Doc's Talk

Monday, January 22, 2007

Time To Gather Our Courage
by
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Oil and vinegar do not mix well, if at all. Ask anyone who prepares a dressing for salads-this explains why each appears in separate bottles on a dinner table. The same is conceptually applicable to politics and the truth. Case in point is the representation that the root cause of international terrorism is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Nothing could be further from the truth; yet, nations’ policies, actions and their respective populations beliefs are based upon this misrepresentation. It is an intentional misrepresentation, our leaders know better. Examination of the facts should and can lead to the truth but it takes courage, effort and energy to learn the details.

Let us begin with the understanding that the more accurate description of the “war on terror” is the “war of values” currently engulfing much of the world today. Terror is only a tactic used by one’s enemies. The major difficulty with misrepresenting what is really going on is that the tactics, strategies and the identification of the real enemy is inadequately and improperly identified. The result is the development of unclear objectives and outcomes thus the perceived confusion of our plans to defeat our enemies. The following questions beg to be asked: Why does our government refrain from labeling the war incorrectly? What’s the payoff for the West for improper war identification? Do our elected officials still believe that we “can’t handle the truth?”

At long last one Western leader has spoken the reality of today’s war; Tony Blair has written the following:

“In my view, the situation we face is indeed war, but of a completely unconventional kind, one that cannot be won in a conventional way. We will not win the battle against global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as that of force. We can win only by showing that our values are stronger, better, and more just than the alternative.”1

The Prime Minister of England has gone where other Western leaders have chosen not to go-he offers the truth.

“The roots of the current wave of global terrorism and extremism are deep. They reach down through decades of alienation, victimhood, and political oppression in the Arab and Muslim world.”1

Prime Minister Blair argues that religious radicalism was made respectable in the minds of many people within and outside the Islamic religion. He suggests that the Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Wahhabi extremists, coupled with teaching in madrasahs in the Middle East and Asia developed and then exported an ideology of hatred and intolerance across the internal arena. The result has been an attack upon the West and its values! There are others who argue that Mr. Blair’s interpretation of current Islamic events is incomplete. In a recently published book, Mr. Gregory Davis offers the following:

“It is crucial to understand that Islam’s division of the word into the House of Islam and the House of War is not merely a question of practice but of principle. In the Islamic worldview, Sharia law is the only legitimate means of organizing society; any other social or political system violates the edicts of Allah himself.”2

The author provides a litany of data and documented facts to support his point of view. This belief is currently manifesting itself across the entire planet. War has been declared. Their believers have massed an international “army” funded by a multiple of nations in several geographic parts of the world. It is beyond time to acknowledge that this is occurring, that they are not reticent in their use of multiple tactics and strategies. Their objective is clear: eliminate the West, its vales and all it stands for; replace it with a political, social and religious doctrine contrary to what we hold dear. The composition of this war is unlike anything we have experienced and/or understand in the last several hundreds of years. To not recognize and acknowledge this leads nations, societies and individuals to make incorrect assumptions, hold invalid beliefs and ultimately to incorrectly identify our enemy. If you have incorrectly identified your enemy, you develop tactics that are doomed to failure. This failure leads to societal unrest, acquisition of beliefs that your leaders have lied to you, the development of appeasement strategies that ultimately deny the energy, efforts and courage to persevere. This is happening today in the West.

Our enemies are using a comprehensive plan against us. Components of this plan include:
• revisionist history
• intentional misrepresentation of the facts “on the ground”
• recruiting a fifth column within most of the Western countries
• funding, building and promotion of Islamic mosques inside these same Western countries designed to promote a particular anti-western rhetoric
• formation of social, educational and political groups espousing values contrary to ours
• holding the West hostage to oil supplies
• blaming others for the world’s unrest
• initiating and funding war behavior and attacking Western institutions and populations
• using the media to promote its goals through sophisticated information dissemination techniques

This is an incomplete list but it does demonstrate the new war plan that is upon all of us. Note that this is not our “parents’ kind of war”, it is cleverly crafted to utilize the Achilles heel of western democracies against us. The result has been: disbelief, emerging discontent, distrust of leaders, use of guilt and divide and conquer techniques. Regrettably we have begun a stage of acquiescence.

Here are but two examples of the preceding. A former USA President, Jimmy Carter, has been promoting his latest book. In it he says the cause of all the world’s problems is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This book is replete with revisionist history, misrepresentation of facts and improperly drawn conclusions. As USA Congressman Mark Kirk recently presented to Congress the following errors in Mr. Carter’s book:
• #1: On page 62, President Carter quotes Yasser Arafat as telling him, "The Palestine Liberation Organization has never advocated the annihilation of Israel ." No evidence is provided and the book does not contain one footnote.

• Fact check: Article 22 of the PLO's Charter stated that "the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zio nist and imperialist presence." Yasser Arafat supported this charter and lied to President Carter.

• #2: On page 215, President Carter writes that one option for Israel is "withdrawal to the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242."

• Fact check: U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not define a border.

These are only two examples of misrepresentation and the Congressman concludes his testimony with this profound and important statement:

“Madame Speaker, these errors diminish the credibility of President Carter's book. President Carter is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

The errors I present here are only a sampling of those included in the book. Now in the twilight of his career and with many at the Carter Center resigning their posts, President Carter should recall this book and hire competent assistants to ensure his future work does not reflect poor scholarship.”3

As a resident in the Middle East I can report how our enemies utilize the words of a former USA President to embolden their respective populations and they use these words here, within our own borders. Is it any wonder that our national resolve is currently being undermined?

One final expose of our enemies’ techniques is offered. The most prevalent explanation for international terrorism and frankly its root cause is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Not only does this resonate with residents in Arab countries, it also receives reverberates within the entire Islamic international community and now is the mantra heard inside our Western countries. It is simply not true! Yoram Ettinger has provided an enlightening report, the following represent but a few of the conclusions.4

1. ISLAMIC TERRORISM HAS BEEN A MIDEAST FIXTURE since the seventh century, when three of the first four Caliphs, succeeding the Prophet Muhammad, were murdered by political rivals: Umar ibn Abd al-Khattab (644AD), Uthman Ibn Affan (656AD) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (661AD).
2. ANTI-WESTERN ISLAMIC TERRORISM dates back to the basic Muslim legal/theological view of the struggle between the Abode of Islam (Dar A-Salam) against the Abode of War-Sword-Infidels (Dar al-Kharb).
3. SCAPEGOATISM HAS TARGETED THE USA, the West and the Jewish State as scapegoats for Arab/Muslim frustration, humiliation and rage over the failure to reclaim the splendor of ancient Islamic dominance.
4. IRRESPECTIVE OF ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE AND THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE, Islamic terrorism has recently plagued Australia, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Scandinavia, Holland, France, England, Spain, the US, etc.

You do not need to believe me; I finish this piece with words from Professor Fouad Ajami of John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies:

“No American diplomatic scheme would spare America the fury of those bent upon eradicating its presence in the region. It is a false reading of a large civilization to say that the terror springs from the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians... It springs from deeper social, economic and political pressures within Mideast society, from the traumas of dislocated newly urbanized youth...Some of it is hatched by merciless men for whom terror is a profession that pays... It does not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians to pretend that it would solve a problem much larger than their conflict..." (NY Times, April 17, 1986).

We are not engaged in a war on terrorism, we are in a war for our very future and survival. It is time to have the courage to shift the commentary that I believe is leading us to defeat. I join the growing number of individuals here and abroad who are redressing those who are our enemies. The question becomes, what kind of world do you want your children and grandchildren to inherit from us?

End Points
1. Blair, Tony, “A Battle for Global Values”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007, reported January 15, 2007.
2. Davis, Gregory, “A Religion of Peace”, World Ahead Pub., 2006.
3. Kirk,Mark Steven, “Peace Not Apartheid: More Fiction Than Fact”, testimony before the USA Congress, reported January 18,2007
4. Ettinger, Yoram, “Expose of the Israeli-Palestinian Claim to Being the Root Cause of Terror”, Straight From the Jerusalem Cloakroom, 201st issue, received January 20,2007

Posted on: http://docstalk.blogspot.com/

Posted also on PRIMER http://primerct.org

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

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

MUSLIMS:

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

Bedouins:

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

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

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

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

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

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

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

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

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arab Apartheid

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

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

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

Lost Historical Moments

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

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

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

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

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

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

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

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

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

AND

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

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

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

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

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

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

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

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