats. Do you think that was smart? Would it not have been wiser to do everything within his power to ensure that the U.S. and its allies have the most robust defenses possible against threats from Iran and North Korea?
5. Homeland protection: The U.S. must be better prepared for protecting the homeland. Despite all its rhetoric, this Administration actually cut the number of specially trained and equipped military forces that would respond to a weapons of mass destruction incident. That seems wrongheaded. Will you do more to ensure the homeland is adequately protected, including for emerging threats like cyber attacks?
These questions are vitally important in light of what the Panetta pick could mean for the military. The Hill reports:
Shifting Panetta to DOD “probably means bigger cuts to the defense budget,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
“Secretary Gates was strongly committed to maintaining a robust defense posture, but Panetta will be more interested in getting along with the White House, which must find ways of cutting the deficit,” Thompson said. …
“Putting Panetta in as defense secretary means Obama now has an ally at the Pentagon,” said one senior GOP congressional aide. “He will be more inclined to agree with the president on a number of issues where Gates might have pushed back or disagreed with the president.”
Making arbitrary cuts to the military and walking in lock-step with the president is not what America needs from the person responsible for directing our armed forces, defending our homeland, and ensuring that our military has all that it needs to execute its mission around the world. It needs a strong leader who can help turn around the Administration’s sad record on foreign policy and national security while also pushing back against dangerous cuts to defense. The Senate must now determine whether Leon Panetta is up to the task.
Quick Hits:
* Storms raging through the South killed 193 people across five states, with the majority of deaths reported in Alabama.
* The U.S. economy slowed in the first three months of 2011, dragged down by the high price of gasoline and food.
* Chrysler announced that it will fully repay $7.53 billion in loans from the U.S. and Canadian governments using private financing.
* More than 200 members of Syria’s ruling Baath Party resigned on Wednesday in protest of the government’s violent crackdown on protesters.
* BUSTED: We take a look at President Obama’s top six gas price myths. Click here to find out what they are and learn the truth.
Amid a continuing war in Afghanistan, a new operation in Libya, ongoing military efforts in Iraq and a failing foreign policy doctrine, President Barack Obama has proposed cutting the already overstretched U.S. military by $400 billion. And today, he is expected to nominate CIA Director Leon Panetta to serve as Secretary of Defense, replacing the retiring Robert Gates. As Panetta stands for confirmation, the Senate must ask whether Panetta is the right man for the job of helping to provide for America’s defense.
The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano, Ph.D., writes that there are five main questions the Senate should pose to Panetta to determine whether he will honestly assess what the U.S. military needs to ensure a common defense or merely go along with the president: 1. Defense budget: President Obama has repudiated his own defense review (the Quadrennial Defense Review), which he delivered in 2010 and which by law is supposed to provide an honest assessment of project needs. Now, his recent decision to pick an arbitrary goal of $400 billion in defense cuts over the next decade—and then ask for a review to justify it—will be your first job in office. Why should we trust you to do anything but rubber-stamp his demands?
2. Vital priorities: Do you agree that instead of cutting defense, the next Secretary of Defense should be focused on helping the U.S. military win in Afghanistan, identifying a clear plan for the United States with and in Iraq beyond December, avoiding mission creep in Libya while actually helping create a coherent strategy for the Arab “Spring,” and crafting a clear, more effective policy toward Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power?
3. China: We need a rational, credible plan to counter the People’s Republic of China’s large-scale military modernization program. Can you deliver on a plan that will ensure that the U.S. remains a capable stabilizing military force in Asia—one that never has to fear intimidation from China?
4. Missile defense: Since entering office, President Obama has negotiated the New START nuclear agreement with Russia that has diminished U.S. stature as a nuclear power. He has cut back U.S. missile defense posture to what he believes is just-enough, just-in-time missile defense, rather than building robust defenses that would answer potential threats. Do you think that was smart? Would it not have been wiser to do everything within his power to ensure that the U.S. and its allies have the most robust defenses possible against threats from Iran and North Korea?
5. Homeland protection: The U.S. must be better prepared for protecting the homeland. Despite all its rhetoric, this Administration actually cut the number of specially trained and equipped military forces that would respond to a weapons of mass destruction incident. That seems wrongheaded. Will you do more to ensure the homeland is adequately protected, including for emerging threats like cyber attacks?
These questions are vitally important in light of what the Panetta pick could mean for the military. The Hill reports:
Shifting Panetta to DOD “probably means bigger cuts to the defense budget,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
“Secretary Gates was strongly committed to maintaining a robust defense posture, but Panetta will be more interested in getting along with the White House, which must find ways of cutting the deficit,” Thompson said. …
“Putting Panetta in as defense secretary means Obama now has an ally at the Pentagon,” said one senior GOP congressional aide. “He will be more inclined to agree with the president on a number of issues where Gates might have pushed back or disagreed with the president.”
Making arbitrary cuts to the military and walking in lock-step with the president is not what America needs from the person responsible for directing our armed forces, defending our homeland, and ensuring that our military has all that it needs to execute its mission around the world. It needs a strong leader who can help turn around the Administration’s sad record on foreign policy and national security while also pushing back against dangerous cuts to defense. The Senate must now determine whether Leon Panetta is up to the task.
Quick Hits:
* Storms raging through the South killed 193 people across five states, with the majority of deaths reported in Alabama.
* The U.S. economy slowed in the first three months of 2011, dragged down by the high price of gasoline and food.
* Chrysler announced that it will fully repay $7.53 billion in loans from the U.S. and Canadian governments using private financing.
* More than 200 members of Syria’s ruling Baath Party resigned on Wednesday in protest of the government’s violent crackdown on protesters.
* BUSTED: We take a look at President Obama’s top six gas price myths. Click here to find out what they are and learn the truth.
Muslim Liars: How the Muslim Students Association Deceives the Naive
David Horowitz
The Muslim Students Association is a national organization with chapters on hundreds of U.S. campuses. It has a privileged position on these campuses such that no student paper would print the statement that follows in this blog. It would be regarded as “offensive to an ethnic and religious group.” What is truly offensive are the subterfuges under which the MSA operates, lying about its core mission — which is to advance the Islamic jihad against the Jews and Christians of the Middle East, and ultimately against the United States. Unfortunately the lies of the MSA (like its sister organizations CAIR and the Muslim American Society) are successful in snookering the willing accomplices of the political left and the unwitting accomplices of the inattentive middle to support and protect them. Here is the deceptive Mission Statement of the Muslim Students Association at UC San Diego, where I confronted one of its members last year who endorsed the extermination of the Jews (and was defended by the MSA for doing so):
“The purpose of the Muslim Student Association of the University of California, San Diego is to provide an environment for the development and networking of Muslims on campus while fostering a sense of community between Muslims and non-Muslims through education.”
This is an organization that sponsors Israel Apartheid weeks, sponsors Israel-hating speakers, advances the false and genocidal claim that that Israel exists on land stolen from a mythical “Palestine” that never existed and promotes the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood, creator of Hamas and spiritual guide of al Qaeda. Its “education” consists of informing the gullible that Islam means “peace” (actually it means “submission”) and that “terrorism is, in fact, a term that spans the entire world and manifests itself in various forms,” and is, in fact, a term applicable to “sanctions” (e.g., the sanctions against Iran to prevent its dictators from developing nuclear weapons. The MSA site directs the inquisitive who want to understand Islam (and Islam’s relation to terrorism) to a site called WhyIslam.org — a site that happens to be sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America, which like the MSA itself, is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Unfortunately this transparent double talk is enough to snooker gullible university administrators, faculty and students into regarding the jihad-supporting MSA chapters as religious and cultural organizations, while providing them with special privileges and protections. This allows them to conduct their war against the Jews and Crusaders in the heart of America’s educational institutions. The main Jewish organization on campus, Hillel, joined forces with this arm of the Muslim Brotherhood to attack the “Palestinian Wall of Lies” which our students put up at Brown, Florida State and the University of North Carolina, to refute the lies of the anti-Israel, anti-American left and the Nazis of Hamas — a sister organization of the MSA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)