Showing posts with label Sharia law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sharia law. Show all posts

Thursday, June 29, 2023

Arab leaders and pundits habitually warn, in English, that Israel is threatening to threatening to turn the conflict into a religious war. 

A recent example comes from Ramzy Baroud in Arab News, saying, 

What is currently taking place in Palestine is not a religious war, but some Israeli officials and political parties are keen on turning it into one. 

Though warnings against “religious wars” in Palestine — in fact, the entire region — have been mostly linked to Israel’s current “most rightwing government in history,” religious discourses have been the most dominant since the establishment of Israel’s founding ideology, Zionism, in the late-19th century. 
This is absurd to the extreme. 

This has been a religious war for decades, and it has been Palestinians making it one.

From their first leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem, their claims have been based primarily on religious themes and arguments. Religion suffuses everything they do - their words, their actions, their thinking - all the way back to the Mufti's claim that "Al Aqsa is in danger!" from Jews.

The Palestinian Arab armed forces in both the 1936 riots and the 1948 war were called the "Army of the Holy War."

The Palestinian constitution says, "Islam is the official religion in Palestine. ...  The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation."

The Palestinian Authority has a Ministry of Religious Endowments.

Members of the PLO executive Committee marked Eid yesterday by laying a wreath on the grave of Yasir Arafat. 

Mahmoud Abbas' speeches - even to the UN - all begin with "In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful."

Abbas referred to rebuilding Gaza in 2016 as a "jihad."

Every Palestinian media outlet refers to those killed by Israeli forces as "martyrs," not "victims."


The religious aspect is so ingrained that a supposedly secular UNRWA is asking for Muslims to give it "zakat" (religious charity) funds, quoting the Quran. Do any other UN agencies ever quote any other religious texts?  (I found an exception that proves the rule.)

And, of course, Gaza groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are Islamic extremist groups which use Islam to justify attacking Jews. 

It isn't Israel that seeks a religious war. It is the Palestinians, and their own religious justifications are accepted without any objection by the world.

But whenever Jews assert their own religious desires in the land of the Torah, they are demeaned - not only by Palestinians - for acting in such a primitive, non-enlightened manner.

The Palestinians claim, and much of the world accepts, the idea that only Muslims have an unquestioned religious claim on the land and the holy sites that were all invariably Jewish holy sites 1500 years before Mohammed was born. 

Jewish religious claims are treated with scorn while Muslim religious claims are accepted without question. And part of the reason is exactly because religion is the major component of the Palestinian nationalist philosophy.

Disparaging the Jewish religious claims to the land - especially while not questioning the Palestinian Islamic-based claims - is another manifestation of the antisemitism that is accepted as normal nowadays.. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, June 15, 2023



Egypt’s Grand Imam of Al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayeb, spoke at the UN Security Council Wednesday about the importance of "human fraternity,"  tolerance and mutual respect in achieving world peace.

Ahmed Al-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif and Chairman of the Muslim Council of Elders, rejected claims that Islam is a religion of the sword or war, insisting that war is only acceptable for self-defence.  Urging the international community to move away from pointless conflicts, he noted tragedies caused by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In Syria, Libya and Yemen, ancient civilizations have been destroyed, and these lands have become battlegrounds forcing their people to flee. Highlighting efforts made by religious leaders to promote human fraternity, he said Al-Azhar Al-Sharif aims to identify shared responsibilities in addressing climate change and the escalating wars.
Tayeb actually spoke for about 12 minutes, and even when addressing the UN on tolerance, he proved his own intolerance.  As he railed against wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, he added, "I am talking about my sanctities and your sanctities in Palestine, and the arrogance of power and the cruelty of the tyrant" - implying that Israel is violating Muslim and Christian holy places in Jerusalem. He deliberately excluded Jews when he said  "your sanctities" in Jerusalem, saying - for those willing to listen to his words carefully - that Jews walking on their holiest site are "tyrants." 

 To this UN icon of tolerance, Jews do not have any rights to their holy places in Jerusalem - only Muslims and Christians. 

Tayeb also insisted that violence is the exception and not the rule in Islam, and that Muslims only wage war for good reasons - self defense, land, and honor. No one will dare point out that waging a war for "honor" goes against what the UN stands for. And no one will point out that every Arab war waged on Israel was for "honor" far more than for "defending Palestinians" or "land."

This is only the hypocrisy within his speech. Tayeb has, in the past, shown his intolerance and rabid antisemitism in other contexts. You can trace over the past ten years how he switched from publicly railing against Jews to changing the term to  "Zionists."

In 2013, Tayeb was not so careful to distinguish between Zionists and Jews. He said, "See how we suffer today from global Zionism and Judaism, whereas our peaceful coexistence with the Christians has withstood the test of history. Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. "  He then went on to justify antisemitism with Quranic verses, and then said that people were justified in hating Jews because of their arrogance and behavior.

Tayeb soon changed his lyrics, but not his tune. In 2018, while claiming that there is no antisemitism in the Muslim world, he blamed all intra-Arab fighting and violence on the "Zionists," saying that they were behind all Muslim strife, and that if it wasn't for them the Arab world would be progressing. He then added that the Jews - sorry, "Zionists" - intended to march into Mecca and Medina and take over the holy mosques there. 

This is classic antisemitism with a word switch.

The hypocrisy doesn't end there. 

And while he emphasized to the UN Wednesday that the Quran says "there is no compulsion in religion," in 2016 he emphasized that Islamic apostates who refuse to repent should be killed. 

This is who the UN chose as the Muslim representative of tolerance and fraternity. 

If he was Christian or Jewish, the media would be digging under rocks to find anything negative to say about him, and any hypocrisy would be gleefully reported. But the media that saw this broadcast is still  hiding the antisemitism and intolerance he said within his speech at a UN Security Council meeting on...tolerance and fraternity.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Saudi astronauts Ali al-Qarni and Rayyanah Barnawi



Muslim media is discussing how Saudi astronaut Ali Al-Qarni is doing his prayers on the space station. 

He made a video saying that he puts his feet in some sort of attachment so he can stand still and try to prostrate himself, although that is very difficult.

But he doesn't say whether he tries to face Mecca - which would be difficult, because the space station travels around the Earth every 90 minutes, and if prayers take ten minutes, Mecca will not be close to where it was when he began. Nor does he discuss how he calculates prayer times and whether he prays five times every circuit around Earth!

These are similar questions to what Jews have been asking about space flight since Apollo days.

I found a summary from Harvard's Divinity School of the general consensus on these topics, based on a fatwa by Malaysian scholars in 2007:
The scholars produced a fatwa, or non-binding Islamic legal opinion, intended to help future Muslim astronauts, which they translated into both Arabic and English. They wrote that in order to pray, Muslims in space should face Mecca if possible; but if not, they could face the Earth generally, or just face “wherever.” To decide when to pray and fast during Ramadan, the scholars wrote, Muslims should follow the time zone of the place they left on Earth, which in Dr. Shukor’s case was Kazakhstan. To prostrate during prayer in zero gravity, the scholars stated that the astronaut could make appropriate motions with their head, or simply imagine the common earthly motions. 
The bolded part is the same ruling that Jewish scholars have given for Jewish astronauts, specifically for the late Ilan Ramon's disastrous 2003 trip. It is based on a 19th century rabbinic ruling that a traveler who enters the Arctic Circle where there is no sunrise or sunset should use the same times as his point of departure.

Other opinions have been given, but this one seems to be the Jewish consensus, if there ever could be such a thing.

There are other questions for which Jews and Muslims diverge. For Jews, the question is when to observe Shabbat. The answer seems to be the same, to use the times for the place of liftoff. But i saw one opinion that as long as it is Shabbat anywhere, then the astronaut should observe it - which would lead to a 48 hour Shabbat, which does not seem practical. (Obviously any tasks she or he have that are critical for the mission would override Sabbath restrictions.)

For Muslims, the other major issue is Ramadan - whether to fast at all and if so, for which times during the "day"? The Malaysian scholars gave the same answer - the times of the place the astronaut left the Earth - but it seems to me that there might be exemptions for fasting altogether. For one thing, Muslims can make up missed fast days; for another, at least some have an exemption for travelers - and one cannot be much more of a traveler than someone going around the Earth 18 times a day.

A Jew in space for a major 25-hour fast day? I imagine they would have to fast using the same clock as the point of departure. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, January 04, 2023

It is important to examine two events in recent days, as they both severely limit the freedom of Westerners - and signal far worse things that could come.

The first is the visit by Israeli minister of security Itamar Ben-Gvir to the Temple Mount.

The second is the publicizing of the removal of an instructor at Hamline University for including depictions of Mohammed in his art history course.

In both cases, nobody did anything wrong by any reasonable metric: 

- Even though many would say that he has the right to pray on Judaism's holiest site, Ben-Gvir did not. He did exactly what tens of thousands of Jews and hundreds of thousands of Christians have done in 2022 and earlier - he took a quiet stroll on the Temple Mount, without even reporters. There was no violation of the (illusory) status quo. 

- In the case of Hamline University, the instructor told the class ahead of time - in both the syllabus and verbally - that two medieval images of Mohammed, painted by Muslims, would be shown to the class, and he gave any Muslims the opportunity to not look at them. 

In both cases, there is no consensus that even Islamic law was violated: 

- Noor Dahri, a religious Muslim and counterterrorism expert, tweeted, "The rule to allow only Muslims to pray in Makkah is conditioned by the Holy Quran, however such conditions dsn’t apply to the Temple Mount.  Islam doesn’t forbid Jews to worship at the Temple Mount, [just a] political agreement which is called “Status Quo”. It is nothing but racism and religious discrimination against the Jewish people. Jews can freely worship at the Temple Mount according to Islamic rules because the land belongs to them, not Muslims - it’s only holy to Muslims."

- Muslims have included Mohammed in their own artwork for centuries, and Shiites do it today. And while mainstream Sunni Islamic law nowadays is against Muslims creating such depictions, it does not (and cannot) say that non-Muslims cannot create or view such pictures.

In both cases, ignorant Westerners who should be supporting freedom and equality are in the forefront of quashing that exact freedom in order to avoid hurting the feelings of irrational, potentially violent Muslims:

- State Department spokesman Ned Price repeatedly said in response to Ben-Gvir's visit that the US supports the "status quo," implying that the visit violated it and was "provocative:" "We oppose any unilateral actions that undercut the historic status quo. They are unacceptable.... it’s absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve that historic status quo at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, both in word and in practice....We’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions because – precisely because they have the potential to exacerbate tensions, or worse. "

- Hamline University issued a statement claiming, falsely, that what the instructor did violated Islamic law: "Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith."  But it is not at all clear that Islamic law addresses viewing such depictions, only creating them. And as mentioned, the Muslim students could have chosen not to view them.

These are perfect examples of "proleptic dhimmitude," where Westerners act (often beyond what Muslims demand)  in fear of anticipated Islamic responses that had not even occurred.

This illustrates the real unwritten law that has increasingly dominated the West: "Don't piss off the Muslims." All of the moral posturing about "tolerance" and "status quo" are fig leaves to obscure the fact that Westerners live in fear of Islamic terror, and are willing and even anxious to give up on our own freedoms to pander to the most extreme Muslim positions, human rights be damned. 

By using the yardstick of banning anything that is "provocative," the West is allowing the most intolerant and violent Muslims to dictate Western behavior in all aspects of life. Because anything and everything can provoke Islamists. 

Because in both cases the dhimmified Westerners are giving a green light for extremist, potentially violent Muslims to expand their demands ad infinitum:

- Palestinians do not only claim that Jews are violating their feelings by visiting the Temple Mount, but the Western Wall as well - which they also consider part of the "Al Aqsa complex." In fact, every single Jewish holy site, from the Tomb of the Patriarchs to Rachel's Tomb to Joseph's Tomb and scores of others - are all claimed by Palestinians to be Muslim shrines. If Israel gives in to western pressure on abandoning Jewish rights, it wouldn't be the end - it would be only the start of the bigoted, antisemitic demands that Jews have no rights in Israel altogether.

- The same Islamic law against creating depictions of Mohammed also apples to every Muslim prophet.  This includes Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and, according to many, Mary. Beyond that, depictions of Roman and Greek gods would similarly violate Islamic laws against idolatry. The exact same logic that caused Hamline to cave to Muslim intolerance can eviscerate every single art history course in the Western world. 

It isn't hard to picture that as only the beginning, not the end. Imagine a world where every website, every encyclopedia, every outing, every college course, every newspaper article and indeed every activity must be approved by extremist Islamic gatekeepers. We've already seen most Western media refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons from Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, even though they are undoubtedly newsworthy and important to see to understand the story. But that and similar incidents are exactly what is driving today's cowardice: the fear of pissing off Muslims, because they might murder you. 

Jews will only write angry letters, so offending them is "free speech" and "brave." Muslims might kill you, so submitting to their dictates is twisted into "tolerance."

Unless there is serious pushback by those who still value freedom, this is where things are going. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, December 11, 2022

Continuing looking at the newspapers from 75 years ago in the wake of the UN Partition vote.

From the Manchester Guardian, December 10, 1947:


From the Palestine Post, December 11, 1947:


Commentary magazine summarized the pogrom in Aden a few months later:

In the riots that broke out suddenly last December 2 after the decision of the United Nations in favor of partition in Palestine, and following an appeal of the Arab League for a three-day strike of protest in all Arab countries, over eighty Jews were killed and as many seriously wounded. Fourteen Jewish houses were burnt to the ground, and many more were looted. Of one hundred and seventy Jewish shops and stores, over a hundred were burnt or looted and the two Jewish schools were burnt out.

It is alleged that the greatest part of the casualties was caused by the military force, the Aden Protectorate Levies, which were called in by the civil authority when the police were unable to deal with the mob. The Aden Levies are composed of Arab tribesmen with British and Arab officers. It was apparently asking too much for them to take firm action against Arab looters attacking Jewish houses and shops. They soon turned to take an active part themselves in the looting and shooting of Jews.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, October 06, 2022

A photo of Hosam Salem from his Facebook page


Yesterday, Gaza photojournalist Hosam Salem tweeted that his contract with the New York Times had been terminated. Here's his thread:
After years of covering the Gaza Strip as a freelance photojournalist for the New York Times, I was informed via an abrupt phone call from the US outlet that they will no longer work with me in the future. 
I began working with the newspaper in 2018, covering critical events in Gaza such as the weekly protests at the border fence with Israel, the investigation into the Israeli killing of field nurse Razan al-Najjar, and more recently, the May 2021 Israeli offensive on the Gaza strip 
As I understood later, the decision was made based on a report prepared by a Dutch editor - who obtained Israeli citizenship two years ago - for a website called Honest Reporting. 
The article, which the New York Times had based its decision for dismissing me, gives examples of posts I wrote on my social media accounts, namely Facebook, where I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation... 
... My aforementioned posts also spoke of the resilience of my people and those who were killed by the Israeli army - my cousin included - which Honest Reporting described as “Palestinian terrorists”. 
The editor later wrote an article stating that he had succeeded in sacking three Palestinian journalists working for the New York Times in the Gaza Strip, on the basis of us being "anti-Semitic”. 
Not only has Honest Reporting succeeded in terminating my contract with The New York Times, it has also actively discouraged other international news agencies from collaborating with me and my two colleagues. 
What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity, simply because we cover the human rights violations that the Palestinian people undergo on a daily basis at hands of the Israeli army 
He doesn't link to the Honest Reporting article that shows that he praised the massacre of four rabbis and a Druze policeman in 2014, that he has repeatedly praised suicide bombers that killed 10 in 2004, and he has continued to explicitly support terror attacks even after starting his work with the Times:

On November 18, 2014, Hosam Salem again used Facebook to express his joy over the massacre of four rabbis and an Israeli-Druze police officer in a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof.

Citing the Quran, he encouraged his followers to “smite the necks” of unbelievers, adding: “[This is the] summary of the Jerusalem operation [sic] today.”

There’s more. In 2015, Salem applauded two acts of terror (see here and here); a shooting at the Gush Etzion Junction that killed an American teenager, an Israeli man, and a Palestinian bystander; and a Jerusalem stabbing that killed three.

Some three years later, after being hired by The New York Times, Salem called for more violence following an attack that killed two IDF recruits in the West Bank. “Shoot, kill, withdraw: three quick operational steps…to bring peace to the hearts of sad people like us,” the inciting post read.

Finally, he has repeatedly eulogized Mohammed Salem and Nabil Masoud. The two were responsible for a 2004 suicide bombing that killed ten workers at the Ashdod port, Israel’s second-busiest harbor (see here and here).

(It is possible that suicide bomber Mahmoud Salem was a relative.)

Now let's look at Salem's words defending himself again. "I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation..." That is an admission that he considers praising murdering innocent people to be "supporting Palestinian resistance." 

And he concludes by saying that "What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity..."

Salem is positioning his explicit support of terror as being a mainstream view among all Palestinian journalists. He says that exposing his praise of terror attacks is an attack on all Palestinian journalists. 

In other words, he is saying that his opinions are mainstream, not anomalous. 

If a Zionist would say that all Palestinian journalists cannot be trusted to be objective because they all support terror, the Zionist would properly be branded a bigot. Each journalist must be judged on their own merits and their own words. Stereotyping them is wrong.

But what does it mean when a Palestinian journalist insists that all Palestinian journalists like him support terror? When he claims that his noxious support for murdering rabbis and others is simply the same "covering human rights violations" that all reporters supposedly do? He isn't apologizing for his views - he is claiming that he, like all Palestinian journalists, is just covering the news. Praising the murders of Jews is indistinguishable from journalism.

He puts all Palestinian journalists in the same bucket as himself. (And so does Al Jazeera.)  Does that make him a racist? 

The reality is that support for terror is a mainstream Palestinian opinion, across multiple surveys for decades. Sometimes the majority support terror, other times is drops to less than 50%, but it is always an accepted, popular opinion. Assuming that all Palestinians support terror is indeed racist, but understanding that there is a high chance that a random Palestinian who is hired for a position at a major Western media outlet might indeed be a terror supporter is prudent. As the New York Times has learned, vetting one's social media posts before hiring anyone is essential.  

As far as the many who are claiming that Salem is the victim of anti-Palestinian racism, they are the ones who are racist - because they are claiming that all Palestinians support murdering Jews. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 





Monday, August 15, 2022

A member of the Saudi Council of Senior Scholars and an advisor at the Saudi Royal Court, Sheikh Dr. Saad bin Nasser Al-Shathri, called on the Saudis to be kind to Jews who visit the Kingdom.

During a fatwa program on "Alif Alif" radio, a listener asked how a Muslim should treat a Jew who visits the kingdom.

Al-Shathri responded that “not every Jew is an Israeli, and a Muslim must approach God by kindness in dealing with all people,” warning against “being deceived by malicious propaganda and rumours.”

The cleric pointed out that Mohammed had good relations with some Jews.

“A person must draw closer to Allah by showing kindness to all people, of whatever religion they are,” he added.

"People must abide by these instructions and these etiquettes that were brought by Islamic Sharia, with regard to good logic and beautiful speech.. A kind word is charity, as the Holy Prophet said.”

He added the need to "provide assistance to others, whatever their religion, so that the Muslim can be a good model, and provide correct propaganda to introduce Islam." 

Although it appears that some Jews have managed to visit Saudi Arabia for business over the years, they have kept a low profile. Lately that has been changing, as Israelis have been allowed into the Kingdom as well under special circumstances. 

Even though the answer seems to say at the end that it is allowed to treat Jews well in order to ultimately attract them to Islam, the answer itself is pretty good. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, July 13, 2022

Many Islamists criticized Saudi Arabia for appointing Muhammad bin Abdul-Karim al-Issa to perform the sermon and prayer on the Day of Arafa at the Namirah Mosque in Mecca for Hajj.

Al-Issa had visited Auschwitz, met with rabbis, visited Yeshiva University in New York and in general has been outspoken in pushing for coexistence with other religions. 

This was a significant, public move that showed that the Saudi leadership is liberalizing and encouraging its people to no longer consider Israel as an enemy.

Saudi Arabia's Basic Law says that the constitution itself is defined as"The Holy Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah (traditions)." Before normalization with Israel is possible, there needs to be rulings based on the Quran that would allow such a relationship.

MEMRI reports that this is already happening:
An unusual and recent article on the religious legitimacy of diplomatic relations with Israel, which may promote the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and this country, appeared in the Saudi state daily Al-Jazirah on June 20, 2022. The article, titled "The Fiqh [Jurisprudence] regarding al-siyasa al-shar'iyya Shari'a-Based Policy and the State of Israel," is by Dr. Khalid bin Muhammad Al-Yousuf, a senior lecturer on international law at the Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh and the secretary-general of the university's Supreme Council. He argues that, in the modern era, there has been a significant change in the perception of the state and in the rules of the game in international relations. According to the new rules, he says, Israel is an existing reality just like any other world country, and a member of the UN. Therefore, it must be treated according to the accepted norms of the international community. Al-Yousuf calls on Saudi clerics to reexamine the sphere of international relations and formulate a new religious perception of it, compatible with these new norms, which will enable the ruler of an Islamic state to employ independent judgement and form ties with Israel if he deems this to be in the interest of his country.  He emphasizes that normalization with Israel will allow many Muslims to come and pray in Jerusalem and "rebuild it," which cannot be done without maintaining ties with Israel.
The article, as translated by MEMRI, starts off with a justification for how Saudi Arabia has already accepted Israel as a member of the international community as a first stage towards recognition:

First of all, what is Israel today?

In the contemporary international community, [Israel] is a sovereign state that has the character of a state according to the modern global perception. It is a member of the UN, and since it is recognized as a state, it operates in the contemporary international community vis-à-vis all the other states, just like any other country – whether in the framework of mutual legal recognition [between it and other states], or in practice, based on reality, according to the requirements of the contemporary circumstances. 

Examples of the first [type of recognition] are, for example, official mutual visits by state leaders, the opening of embassies, direct trade, and the like. Examples of the second [kind of ties, based on the requirements of reality are the existence of] maritime zones and airspace; the use of shipping routes; indirect trade, for example by transferring goods through third parties, in free trade zones and through [individuals with] dual citizenship; meetings between official delegations at international forums, and encounters as part of various sports events. A state cannot be part of the international community without taking an active part in international forums…" 
The Saudis have already been interacting with Israelis in the context of multilateral and international meetings.  This article gives both that level of acceptance and the higher level of recognizing Israel an Islamic imprimatur, by showing precedent by Mohammed in the Quran in how he dealt with other nations. 

The legal basis is the concept of "al-siyasa al-shar'iyya" which says that relationships with non-Muslims that benefit Muslims have a wider latitude as long as they do not explicitly violate shari'a law. The essay says that the ruler of a Muslim country can make decisions about what is best for the country based on politics as well as Islamic law. 

It seems to me that this policy has been in place for decades anyway - after all, Saudi Arabia has diplomatic relations with scores of Christian countries, and in Islam there is no legal distinction between Jews and Christians. But since Israel has been the object of so much hate for so long, and that opprobrium was also ostensibly based on Islamic law, the Saudi leadership needs to explain how it can justify such a major change in policy towards Israel. 

There is another interesting implication in this article. It seems to effectively accept international law as being more important than shari'a when it comes to international relations:

If we examine our current reality we will find that [the concept of] dar al-harb in its Islamic and jurisprudential sense is no longer implemented today. The fact that it is not implemented does not mean that the shari'a laws pertaining to it are abolished, but only that they are not applied to modern states because this term is not used in the modern international community. Modern states interact through contracts, charters, agreements and alliances. These can be collective, like the UN Charter, which is the founding document of the UN, [an organization] that encompasses all the world countries. According to this charter, states have rights and duties towards the UN, towards the international community and towards each other… Saudi Arabia was one of the first countries to sign the UN Charter, and it is therefore a founding member [of this organization]. King Faisal signed the charter as a founding member already on June 26, 1945 in a ceremony that took place in San Francisco.

...An in-depth examination of the reality in the modern international community reveals that a state, in addition to being a legal entity, may not violate modern international law… For example, it may not hijack planes, trains or ships in another country, and if it does so, it incurs international condemnation. 
This could open the door for Saudi liberalization in many more areas than just relations with Israel. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, January 09, 2022

Both Western Leftists and Palestinian Arabs agree that they would love to see a single state from the river to the sea. 

Neither of them admit aloud how different their visions of such a state are.

When speaking to Western audiences, the Left - whether they are Jews like Peter Beinart or prominent Palestinian Leftists like Leila Khaled - describe a socialist utopia where Jews would ostensibly be treated equally with Arabs under the law, but the state would be strictly secular. 

Palestinian Arabs, however, favor an Islamist state run by Sharia law. To them, the Palestinian Authority is too secular already.

The last time Pew did a survey of Muslims worldwide, it found that 89% of Palestinians would want Islamic law - Sharia - to be the law of the land. This was the third highest in the world, behind only Afghanistan and Iraq.


A vast majority of Palestinians would like to see corporal punishment for crimes like theft and stoning as a punishment for adultery. A majority would like their state to give the death penalty for those who leave Islam. Most Palestinians say that it is a bad thing that their current laws do not adhere closely to sharia law.

There is nothing in common between these two views of what a single Palestine would be. The majority of Palestinians have no interest in the secular paradise that you see described in the pages of Open Democracy and The Guardian and Jacobin. Most Palestinians say that their end goal is not one state with equal rights for Jews but one Palestinian state from the river to the sea where Jews are, at best, tolerated second class citizens - and many openly advocate for deporting any Zionist from the country altogether.

Polls show that a mere 10% of Palestinians want a state with equal rights between Jews and Muslims. The latest political polls show that socialist parties like the PFLP and DFLP would only get 2% of the vote in any election held now. 

Palestinians hate socialism. They prefer Islamism. 

Palestinians do not want equal rights for Arabs and Jews. They want an Islamic state.

Everything written about a one-state solution in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times is fiction. The Western Leftists will trot out people with Arabic-sounding names who write passionately about a single state with equal rights for all as if they represent Palestinian public opinion.

Only rarely does the Left admit that the idea of equal rights for Jews in a majority Arab state is problematic. Edward Said, the intellectual father of the one state idea, admitted in 2000 that he couldn't see how Jews would be treated equally in his solution. "It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don't know."

The socialist fantasy and Palestinian reality cannot co-exist. A single state would become a nightmare for Jews. Everyone knows it. 

Which goes to prove that the Leftists who make their one-state argument in the West - and who do not make the same argument in Arabic-language media - are only paying lip service to equal rights for Jews. They want to see Israel destroyed, and they are willing to partner with their Islamist ideological opponents to make that happen. They paper over their differences and hoping that no one notices that they are supporting a Muslim ethnostate where Jews are tolerated if they behave like good dhimmits and persecuted if they demand their own rights.  

There is only one reason the socialist Left and the Palestinian Right support each other: their shared antisemitism. 






Tuesday, March 14, 2017

This article in The Nation is being reported all over:


Her arguments are really nutty, but Sarsour knows how to get publicity.

So let's use her own methodology to ask whether it is possible for Linda Sarsour, or anyone else, to be a feminist while supporting Palestinian Arabs.

According to the UN,  there are no specific laws or provisions in the Palestinian Authority or under Hamas rule that protect women against domestic violence and sexual violence.

If women are not able to provide/show evidence of “force”, “threats” and/or “deception” to support rape claims, they risk being criminalized for “adultery.”

The Palestinian Authority has adopted the Jordanian 1960 "rape marriage" law  that says that a rapist will not be prosecuted if he marries his victim. These laws often result in rape victims being coerced by family or courts to marry their rapists.

While rape is illegal, the woman is often the one who must defend herself since the rape laws only apply “provided that such a woman is not a prostitute and is not known for her immoral character.”

Murderers who claim to have murdered women in order to ‘maintain family honor’ can be exempted from judicial sanction.

Marital rape is not against the law.

This study showed that Palestinian women only went public about being abused sexually only where the abuse was extremely traumatic, publicly apparent, and the victim absolved of blame. 10% of the women who went public were murdered. Usually the family would respond with measures like hymen reconstruction, marriage to the rapist, and abortion to “nullify” sexual abuse.

Women are not allowed to marry without permission from their guardian, Men may marry up to four wives.

A Palestinian Arab man can divorce his wife for any reason, but Palestinian women can request divorce only under certain circumstances. When a divorce is initiated by the woman it means that she must give up any financial rights and must return her dowry.

Sexual abuse of women and children are rampant but swept under the rug.  37% of married Palestinian women were exposed to some form of violence by their husbands in the previous year alone, nearly 12% exposed to sexual violence in the previous year. 65% of those who were exposed to violence stayed quiet about it because of cultural mores.

20% of Palestinian women are married before they are 18, almost always to older men, which is a human rights violation. Because of child marriages, 10% of all Palestinian women between 15-19 give birth in any year.

The highest rates of violence against women are found where the families tend to be more religious, in Gaza and Hebron.

The Palestinian Basic Law, by saying that ‘the principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation’, can be interpreted in a manner which undermines the rights of women according to a UN study.

I'm not even going into Shari'a law here, which is far worse than Palestinian law for women. (Linda Sarsour has publicly defended Shari'a law, which calls into question her own qualifications to be called a feminist.)

Liberal "Pro-Palestinian" activists rarely if ever mention any of the issues listed here. The media is also complicit in its silence on these topics. Yet Palestinians know all about them, and it is likely that Sarsour is quite aware of them and chooses to remain silent, because that would blunt her anti-Israel message.

Her hate for Israel is more important to her than the rights of Palestinian women.

Sarsour says "You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it." Which means that Sarsour is not a feminist by her own definition because she does not stand up for the rights of Palestinian women who are suffering so badly under a patriarchal, Islamic-based system of laws and customs. In fact, her anti-Israel stance is her way to divert attention from the very real discrimination and abuse that Palestinian women suffer.

Sarsour, with her silence,  is actually enabling the daily abuse of Palestinian women from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the misogynist Palestinian society that she idealizes for the cameras.

Linda Sarsour, and all so-called "feminists" who use their platform as a means to bash Israel, are in fact anti-feminist and tacitly support discrimination against and abuse of Palestinian women that happen every day.





We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016




We all want to save this planet, we all want a life that’s free
So we voted for the Greens, cause they stood for equality.
But as soon as they got power, it went right to their head,
Now they’re not supporting freedom, but racism instead.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
There are human rights abuses in most countries you could name
But there’s just one tiny country that the Greens would like to blame,
A country known as Israel where citizens walk free,
Muslims, Jews and Christians – the region’s lone democracy.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Israel’s fought in seven wars, not one did it start,
Rockets launched each day from Gaza still tear children’s lives apart.
But to the Greens they’re the aggressors, not entitled to their views –
How dare Israel defend itself, those stubborn bloody Jews.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Sure, Israel isn’t perfect, and it’s always in the news,
But would you fare any better, standing in their shoes?
If you call a country racist, while ignoring the great wealth
Of far greater wrongs around it, you’re just racist yourself.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were, that’s for sure.
Greens, Greens we now see who you are, and we won’t vote for you anymore.

That catchy ditty entitled “Racist Heart” whose words I decided to reproduce since they don’t seem to appear all together anywhere on the internet (to hear them go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPe04ZrVGY) is the work of a New South Wales singer-songwriter inspired by the utter hypocrisy, bigotry and double standards displayed by the New South Wales Greens in 2011 when they committed the council of Marrickville in Sydney to BDS, a mean and divisive move that outraged both Jews and non-Jews and has since been overturned.

For a party that was founded with the welfare of the environment and ecological issues in mind, the Greens in Australia, like the Greens elsewhere, have a disproportionate fixation with “Israel Palestine” and appear to have passed more “party resolutions” pertaining to that corner of the world than to any other foreign policy issue. Here’s their most recent resolution, one that allows no consideration of the pre-Six Day War 1949 ceasefire lines as they affect Israel’s security and which offers everything to the Palestinian Arabs on a platter, despite their decades-old rejectionism and with no responsibility on their part towards negotiation with Israel:

Resolution on Palestine, November 2015
That the Australian Greens National Conference:
1. Notes:
a) The state of Palestine is currently recognised by 136 states, representing 70.5% of the 193 member states and two non-member states of the United Nations;
b) The importance of recognition of the state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution, based on 4 June 1967 boundaries with both states sharing Jerusalem as their capital;
2. Formally recognises the State of Palestine.
Motion passed by consensus

Since, as made clear by Greens politician Adam Bandt the other day (see below) they support the “right of return” for “Palestinian refugees” they are, quite obviously, unconscionably hostile to Israel.
Here’s a brief glimpse of their obnoxious attitude. In 2013 the New South Wales Greens, apparently spearheaded by David Shoebridge, member of the state Legislative Council and co-convenor of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, announced support for the “Gaza’s Ark” project, which will challenge the blockade by rebuilding a boat in Gaza using Palestinian shipbuilders, load the vessel with Palestinian goods and products, and sail to international waters with both Palestinians and internationals on board,” the aim being “ to challenge the ongoing, illegal Israeli blockade and focus worldwide attention on Gaza and the complicity of the governments that support it or look the other way.” This, despite the fact that in 2011 an inquiry under UN auspices declared Israel “fully within its rights to impose [the blockade] in order to prevent the import of weapons which will be turned against it.” To the ire of the then federal Greens’ leader Senator Christine Milne when she found out, a staffer in Shoebridge’s office invited notorious German-born South Australian Holocaust denier Dr Fredrick Töben to the “Gaza’s Ark” fundraiser (a cruise around Sydney Harbour), leading Shoebridge to have the invitation withdrawn.  
That same year NSW Young Greens posted on Facebook a poll that asked whether respondents believed in the rights and sovereignty of Palestine” or supported the creation and continuance of the state of Israel”. Although the poll was later removed owing to pressure by the then party leadership, those who administered that Facebook page remained defiant in their outlook, leading the executive director of the Executive Council for Australian Jewry to observe: “Regardless of their personal views, their activities and rhetoric have time and again been magnets for gross expressions of antisemitism, both online and in public forums. The Greens … have a choice to make … They can speak and act as a party with mainstream voter appeal, or they can pander to the radical fringe of politics.
Federal Senator Lee Rhiannon (born Lee Brown to hard left parents, and of part-Jewish extraction through her mother) is arguably the most infamous of the anti-Israel Greens. Her attitude can be discerned in a speech she made two and a half years ago in the Senate, in which she said, inter alia:
There is a strongly growing case for the Australian government to adopt the Greens policy of no military cooperation and trade with Israel. This policy change is needed to ensure that Australia no longer supports crimes committed by the Israeli government…. Jake Lynch, Director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has pointed out that Israel is the only country which is guilty of the following four major transgressions. The first transgression is that it is illegally occupying foreign territory. The evidence for this is UN Security Council resolution 242 which calls on Israel to reinstate the 1967 borders. This violation is now in its 46th year. The second transgression is that Israel is the subject of well-founded allegations of war crimes, most recently the 2009 UN Goldstone Report into Operation Cast Lead. A third transgression is that it is a nuclear armed state yet has refused to admit this or join the non-proliferation treaty. This is surely one of the biggest obstacles to a peaceful and stable Middle East. The fourth transgression is that it is the subject of well-founded allegations of apartheid crimes, violating the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid….”
Last month Senator Rhiannon, as readers of David Singer’s posts on my blog will be aware, authorised Israel-demonising leaflets, including that ubiquitous set of mendacious maps and other misleading material, to be issued by her office at public expense.
Senator Christine Milne’s successor as federal Greens’ leader, Dr Richard Di Natale, was praised by Jewish communal leaders in May 2015 when, was asked in an interview with the AJNwhether Abbas should recognise Israel’s existence as a Jewish state” he replied “Of course. How can you have a two-state solution when you refuse to acknowledge the right of one state to exist? It’s patently nonsense.” The ensuing furore in his party caused Dr Di Natale to backtrack. A fortnight after the interview was published, the AJN (4 June 2015) reported:

Ignoring the fact that the Jewish State has existed for almost 70 years and is recognised in international law, Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale this week earned the ire of community leaders for declaring “absolutely” that he does not support the establishment of a Jewish state and does not believe it would be conducive to a two-state solution. The backlash [from Greens regarding the answer he gave in the interview] prompted a clarification, in which his executive assistant stated that Di Natale was “concerned about the way in which his comments were reported” and that while he supports a two-state solution, “the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is not conducive to that outcome”. When The AJN contacted Di Natale’s office, a spokesperson said they didn’t mean to imply there had been “an error in reporting”, explaining “it was just a misunderstanding”….

Di Natale this week reiterated his position in correspondence with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)…. “My comments in the AJN piece were intended to reflect that view and that view alone. I have never believed that the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is conducive to this outcome and I absolutely do not support that goal.” …. Labelling Di Natale’s “about turn” as “profoundly disquieting”, Zionist Federation of Australia president Danny Lamm noted the UN and Israel’s Declaration of Independence, as well as statements by US President Barack Obama as supporting its existence as the Jewish State. He added, “Senator Di Natale’s revised position on Israel should also be assessed in the light of Articles One and Four of the Palestinian Basic Law (2003) that respectively declare: ‘the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation’; and ‘the principles of Islamic sharia shall be the principal source of legislation’. “It would be useful to ask whether Senator Di Natale’s objection to national ethno-religious identity applies solely to a Jewish Israel, or extends to an Arab/Muslim Palestine as well?….’

The words of the “Racist Heart” song above are so pertinent to the despicable, discriminatory attitude of the Green Party in Australia towards Israel, and even, as recent events in the state of Victoria have reminded us, towards Jews. The latest whiff of Greens’ poison has emerged during the current federal election campaign, and it involves Greens candidate Steph Hodgins-May, who is hoping to wrest the seat of Melbourne Posts from the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP’s) Michael Danby, who has represented the seat in federal Parliament in Canberra since 1998. Mr Danby, who is Jewish, is and always has been a stalwart champion of Israel, and from his university days has been instrumental in building up support for Israel among trades unionists and others on the right of the party. On 22 June Mr Danby’s two main rivals, Liberal Party candidate Owen Guest and the Greens’ Ms Hodgins-May, were due to join him in a pre-election debate on issues raised by Jewish constituents (who comprise a not insignificant proportion part of the seat’s electorate). But as a result of Ms Hodgins-May’s sudden withdrawal, the debate will be between just Danby and Guest.

The debate, to be chaired by Australian Jewish News editor-in-chief Zeddy Lawrence, was first proposed to the three candidates on 26 May, and Ms Hodgin-May’s office that same day confirmed her participation. On 30 May Mr Lawrence emailed her to inform her that the event would be co-sponsored with the AJN by Zionism Victoria. On 7 June she told an enquiring journalist on Twitter that she was unaware of the involvement of Zionism Victoria, and on 8 June her office informed the AJN by email: “At the time of Steph accepting AJN’s invitation to participate in the candidate forum, it was our understanding that it was being independently hosted by your newspaper. Since the circumstances of the forum have changed, Steph won’t be participating.” That same day she informed the paper, in two separate conversations: “I’m not comfortable participating in a forum that is co-hosted by an organisation that isn’t an independent newspaper, so that’s my reason for withdrawal” and that she felt it was not “appropriate and right to speak at an event co-organised by a politically active organisation”.

On 9 June the AJN pointed out to her that the Greens member for Melbourne and former deputy leader of the party Adam Bandt would be speaking at an Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) (see, by the way, Bandt’s response to an APAN questionnaire (https://apan.org.au/party-positions-on-the-question-of-palestine/adam-bandt-mp-greens-member-for-melbourne/). Thus cornered, she offered this excuse: “I was unaware when I accepted that it was also being co-hosted by an organisation that holds strong political views, including in relation to the United Nations. As someone who worked at the UN and holds their work in high regard, I have chosen not to participate in the now co-hosted forum.” Yet, as the AJN notes, the description a “nuisance and a sham organisation,” which Hodgins-May attributes on her website to Zionism Victoria, emanated from the Zionist Federation of Victoria.

See Bandt’s shameful response when confronted at the APAN forum with this issue by David Schulberg: (http://jmedia.online/2016/06/14/australian-palestinian-advocacy-network-event/ )

Here is Bandt’s speech at the APAN forum, where he makes clear that the Australian Greens support the “Palestinian Right of Return” (something that, if effected, would spell the end of Israel): 

Ms Hodgins-May has behaved disgracefully, treating a section of her potential electorate with contempt. As excoriating articles in the current AJN make clear, she has caused deep offence and hurt to Jews in the constituency she hopes to represent. Not long ago she tweeted a photo of herself holding a loaf of challah on a Friday afternoon, together with appreciative comments. But elections are not won by bread and blarney and photo opportunities alone. The Greens are poisonous.

Editorialises the AJN:

“As a newspaper – albeit a Jewish, Zionist one – we don’t as a rule presume to tell our readers who to vote for. We may encourage them in a certain direction, but on the whole we present relevant information and allow them to make up their own minds. In this instance, however, we feel we have no choice. We not only opened our pages to Steph Hodgins-May, we invited her to take part in our panel. In turn, she has shown considerable disrespect towards our community. And that being the case, we would urge you not to give her your vote.”

Michael Danby goes further: “Approximately 71 per cent of Australian Jewish residents of Melbourne Ports have family in Israel. If she doesn’t want to represent our local Jewish community, or even speak to them, she cannot be their local member. Greens Leader Di Natale must sack her.” Excellent point.


We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive