David Stein / http://www.countercontempt.com/david-stein
My article about Friday’s frustrating encounter with a cowardly reporter and a condescending corporate flack at the L.A. Times http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1710 ] got me reminiscing about years past, when I used to pay a lot of attention to incompetent and biased reporting at my city’s “paper of record.” These days, I only occasionally write about what goes on at the rapidly-shrinking L.A. Times, because as the paper’s readers have been evaporating, so has its relevance. One aspect of Times coverage that always got under my skin was its intensely biased coverage of Jewish issues. Of course, it’s expected that most “mainstream” (i.e., left-leaning) newspapers are, to one degree or another, hostile to Israel. But the Times has gone several steps further, often being openly hostile to Jews as a people.
One of my just-for-fun side projects is working with a libertarian-conservative organization called the Republican Party Animals (RPA). The RPA is a 4,000 person-strong national social club for young, right-leaning urbanites who enjoy mixing their politics with a healthy dose of nightlife fun. Last year, I designed an online video game for the group, “Obama vs. the Corpse-Men,” a riff on the president’s unintentionally hilarious mispronunciation of the term “corpsman” during a press conference last February. The gist of the game is that players must try to save Obama from a horde of hungry zombies (“corpse-men”) by answering trivia questions about the left.
One of the questions reads:
The Los Angeles Times has seen its circulation plummet from 1.1 million to about 600,000. Wonder why? Which of these statements about the L.A. Times is true?
A) The Times colluded with Holocaust deniers to run an anti-Semitic ad during Hanukkah.
B) The Times routinely runs op-eds by the terrorist organization Hamas.
C) The Times ran an anti-Semitic cartoon showing evil Jews slitting the throats of Arabs and drinking their blood.
D) In an article about a Muslim kidnapping ring targeting Jews, The Times hid the Muslim identity of the gang.
E) All of the above.
The answer, of course, is “E.” If players choose correctly, they are redirected to a page that provides background information for each assertion. Being in the mood to kick the Times around a little, I thought I’d cut-and-paste that info here. Enjoy (or, perhaps more appropriately, don’t enjoy. Instead, get angry enough to cancel your subscription, if you have one).
(You can also click here to play the game in full)
The Times colluded with Holocaust deniers to run an anti-Semitic ad during Hanukkah
In December 2004, the Times’ advertising department was approached by the largest Holocaust denial organization in North America, the Institute for Historical Review (located in Newport Beach, CA), with a plan: The Institute wanted to run a Holocaust denial ad in the Book Review section of the Sunday Times (the Times’ most-read edition), on the last weekend of Hanukkah. The advertising director loved the idea, and the ad was set to run. Someone at the Times who still possessed a living brain cell killed the plan at the last minute, so infuriating the ad director that he promised the deniers that the ad would run in the next week’s edition FOR FREE, to make up for the fact that the poor deniers missed their Hanukkah target. Unfortunately for the Hitler fanboys, their plan was thwarted when the ad was once again killed right before the paper went to press (the preceding information was confirmed through a series of private emails between me and two staffers at the Times. I undertook the investigation after seeing the deniers bragging about the affair on one of their message boards).
The Times routinely runs op-eds by the terrorist organization Hamas
• The Times routinely runs op-eds by the terrorist organization Hamas…you know, that’s the organization that murders Jews on a regular basis. But the Times has NEVER run op-eds by Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Thomas Sowell. The Times considers them “too extreme.” I suppose the Hamas Jew-killers are, by the Times’ standards, “moderates.”
The Times ran an anti-Semitic cartoon showing evil Jews slitting the throats of Arabs and drinking their blood
• The L.A. Times refused to run any of the Danish “Mohammed cartoons,” even the really tame ones (only a fraction of the cartoons portrayed Mohammed disrespectfully. Some portrayed him as a dignified, wizened old man, and one cartoon lampooned the editor of the Danish newspaper as a moronic dunce). In place of the Mohammed cartoons, the Times ran a cartoon from the Arab press, showing bloodthirsty, evil Jews slitting the throats of Muslims to drink their blood.
http://www.countercontempt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/LAT2.png
As an illustration of just how blind, deaf, and dumb the Times is to its own hypocrisy, Times columnist Tim Rutten criticized CNN for not showing the Mohammed cartoons, and replacing them instead with anti-Semitic cartoons from the Arab press. Wrote Rutten (“Lets Be Honest About Cartoons,” February 11, 2006), “Nothing, however, quite tops the absurdity of (a piece) done this week by CNN…Thursday, CNN broadcast a story on how common anti-Semitic caricatures are in the Arab press and illustrated it with – you guessed it – one virulently anti-Semitic cartoon after another. As the segment concluded, Wolf Blitzer looked into the camera and piously explained that while CNN had decided as a matter of policy not to broadcast any image of Muhammad, telling the story of anti-Semitism in the Arab press required showing those caricatures. He didn’t even blush.”
And Timmy Rutten didn’t blush either when his newspaper did the exact same thing (for the record, Timmy was critical of his editors’ decision not to run the Mohammed cartoons, but he was mum on their hypocrisy in publishing an Arab anti-Semitic cartoon instead, just as CNN had done).
Oh, and it should be added that running anti-Semitic cartoons is a regular feature in the Times. In the past, the Times has run cartoons which depicted:
L.A.’s Jews crucifying then-Mayor Tom Bradley like Jesus;
A murderous Jew with an uzi standing on top of a pile of dead Palestinians, declaring that there’s no need to negotiate with the Palestinians because there aren’t any left;
Uncle Sam in chains, his arms crushed in a Star of David-shaped manacle;
A Jewish Nazi goose-stepping with a sword, holding a snarling Star of David on a leash, its fanged, drooling mouth attempting to devour a young Muslim mother and her child (understatement is a Times specialty)
All in a days work at the “L.A. Sturmer.”
In an article about a Muslim kidnapping ring targeting Jews, The Times hid the Muslim identity of the gang
• And here’s the corker: In 2006, the Times ran an article about a shameful instance of French injustice. In Paris, a gang of Muslims (primarily immigrants from Africa) was kidnapping Jews. The kidnappers would call the victims’ families. They would force the families to hear the agonizing screams of their loved ones as they were tortured…and the kidnappers would yell Koranic verses into the phone to let the families know that they were doing this in the name of the “religion of peace.”
The Parisian police attempted to cover up the existence of this crime ring, fearing that any attempt to stop it would “offend” France’s Muslim community (and possibly lead to more riots in Muslim slums, as had happened in 2005), but after one of the Jewish kidnap victims was murdered, the story finally broke (23-year-old French/Moroccan Jew Ilan Halimi was tortured, stabbed, stripped naked, and burned alive with acid after 24 harrowing days in the gang’s captivity).
In the Times article about this story, the Times refused to use the term “Muslim” to refer to the murderous gang. Instead, they merely referred to the killers as a “multiethnic gang.”
Multiethnic? So, was there an Eskimo involved? An Uzbek? A Creole? Perhaps a Peruvian tree-dwelling Indian? Only at the L.A. Times could the irony be so completely lost: They reported on the cover-up of the existence of a Muslim anti-Semitic kidnapping ring by covering up the existence of a Muslim anti-Semitic kidnapping ring.
And the Times is still at it! Check out this example of pure, excremental pseudo-journalism.HERE’S a story about the 2009 trial of the Muslim kidnap/murdrers from the Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5237299/Gang-of-barbarians-go-on-trial-for-Paris-torture-and-murder-of-Jewish-man.html
And HERE’S the L.A. Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/30/world/fg-briefs30.S3
No mention of the “M word!” To lift a line from the incomparable Dennis Miller, calling the folks who run the L.A. Times “scum buckets” is an insult to buckets filled with scum.
• Oooh, but there’s more! On July 4th, 2002, a Muslim terrorist, Egyptian immigrant Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, opened fire at the El Al counter at LAX, killing two (25-year-old Victoria Hen and 46-year-old Yakov Aminov), and wounding four, before being fatally shot by an El Al security guard.
The death of young Victoria Hen was made even more tragic by the fact that on July 5th, her boyfriend and family had planned a surprise party at which the boyfriend was to ask for her hand in marriage.
The day after the shootings, the Hen family issued a brief public statement: “We believe that this was an act carried out by a terrorist against Israelis and Americans on American soil. We wish the American government will once and for all take a clear stand on this issue of terror and will act on it.”
That statement was carried by most mainstream newspapers, including the New York Times. And, indeed, Times reporters Anna Gorman and Karima Haynes dutifully included it in their article profiling the LAX victims. But, just hours before the edition went to press, someone in authority at the Times issued an order that the family’s statement must immediately be pulled from the article. After all, a grieving Jewish family should have NO RIGHT to call their daughter’s murderer a terrorist. I mean, how DARE they!
Not only was the Hen family’s statement cut from the article, neither her mother nor her father or brother were quoted – AT ALL – in the article.
The title of the article from which the family’s statement was erased, and for which no family members were quoted? “Families, Friends Remember Loved Ones Killed in Shooting.” You might want to pause for a moment to appreciate the irony.
When quizzed by David Stein (the Republican Party Animals Southern California Chairman), reporters Gorman and Haynes were baffled as to who removed the family’s statement. After being bounced from editor to editor, none of whom would take credit for censoring the statement, Stein landed at the desk of L.A. Times Assistant Managing Editor David Lauter. When asked for an explanation as to why the Hen family statement was removed, Lauter had this to say:
“I’m sorry you have been bounced around among editors. I can’t give a definitive answer to your question – the editor who handled the story that day is on vacation, and I don’t work on Saturdays – but Ill tell you what I can. Generally when things are trimmed out of a story, the reason is simply inches….Perhaps the story could have been edited differently – there are almost always several different ways a story can be cast….The story was too long. They had to cut something and the statement was among the things that were cut. There was no political motivation or intention involved nor was the Hen family singled out for unfair treatment.”
Ah, of course. It all makes sense now. The family’s reaction to their daughter’s murder wasn’t germane to an article about the family’s reaction to their daughter’s murder. That’s not just torturing logic…that’s waterboarding it while shoving bamboo under its fingernails.
Oh, but check THIS out! About a week later, the Times ran a glowing profile of Hadayat, the LAX murderer, filled with loving tributes from his wife, his cousin, and his co-workers (“Those Who Knew LAX Killer Say Personal Agenda Died With Him,” July 14th, 2002). According to his wife Hala, “He was correct, a perfectly decent Egyptian person. He loves his children and his neighbors and his family and his friends. He is a normal person who goes from work to home and that’s it. A normal person. There is nothing to suggest he was a bad person or that he belonged to any groups.” According to his cousin Emad, “Since he was 13 or 14 he wanted to go to America. He used to say, ‘It’s a beautiful country.’ He was like any young man, dreaming of a good life in the States.” His co-worker Abdallatef was quoted as saying, “He had nothing against Americans….He’s not hateful for the American people on the street….He loved this country. He loved freedom of speech. He told me, ‘I’d like to be a U.S. citizen. I like to pay my taxes. I want to raise my children here.”’ The Times even sought a praiseworthy quote from the killer’s INSURANCE BROKER (no, I swear I’m not joking…I wish to God I were). “‘He seemed to be very ambitious, conscientious,’ said Hadayat’s insurance broker John Henningsen. ‘He had big plans for his limousine company. He wanted to go places with it.’”
The Times didn’t include a single negative comment about the murderer in their profile of him. In total (including comments I didn’t quote above), the Times ran a whopping six-hundred and sixty-six words of praise for the killer from his family, friends, and co-workers. Yet the newspaper couldn’t make room for the victim’s family’s forty-three word statement in the article about the victims.
David Stein sought comment from the writers of the tribute to Hadayat (sparing no expense, the Times had assigned three reporters to write the glowing piece – Robyn Dixon, Jack Leonard, and Rich Connell). Stein wanted to know – why were the comments from Victoria Hen’s family removed from the article about the victims, but loving comments from the murderer’s friends and family were included in the article about the murderer? Replied staff writer Dixon, “The aim of the story was to create a balanced portrait of the killer and his background. Inclusion of the widows comments seems not only valid but important in this case.”
Okay, let’s recap: Victoria Hen’s family’s comments were not important enough to be included in the article about Hadayat’s victims…but Hadayat’s widow’s loving comments were “valid” and “important” in the article about him…which was a “balanced portrait” of Hadayat…even though no negative comments, only positive ones, were included in it, which makes it balanced rather than one-sided because, uh, umm, because…uh…
I seriously think my head’s about to explode from the lack of logic and decency. So I’ll sign off with a question: Considering that all L.A. Times content is available online for free, why would anyone – especially anyone who’s Jewish – spend money to subscribe to that rag?
______________________________
Saturday, July 30, 2011
A Day in the Life of the Middle East, July 28-29, 2011 (Egypt, Islamist Terrorism, Libya, Turkey)
Barry Rubin
Good evening Mr. and Mrs. North and all you ships at sea!
FLASH: There was a huge demonstration in Tahrir Square. The main slogans:
–We demand Sharia!
–Free Omar Abd al Rahman! (in an American prison for bombing the World Trade Center the first time. Coming soon no doubt: anti-American terrorist attacks demanding he be freed)
–Hang Mubarak!
–Muslim-Christian unity (that’s nice but dependent on the Egyptian Christians supporting all of these other positions and then some).
–Reject US aid. (Great, go ahead. But the army won’t like it and President Barack Obama will insist on iving the money.)
–Down with Israel. (How many times have we been told there were no anti-Israel signs or slogans in Tahrir?)
–Most popular of all in terms of cheers: “The people want Sharia.”
–Some heard,, “Oh, Obama! Oh, Obama, We’re all Osama.”
As Martin Kramer added, “Told you so.” Not all Egyptians think this way, of course, just somewhere from a minimum of 20 million people up to 95 percent of the population.
Now, here is a French English-language television station’s coverage (which I suspect is the same as that in much of the mass media). who staged the demonstration? “Ultraconservative Salafi Muslims and other Islamists.” Oh, yes, that “other” includes the Muslim Brotherhood. So ultraconservative Islamists comprise at least 25 percent of Egypt’s population? (I’ll explain that figure in a forthcoming article.) Meanwhile, we are being told not to worry about the Brotherhood. I’d be vastly relieved if the U.S. government’s leaders are as concerned about the revolutionary Islamists as they are by the Tea Party.
FLASH: The Washington Post has published an article based on U.S. intelligence information that Iran is actively helping al-Qaida in Afghanistan. A year ago I published an article based on an AP dispatch based on U.S. intelligence information that Iran was helping al-Qaida (long after September 11) and let it plan anti-American attacks from Iranian territory. For a round-up of the new story, see here.
Where’s the outrage? Where’s the policy shift?
FLASH! There’s no shame. Only days after the endless analysis of those who had allegedly incited the Norway terrorist (i.e., “anti-Jihadist” bloggers, the mass media swung back to total mystification when a Muslim soldier in the U.S. army was arrested for planning (still another) terrorist attack on Fort Hood.
The New York Times did say that the arrested man was a Muslim, albeit only at the end of the article and without drawing any conclusions about his possible motivations. This is despite the fact that the man refused to be deployed abroad because it was against his interpretation of Islam to fight any Muslims (presumably including al-Qaida ones).
The Guardian didn’t mention the Islamic factor at all.
And al-Jazira did find something in common between this guy and Nidal Hassan the (previous) Fort Hood terrorist: they both bought their weapons at the same store! Do all Islamist terrorists have to shop at Guns Galore?
In other words:
Norway: Intense “curiosity” as to why he did it! People cited in a 1500 page manifesto were blamed.
Fort Hood (twice): Total disinterest in motive. Even Hassan’s yelling “Allahu Akhbar” doesn’t tell us anything. Actually, as I wrote in detail at the time, Hassan was the only terrorist ever to give a Power Point presentation to his intended victims telling them why he was going to kill them.
Patrick Poole said it after the first attack: If the army and government does nothing it won’t be long before it happens again. This proves him to be correct.
Recommened Reading: Dave Rich’s analysis of the Norway terrorist’s manifesto is superb. He explains why the author is against fascism but in a sense wants to produce a twenty-first century version AND also calls for a Soviet-style governmental structure showing some bridge between the two ideologies AND is anti-Jewish generally without being “antisemitic” in a traditional sense AND turned against the English Defense League AND many other factors either missed or (often deliberately) obfuscated in other coverage.
FLASH: A few hours ago I analyzed the New York Daily News editorial that said the fear of radical Muslims “taking over” countries was a fantasy. I pointed out that the idea of such people seizing control of the United States, Britain, France, or other countries and imposing Sharia on them might well be a fantasy but their effort to seize control of the Muslim communities in those countries and imposing Sharia on them was a very real development.
Most Muslim immigrants just want to be left alone to pursue their lives but how can they do so if radical Islamists are running their neighborhoods, schools, and behavior, threatening to kill anyone who dissents? Now we have a vivid example of a neighborhood in London where not only have the Islamists largely taken over but the police refuse to help the people—including Muslims—being oppressed by them.
Read it all, the details are shocking.
The article begins:
“Victims say that officers in the borough of Tower Hamlets have ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they fear being accused of racism…..
“One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, said he was left partially blind and with a dislocated shoulder after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last year….
“Teachers in several local schools have told The Sunday Telegraph that they feel `under pressure’ from local Muslim extremists…to enforce the compulsory wearing of the veil for Muslim girls.”
FLASH: Remember how the United Kingdom released the only imprisoned Lockerbie bomber because the man who helped kill more than 200 people was supposedly himself at death’s door? Well now we know definitively that he was just fine all the time. The release came about due to a combination of lying (probably including Libyan bribes) and the British government trying to get some oil deals. Somebody should go to prison for that one.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says thatthe decision to let the bomber free was “a great mistake.” It’s a little late, right? this is why I write so that people don’t have to say some day that supporting a revolution in Egypt without considering the consequences, being so weak in stopping Iran, or rushing to create a Palestinian state was “a great mistake” after it’s too late.
Finally, FLASH, the four highest-ranking Turkish officers have resigned. A decade ago that might have signaled a military coup was about to happen. Today, it is probably in protest to the announced intent to prosecute his predecessor on a trumped-up charge.
The Islamist regime in Turkey is gutting the army. And we still get daily foolishness about how great the “Turkish model” is and how U.S. policy should try to spread it to other countries. Indeed, the Islamist prime minister of Turkey is Obama’s mediator on Syria! That’s like the U.S. president bringing in Fidel Castro to mediate the change of government in some South American country.
Soner Cagaptay, who I think is the world’s best analyst on Turkey, sees this as a turning point:
The New York Times just reports the events–which is better than the usual—and gives no hint that the generals have a good case. Anywhere else in the world the imprisonment of hundreds of people on trumped-up treason and conspiracy charges would be portrayed as a repressive government that should be shunned.
FLASH: On the lighter side (hey, this is the Middle East!) What’s the difference between Lebanon and Syria?
Answer: When a songwriter wrote a song ridiculing President Bashir al-Asad the regime kills him. In Lebanon, they merely put him in jail for a while and then let him out.
Recommended Reading: The UK Community Trust has published an excellent detailed report on terrorist attacks against Jews and Israel over the last fifty years. You can find it here.
Good evening Mr. and Mrs. North and all you ships at sea!
FLASH: There was a huge demonstration in Tahrir Square. The main slogans:
–We demand Sharia!
–Free Omar Abd al Rahman! (in an American prison for bombing the World Trade Center the first time. Coming soon no doubt: anti-American terrorist attacks demanding he be freed)
–Hang Mubarak!
–Muslim-Christian unity (that’s nice but dependent on the Egyptian Christians supporting all of these other positions and then some).
–Reject US aid. (Great, go ahead. But the army won’t like it and President Barack Obama will insist on iving the money.)
–Down with Israel. (How many times have we been told there were no anti-Israel signs or slogans in Tahrir?)
–Most popular of all in terms of cheers: “The people want Sharia.”
–Some heard,, “Oh, Obama! Oh, Obama, We’re all Osama.”
As Martin Kramer added, “Told you so.” Not all Egyptians think this way, of course, just somewhere from a minimum of 20 million people up to 95 percent of the population.
Now, here is a French English-language television station’s coverage (which I suspect is the same as that in much of the mass media). who staged the demonstration? “Ultraconservative Salafi Muslims and other Islamists.” Oh, yes, that “other” includes the Muslim Brotherhood. So ultraconservative Islamists comprise at least 25 percent of Egypt’s population? (I’ll explain that figure in a forthcoming article.) Meanwhile, we are being told not to worry about the Brotherhood. I’d be vastly relieved if the U.S. government’s leaders are as concerned about the revolutionary Islamists as they are by the Tea Party.
FLASH: The Washington Post has published an article based on U.S. intelligence information that Iran is actively helping al-Qaida in Afghanistan. A year ago I published an article based on an AP dispatch based on U.S. intelligence information that Iran was helping al-Qaida (long after September 11) and let it plan anti-American attacks from Iranian territory. For a round-up of the new story, see here.
Where’s the outrage? Where’s the policy shift?
FLASH! There’s no shame. Only days after the endless analysis of those who had allegedly incited the Norway terrorist (i.e., “anti-Jihadist” bloggers, the mass media swung back to total mystification when a Muslim soldier in the U.S. army was arrested for planning (still another) terrorist attack on Fort Hood.
The New York Times did say that the arrested man was a Muslim, albeit only at the end of the article and without drawing any conclusions about his possible motivations. This is despite the fact that the man refused to be deployed abroad because it was against his interpretation of Islam to fight any Muslims (presumably including al-Qaida ones).
The Guardian didn’t mention the Islamic factor at all.
And al-Jazira did find something in common between this guy and Nidal Hassan the (previous) Fort Hood terrorist: they both bought their weapons at the same store! Do all Islamist terrorists have to shop at Guns Galore?
In other words:
Norway: Intense “curiosity” as to why he did it! People cited in a 1500 page manifesto were blamed.
Fort Hood (twice): Total disinterest in motive. Even Hassan’s yelling “Allahu Akhbar” doesn’t tell us anything. Actually, as I wrote in detail at the time, Hassan was the only terrorist ever to give a Power Point presentation to his intended victims telling them why he was going to kill them.
Patrick Poole said it after the first attack: If the army and government does nothing it won’t be long before it happens again. This proves him to be correct.
Recommened Reading: Dave Rich’s analysis of the Norway terrorist’s manifesto is superb. He explains why the author is against fascism but in a sense wants to produce a twenty-first century version AND also calls for a Soviet-style governmental structure showing some bridge between the two ideologies AND is anti-Jewish generally without being “antisemitic” in a traditional sense AND turned against the English Defense League AND many other factors either missed or (often deliberately) obfuscated in other coverage.
FLASH: A few hours ago I analyzed the New York Daily News editorial that said the fear of radical Muslims “taking over” countries was a fantasy. I pointed out that the idea of such people seizing control of the United States, Britain, France, or other countries and imposing Sharia on them might well be a fantasy but their effort to seize control of the Muslim communities in those countries and imposing Sharia on them was a very real development.
Most Muslim immigrants just want to be left alone to pursue their lives but how can they do so if radical Islamists are running their neighborhoods, schools, and behavior, threatening to kill anyone who dissents? Now we have a vivid example of a neighborhood in London where not only have the Islamists largely taken over but the police refuse to help the people—including Muslims—being oppressed by them.
Read it all, the details are shocking.
The article begins:
“Victims say that officers in the borough of Tower Hamlets have ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they fear being accused of racism…..
“One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, said he was left partially blind and with a dislocated shoulder after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last year….
“Teachers in several local schools have told The Sunday Telegraph that they feel `under pressure’ from local Muslim extremists…to enforce the compulsory wearing of the veil for Muslim girls.”
FLASH: Remember how the United Kingdom released the only imprisoned Lockerbie bomber because the man who helped kill more than 200 people was supposedly himself at death’s door? Well now we know definitively that he was just fine all the time. The release came about due to a combination of lying (probably including Libyan bribes) and the British government trying to get some oil deals. Somebody should go to prison for that one.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says thatthe decision to let the bomber free was “a great mistake.” It’s a little late, right? this is why I write so that people don’t have to say some day that supporting a revolution in Egypt without considering the consequences, being so weak in stopping Iran, or rushing to create a Palestinian state was “a great mistake” after it’s too late.
Finally, FLASH, the four highest-ranking Turkish officers have resigned. A decade ago that might have signaled a military coup was about to happen. Today, it is probably in protest to the announced intent to prosecute his predecessor on a trumped-up charge.
The Islamist regime in Turkey is gutting the army. And we still get daily foolishness about how great the “Turkish model” is and how U.S. policy should try to spread it to other countries. Indeed, the Islamist prime minister of Turkey is Obama’s mediator on Syria! That’s like the U.S. president bringing in Fidel Castro to mediate the change of government in some South American country.
Soner Cagaptay, who I think is the world’s best analyst on Turkey, sees this as a turning point:
The New York Times just reports the events–which is better than the usual—and gives no hint that the generals have a good case. Anywhere else in the world the imprisonment of hundreds of people on trumped-up treason and conspiracy charges would be portrayed as a repressive government that should be shunned.
FLASH: On the lighter side (hey, this is the Middle East!) What’s the difference between Lebanon and Syria?
Answer: When a songwriter wrote a song ridiculing President Bashir al-Asad the regime kills him. In Lebanon, they merely put him in jail for a while and then let him out.
Recommended Reading: The UK Community Trust has published an excellent detailed report on terrorist attacks against Jews and Israel over the last fifty years. You can find it here.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Mayhem In Norway
Nidra Poller
It seems indecent to analyze mass murder, and all the more so when perpetrated against young people. There are lessons to be learned from a national tragedy, a personal disaster. But an endless minute of silence runs like an undertow through all the words that follow.
Because this story unfolded over a weekend in July, reports were sketchier than usual. This is why I choose to present my observations as they took shape, day by day. An update will be published next week.
25 July 2011: The media break big stories with a narrative framework that usually comes from one source and fans out across the globe. Once the initial impression that Norway, too, was hit by Islamic terrorists had been contradicted, the new narrative clicked into place. The perpetrator is a conservative Christian ethnic Norwegian Islamophobe; Norwegians are shocked; they don't understand...they don't understand how anyone could do such a thing...kill young people in cold blood...how this could happen in Norway, a peaceful country that awards the Nobel peace prize, where people of all origins and beliefs live together peacefully? The young people were gathered for their party's summer camp, to discuss, like young people everywhere, what's wrong with the world and how to set it right. We know that they enjoined their government to support the creation of a Palestinian state via a UN resolution this September. They were gathered -- about 600 of them -- on an island described as idyllic though currently cringing under an incessant chilly drizzle. On this island in the middle of a lake 35 kilometers from Oslo, a "Christian fundamentalist Islamophobe" proceeded, as if he were a real-life character in a 3-dimensional video game, to kill over 86 young people, perhaps more. Some are still missing.
Blanket press coverage of the tragedy temporarily wiped out the Murdoch NewsCorp scandal, impasse in Libya, daily murder in Syria, drought and famine (and shababs) in Somalia, and DSK awaiting his next hearing. A skimpy stock of endlessly repeated images reinforced the sense of unreality. There were tearful scenes, interviews with one or two survivors, press conferences, memorial ceremonies, and the constant repetition of blond-haired Norwegians saying they don't understand.
What I don't understand is how the man was able to shoot and kill to his heart's content for close to two hours. I was far less interested in his alleged political convictions than I was disturbed by the fact that close to 600 people with cell phones had not been able to get help. And I am even more disturbed by the fact that no one was asking that question. All the cockeyed ideas in the world don't explain why no one stopped the killer. He couldn't have 600 people in his sights at one time.
I'm looking at this from a distance...why aren't any of the reporters who cover the story interested in this extraordinary element? They spoke to survivors, described the horror, the terror, the anguish. I don't expect them to pepper these grieving young people with sharp questions. But I can't be the only person who is thinking, "Why didn't you do something to save yourselves...something besides running? Why did you swim out into the open even when you saw that he was shooting at swimmers? When did you call for help? Did you ask your parents to call the police?"
26 July 2011: Further information reveals that the young people on Utoya Island had been playing the new version of cops and robbers, with some cast as innocent Palestinians blocked at checkpoints, blockaded in Gaza, languishing in the world's biggest open-air prison, and others playing wicked Israeli soldiers. We have a photo of some campers proudly displaying a handmade "Boycott Israel" banner.
What happened, then, was a fatal clash between two fantasy worlds. The juvenile Socialists lived in an idyllic world where everyone gets along fine except for the big bad nasty Israelis. Anders Breivik lived in a fantasy world built on the writings of past and current freedom-loving thinkers that he piled one on top of the other like a child's building blocks and then brought crashing down with a furious kick. He thought he was so bright, reading anti-jihad authors, jabbering comments on websites, and constructing his evil project as if it were the logical extension of the works of my friends and colleagues.
When, in fact, he was sucking up jihad-style murderous hatred and shaping himself into a Nordic shahid.
The UK Telegraph has been forthcoming with interesting details on the killer's family life. A mother's boy, lived at home, no known girlfriends. He often visited his diplomat father -- who left the mother when Anders was a year old -- in Paris and London, but the father terminated this relationship when Anders was 15, because he was so unruly. His father belongs to the socialist party that owns the idyllic island where youths in their late teens were gathered to fight racism, reaffirm their legendary tolerance, and, lest we forget, vilify Israel.
The fact that an evil man dressed his deep-seated anger and resentment in this or that package of ideas does not in any way reflect on the ideas. The stampede to prove the link is laughable. The same commentators who are scolding the authors of books read by Breivik would logically now demand that the Koran be banned throughout the Western world. They would call for the mosques to be closed. In short, they would become, in their own terms, Islamophobes. But don't expect logic from that direction. There will be endless clutter about how the extreme right is just as if not more dangerous than al Qaeda.
On the other hand, there is no reason for anti-jihadists to find the slightest justification for the brutal mass murder of young Norwegian socialists. The idea that the Islamization of Europe is so oppressive that citizens have lost hope of influencing their governments and some, albeit fragile and deranged, turn to this type of violence is no less of a fantasy than the socialist's idyllic Norway and the killer's imagined Templars.
There is no chemical purity of ideas or schools of thought. Any individual can take any idea and turn it into something totally alien. So, look at the individual, not at the ideas.
And put the spotlight back on the essential question: where were the police? Where weren't the young people trained in self-defense? Where were the heroes that would tackle the killer and save their comrades? Anders Breivik committed mass murder because no one and nothing stopped him. Where were the police? An article in le Parisien sums it up with unconscious irony. Under the headline "The police explain...," we are told that the call for help came in at 17:30 -- one half-hour after the shooting began -- and the police arrived one hour later at 18:30 (approximate figures).
Bruce Bawer has provided vital background information on the understaffed, underappreciated, sometimes bungling Norwegian police. We are not forgetting the IED attack against government buildings in the center of Oslo set off by the killer to give himself time to get to the island. But do we expect the police department of a modern European city to be able to handle only one incident at a time?
The murderous impulse belongs to the killer alone. He is entirely responsible for his thoughts and acts. But the death toll must be shared out among all those who misconstrued the realities. Norwegian society seems determined to cling to illusions that left its youth like defenseless pawns before a killer. Or is it just the media that finds nothing but tolerance, pacifism, and upheld roses as signs of determination to remain standing in the face of terrible tragedy?
This Norway that outlawed kosher slaughter is a victim of mass slaughter. Perpetrated by one of their own. The lessons that can be drawn from this outrageous attack are far too painful to push in the face of our Norwegian neighbors today. But someday I hope they will understand that these children of the Western world who were pointing the arrows of their indignation at Israel were in fact aiming at themselves.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/07/mayhem_in_norway.html at July 29, 2011 - 12:24:10 PM CDT
It seems indecent to analyze mass murder, and all the more so when perpetrated against young people. There are lessons to be learned from a national tragedy, a personal disaster. But an endless minute of silence runs like an undertow through all the words that follow.
Because this story unfolded over a weekend in July, reports were sketchier than usual. This is why I choose to present my observations as they took shape, day by day. An update will be published next week.
25 July 2011: The media break big stories with a narrative framework that usually comes from one source and fans out across the globe. Once the initial impression that Norway, too, was hit by Islamic terrorists had been contradicted, the new narrative clicked into place. The perpetrator is a conservative Christian ethnic Norwegian Islamophobe; Norwegians are shocked; they don't understand...they don't understand how anyone could do such a thing...kill young people in cold blood...how this could happen in Norway, a peaceful country that awards the Nobel peace prize, where people of all origins and beliefs live together peacefully? The young people were gathered for their party's summer camp, to discuss, like young people everywhere, what's wrong with the world and how to set it right. We know that they enjoined their government to support the creation of a Palestinian state via a UN resolution this September. They were gathered -- about 600 of them -- on an island described as idyllic though currently cringing under an incessant chilly drizzle. On this island in the middle of a lake 35 kilometers from Oslo, a "Christian fundamentalist Islamophobe" proceeded, as if he were a real-life character in a 3-dimensional video game, to kill over 86 young people, perhaps more. Some are still missing.
Blanket press coverage of the tragedy temporarily wiped out the Murdoch NewsCorp scandal, impasse in Libya, daily murder in Syria, drought and famine (and shababs) in Somalia, and DSK awaiting his next hearing. A skimpy stock of endlessly repeated images reinforced the sense of unreality. There were tearful scenes, interviews with one or two survivors, press conferences, memorial ceremonies, and the constant repetition of blond-haired Norwegians saying they don't understand.
What I don't understand is how the man was able to shoot and kill to his heart's content for close to two hours. I was far less interested in his alleged political convictions than I was disturbed by the fact that close to 600 people with cell phones had not been able to get help. And I am even more disturbed by the fact that no one was asking that question. All the cockeyed ideas in the world don't explain why no one stopped the killer. He couldn't have 600 people in his sights at one time.
I'm looking at this from a distance...why aren't any of the reporters who cover the story interested in this extraordinary element? They spoke to survivors, described the horror, the terror, the anguish. I don't expect them to pepper these grieving young people with sharp questions. But I can't be the only person who is thinking, "Why didn't you do something to save yourselves...something besides running? Why did you swim out into the open even when you saw that he was shooting at swimmers? When did you call for help? Did you ask your parents to call the police?"
26 July 2011: Further information reveals that the young people on Utoya Island had been playing the new version of cops and robbers, with some cast as innocent Palestinians blocked at checkpoints, blockaded in Gaza, languishing in the world's biggest open-air prison, and others playing wicked Israeli soldiers. We have a photo of some campers proudly displaying a handmade "Boycott Israel" banner.
What happened, then, was a fatal clash between two fantasy worlds. The juvenile Socialists lived in an idyllic world where everyone gets along fine except for the big bad nasty Israelis. Anders Breivik lived in a fantasy world built on the writings of past and current freedom-loving thinkers that he piled one on top of the other like a child's building blocks and then brought crashing down with a furious kick. He thought he was so bright, reading anti-jihad authors, jabbering comments on websites, and constructing his evil project as if it were the logical extension of the works of my friends and colleagues.
When, in fact, he was sucking up jihad-style murderous hatred and shaping himself into a Nordic shahid.
The UK Telegraph has been forthcoming with interesting details on the killer's family life. A mother's boy, lived at home, no known girlfriends. He often visited his diplomat father -- who left the mother when Anders was a year old -- in Paris and London, but the father terminated this relationship when Anders was 15, because he was so unruly. His father belongs to the socialist party that owns the idyllic island where youths in their late teens were gathered to fight racism, reaffirm their legendary tolerance, and, lest we forget, vilify Israel.
The fact that an evil man dressed his deep-seated anger and resentment in this or that package of ideas does not in any way reflect on the ideas. The stampede to prove the link is laughable. The same commentators who are scolding the authors of books read by Breivik would logically now demand that the Koran be banned throughout the Western world. They would call for the mosques to be closed. In short, they would become, in their own terms, Islamophobes. But don't expect logic from that direction. There will be endless clutter about how the extreme right is just as if not more dangerous than al Qaeda.
On the other hand, there is no reason for anti-jihadists to find the slightest justification for the brutal mass murder of young Norwegian socialists. The idea that the Islamization of Europe is so oppressive that citizens have lost hope of influencing their governments and some, albeit fragile and deranged, turn to this type of violence is no less of a fantasy than the socialist's idyllic Norway and the killer's imagined Templars.
There is no chemical purity of ideas or schools of thought. Any individual can take any idea and turn it into something totally alien. So, look at the individual, not at the ideas.
And put the spotlight back on the essential question: where were the police? Where weren't the young people trained in self-defense? Where were the heroes that would tackle the killer and save their comrades? Anders Breivik committed mass murder because no one and nothing stopped him. Where were the police? An article in le Parisien sums it up with unconscious irony. Under the headline "The police explain...," we are told that the call for help came in at 17:30 -- one half-hour after the shooting began -- and the police arrived one hour later at 18:30 (approximate figures).
Bruce Bawer has provided vital background information on the understaffed, underappreciated, sometimes bungling Norwegian police. We are not forgetting the IED attack against government buildings in the center of Oslo set off by the killer to give himself time to get to the island. But do we expect the police department of a modern European city to be able to handle only one incident at a time?
The murderous impulse belongs to the killer alone. He is entirely responsible for his thoughts and acts. But the death toll must be shared out among all those who misconstrued the realities. Norwegian society seems determined to cling to illusions that left its youth like defenseless pawns before a killer. Or is it just the media that finds nothing but tolerance, pacifism, and upheld roses as signs of determination to remain standing in the face of terrible tragedy?
This Norway that outlawed kosher slaughter is a victim of mass slaughter. Perpetrated by one of their own. The lessons that can be drawn from this outrageous attack are far too painful to push in the face of our Norwegian neighbors today. But someday I hope they will understand that these children of the Western world who were pointing the arrows of their indignation at Israel were in fact aiming at themselves.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/07/mayhem_in_norway.html at July 29, 2011 - 12:24:10 PM CDT
"UNRWA and More"
Arlene Kushner
There's a great deal about UNRWA in the news these days, and I have no doubt that I'll return to this subject again before long. Now I want, first, to share a link to my latest report on the subject. This is more of a mini-report (my major reports can run 30 or 40 pages) -- an overview, with more information to follow. The subject: UNRWA's connection with Hamas.
In Gaza, members of a Hamas-affiliated group, the Islamic Bloc, go right into UNRWA schools and do programming with the goal of recruiting the next generation of members for Hamas.
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/HamasAssociationwithUNRWA-July2011.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~ Then, an article of mine that has just come out in Middle East Quarterly, which takes a close look at the anti-Israel statements of key UNRWA personnel:
http://www.meforum.org/2996/unrwa-anti-israel-bias
~~~~~~~~~~
I am sooo tired of Mahmoud Abbas. So tired of hearing of his conflicting statements and outright lies, and so tired of reporting them to you, when you are likely sooo tired of them. as well. Thus I will allude only briefly to the two following items:
Abbas is now calling for "peaceful resistance" in support of the venture in the UN. This is not a good sign.
First, because I've yet to see real peaceful resistance by Palestinian Arabs. He's riling the people.
And second because he's raising expectations of something really happening at the UN. When this turns out not to be the case, violence is likely to ensue because of frustration. The higher the expectations, the greater the violence is likely to be. That's the pattern, folks. And if he already called for "resistance" before the fact?
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, Abbas is saying that it's not clear that the US rejects his statehood plan at the UN. "We heard about their opposition through mediators. The leadership has not received a clear American rejection of the idea to go to the UN." he told the PLO Central Committee.
This, reports Khaled Abu Toameh, "despite the fact that senior PA officials who visited Washington in the past two months clearly stated that the US administration had threatened to use the veto in the Security Council to thwart the PA plan."
Abbas is apparently waiting for a final go-ahead from the Arab League on August 4, but then expects to proceed to the Security Council. (What happened to skipping the SC and going to the General Assembly?)
~~~~~~~~~~
There was a dry-run of sorts in the Security Council this week, when the Middle East was under discussion.
According to YNet, Palestinian observer Riyad Mansour called for the UN to recognize a Palestinian state, and then burst into tears.
Ron Prosor, our new Ambassador to the UN, then asked him, "On behalf of whom will you be presenting a proposal in September, Abbas or Hamas?"
See more here:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4100584,00.html
~~~~~~~~~~
You can see Prosor's full statement to the Security Council here (top item). It gives us perhaps a sense of what will transpire in September:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israel+and+the+UN/Speeches+-+statements/
~~~~~~~~~~
Then see these articles regarding the fact that the PA is going broke:
Elliott Abrams, asks pointedly, in a blog for the Council on Foreign Relations, "Will the Arab League Pay for Palestine?"
A rhetorical question, for the Arab states are reneging on their commitments to the PA.
"This is a simple and quick test of the oil-rich Gulf states, and especially Saudi Arabia. With crude oil in the area of $100 a barrel, it is not a measure of their financial ability; they have the money. And that being the case, this is a far better test than speeches and UN votes of just how committed to Palestinian progress they really are." (Emphasis added)
http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/07/26/will-the-arab-league-pay-for-palestine/
~~~~~~~~~~
Lawrence Solomon draws the necessary corollary in, "An independent Palestine couldn't pay its own bills":
Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, the five countries whose financial obligations burden the European Union, may soon be joined by another that the EU may unwittingly be taking on - Palestine. If Palestine declares statehood this September, as many of its EU underwriters are encouraging it to do, the EU would be implicitly assuming an open-ended financial burden for a country of over four million...
"...there is something that the Europeans who assume a hypothetical, independent Palestine have overlooked: Without Israeli good will, a Palestinian state couldn't support itself. (The author explains this in his article.)
"...Palestine without Israel has no viable economy, and the Americans don't seem particularly eager to meet any shortfall (and have troubles enough with their own balance books). If Europe, through its encouragement of a premature Palestine, breaks the Palestinian economy, it could own it."
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/independent+Palestine+couldn+bills/5164077/story.html
~~~~~~~~~~
And one last, not very palatable article about the PA here. According to Haaretz, Shimon Peres -- the left wing octogenarian who holds the ceremonial position of president -- has been engaged in secret negotiations with PA negotiator Saeb Erekat to find a formula for negotiations that will bring the PA back to the table and stop them from going to the UN. Myself, I believe the chances are dim. But it riles me none-the-less. This is not the first time Peres has stuck his nose in where it doesn't belong.
According to Haaretz, this is being done with Netanyahu's sanction. Best I can figure is that he says, sure, why not, let's see what happens. For, whatever you think of Netanyahu, his policies and ideologies are not the same as those of Peres. But Peres speaks as if he represents the State of Israel.
What people like Peres don't wish to grasp is that there is no essential give from the other side.
Writes Haaretz journalist Akiva Eldar:
"The two went over maps of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in an effort to find a formula that would bypass the dispute over establishing the June 4, 1967 border as a basis for negotiations toward a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
"One option explored was the exchange of territory, and others was to compensate the Palestinians for settlement blocs annexed into Israel, on the basis of the U.S. proposal that the area of a Palestinian state be equal to the territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."
What unmitigated nonsense. Can anyone be that blind, except purposefully? If the Palestinian state is equal to the West Bank and Gaza, then the '67 lines ARE being used as the basis.
In deciding how seriously to take this, we must also keep in mind that Haaretz promotes the negotiations, and then some.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/peres-holds-secret-talks-with-palestinians-in-bid-to-restart-negotiations-1.375809
~~~~~~~~~~
I've long felt that it's time for Peres to be sent to a home for seniors. But I think that it would serve our nation well if Ehud Barak, currently serving as our defense minister, would somehow be sent into retirement as well -- even though he's barely 70.
Barak, who has what is undoubtedly the best relations with the Obama administration of anyone in our government, has just met with US officials -- US Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.
And now he's coming out pushing hard for an Israeli apology to Turkey. "I don't like it," he told the press, "but it's not a bad thing to have reasonable relations with Turkey in a region which has instability in Egypt, downsizing in Saudi Arabia and a hostile Iran."
But that's the Obama line -- that this will allow good relations with Turkey. But it's appeasement, and would be futile. Those in the know, including Minister of Security Affairs Moshe Yaalon, understand this.
I'll return to this issue, and other statements made by Barak.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hezbollah, it would seem, is spoiling for a fight.
This Tuesday, in a televised talk in recognition of the fifth anniversary of its war with Israel, Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's Secretary-General, alluded to the maritime border dispute with Israel, saying that when Israel demarcated its border with Cyprus it infringed on 850 square kilometers of Lebanese territorial waters:
"With regard to the 850-square-kilometer zone, as long as the state considers it Lebanese territory, it is Lebanese in the resistance's eye (resistance? Hezbollah sits in the government of Lebanon ) and there is no disputed area. There is an area that has been infringed on. Lebanon has a diplomatic opportunity to recover it through the border demarcation. [A reference to Lebanon having submitted this demarcation to the UN.]
"We warn Israel against extending its hands to this area to steal Lebanon's resources from Lebanese waters. Until Lebanon decides to exploit this area, Israel must be warned against extending its hands to it.
"Whoever harms our future oil facilities in Lebanese territorial waters, its own facilities will be targeted."
The leader of the Islamic resistance movement also threatened to target Israel’s oil installations if Lebanon’s oil facilities are attacked.
~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally, there was a bombing of a UNIFIL convoy in Lebanon recently that Israeli officials are interpreting as a signal from Hezbollah to back off.
According to UNIFIL's current mandate -- from Resolution 1701 -- this force is not allowed to enter Lebanese villages to search for Hezbollah arms without coordination with the Lebanese army. Israel has been lobbying countries that contribute to UNIFIL to secure a change in these rules, via the UN, so that Lebanese villages might be searched.
~~~~~~~~~~
Can something good be happening here, can we be on the verge of changing policy on Har Habayit (The Temple Mount)? Or is this report from Arutz Sheva overly optimistic? (Sorry for my cynicism, but it's been fostered via long experience.)
In 1967, after we re-claimed the Old City and Har Habayit, Moshe Dayan, in an act of supreme foolishness, however well-intentioned it may have been, told the Islamic Wakf (Trust) that it could continue to control day to day affairs on the Mount, where Muslims come to pray at the mosques. What Dayan apparently didn't anticipate is that the Muslims know no compromise; slowly over the years they have attempted to usurp our influence over matters there.
Today, while we do handle security, in essence the Muslims conduct themselves as if the site of our holy Temples is exclusively theirs. Galling is not the word for this, for Jewish presence is restricted and there's been damage by the Muslims to archeological remains (they would prefer to obliterate evidence of Jewish presence there).
What has happened is that Jews are forbidden to pray on the Mount, and -- I'm ashamed to even write this -- it is Israeli police who enforce this with real vigor. The fear is of Muslim rioting on the Mount. Better deprive Jews of their rights than risk the ire of a Muslim mob prone to violence. Never mind that this is also appeasement.
This article describes a visit by the Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, to the Mount, to see matters for himself, at which time he indeed did discover police bias against religious Jews.
Yehuda Weinstein on Temple Mount
A group known as Ha Habayit Shelanu (the Temple Mount is ours) has issued an expectation that the Attorney General will now pursue this matter.
I will be delighted to write about this again if some progress is made.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146164
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
There's a great deal about UNRWA in the news these days, and I have no doubt that I'll return to this subject again before long. Now I want, first, to share a link to my latest report on the subject. This is more of a mini-report (my major reports can run 30 or 40 pages) -- an overview, with more information to follow. The subject: UNRWA's connection with Hamas.
In Gaza, members of a Hamas-affiliated group, the Islamic Bloc, go right into UNRWA schools and do programming with the goal of recruiting the next generation of members for Hamas.
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/HamasAssociationwithUNRWA-July2011.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~ Then, an article of mine that has just come out in Middle East Quarterly, which takes a close look at the anti-Israel statements of key UNRWA personnel:
http://www.meforum.org/2996/unrwa-anti-israel-bias
~~~~~~~~~~
I am sooo tired of Mahmoud Abbas. So tired of hearing of his conflicting statements and outright lies, and so tired of reporting them to you, when you are likely sooo tired of them. as well. Thus I will allude only briefly to the two following items:
Abbas is now calling for "peaceful resistance" in support of the venture in the UN. This is not a good sign.
First, because I've yet to see real peaceful resistance by Palestinian Arabs. He's riling the people.
And second because he's raising expectations of something really happening at the UN. When this turns out not to be the case, violence is likely to ensue because of frustration. The higher the expectations, the greater the violence is likely to be. That's the pattern, folks. And if he already called for "resistance" before the fact?
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, Abbas is saying that it's not clear that the US rejects his statehood plan at the UN. "We heard about their opposition through mediators. The leadership has not received a clear American rejection of the idea to go to the UN." he told the PLO Central Committee.
This, reports Khaled Abu Toameh, "despite the fact that senior PA officials who visited Washington in the past two months clearly stated that the US administration had threatened to use the veto in the Security Council to thwart the PA plan."
Abbas is apparently waiting for a final go-ahead from the Arab League on August 4, but then expects to proceed to the Security Council. (What happened to skipping the SC and going to the General Assembly?)
~~~~~~~~~~
There was a dry-run of sorts in the Security Council this week, when the Middle East was under discussion.
According to YNet, Palestinian observer Riyad Mansour called for the UN to recognize a Palestinian state, and then burst into tears.
Ron Prosor, our new Ambassador to the UN, then asked him, "On behalf of whom will you be presenting a proposal in September, Abbas or Hamas?"
See more here:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4100584,00.html
~~~~~~~~~~
You can see Prosor's full statement to the Security Council here (top item). It gives us perhaps a sense of what will transpire in September:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israel+and+the+UN/Speeches+-+statements/
~~~~~~~~~~
Then see these articles regarding the fact that the PA is going broke:
Elliott Abrams, asks pointedly, in a blog for the Council on Foreign Relations, "Will the Arab League Pay for Palestine?"
A rhetorical question, for the Arab states are reneging on their commitments to the PA.
"This is a simple and quick test of the oil-rich Gulf states, and especially Saudi Arabia. With crude oil in the area of $100 a barrel, it is not a measure of their financial ability; they have the money. And that being the case, this is a far better test than speeches and UN votes of just how committed to Palestinian progress they really are." (Emphasis added)
http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/07/26/will-the-arab-league-pay-for-palestine/
~~~~~~~~~~
Lawrence Solomon draws the necessary corollary in, "An independent Palestine couldn't pay its own bills":
Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, the five countries whose financial obligations burden the European Union, may soon be joined by another that the EU may unwittingly be taking on - Palestine. If Palestine declares statehood this September, as many of its EU underwriters are encouraging it to do, the EU would be implicitly assuming an open-ended financial burden for a country of over four million...
"...there is something that the Europeans who assume a hypothetical, independent Palestine have overlooked: Without Israeli good will, a Palestinian state couldn't support itself. (The author explains this in his article.)
"...Palestine without Israel has no viable economy, and the Americans don't seem particularly eager to meet any shortfall (and have troubles enough with their own balance books). If Europe, through its encouragement of a premature Palestine, breaks the Palestinian economy, it could own it."
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/independent+Palestine+couldn+bills/5164077/story.html
~~~~~~~~~~
And one last, not very palatable article about the PA here. According to Haaretz, Shimon Peres -- the left wing octogenarian who holds the ceremonial position of president -- has been engaged in secret negotiations with PA negotiator Saeb Erekat to find a formula for negotiations that will bring the PA back to the table and stop them from going to the UN. Myself, I believe the chances are dim. But it riles me none-the-less. This is not the first time Peres has stuck his nose in where it doesn't belong.
According to Haaretz, this is being done with Netanyahu's sanction. Best I can figure is that he says, sure, why not, let's see what happens. For, whatever you think of Netanyahu, his policies and ideologies are not the same as those of Peres. But Peres speaks as if he represents the State of Israel.
What people like Peres don't wish to grasp is that there is no essential give from the other side.
Writes Haaretz journalist Akiva Eldar:
"The two went over maps of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in an effort to find a formula that would bypass the dispute over establishing the June 4, 1967 border as a basis for negotiations toward a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
"One option explored was the exchange of territory, and others was to compensate the Palestinians for settlement blocs annexed into Israel, on the basis of the U.S. proposal that the area of a Palestinian state be equal to the territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."
What unmitigated nonsense. Can anyone be that blind, except purposefully? If the Palestinian state is equal to the West Bank and Gaza, then the '67 lines ARE being used as the basis.
In deciding how seriously to take this, we must also keep in mind that Haaretz promotes the negotiations, and then some.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/peres-holds-secret-talks-with-palestinians-in-bid-to-restart-negotiations-1.375809
~~~~~~~~~~
I've long felt that it's time for Peres to be sent to a home for seniors. But I think that it would serve our nation well if Ehud Barak, currently serving as our defense minister, would somehow be sent into retirement as well -- even though he's barely 70.
Barak, who has what is undoubtedly the best relations with the Obama administration of anyone in our government, has just met with US officials -- US Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.
And now he's coming out pushing hard for an Israeli apology to Turkey. "I don't like it," he told the press, "but it's not a bad thing to have reasonable relations with Turkey in a region which has instability in Egypt, downsizing in Saudi Arabia and a hostile Iran."
But that's the Obama line -- that this will allow good relations with Turkey. But it's appeasement, and would be futile. Those in the know, including Minister of Security Affairs Moshe Yaalon, understand this.
I'll return to this issue, and other statements made by Barak.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hezbollah, it would seem, is spoiling for a fight.
This Tuesday, in a televised talk in recognition of the fifth anniversary of its war with Israel, Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's Secretary-General, alluded to the maritime border dispute with Israel, saying that when Israel demarcated its border with Cyprus it infringed on 850 square kilometers of Lebanese territorial waters:
"With regard to the 850-square-kilometer zone, as long as the state considers it Lebanese territory, it is Lebanese in the resistance's eye (resistance? Hezbollah sits in the government of Lebanon ) and there is no disputed area. There is an area that has been infringed on. Lebanon has a diplomatic opportunity to recover it through the border demarcation. [A reference to Lebanon having submitted this demarcation to the UN.]
"We warn Israel against extending its hands to this area to steal Lebanon's resources from Lebanese waters. Until Lebanon decides to exploit this area, Israel must be warned against extending its hands to it.
"Whoever harms our future oil facilities in Lebanese territorial waters, its own facilities will be targeted."
The leader of the Islamic resistance movement also threatened to target Israel’s oil installations if Lebanon’s oil facilities are attacked.
~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally, there was a bombing of a UNIFIL convoy in Lebanon recently that Israeli officials are interpreting as a signal from Hezbollah to back off.
According to UNIFIL's current mandate -- from Resolution 1701 -- this force is not allowed to enter Lebanese villages to search for Hezbollah arms without coordination with the Lebanese army. Israel has been lobbying countries that contribute to UNIFIL to secure a change in these rules, via the UN, so that Lebanese villages might be searched.
~~~~~~~~~~
Can something good be happening here, can we be on the verge of changing policy on Har Habayit (The Temple Mount)? Or is this report from Arutz Sheva overly optimistic? (Sorry for my cynicism, but it's been fostered via long experience.)
In 1967, after we re-claimed the Old City and Har Habayit, Moshe Dayan, in an act of supreme foolishness, however well-intentioned it may have been, told the Islamic Wakf (Trust) that it could continue to control day to day affairs on the Mount, where Muslims come to pray at the mosques. What Dayan apparently didn't anticipate is that the Muslims know no compromise; slowly over the years they have attempted to usurp our influence over matters there.
Today, while we do handle security, in essence the Muslims conduct themselves as if the site of our holy Temples is exclusively theirs. Galling is not the word for this, for Jewish presence is restricted and there's been damage by the Muslims to archeological remains (they would prefer to obliterate evidence of Jewish presence there).
What has happened is that Jews are forbidden to pray on the Mount, and -- I'm ashamed to even write this -- it is Israeli police who enforce this with real vigor. The fear is of Muslim rioting on the Mount. Better deprive Jews of their rights than risk the ire of a Muslim mob prone to violence. Never mind that this is also appeasement.
This article describes a visit by the Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, to the Mount, to see matters for himself, at which time he indeed did discover police bias against religious Jews.
Yehuda Weinstein on Temple Mount
A group known as Ha Habayit Shelanu (the Temple Mount is ours) has issued an expectation that the Attorney General will now pursue this matter.
I will be delighted to write about this again if some progress is made.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146164
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Lessons from ‘The Haj’
Joseph Puder
In his 1984 bestseller, “The Haj” (Doubleday, NY), Leon Uris captured the essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict through his two protagonists: Haj Ibrahim, muktar of the village of Tabah in the Ayalon Valley of Mandatory Palestine, and Gideon Asch, a pre-Israel Palestinian Jew, whose familiarity with Arab life, language and culture made him an honorary Bedouin.
Uris’ dialogue astutely reveals the vast differences between the Arab and Jewish mindsets – deeply rooted in their cultural differences. Uris focuses on the Jewish liberal, cosmopolitan culture of openness, practicality, compromise, and humanism in contrast to the unforgiving desert culture of the Arabs, where betrayal, distrust, hate and vengeance are commonplace.As the story unfolds, we discover that the Jews of a kibbutz (called “Shemesh”), who bought land from an absentee Arab-Muslim landowner, had also bought the water rights, and that water had previously served the neighboring Arab village of Tabah.
An angry Arab villager from Tabah enters the Kibbutz Shemesh with the intention of stealing something and killing someone if possible. Caught stealing by a young girl from the kibbutz, he tries to rape her and beat her, but her screams cause him to flee.
The story takes place against the background of the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. These murderous riots, incited by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (Hitler’s ally), rocked all of Mandatory Palestine.
Asch, secretary general of the kibbutz, and Haj Ibrahim meet alone and a dialogue ensues. Asch says, “We should be proud. The valley stayed peaceful during the riots.” Ibrahim replies, “Who had a choice, your hand controls the valve on our water.”
Asch asks, “Suppose we did not have the water arrangement. Would you have encouraged your people to riot?” Ibrahim answers, “During the summer heat my people become frazzled. They worry about the autumn harvest. They are drained. They are pent up. They must explode. Nothing directs their frustration like Islam. Hatred is holy in this part of the world. It is also eternal. If they become inflamed, I am but a muktar. I cannot stand against the tide.”
Ibrahim continues, “You see Gideon that is why you are fooling yourselves. You don’t know how to deal with us. For years, decades, we may seem to be at peace with you, but always in the back of our minds we keep up the hope of vengeance. No dispute is ever really settled in our world. The Jews give us special reason to continue warring.”
Gideon: “Do we deal with the Arabs by thinking like Arabs ourselves?”
Ibrahim: “You cannot think like an Arab. You personally, maybe, but not your people, I’ll give an example. There is a clause in our water agreement we did not ask for. It says the agreement can be terminated only if it were proved that someone from Tabah committed a crime against you.”
What Ibrahim is saying here is that, were the situation reversed, the Arabs would shut off the water to the kibbutz, and let the Jews die of thirst.
Gideon: “We don’t believe in punishing an entire village for something you did not do.” Ibrahim replies, “That proves you are weak and that will be your downfall. You are crazy to extend us a mercy that you will never receive in return.”
The dialogue presented by Uris is more than relevant in our own day. Israel provides food and electricity to Gaza, while Hamas-led Gaza uses the land vacated by Israel in 2005 to fire rockets at Israel’s civilian population in southern Israel. Additionally, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and has, for the past five years, held him and denied the Red Cross from visiting him. If the situation was reversed, the Arabs of Gaza would murder outright any and all the Jews they would have encountered. Furthermore, they would not have provided food convoys or electricity to be supplied to the Jews.
The Jews of Israel, especially the left-leaning among them, have not yet learned that they are not living in Europe but in a semi-arid desert region called the Middle East. Moreover, they forget that the Arabs always dream of vengeance and will seize the opportunity whenever it arises. Uris, speaking through Ibrahim, is correct in observing that “[n]o dispute is ever really settled in our world. The Jews give us special reason to continue warring. “
The teachings of Islam and the interpretations of the Koran ensure that there can never be a real peace of equals between Arabs and Jews. There will be, perhaps, long ceasefires or quiet on the borders and in the streets, and terrorism may even subside, but Uris’ Ibrahim reminds the reader, “Always in the back of our minds we keep up the hope of vengeance.”
The Prophet Muhammad exhorted his followers, when they were in a less than superior position to their enemy, to make only a temporary “peace” and bide time until strength is gathered. The Treaty of Hudabiyya, made between Muhammad Muslims and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, illustrates this axiom: Muhammad, with only 1500 men at his disposal, was clearly the weaker party. Two years later, after raiding the Jewish tribes and looting their wealth, killing the menfolk and enslaving their women and children, his army grew to 10,000. He then “found” an excuse to break the treaty and attack the Quraysh.
The lesson is in remembering Muhammad’s actions of yesteryear and understanding that it is learned and emulated by Muslims today. Peace treaties are not viewed in the Muslim culture in the same way that non-Muslims see them – as binding agreements. Rather, a treaty is considered a “time-out” and an opportunity to grow stronger or buy time. Peace with the infidel is, above all, never seen as permanent. Moreover, establishing the supremacy of Islam overrides such considerations as honor (Western), ethics, or treaty obligations. Muslims today clearly understand the word “Hudabiyya” to be a code-word, which in brief means: “Kiss the hand of your enemy until you have the opportunity to cut it off.”
It may very well be that Ibrahim, Leon Uris’ character in “The Haj,” had the wisdom to teach Western minds, as ours, the immortal reality of the Arab way of life.
In his 1984 bestseller, “The Haj” (Doubleday, NY), Leon Uris captured the essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict through his two protagonists: Haj Ibrahim, muktar of the village of Tabah in the Ayalon Valley of Mandatory Palestine, and Gideon Asch, a pre-Israel Palestinian Jew, whose familiarity with Arab life, language and culture made him an honorary Bedouin.
Uris’ dialogue astutely reveals the vast differences between the Arab and Jewish mindsets – deeply rooted in their cultural differences. Uris focuses on the Jewish liberal, cosmopolitan culture of openness, practicality, compromise, and humanism in contrast to the unforgiving desert culture of the Arabs, where betrayal, distrust, hate and vengeance are commonplace.As the story unfolds, we discover that the Jews of a kibbutz (called “Shemesh”), who bought land from an absentee Arab-Muslim landowner, had also bought the water rights, and that water had previously served the neighboring Arab village of Tabah.
An angry Arab villager from Tabah enters the Kibbutz Shemesh with the intention of stealing something and killing someone if possible. Caught stealing by a young girl from the kibbutz, he tries to rape her and beat her, but her screams cause him to flee.
The story takes place against the background of the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. These murderous riots, incited by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (Hitler’s ally), rocked all of Mandatory Palestine.
Asch, secretary general of the kibbutz, and Haj Ibrahim meet alone and a dialogue ensues. Asch says, “We should be proud. The valley stayed peaceful during the riots.” Ibrahim replies, “Who had a choice, your hand controls the valve on our water.”
Asch asks, “Suppose we did not have the water arrangement. Would you have encouraged your people to riot?” Ibrahim answers, “During the summer heat my people become frazzled. They worry about the autumn harvest. They are drained. They are pent up. They must explode. Nothing directs their frustration like Islam. Hatred is holy in this part of the world. It is also eternal. If they become inflamed, I am but a muktar. I cannot stand against the tide.”
Ibrahim continues, “You see Gideon that is why you are fooling yourselves. You don’t know how to deal with us. For years, decades, we may seem to be at peace with you, but always in the back of our minds we keep up the hope of vengeance. No dispute is ever really settled in our world. The Jews give us special reason to continue warring.”
Gideon: “Do we deal with the Arabs by thinking like Arabs ourselves?”
Ibrahim: “You cannot think like an Arab. You personally, maybe, but not your people, I’ll give an example. There is a clause in our water agreement we did not ask for. It says the agreement can be terminated only if it were proved that someone from Tabah committed a crime against you.”
What Ibrahim is saying here is that, were the situation reversed, the Arabs would shut off the water to the kibbutz, and let the Jews die of thirst.
Gideon: “We don’t believe in punishing an entire village for something you did not do.” Ibrahim replies, “That proves you are weak and that will be your downfall. You are crazy to extend us a mercy that you will never receive in return.”
The dialogue presented by Uris is more than relevant in our own day. Israel provides food and electricity to Gaza, while Hamas-led Gaza uses the land vacated by Israel in 2005 to fire rockets at Israel’s civilian population in southern Israel. Additionally, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and has, for the past five years, held him and denied the Red Cross from visiting him. If the situation was reversed, the Arabs of Gaza would murder outright any and all the Jews they would have encountered. Furthermore, they would not have provided food convoys or electricity to be supplied to the Jews.
The Jews of Israel, especially the left-leaning among them, have not yet learned that they are not living in Europe but in a semi-arid desert region called the Middle East. Moreover, they forget that the Arabs always dream of vengeance and will seize the opportunity whenever it arises. Uris, speaking through Ibrahim, is correct in observing that “[n]o dispute is ever really settled in our world. The Jews give us special reason to continue warring. “
The teachings of Islam and the interpretations of the Koran ensure that there can never be a real peace of equals between Arabs and Jews. There will be, perhaps, long ceasefires or quiet on the borders and in the streets, and terrorism may even subside, but Uris’ Ibrahim reminds the reader, “Always in the back of our minds we keep up the hope of vengeance.”
The Prophet Muhammad exhorted his followers, when they were in a less than superior position to their enemy, to make only a temporary “peace” and bide time until strength is gathered. The Treaty of Hudabiyya, made between Muhammad Muslims and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, illustrates this axiom: Muhammad, with only 1500 men at his disposal, was clearly the weaker party. Two years later, after raiding the Jewish tribes and looting their wealth, killing the menfolk and enslaving their women and children, his army grew to 10,000. He then “found” an excuse to break the treaty and attack the Quraysh.
The lesson is in remembering Muhammad’s actions of yesteryear and understanding that it is learned and emulated by Muslims today. Peace treaties are not viewed in the Muslim culture in the same way that non-Muslims see them – as binding agreements. Rather, a treaty is considered a “time-out” and an opportunity to grow stronger or buy time. Peace with the infidel is, above all, never seen as permanent. Moreover, establishing the supremacy of Islam overrides such considerations as honor (Western), ethics, or treaty obligations. Muslims today clearly understand the word “Hudabiyya” to be a code-word, which in brief means: “Kiss the hand of your enemy until you have the opportunity to cut it off.”
It may very well be that Ibrahim, Leon Uris’ character in “The Haj,” had the wisdom to teach Western minds, as ours, the immortal reality of the Arab way of life.
Million missing facts
Schmuel Rosner
I've just published an article in Foreign Policy along with my JPPI colleague Yogev Karasenty. It's a response to an article by Joseph Chamie and Barry Mirkin, claiming that million Israelis have left the country since its birth, a trend that "has not only resulted in critical demographic and socioeconomic imbalances in the country, but more importantly poses grave political challenges and jeopardizes the basic Jewish character and integrity of Israel".
We beg to differ. There's no such thing as "million missing Israelis". Here's one paragraph from our response - you can read the rest of it here:
Chamie and Mirkin argue that the unpublicized story of emigration from Israel is no less significant than the story of Jewish immigration back to the homeland, and that it has reached a point at which it should be considered a threat to Israel's future as a Jewish state -- both demographically but no less important ideologically. "The departure of Jewish Israelis also contributes to the undermining of the Zionist ideology," the authors write, based on the assumption that a million Israelis have chosen to leave the country since its 1948 birth. Magnanimously, they take the trouble to also include lower estimations of departing Israelis --"the official estimate of 750,000 Israeli emigrants -- 10 percent of the population" -- but even so, that doesn't change the perception that Israel is just like "Mexico, Morocco, and Sri Lanka." Not the most exemplary models of prosperity and success.
One wonders whether the necessary readjustment of numbers -- following the analysis that we are about to present -- will also change some of the far-fetched doomsday conclusions the authors reach at the end of their article. What Chamie and Mirkin present to readers leads them to conclude that the numbers pose "grave political challenges and jeopardizes the basic Jewish character and integrity of Israel." Their numbers, though, are totally off the mark. As for their conclusions, that is for readers to decide.
The full article is here.
I've just published an article in Foreign Policy along with my JPPI colleague Yogev Karasenty. It's a response to an article by Joseph Chamie and Barry Mirkin, claiming that million Israelis have left the country since its birth, a trend that "has not only resulted in critical demographic and socioeconomic imbalances in the country, but more importantly poses grave political challenges and jeopardizes the basic Jewish character and integrity of Israel".
We beg to differ. There's no such thing as "million missing Israelis". Here's one paragraph from our response - you can read the rest of it here:
Chamie and Mirkin argue that the unpublicized story of emigration from Israel is no less significant than the story of Jewish immigration back to the homeland, and that it has reached a point at which it should be considered a threat to Israel's future as a Jewish state -- both demographically but no less important ideologically. "The departure of Jewish Israelis also contributes to the undermining of the Zionist ideology," the authors write, based on the assumption that a million Israelis have chosen to leave the country since its 1948 birth. Magnanimously, they take the trouble to also include lower estimations of departing Israelis --"the official estimate of 750,000 Israeli emigrants -- 10 percent of the population" -- but even so, that doesn't change the perception that Israel is just like "Mexico, Morocco, and Sri Lanka." Not the most exemplary models of prosperity and success.
One wonders whether the necessary readjustment of numbers -- following the analysis that we are about to present -- will also change some of the far-fetched doomsday conclusions the authors reach at the end of their article. What Chamie and Mirkin present to readers leads them to conclude that the numbers pose "grave political challenges and jeopardizes the basic Jewish character and integrity of Israel." Their numbers, though, are totally off the mark. As for their conclusions, that is for readers to decide.
The full article is here.
Struggle to Solve Debt Limit Crisis Goes On
Heritage Foundation
Last night, the House of Representatives was set to vote on House Speaker John Boehner’s (R–OH) plan to raise the debt ceiling, as the projected August 2 deadline looms. Failing to round up enough votes to secure the bill’s passage, House Republicans closed up shop for the night and are scheduled to reconvene this morning, hoping to bring a bill back to the House floor with enough support to pass, as Politico reports. Inside baseball, last-minute vote wrangling aside, a much larger problem remains: Even if the Boehner bill passed and became law, America would continue its downward spiral into a fiscal abyss with no end in sight.Why can’t the Congress take these issues seriously? One reason is a lack of presidential leadership. Throughout the debt ceiling debate, President Barack Obama has attempted to portray himself as taking America’s spending crisis head on while calling for “shared sacrifices” to return the country to a course of fiscal sanity. Yet the President has replaced leadership with spectatorship. While the House passes bill after bill on the budget, the President can only carp, while the Senate can only bluster and stew.
Leadership requires speaking plainly and directly to the American people. Instead, the President prefers code to disguise his intentions. To the President, the phrase “shared sacrifices” means tax increases, and his end goal is to keep up his big spending ways. After all, he sees government spending as the best way to create his vision of society in the long term and the best way to spur economic growth in the short run—even though his hundreds and billions of dollars in stimulus spending have left the economy stuck in the mud. Unemployment remains at 9.2 percent, and economic growth is stagnating. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that U.S. GDP rose at a seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter (lower than economists’ expectations), and first-quarter growth was revised down sharply to a 0.4 percent gain from 1.9 percent.
The President’s strategy is no surprise. Heritage called Obama out on his fiscal policies at the start of his Administration, noting he was pursuing a “glut the beast” strategy: Pump spending up as high as possible, trigger a crisis, and use the crisis to force through higher taxes. Obama has, at least, played true to form.
Sacrifices, though, aren’t the only things he would like to share. With the nation’s focus now squarely set on massive deficits, the President has attempted to shift the blame for the country’s woes away from his policies—namely, to prior Administrations. The President repeatedly claims that “neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem” and often points to the George W. Bush Administration as the root cause of the crisis.
That’s simply not true. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year. Without a doubt, deficits during the Bush Administration were too high, especially in the early years, and more should have been done to restrain spending. But those deficits were puny compared to what Obama and his congressional allies have inflicted.
Obama’s budget would set America on a dangerous fiscal course that leads to massive deficits well into the future—hitting $1.2 trillion in 2012 and, after dipping slightly, rising back to $1.2 trillion again by 2021. (You can see an illustration of where those deficits are headed here.) Even after the massive tax hikes included in Obama’s budget, federal deficits total $9.5 trillion. Under the President’s budget, the national debt would more than double in just 10 years, pushing America over a fiscal cliff.
The problem, in short, is too much spending—not a shortage of taxes. And the biggest driver of that spending is entitlements (though Obama’s stimulus certainly didn’t help). Terrifyingly, those entitlements (which include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will consume all tax revenues by 2049 if taxes remain at their historical norms, as this chart shows. And even under the President’s budget for 2012, entitlements consume 58 percent of spending.
Disastrous entitlement spending has fallen by the wayside in the debt limit debate. President Obama speaks grandly of America coming together to solve this collective problem, but he ignores the real long-term problem, all while economic growth slows and unemployment remains high in the Obama economy. As the White House and Congress continue to focus on a fix to the debt ceiling crisis, they ought to take a look in the mirror and see the real cause of America’s fiscal mess.
Quick Hits:
U.S. soldier Pfc. Naser Abdo, 21, was arrested in Killeen, Texas, on Thursday for planning a terrorist attack on troops near Fort Hood. Authorities said they discovered bomb-making materials in his hotel room and an article from an al-Qaeda magazine.
Business groups may take their fight against the Dodd–Frank Wall Street reform law to the courts. Their concern centers around a whistleblower rule issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission under that law.
Libyan rebel commander General Abdul Fattah Younis was killed in Benghazi on Thursday. His death came as the rebels’ council was seeking Younis for questioning on alleged ties to Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi.
Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will go on trial next week in Cairo for corruption and murder charges related to his 30-year reign. It follows the 18-day revolution last spring.
WEB CHAT: Join us today from 12 to 1 ET for a live Web chat on the explosion of federal regulations and how they affect your life. Click here to join in!
Last night, the House of Representatives was set to vote on House Speaker John Boehner’s (R–OH) plan to raise the debt ceiling, as the projected August 2 deadline looms. Failing to round up enough votes to secure the bill’s passage, House Republicans closed up shop for the night and are scheduled to reconvene this morning, hoping to bring a bill back to the House floor with enough support to pass, as Politico reports. Inside baseball, last-minute vote wrangling aside, a much larger problem remains: Even if the Boehner bill passed and became law, America would continue its downward spiral into a fiscal abyss with no end in sight.Why can’t the Congress take these issues seriously? One reason is a lack of presidential leadership. Throughout the debt ceiling debate, President Barack Obama has attempted to portray himself as taking America’s spending crisis head on while calling for “shared sacrifices” to return the country to a course of fiscal sanity. Yet the President has replaced leadership with spectatorship. While the House passes bill after bill on the budget, the President can only carp, while the Senate can only bluster and stew.
Leadership requires speaking plainly and directly to the American people. Instead, the President prefers code to disguise his intentions. To the President, the phrase “shared sacrifices” means tax increases, and his end goal is to keep up his big spending ways. After all, he sees government spending as the best way to create his vision of society in the long term and the best way to spur economic growth in the short run—even though his hundreds and billions of dollars in stimulus spending have left the economy stuck in the mud. Unemployment remains at 9.2 percent, and economic growth is stagnating. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that U.S. GDP rose at a seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter (lower than economists’ expectations), and first-quarter growth was revised down sharply to a 0.4 percent gain from 1.9 percent.
The President’s strategy is no surprise. Heritage called Obama out on his fiscal policies at the start of his Administration, noting he was pursuing a “glut the beast” strategy: Pump spending up as high as possible, trigger a crisis, and use the crisis to force through higher taxes. Obama has, at least, played true to form.
Sacrifices, though, aren’t the only things he would like to share. With the nation’s focus now squarely set on massive deficits, the President has attempted to shift the blame for the country’s woes away from his policies—namely, to prior Administrations. The President repeatedly claims that “neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem” and often points to the George W. Bush Administration as the root cause of the crisis.
That’s simply not true. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year. Without a doubt, deficits during the Bush Administration were too high, especially in the early years, and more should have been done to restrain spending. But those deficits were puny compared to what Obama and his congressional allies have inflicted.
Obama’s budget would set America on a dangerous fiscal course that leads to massive deficits well into the future—hitting $1.2 trillion in 2012 and, after dipping slightly, rising back to $1.2 trillion again by 2021. (You can see an illustration of where those deficits are headed here.) Even after the massive tax hikes included in Obama’s budget, federal deficits total $9.5 trillion. Under the President’s budget, the national debt would more than double in just 10 years, pushing America over a fiscal cliff.
The problem, in short, is too much spending—not a shortage of taxes. And the biggest driver of that spending is entitlements (though Obama’s stimulus certainly didn’t help). Terrifyingly, those entitlements (which include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will consume all tax revenues by 2049 if taxes remain at their historical norms, as this chart shows. And even under the President’s budget for 2012, entitlements consume 58 percent of spending.
Disastrous entitlement spending has fallen by the wayside in the debt limit debate. President Obama speaks grandly of America coming together to solve this collective problem, but he ignores the real long-term problem, all while economic growth slows and unemployment remains high in the Obama economy. As the White House and Congress continue to focus on a fix to the debt ceiling crisis, they ought to take a look in the mirror and see the real cause of America’s fiscal mess.
Quick Hits:
U.S. soldier Pfc. Naser Abdo, 21, was arrested in Killeen, Texas, on Thursday for planning a terrorist attack on troops near Fort Hood. Authorities said they discovered bomb-making materials in his hotel room and an article from an al-Qaeda magazine.
Business groups may take their fight against the Dodd–Frank Wall Street reform law to the courts. Their concern centers around a whistleblower rule issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission under that law.
Libyan rebel commander General Abdul Fattah Younis was killed in Benghazi on Thursday. His death came as the rebels’ council was seeking Younis for questioning on alleged ties to Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi.
Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will go on trial next week in Cairo for corruption and murder charges related to his 30-year reign. It follows the 18-day revolution last spring.
WEB CHAT: Join us today from 12 to 1 ET for a live Web chat on the explosion of federal regulations and how they affect your life. Click here to join in!
Breivik and Totalitarian Democrats
CAROLINE GLICK
Last Friday morning, Anders Breivik burst onto the international screen when he carried out a monstrous act of terrorism against his fellow Norwegians. Breivik bombed the offices housing the Norwegian government with the intention of murdering its leaders. He then travelled to the Utoya Island and murdered scores of young people participating in a summer program sponsored by Norway's ruling party.
In all, last Friday Breivik murdered 76 people. Most of them were teenagers.
Although Breivik has admitted to his crimes, there are still some important questions that remain unanswered. For instance, we still do not know if he acted alone. Breivik claims that there are multiple cells of his fellow terrorists ready to attack. But so far, no one has found evidence to support his claim. We also still do not know if - for all his bravado - Breivik was acting on his own initiative or as an agent for others. Finding the answers to these, and other questions are is a matter of the highest urgency. For if in fact Breivik is not a lone wolf, then there is considerable danger that additional, perhaps pre-planned attacks may be carried out in the near future. And given the now demonstrated inadequacy of Norway's law enforcement arms in contending with terror attacks, the prospect of further attacks should be keeping Norwegian and other European leaders up at night.
Despite the dangers, very little of the public discourse since Breivik's murderous assault on his countrymen has been devoted to these issues. Rather, the Norwegian and Western media have focused their discussion of Breivik's terrorist attack on his self-justifications for it. Those self-justifications are found mainly in a 1,500 page manifesto that Breivik posted on the Internet.
Some of the material for his manifesto was plagiarized from the manifesto written by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whose bombing campaign spanned two decades and killed 3 and wounded 23. Kaczynski got the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish his self-justifications in 1995 by threatening to murder more people if they refused.
Breivik's manifesto has become the center of the international discussion of his actions largely as a result of the sources he cited.
Kaczynski, like his fellow eco-terrorist Jason Jay Lee, who took several people hostage at the Discovery Channel in Maryland last September, was influenced by the writings of former US vice president Al Gore. A well worn copy of Gore's book Earth in the Balance was reportedly found by federal agents when they searched Kaczynski's cabin in Montana in 1996. Lee claimed that he was "awakened" to the need to commit terrorism to save the environment after he watched Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Aside from Kaczynski, (whom he plagiarized without naming), certain parts of Breivik's manifesto read like a source guide to leading conservative writers and bloggers in the Western world. And this is unprecedented. Never before has a terrorist cited so many conservatives to justify his positions.
Breivik particularly noted writers who focus on critical examinations of multiculturalism and the dangers emanating from jihadists and the cause of global jihad. He also cited the work of earlier political philosophers and writers including John Stuart Mill, George Orwell, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill and Thomas Jefferson.
Breivik's citation of conservative writers, (including myself and many of my friends and colleagues in the US and Europe), has dominated the public discussion of his actions. The leftist dominated Western media - most notably the New York Times -- and the left wing of the blogosphere have used his reliance on their ideological opponents' arguments as a means of blaming the ideas propounded by conservative thinkers and the thinkers themselves for Breivik's heinous acts of murder.
For instance, a front page news story in the Times on Monday claimed, "The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam."
The reporter, Scott Shane named several popular anti-jihadist blogs that Breivik mentioned in his manifesto. Shane then quoted left-leaning terrorism expert Marc Sageman who alleged that that the writings of anti-jihad authors "are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged."
That is, Shane quoted Sageman accusing these writers of responsibility for Breivik's acts of murder.
Before considering the veracity of Sageman's claim, it is worth noting that no similar allegations were leveled by the media or their favored terror experts against Gore in the wake of Lee's hostage taking last year, or in the aftermath of Kaczynski's arrest in 1996. Moreover, Noam Chomsky, Michael Scheuer, Stephen Walt and John Mearshimer, whose writings were endorsed by Osama Bin Laden, have not been accused of responsibility for al Qaeda terrorism.
That is, leftist writers whose works have been admired by terrorists have not been held accountable for the acts of terrorism conducted by their readers.
Nor should they have been. And to understand why this sort of guilt-by-readership is wrong, it is worth considering what separates liberal democracies from what the great Israeli historian Jacob Talmon referred to as totalitarian democracies. Liberal democracies are founded on the notion that it is not simply acceptable for citizens to participate in debates about the issues facing their societies. It is admirable for citizens in democracies to participate in debates - even heated ones -- about their government's policies as well as their societies' cultural and moral direction. A citizenry unengaged is a citizenry that is in danger of losing its freedom.
One of the reasons that argument and debate are the foundations of a liberal democratic order is because the more engaged citizens feel in the life of their societies, the less likely they will be to reject the rules governing their society and turn to violence to get their way. As a rule, liberal democracies reject the resort to violence as a means of winning an argument. This is why, for liberal democracies, terrorism in all forms is absolutely unacceptable.
Whether or not one agrees with the ideological self-justifications of a terrorist, as a member of a liberal democratic society, one is expected to abhor his act of terrorism. Because by resorting to violence to achieve his aims, the terrorist is acting in a manner that fundamentally undermines the liberal democratic order.
Liberal democracies are always works in progress. Their citizens do not expect for a day to come when the debaters fall silent because everyone agrees with one another as all are convinced of the rightness of one side. This is because liberal democracies are not founded on messianic aspirations to create a perfect society.
In contrast, totalitarian democracies - and totalitarian democrats -- do have a messianic temperament and a utopian mission to create a perfect society. And so its members do have hopes of ending debate and argument once and for all.
As Talmon explained in his 1952 classic, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, the totalitarian democratic model was envisioned by Jean Jacques Rousseau the philosophical godfather of the French Revolution. Rousseau believed that a group of anointed leaders could push a society towards perfection by essentially coercing the people to accept their view of right and wrong. Talmon drew a direct line between Rousseau and the totalitarian movements of the twentieth century - Nazism, fascism and communism.
Today, those who seek to silence conservative thinkers by making a criminal connection between our writings and the acts of a terrorist are doing so in pursuit of patently illiberal ends to say the least. If they can convince the public that our ideas cause the mass murder of children, then our voices will be silenced.
Another aspect of the same anti-liberal behavior is the tendency by many to pick and choose which sorts of terrorism are acceptable and which are unacceptable in accordance with the ideological justifications the terrorists give for their actions. The most recent notable example of this behavior is an interview that Norwegian Ambassador Svein Sevje gave to Maariv on Tuesday. Maariv asked Sevje whether in the wake of Breivik's terrorist attack Norwegians would be more sympathetic to the victimization of innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists.
Sevje said no, and explained, "We Norwegians view the occupation as the reason for terror against Israel. Many Norwegians still see the occupation as the reason for attacks against Israel. Whoever thinks this way, will not change his mind as a result of the attack in Oslo."
So in the mind of the illiberal Norwegians, terrorism is justified if the ideology behind it is considered justified. For them it is unacceptable for Breivik to murder Norwegian children because his ideology is wrong. But it is acceptable for Palestinians to murder Israeli children because their ideology is right.
As much as statements by Sevje, (or Gore, Walt, Mearshimer, Scheuer or Chomsky), may anger their ideological adversaries, no self-respecting liberal democratic thinker would accuse their political philosophies of inspiring terrorism.
There is only one point at which political philosophy merges into terrorism. That point is when political thinkers call on their followers to carry out acts of terrorism in the name of their political philosophy and they make this call with the reasonable expectation that their followers will fulfill their wishes. Political thinkers who fit this description include the likes of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader Yousef Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin, al Qaeda in Yemen leader Anwar Awlaki and other jihadist leaders.
These leaders are dangerous because they operate outside of the boundaries of democratic polemics. They do not care whether the wider public agrees with their views. Like Mao -- who murdered 70 million people -- they believe that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun not out of rational discourse.
Revealingly, many not particularly liberal Western democracies have granted these terrorist philosophers visas, and embraced them as legitimate thinkers. The hero's welcome Qaradawi enjoyed during his 2005 visit to Britain by then London mayor Ken Livingstone is a particularly vivid example of this practice. The illiberal trajectory British politics has veered onto was similarly demonstrated by the government's 2009 refusal to grant a visa to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Wilders has been demonized as an enemy of freedom for his criticism of Islamic totalitarianism.
The Left's attempts to link conservative writers, politicians and philosophers with Breivik are nothing new. The same thing happened in 1995, when the Left tried to blame rabbis and politicians for the sociopathic Yigal Amir's assassination of then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. The same thing happened in the US last summer with the Left's insistent attempts to link the psychotic Jared Loughner who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents, with Governor Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
And it is this tendency that most endangers the future of liberal democracies. If the Left is ever successful in its bid to criminalize ideological opponents and justify acts of terrorism against their opponents, their victory will destroy the liberal democratic foundations of Western civilization.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Last Friday morning, Anders Breivik burst onto the international screen when he carried out a monstrous act of terrorism against his fellow Norwegians. Breivik bombed the offices housing the Norwegian government with the intention of murdering its leaders. He then travelled to the Utoya Island and murdered scores of young people participating in a summer program sponsored by Norway's ruling party.
In all, last Friday Breivik murdered 76 people. Most of them were teenagers.
Although Breivik has admitted to his crimes, there are still some important questions that remain unanswered. For instance, we still do not know if he acted alone. Breivik claims that there are multiple cells of his fellow terrorists ready to attack. But so far, no one has found evidence to support his claim. We also still do not know if - for all his bravado - Breivik was acting on his own initiative or as an agent for others. Finding the answers to these, and other questions are is a matter of the highest urgency. For if in fact Breivik is not a lone wolf, then there is considerable danger that additional, perhaps pre-planned attacks may be carried out in the near future. And given the now demonstrated inadequacy of Norway's law enforcement arms in contending with terror attacks, the prospect of further attacks should be keeping Norwegian and other European leaders up at night.
Despite the dangers, very little of the public discourse since Breivik's murderous assault on his countrymen has been devoted to these issues. Rather, the Norwegian and Western media have focused their discussion of Breivik's terrorist attack on his self-justifications for it. Those self-justifications are found mainly in a 1,500 page manifesto that Breivik posted on the Internet.
Some of the material for his manifesto was plagiarized from the manifesto written by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whose bombing campaign spanned two decades and killed 3 and wounded 23. Kaczynski got the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish his self-justifications in 1995 by threatening to murder more people if they refused.
Breivik's manifesto has become the center of the international discussion of his actions largely as a result of the sources he cited.
Kaczynski, like his fellow eco-terrorist Jason Jay Lee, who took several people hostage at the Discovery Channel in Maryland last September, was influenced by the writings of former US vice president Al Gore. A well worn copy of Gore's book Earth in the Balance was reportedly found by federal agents when they searched Kaczynski's cabin in Montana in 1996. Lee claimed that he was "awakened" to the need to commit terrorism to save the environment after he watched Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Aside from Kaczynski, (whom he plagiarized without naming), certain parts of Breivik's manifesto read like a source guide to leading conservative writers and bloggers in the Western world. And this is unprecedented. Never before has a terrorist cited so many conservatives to justify his positions.
Breivik particularly noted writers who focus on critical examinations of multiculturalism and the dangers emanating from jihadists and the cause of global jihad. He also cited the work of earlier political philosophers and writers including John Stuart Mill, George Orwell, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill and Thomas Jefferson.
Breivik's citation of conservative writers, (including myself and many of my friends and colleagues in the US and Europe), has dominated the public discussion of his actions. The leftist dominated Western media - most notably the New York Times -- and the left wing of the blogosphere have used his reliance on their ideological opponents' arguments as a means of blaming the ideas propounded by conservative thinkers and the thinkers themselves for Breivik's heinous acts of murder.
For instance, a front page news story in the Times on Monday claimed, "The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam."
The reporter, Scott Shane named several popular anti-jihadist blogs that Breivik mentioned in his manifesto. Shane then quoted left-leaning terrorism expert Marc Sageman who alleged that that the writings of anti-jihad authors "are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged."
That is, Shane quoted Sageman accusing these writers of responsibility for Breivik's acts of murder.
Before considering the veracity of Sageman's claim, it is worth noting that no similar allegations were leveled by the media or their favored terror experts against Gore in the wake of Lee's hostage taking last year, or in the aftermath of Kaczynski's arrest in 1996. Moreover, Noam Chomsky, Michael Scheuer, Stephen Walt and John Mearshimer, whose writings were endorsed by Osama Bin Laden, have not been accused of responsibility for al Qaeda terrorism.
That is, leftist writers whose works have been admired by terrorists have not been held accountable for the acts of terrorism conducted by their readers.
Nor should they have been. And to understand why this sort of guilt-by-readership is wrong, it is worth considering what separates liberal democracies from what the great Israeli historian Jacob Talmon referred to as totalitarian democracies. Liberal democracies are founded on the notion that it is not simply acceptable for citizens to participate in debates about the issues facing their societies. It is admirable for citizens in democracies to participate in debates - even heated ones -- about their government's policies as well as their societies' cultural and moral direction. A citizenry unengaged is a citizenry that is in danger of losing its freedom.
One of the reasons that argument and debate are the foundations of a liberal democratic order is because the more engaged citizens feel in the life of their societies, the less likely they will be to reject the rules governing their society and turn to violence to get their way. As a rule, liberal democracies reject the resort to violence as a means of winning an argument. This is why, for liberal democracies, terrorism in all forms is absolutely unacceptable.
Whether or not one agrees with the ideological self-justifications of a terrorist, as a member of a liberal democratic society, one is expected to abhor his act of terrorism. Because by resorting to violence to achieve his aims, the terrorist is acting in a manner that fundamentally undermines the liberal democratic order.
Liberal democracies are always works in progress. Their citizens do not expect for a day to come when the debaters fall silent because everyone agrees with one another as all are convinced of the rightness of one side. This is because liberal democracies are not founded on messianic aspirations to create a perfect society.
In contrast, totalitarian democracies - and totalitarian democrats -- do have a messianic temperament and a utopian mission to create a perfect society. And so its members do have hopes of ending debate and argument once and for all.
As Talmon explained in his 1952 classic, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, the totalitarian democratic model was envisioned by Jean Jacques Rousseau the philosophical godfather of the French Revolution. Rousseau believed that a group of anointed leaders could push a society towards perfection by essentially coercing the people to accept their view of right and wrong. Talmon drew a direct line between Rousseau and the totalitarian movements of the twentieth century - Nazism, fascism and communism.
Today, those who seek to silence conservative thinkers by making a criminal connection between our writings and the acts of a terrorist are doing so in pursuit of patently illiberal ends to say the least. If they can convince the public that our ideas cause the mass murder of children, then our voices will be silenced.
Another aspect of the same anti-liberal behavior is the tendency by many to pick and choose which sorts of terrorism are acceptable and which are unacceptable in accordance with the ideological justifications the terrorists give for their actions. The most recent notable example of this behavior is an interview that Norwegian Ambassador Svein Sevje gave to Maariv on Tuesday. Maariv asked Sevje whether in the wake of Breivik's terrorist attack Norwegians would be more sympathetic to the victimization of innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists.
Sevje said no, and explained, "We Norwegians view the occupation as the reason for terror against Israel. Many Norwegians still see the occupation as the reason for attacks against Israel. Whoever thinks this way, will not change his mind as a result of the attack in Oslo."
So in the mind of the illiberal Norwegians, terrorism is justified if the ideology behind it is considered justified. For them it is unacceptable for Breivik to murder Norwegian children because his ideology is wrong. But it is acceptable for Palestinians to murder Israeli children because their ideology is right.
As much as statements by Sevje, (or Gore, Walt, Mearshimer, Scheuer or Chomsky), may anger their ideological adversaries, no self-respecting liberal democratic thinker would accuse their political philosophies of inspiring terrorism.
There is only one point at which political philosophy merges into terrorism. That point is when political thinkers call on their followers to carry out acts of terrorism in the name of their political philosophy and they make this call with the reasonable expectation that their followers will fulfill their wishes. Political thinkers who fit this description include the likes of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader Yousef Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin, al Qaeda in Yemen leader Anwar Awlaki and other jihadist leaders.
These leaders are dangerous because they operate outside of the boundaries of democratic polemics. They do not care whether the wider public agrees with their views. Like Mao -- who murdered 70 million people -- they believe that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun not out of rational discourse.
Revealingly, many not particularly liberal Western democracies have granted these terrorist philosophers visas, and embraced them as legitimate thinkers. The hero's welcome Qaradawi enjoyed during his 2005 visit to Britain by then London mayor Ken Livingstone is a particularly vivid example of this practice. The illiberal trajectory British politics has veered onto was similarly demonstrated by the government's 2009 refusal to grant a visa to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Wilders has been demonized as an enemy of freedom for his criticism of Islamic totalitarianism.
The Left's attempts to link conservative writers, politicians and philosophers with Breivik are nothing new. The same thing happened in 1995, when the Left tried to blame rabbis and politicians for the sociopathic Yigal Amir's assassination of then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. The same thing happened in the US last summer with the Left's insistent attempts to link the psychotic Jared Loughner who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents, with Governor Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
And it is this tendency that most endangers the future of liberal democracies. If the Left is ever successful in its bid to criminalize ideological opponents and justify acts of terrorism against their opponents, their victory will destroy the liberal democratic foundations of Western civilization.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
A Clash of Histories
Sultan Knish
The clash of civilizations is also a clash of histories. The Western view of history is progressive. A march upward from barbarism to greater phases of enlightenment. This view is fairly modern and fairly liberal, yet closely associated with the success of Western civilization. In progressive history, human techniques from the technological to the social can be used to improve life and make the world a better place. The Islamic view of history is regressive. A lost golden age followed by unbelief and heresy, culminating in a struggle by the believers to restore Islamic dominance. Everything that humans do independently of Islam makes the world a worse place. The perfect touchstone of history was Mohammed. And the only way that history can be set right is by restoring the lost and corrupted caliphates.
Both the progressive and the regressive views of history have their limitations. The progressive views tends to unrealistically overestimate its own progress. It does this by dismissing 99 percent of what came before it as bunk and barbarism, and places itself at the pinnacle of history. Using the Dark Ages as a prop, history is divided between the medieval and the enlightenment, superstition and knowledge.
Overlooked is the knowledge that civilization and barbarism actually come in cycles. And that the ancients were not stupid or ignorant, often they were quite sophisticated. But they were unable to retain, integrate and build on what they had until it formed the core of a stable and self-sustaining civilization. Despite our technological sophistication, we are actually poorer than them in vital areas, and there is every sign that our own civilization will implode the way that theirs did.
The surest sign of this may be that the intellectual elites of the West have begun to make the switch to a regressive model of history. The environmental movement and the postmodern left have become the champions of a regressive history which demands that we turn back the clock and learn to imitate the slums of the Third World in order to become a better society.
That the people doing this are some of the best and the brightest, the graduates of elite institutions and the thinkers and philosophers of the West, who have followed the dark road of social revolution into oblivion and have come away with no reason for their cultures and nations to go on living-- testifies to the peril that the West finds itself in.
The progressive model of history is on life support. In its pure form, it hardly exists outside of scientific circles, rationalist atheists and patriotic Americans. And the former two often incorporate it into a global admixture that depends on a Wellsian world-state through the United Nations. An organization founded on a progressive worldview, but that in the hands of the left and its Third World allies has become a regressive influence.
That just leaves the regressive model of history with its lost golden age and its distaste for a humanity whose petty faults are in the way of a full restoration.
We are most familiar with the Islamic version of regressive history, whether it is Osama bin Laden or an exhibit on Islamic science. Both depend on a heavily distorted and romanticized history. False history which must remain false in order to justify the pursuit of an impossible goal. A golden age.
Islamic reformers, unlike Western reformers, reform backward. Their goal is to reach back to the past. The Wahhabis with their purge of modern corruptions of Islam exemplify the hypocrisy of regressive history. Their embrace of modern techniques and ideas to force the restoration of a medieval tyranny is sophisticated and self-destructive. They seek to deny change, even while they ride it.
The biggest appeal of regressive history is purity. The romanticisation of the past is a universal impulse. Few Europeans really want to damage the mythology of chivalry with an accurate appraisal of what knights were really like. Every romantic image of the past, from King Arthur to the Vikings, is not improved by close scrutiny. But few Europeans also want to return to a feudal society. That is not the case in Islam.
Imagine what Europe would be like if some 90 percent of the population wanted to restore feudalism, theocracy and the ducking stool for women. There's no need to imagine it. It's called the Muslim world. And a rising percentage of the European population consists of Muslims who are implementing Sharia, Burqas and Jihad in its major cities.
But the Muslim Jihad is not irrational, it's arational. Muslims don't believe in reason as a solution to human problems. They believe in no human solution at all, only the abnegation of humanity to Allah through a clerical guardianship. This is their means of creating a perfect society.
Progressive history accepts human imperfection and builds on it. Regressive history rejects it as a force of evil. Instead it holds up a beacon of a golden past, the promise of absolute purity that rejecting and thereby transcends all human flaws. The daily submission of Muslims arises out a contempt for the individual as a moral actor, and replaces him with the collective Ummah, the receptacle for their transcendence under the guidance of the clerics. The Jihad abandons individual morality for collective bloodshed in the name of creating a perfect society through world domination.
The perfect society is impossible, and the pursuit of it is an excuse for never lifting yourself out of the mud. Its disdain for any society that is less than perfect makes reform seem pointless, and its extremism excuses all lesser crimes and abuses. Having no faith in the present or the future, it has no reason to live but the endless struggle to restore a perfect past. This is the pathology of Islam.
Working societies are built on a hope for the future. Islam has no hope for the future. It may use modern tools, but it never values them, let alone the gifts and sciences that brought them into being. Its gaze is hopelessly dingy, rimmed with disgust for anything that is less than perfect. The tools are inferior copies of what the Koran makes possible. The societies are corrupted and decadent. Even religion isn't right. Islam is striving, but always for the past.
Machiavelli is second nature to Muslims, but only as practice, not as understanding. Deceit is constant and the most overly complex plans are drawn up all the time. Everyone is practiced at manipulating everyone else and accordingly there is no real trust outside the family. And little trust even inside it. And all of this only goes to reinforce the essential Islamic message of human worthlessness. None of it is used to usher in reforms, because Islamic polarity views reforms as black and white. Driving out one group and putting the perfect people into power. Leader worship leads to disappointment, uprisings and a new leader to worship. The cycle repeats itself over and over again.
European expectations of Muslim integration were flawed from the start. Muslims may identify with countries, but their pessimistic worldview was never compatible with Western democracy. They lack the faith in humanity that is essential to the republican experiment. And instead became easy prey for itinerant preachers recording venomous sermons promising them a new bloody golden age, awful in its perfection.
Rather than identifying with their new countries, Muslim immigrants instead decided to replace them. To remake them into the same Caliphate mirage under the guardianship of quarreling clerics and greedy uniformed thugs. And no amount of visits to mosques and Ramadan dinners thrown by Western leaders will change that. It only accelerates the process.
The Western fallacy is the failure to understand that there is no meeting point with Islam. That its numbers are large enough and its ambitions serious enough that it cannot be ignored, and that its orientation is so fundamentally different that it cannot be reconciled at any cost. Multiculturalism assumes that harmony can come by paying enough attention and respect to every culture. But tolerance and co-existence, the assumptions that lie at the heart of multiculturalism, are alien to the purity that is at the heart of Islam.
Islam's aim is unity. The absolute collectivism of the Ummah standing over the diminishing number of Dhimmis who have not yet been convinced to take the plunge into the Sharia pool. It views a society that is based on division as corrupt and confused. Multiculturalism is alien to its ideological DNA. It cannot accept the equality of those who are different. The very idea of it is blasphemous.
Pre-Mohammedan Arabia was multicultural and tolerant. Today it is a land of Muslim masters and imported non-Muslim slaves, funding the spread of that same social setup and worldview around the world through violent and non-violent means. And this Islamic feudalism is the closest that Muslims ever get to their perfect society. A setup that only works as long as there's enough loot to divide up among all the powerful families.
This Islamic dead end is not where Europe is headed. If a Eurabia ever comes into being, it will not be half as pleasant as that. Europe is filling up with Muslims, but with Muslims who often have little in common with each other, except their mutual hatred of the Jew and the Christian. Any region that they dominate will look like Lebanon or Iraq in Saddam's day. Either a permanent civil war broken by truces and agreements, or a tightly run dictatorship.
Lebanon is the likelier model for Eurabia, the remnants of a European influenced society devolved into countless factions and treacheries. A country where the government is weak and the factions are strong. Where every structure falls apart and every agreement falls apart into infighting. But even that is optimistic. The people of Lebanon have things in common that the people of Eurabia will not. And it will take a thousand years until European history has been as thoroughly eradicated as the pre-Mohammedan history of the peoples of Islam was.
All this is the inevitable outcome of a clash of histories. The progressive against the regressive.
If the West still believed in progress as a moral imperative, it would have no trouble holding the gates. And understanding why the gates need to be help. But the worldview that made that possible is in decline.
The left rejected commercial progress as capitalist, but continued to embrace technological progress and cultural development. Then it rejected technological progress as destructive, culture as perspective and stated that the highest moral principle was for the West to save the world by destroying itself. And under their leadership that is the way it has been ever since.
While the regressive history of Muslims at least embraces their own past, or that of their Arabian conquerors, the left's regressive history is not national, cultural, religion or even specific. Instead it is primitivism itself that it seeks out. The backward and the barbaric, the poor and the lacking, that is their new compass. Having lost all native religion, they are on a free floating quest for spirituality, in opposition to materialism. The content of that spirituality does not concern them, only the rejection of what little Western culture they have does.
And the sizable number of Muslim immigrants and the Islamic world is more than happy to step into this vacuum created by the willing abandonment of Western civilization. To take another shot at restoring their glory days in gory ways.
Behind the clash of civilizations is this clash of histories. The momentum of colliding declines. The barbarism that undoes civilization, but only once the civilization has undone itself.
0 comments Permalink
Lies of ‘People for the American Way’ Exposed
Mark Tapson
Just in time for the media’s shameful dogpile on anti-jihadist writers like Robert Spencer for supposedly inspiring Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s rampage last week, People for the American Way (PFAW) just released its fanciful “Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.” Predictably, it’s a hateful exercise in distortions and omissions that mischaracterize critics of jihad as conspiracy-theory bigots aiming to deny the rights of all Muslim-American citizens. The PFAW, a leftist activist group and “watchdog” of what it deems to be the fearsome and shadowy Religious Right in America, was created in 1981 by former TV producer Norman Lear to combat Christian conservatives, promote progressive policies, and elect progressive candidates. It features such fair-minded intellectual powerhouses on its board of directors as actor-and-politician-wannabe Alec Baldwin and Seth MacFarlane, whose animated TV series Family Guy routinely and viciously ridicules Christians and conservatives. Currently in the crosshairs are those who speak out about the dangers of Islamic radicalization and the stealth jihad in this country.
The “Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism” – entirely a creation of the PFAW, by the way, not anyone on the Right – lists “eight key strategies employed by the Right to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment and turn hatred and bigotry into political weapons.” The list is as follows:
1. Frame Muslim-Americans as dangerous to America
2. Twist statistics and use fake research to “prove” the Muslim threat
3. Invent the danger of “creeping Sharia”
4. “Defend liberty” by taking freedoms away from Muslims
5. Claim that Islam is not a religion
6. Maintain that Muslims have no First Amendment rights under the Constitution
7. Link anti-Muslim prejudice to anti-Obama rhetoric
8. Claim an “unholy alliance” exists that includes Muslims and other groups targeted by the Right Wing
Now, there are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made about, for example, the dangers of creeping Sharia and a progressive-Islamist alliance, or the fact that Islam is not a religion in the same sense as, say, Christianity or Judaism. But the PFAW dismissively treats such issues as imaginary constructs of conspiracy nuts on the Right. To paint anti-jihadists as raging bigots as well, it quotes them quite often without the full context or quotation, and links not to original sources, but to other blatantly biased progressive sites like the Southern Poverty Law Center or Media Matters which purport to “monitor” the Right.
“Under the guise of defending freedom and American values,” the “playbook” on the PFAW’s “Right Wing Watch” page ominously begins: “Right-wing anti-Muslim activists are campaigning to prevent Muslim-Americans from freely worshiping and practicing their religion, curtail their political rights, and even compel their deportation.” Every phrase of this sentence is false, as is the thrust of the entire report. No responsible anti-jihadist author or politician – be it Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Steven Emerson, Rep. Allen West, Rep. Peter King, Frank Gaffney or a similar target of the PFAW’s demonization – is seeking to deny or curtail any rights of all Muslim citizens in this country or to deport them (unless they are here illegally, in which case, deportation may be a legitimate option, depending on the circumstances – as it would be for anyone here illegally, not only Muslims).
And yet the PFAW “playbook” repeatedly hammers away at the lie that the Right is simply targeting all Muslim-Americans. “With sweeping and cutting rhetoric,” the report asserts, “anti-Muslim activists claim that all or nearly all Muslim-Americans support terrorism, violence, the abuse of women and the abrogation of American law and ideals.” This complete falsehood is typical of the “sweeping and cutting rhetoric” the PFAW itself uses throughout its imaginary “playbook.” There is no conspiratorial movement afoot to curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans who simply happen to be Muslim; what’s at issue is identifying the demonstrable threat of Islamic terrorism, radicalization, and the stealth jihad in this country and eradicating it, for the safety of all Americans.
But this report does not take seriously the notion that any such threat exists. There is no discussion of Islamic terror attacks carried out or thwarted, no discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive presence here (except when dismissed as conservative fear-mongering), no acknowledgment of the radical Wahhabi lobby and its funding of the majority of the mosques in America (except, again, when dismissed out of hand). The stealth jihad likewise is treated as a loony conspiracy concocted in the fevered imagination of Islamophobes – even though it is straight out of the “playbook” of the Muslim Brotherhood (which actually refers to it as “civilizational jihad”).
And thus, despite the mounting numbers of terrorist recruits among American Islamic youth, the “playbook” attacks Peter King’s congressional hearings on Islamic radicalization: “King and his allies claim that Muslim-Americans are using both peaceful and violent means to destroy America and curtail the nation’s freedoms, and argue that Americans must curtail Muslims’ liberties and freedoms in order to stop them.” Again, no authoritative critic of jihad, including King, labels all Muslim-Americans as a threat or claims that those innocents are not allowed to enjoy the liberties that other Americans enjoy. The “playbook” simply pretends that Islamic extremism in its various forms, violent and otherwise, does not exist here, and instead presents the Right as the real subversive threat to freedom in America.
Muslims themselves are the most numerous victims of Islamic supremacists. In turning a blind eye to the threat of worldwide jihad, it is actually the Left, not the Right, that is endangering all Muslim-Americans. If the PFAW were truly committed to protecting the religious freedoms of all and to “promoting the American Way and defending it from attack,” as its mission statement claims, it would turn its spotlight on the clear and present danger of jihad in America, and cease smearing as racists, bigots and purveyors of hate speech the courageous figures on the Right who are truly working to protect the American way.
Just in time for the media’s shameful dogpile on anti-jihadist writers like Robert Spencer for supposedly inspiring Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s rampage last week, People for the American Way (PFAW) just released its fanciful “Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.” Predictably, it’s a hateful exercise in distortions and omissions that mischaracterize critics of jihad as conspiracy-theory bigots aiming to deny the rights of all Muslim-American citizens. The PFAW, a leftist activist group and “watchdog” of what it deems to be the fearsome and shadowy Religious Right in America, was created in 1981 by former TV producer Norman Lear to combat Christian conservatives, promote progressive policies, and elect progressive candidates. It features such fair-minded intellectual powerhouses on its board of directors as actor-and-politician-wannabe Alec Baldwin and Seth MacFarlane, whose animated TV series Family Guy routinely and viciously ridicules Christians and conservatives. Currently in the crosshairs are those who speak out about the dangers of Islamic radicalization and the stealth jihad in this country.
The “Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism” – entirely a creation of the PFAW, by the way, not anyone on the Right – lists “eight key strategies employed by the Right to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment and turn hatred and bigotry into political weapons.” The list is as follows:
1. Frame Muslim-Americans as dangerous to America
2. Twist statistics and use fake research to “prove” the Muslim threat
3. Invent the danger of “creeping Sharia”
4. “Defend liberty” by taking freedoms away from Muslims
5. Claim that Islam is not a religion
6. Maintain that Muslims have no First Amendment rights under the Constitution
7. Link anti-Muslim prejudice to anti-Obama rhetoric
8. Claim an “unholy alliance” exists that includes Muslims and other groups targeted by the Right Wing
Now, there are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made about, for example, the dangers of creeping Sharia and a progressive-Islamist alliance, or the fact that Islam is not a religion in the same sense as, say, Christianity or Judaism. But the PFAW dismissively treats such issues as imaginary constructs of conspiracy nuts on the Right. To paint anti-jihadists as raging bigots as well, it quotes them quite often without the full context or quotation, and links not to original sources, but to other blatantly biased progressive sites like the Southern Poverty Law Center or Media Matters which purport to “monitor” the Right.
“Under the guise of defending freedom and American values,” the “playbook” on the PFAW’s “Right Wing Watch” page ominously begins: “Right-wing anti-Muslim activists are campaigning to prevent Muslim-Americans from freely worshiping and practicing their religion, curtail their political rights, and even compel their deportation.” Every phrase of this sentence is false, as is the thrust of the entire report. No responsible anti-jihadist author or politician – be it Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Steven Emerson, Rep. Allen West, Rep. Peter King, Frank Gaffney or a similar target of the PFAW’s demonization – is seeking to deny or curtail any rights of all Muslim citizens in this country or to deport them (unless they are here illegally, in which case, deportation may be a legitimate option, depending on the circumstances – as it would be for anyone here illegally, not only Muslims).
And yet the PFAW “playbook” repeatedly hammers away at the lie that the Right is simply targeting all Muslim-Americans. “With sweeping and cutting rhetoric,” the report asserts, “anti-Muslim activists claim that all or nearly all Muslim-Americans support terrorism, violence, the abuse of women and the abrogation of American law and ideals.” This complete falsehood is typical of the “sweeping and cutting rhetoric” the PFAW itself uses throughout its imaginary “playbook.” There is no conspiratorial movement afoot to curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans who simply happen to be Muslim; what’s at issue is identifying the demonstrable threat of Islamic terrorism, radicalization, and the stealth jihad in this country and eradicating it, for the safety of all Americans.
But this report does not take seriously the notion that any such threat exists. There is no discussion of Islamic terror attacks carried out or thwarted, no discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive presence here (except when dismissed as conservative fear-mongering), no acknowledgment of the radical Wahhabi lobby and its funding of the majority of the mosques in America (except, again, when dismissed out of hand). The stealth jihad likewise is treated as a loony conspiracy concocted in the fevered imagination of Islamophobes – even though it is straight out of the “playbook” of the Muslim Brotherhood (which actually refers to it as “civilizational jihad”).
And thus, despite the mounting numbers of terrorist recruits among American Islamic youth, the “playbook” attacks Peter King’s congressional hearings on Islamic radicalization: “King and his allies claim that Muslim-Americans are using both peaceful and violent means to destroy America and curtail the nation’s freedoms, and argue that Americans must curtail Muslims’ liberties and freedoms in order to stop them.” Again, no authoritative critic of jihad, including King, labels all Muslim-Americans as a threat or claims that those innocents are not allowed to enjoy the liberties that other Americans enjoy. The “playbook” simply pretends that Islamic extremism in its various forms, violent and otherwise, does not exist here, and instead presents the Right as the real subversive threat to freedom in America.
Muslims themselves are the most numerous victims of Islamic supremacists. In turning a blind eye to the threat of worldwide jihad, it is actually the Left, not the Right, that is endangering all Muslim-Americans. If the PFAW were truly committed to protecting the religious freedoms of all and to “promoting the American Way and defending it from attack,” as its mission statement claims, it would turn its spotlight on the clear and present danger of jihad in America, and cease smearing as racists, bigots and purveyors of hate speech the courageous figures on the Right who are truly working to protect the American way.
Badie: We’ll support military council during Friday protests
The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has announced that the group will be asserting its support for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces during protests planned for this Friday.
“We’ll support the Egyptian army and push the ruling council forward. We’ll also call for the attainment of all the revolution’s demands, as well as the rights of the martyrs,” said MB Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie of protests planned for 29 July.
Badie made the comments during a conference held on Tuesday at the Hamza bin Abdel Mottaleb mosque in Suez.
He praised the local population, saying: “I’d like to see the people of Suez, as they have always been a symbol of sacrifice.” The conference was disrupted briefly when a member of the MB openly opposed the participation of Father Antonious, who had entered the mosque and greeted Badie. The conference organizers managed to remove the MB member, and the conference continued.
Soon afterwards, Badie highlighted national unity among Muslims and Copts, saying no one could create division among them. He gave the example of the newly formed Freedom and Justice Party, which appointed Coptic figure Rafiq Habib as the party’s vice chief.
“We have always lived with Copts. We never heard about sectarian strife,” he added.
Translated from the Arabic Edition
Palestinian “Moderate” (He Is In Relative Terms) Shows Why Real Peace is Impossible At Present
Barry Rubin
Nabil Shaath has given a fascinating and insightful interview that is well worth analyzing. But first let’s take a look at who Shaath is.
Supposedly, he is the archetypal Palestinian moderate. There was a time when the Western media ridiculed the Israeli declaration that he was a secret Fatah member. When Israel agreed to negotiate with non-PLO Palestinians, the PLO put his name forward although it knew, of course, that he was no such thing. Peace processors ridiculed Israel’s refusal to accept him.
Since 1994, he has held several high positions. He has been credibly accused, by Fatah militants who criticized Yasir Arafat’s corruption, of taking a lot of Palestinian Authority money for himself and his family. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to call Shaath as moderate as anyone in the PA’s leadership, more moderate than the Fatah leadership. And what does Shaath say in an interview on July 13, 2011:
Nabil Shaath: The recognition of a [Palestinian] state…will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states, and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. At the end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel, in order to force it to recognize us and to leave our country. This is our long-term goal.”
In other words, the goal is not to come to a deal with Israel but to gain recognition from other countries which will pressure Israel and force it to give the PA what it wants. (Incidentally, this is pretty much Yasir Arafat’s strategy from 30 years ago, though he was using a higher level of violence in that process.)
But what does the phrase “leave our country” mean as a “long-term goal?” Does “leave our country” mean just the West Bank and east Jerusalem (pre-1967 borders without mutually agreed swaps) or wiping Israel off the map and replacing it with an Arab Muslim state? It’s ambiguous, isn’t it? So perhaps Shaath is a moderate (as advertised in the Western media? In this case, though, Shaath gives us an answer.
“[The recent French proposal, quite frienly to the Palestinians generally] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us-–two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of `two states for two peoples’ means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this….We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country.”
In other words, Shaath, one of the most important and relatively moderate Palestinian Authority leaders, is against a two-state solution. First, there will be a Palestinian state “for one people,” that is an Arab, Muslim state. But there can be no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state because that implies a permanent peace. Shaath and the Palestinian leadership almost unanimously seek a second stage in which the “Palestinians with Israeli citizenship” plus the “returning…to their country” of Palestinian refugees will turn Israel into an Arab Muslim Palestinian part of Palestine.
This is merely a restatement of the “two-stage” solution of the PLO adopted forty years ago. No real progress in 40 years, despite all the disasters and potential lessons seen by the Palestinians! I have been very skeptical about the peace process, especially for the last 15 years, but I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that has so brought home to me why this is such a mirage because Shaath is so open about it and if anyone could be expected to support a real two-state solution it would be him.
Will anyone read and understand what Shaath is saying who believes that peace is at hand and that the Palestinian leadership is eager for a two-state solution?
Incidentally, Shaath also accurately reflected what many Arabs—including relatively moderate ones—think about U.S. policy. He sees Obama as weak: “President Obama will not make his presence felt in the coming 14 months….In practical terms, the US does not play a role any more in the Middle East, although it does not want to acknowledge or accept this….The US has no real presence.”
This observation is equally devastating. And again will it penetrate at all into much of the mass media? Guess you should be congratulating yourself that you read PajamasMedia.
Nabil Shaath has given a fascinating and insightful interview that is well worth analyzing. But first let’s take a look at who Shaath is.
Supposedly, he is the archetypal Palestinian moderate. There was a time when the Western media ridiculed the Israeli declaration that he was a secret Fatah member. When Israel agreed to negotiate with non-PLO Palestinians, the PLO put his name forward although it knew, of course, that he was no such thing. Peace processors ridiculed Israel’s refusal to accept him.
Since 1994, he has held several high positions. He has been credibly accused, by Fatah militants who criticized Yasir Arafat’s corruption, of taking a lot of Palestinian Authority money for himself and his family. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to call Shaath as moderate as anyone in the PA’s leadership, more moderate than the Fatah leadership. And what does Shaath say in an interview on July 13, 2011:
Nabil Shaath: The recognition of a [Palestinian] state…will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states, and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. At the end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel, in order to force it to recognize us and to leave our country. This is our long-term goal.”
In other words, the goal is not to come to a deal with Israel but to gain recognition from other countries which will pressure Israel and force it to give the PA what it wants. (Incidentally, this is pretty much Yasir Arafat’s strategy from 30 years ago, though he was using a higher level of violence in that process.)
But what does the phrase “leave our country” mean as a “long-term goal?” Does “leave our country” mean just the West Bank and east Jerusalem (pre-1967 borders without mutually agreed swaps) or wiping Israel off the map and replacing it with an Arab Muslim state? It’s ambiguous, isn’t it? So perhaps Shaath is a moderate (as advertised in the Western media? In this case, though, Shaath gives us an answer.
“[The recent French proposal, quite frienly to the Palestinians generally] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us-–two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of `two states for two peoples’ means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this….We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country.”
In other words, Shaath, one of the most important and relatively moderate Palestinian Authority leaders, is against a two-state solution. First, there will be a Palestinian state “for one people,” that is an Arab, Muslim state. But there can be no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state because that implies a permanent peace. Shaath and the Palestinian leadership almost unanimously seek a second stage in which the “Palestinians with Israeli citizenship” plus the “returning…to their country” of Palestinian refugees will turn Israel into an Arab Muslim Palestinian part of Palestine.
This is merely a restatement of the “two-stage” solution of the PLO adopted forty years ago. No real progress in 40 years, despite all the disasters and potential lessons seen by the Palestinians! I have been very skeptical about the peace process, especially for the last 15 years, but I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that has so brought home to me why this is such a mirage because Shaath is so open about it and if anyone could be expected to support a real two-state solution it would be him.
Will anyone read and understand what Shaath is saying who believes that peace is at hand and that the Palestinian leadership is eager for a two-state solution?
Incidentally, Shaath also accurately reflected what many Arabs—including relatively moderate ones—think about U.S. policy. He sees Obama as weak: “President Obama will not make his presence felt in the coming 14 months….In practical terms, the US does not play a role any more in the Middle East, although it does not want to acknowledge or accept this….The US has no real presence.”
This observation is equally devastating. And again will it penetrate at all into much of the mass media? Guess you should be congratulating yourself that you read PajamasMedia.
New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as ‘Marriage’
Raymond Ibrahim
Muslim “child-marriage”—euphemism for pedophilia—is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that “Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.”
Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was 6-years-old, “consummating” the marriage—or, in modern parlance, raping her—when she was 9.
The point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as 9 can have sex, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever; the only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her husband/rapist. Fawzan documents this point by quoting Ibn Batal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:
The ulema [Islam’s interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].
Fawzan concludes his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”
Fawzan, of course, is not the first to insist on the legitimacy of pedophilia in Islam. Even the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia supported “child-marriage,” since “the Koran and Sunna document it.”
Nor is this just some theoretic, theological point; the lives of many young girls are being destroyed because of this ruling. Recall, for instance, the 13-year-old girl who died while her much older husband was copulating with her (it was later revealed that, due to her reluctance, he was tying her up and “raping” her—as if there is another way to describe sex with children); or the 12-year-old who died giving birth to a stillborn; or the 10-year-old who made headlines by hiding out from her 80-year-old “husband.”
Then there are the countless anonymous girls who do nothing to warrant any media attention—such as die—and have learned to live with their elderly husbands pawing at them, like, no doubt, the girl who married Islam’s most popular cleric, Yusuf Qaradawi, when she was 14.
What do we make of the fact that it is always Islam’s religious, authoritative voices—not aberrant voices, not “terrorists,” “extremists,” or any other euphemism coined for the occasion—that are constantly demonstrating Sharia’s savageries? Weeks before this fatwa, a female politician and activist in Kuwait called for institutionalizing sex-slavery (recommending that Muslims buy and sell female Russian captives from the Chechnya war); a popular Egyptian preacher not only said the same thing, but added that the solution to Islam’s poverty is to go on jihad and plunder the lives and possessions of infidels.
Sounds odd? Perhaps; but it is perfectly consistent. After all, distilled and in the eyes of the non-believer, Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a 7th century Arab, whose behavior—from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering—was very much that of a 7th century Arab. Having enticed or enslaved his contemporaries into following him, his teachings continue to entice and enslave their descendants; and, now as then, it is always the innocent who suffer.
About Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the DHFC, is a widely published author on Islam, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Join him as he explores the "Intersection"—the pivotal but ignored point where Islam and Christianity meet—including by examining the latest on Christian persecution, translating important Arabic news that never reaches the West, and much more.
Muslim “child-marriage”—euphemism for pedophilia—is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that “Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.”
Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was 6-years-old, “consummating” the marriage—or, in modern parlance, raping her—when she was 9.
The point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as 9 can have sex, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever; the only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her husband/rapist. Fawzan documents this point by quoting Ibn Batal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:
The ulema [Islam’s interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].
Fawzan concludes his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”
Fawzan, of course, is not the first to insist on the legitimacy of pedophilia in Islam. Even the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia supported “child-marriage,” since “the Koran and Sunna document it.”
Nor is this just some theoretic, theological point; the lives of many young girls are being destroyed because of this ruling. Recall, for instance, the 13-year-old girl who died while her much older husband was copulating with her (it was later revealed that, due to her reluctance, he was tying her up and “raping” her—as if there is another way to describe sex with children); or the 12-year-old who died giving birth to a stillborn; or the 10-year-old who made headlines by hiding out from her 80-year-old “husband.”
Then there are the countless anonymous girls who do nothing to warrant any media attention—such as die—and have learned to live with their elderly husbands pawing at them, like, no doubt, the girl who married Islam’s most popular cleric, Yusuf Qaradawi, when she was 14.
What do we make of the fact that it is always Islam’s religious, authoritative voices—not aberrant voices, not “terrorists,” “extremists,” or any other euphemism coined for the occasion—that are constantly demonstrating Sharia’s savageries? Weeks before this fatwa, a female politician and activist in Kuwait called for institutionalizing sex-slavery (recommending that Muslims buy and sell female Russian captives from the Chechnya war); a popular Egyptian preacher not only said the same thing, but added that the solution to Islam’s poverty is to go on jihad and plunder the lives and possessions of infidels.
Sounds odd? Perhaps; but it is perfectly consistent. After all, distilled and in the eyes of the non-believer, Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a 7th century Arab, whose behavior—from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering—was very much that of a 7th century Arab. Having enticed or enslaved his contemporaries into following him, his teachings continue to entice and enslave their descendants; and, now as then, it is always the innocent who suffer.
About Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the DHFC, is a widely published author on Islam, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Join him as he explores the "Intersection"—the pivotal but ignored point where Islam and Christianity meet—including by examining the latest on Christian persecution, translating important Arabic news that never reaches the West, and much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)