Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The Mufti and the Arab refugees

I've been looking through the pages of the Palestine Post to find contemporaneous information about the Arab refugees from Palestine. There are many articles about the issue, I touched upon it specifically for the Arabs of Haifa over here.

Among Zionists, it is an article of faith that the Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to leave, and far more left from the urging and rumors caused by Arabs than from anything the Jews did. In the future I hope to put together an article of the number of times that Jews encouraged Palestinian Arabs to stay where they were.

It becomes apparent upon researching the issue that there were a specific set of Arab leaders who consistently encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to flee, but not the entire Arab world - especially not the leaders of Arab countries who were expected to host these thousands of undesirables. It was, in fact, the members of the Arab Higher Committee, which was led by the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, who consistently led the Palestinian Arabs to ruin because of their own narrow political goals. And the Arabs at the time, especially the Palestinian Arabs, knew this quite well.

First, here are the players' positions on the refugee issue in August, 1948:

Now, here is a good analysis of the Mufti's position and motives:

So the Mufti and the Arab Higher Committee once again showed that their interests lied not in their people but only in their own power. Today's Palestinian leadership, from Arafat to Abbas, has shown remarkably similar characteristics. Reading the vitriol from the Mufti in the 40's it is striking how similar it is to the same idiocy spewed out today, and how little it has to do with bettering the lives of actual Palestinian Arabs.

Which was well-known even in 1941 when the Mufti was partying with his pal Adolf: (December 31, 1941)

Crossposted to Palestine Post-ings.

Operation Divest Terror

The website is a little shrill but the idea makes sense. If the many anti-Israel divestment campaigns gain so much traction, shouldn't anti-terror divestment campaigns work as well? The fact is that in the end, it is Western money that funds terror through various investments in countries that support terror either explicitly or implicitly.

And here is a link to the only terror-free mutual fund there is.

The Islamist fifth column in England

Great and scary article in the CSM. Excerpts:

Since the bombings, the media and Muslims have been at pains to explain that most of the country's 2 million Muslims are peaceful. "The Muslim community in Britain has a long history and is enormously diverse," says Anas al-Tikriti, a member of the Muslim Association of Britain.

But the attacks are turning attention to the increasing numbers of young British Muslims (hundreds of thousands? -EoZ) who are rejecting their parents' traditional culture in favor of a radical and expansionist Islam. This strikingly Western version of Islam combines an independence of thought with a contempt for established traditional scholarship and a theme of teenage rebellion.

"Getting involved in radical Islam is an emotional thing rather than a rational decision," says Abdul-Rahman al-Helbawi, a Muslim prayer leader. "And it's not a matter of intelligence or education - a lot of these radicals in Britain are very well-educated."

In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood.

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."

Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The hypocrisy of Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi

Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and the head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, told www.islamonline.net [9] that he condemned the bombings in London: "We were dumbfounded by the grave news which surprised us, and all the world today, about the bombings that took place in the city of London, that killed dozens and wounded hundreds of innocent people who attacked no one and had committed no crime to remove the immunity of their blood."

Al-Qaradhawi described the bombings as "cruel and barbaric black actions that Islam harshly condemns." He also said, "[Even] In an official war, when state armies battle face to face, Islam does not permit the killing of women, children, elders, priests, farmers and merchants, and those like them, who are non-combatants, and whom nowadays we call civilians."

Al-Qaradhawi offered his condolences to the families of the victims, and sent a special letter of condolence to the mayor of London, which stated: "We express our condolences to our dear friend, London Mayor Ken Livingstone, a man of justice who always defends Arab and Muslim causes."
------------------
And concerning other types of attacks against civilians, he says:
------------------

SHEIKH YUSEF AL-QARADAWI
(Qatar University)
TRANSLATION:
It's not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of God, Islamic theologians and jurisprudents have debated this issue. Referring to it as a form of jihad, under the title of jeopardising the life of the mujahideen. It is allowed to jeopardise your soul and cross the path of the enemy and be killed.

MARSHALL:
In the mind of Sheikh Yusuf Al- Qaradawi, that view prevails even though women and children are often the innocent victims.

SHEIKH YUSEF AL-QARADAWI
TRANSLATION:
Israeli women are not like women in our society because Israeli women are militarised. Secondly, I consider this type of martyrdom operation as indication of justice of Allah almighty. Allah is just. Through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs like the Palestinians do.

Haveil Havalim #28 is out, and something about Islamic womens wear

This blog is mentioned in HH for this post.

As usual, it is an excellent collection of articles around the Jewish blogosphere, this time hosted by Soccer Dad.

For the two fans out there that I have, you can submit any articles you think are particularly noteworthy to this page. Unfortunately I haven't had the time recently to post really noteworthy articles, although I thought that this one was a pretty good find.

Another tidbit about Islam courtesy of Daf Yomi: The custom of Arab women covering their faces completely except for their eyes predates Islam by at least a few centuries, as a Mishnah discusses this in BT Shabbos 65A. Which is interesting, at least to me; both because it indicates that wearing a chador is not an Islamic innovation, but the idea is much older than the mid-'70s as is implied by the excellent Amir Taheri. (Re-reading the article he is speaking about a very specific kind of hijab, so he is strictly correct, but the implication that I took from the article was that major face-covering was a newer innovation.)

UK-Sun: Israel not victim of Islamic terror

Thanks to Media Backspin for posting this map in the Sun (UK) of major terror attacks by Islamic terrorists in recent years:

So they do recognize that it is "Islamic" terror. They do recognize that it is a worldwide phenomenon.

But no matter what happens, they will not acknowledge that the hundreds of terror attacks against Israel fit the same definition. Somehow, they still think that terror attacks against Jews in Israel are not terror but a legitimate freedom fighter movement - even though Hamas' and Islamic Jihad's philosophy is indistinguishable from that of Al Qaeda.

Interestingly, synagogues in London are built like fortresses to foil terror attacks. But there is still the cognitive dissonance between Arabs wanting to kill Jews in Britain (bad) and Arabs wanting to kill Jews in Israel (justifiable.)

Genteel Jew-hatred is alive and well in England.

Here's how "moderate" British Muslims were in 2004

From a poll of British Muslims in March, 2004:

Q5. President Bush and Tony Blair have said war against terrorism is not a war against Islam. Do you agree or disagree?
Agree 20%
Disagree 68%
Don't know 12%

Q6. Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat MP said she condemned all forms of violence, but if she had to live in the same situation as a Palestinian she might consider becoming a suicide bomber herself. Do you agree or disagree with her?
Agree 47%
Disagree 43%
Don't know 10%

Q7. Would you regard further attacks by Al Qaeda, or similar organisations on the USA as justified or unjustified?
Justified 13%
Unjustified 73%
Don't know 15%

So we see that over 200,000 British Muslims (out of nearly 1.6 million) think that 9/11 was justified. And many, many more would consider blowing themselves up to kill Jews in Israel.

But they are only a "tiny minority," right?

Tony Blair, idiot

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Thursday's bomb attacks on London demonstrate the pressing need for world leaders to tackle problems like poverty, he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. He said leaders had taken on some of those issues at the G-8 summit of the world's wealthy nations in Scotland this week.

'I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots,' Blair said. 'As well as dealing with the consequences of this — trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can — you have to try to pull it up by its roots,' he said.

That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.

Wow. Lockerbie, the USS Cole, the first WTC attack, the Luxor massacre, Bali nightclub, Madrid, Istanbul, Tripoli, and now London - what they have in common is poverty, lack of democracy and the Middle East?

Somehow, I thought that what they had in common was a murderous political ideology aimed at world domination under the name of Islam. Silly me....if only Israel would give up land, none of these attacks would have occurred, according to Mr. Blair.

I guess the fact that much of the incitement to kill Jews comes out of merry old England doesn't bother Tony one bit. We just have to "understand" the murderers better, so they will feel more "fulfilled."

I really, really hope that he was playing politics with this incredibly stupid statement and that he doesn't believe it.

UPDATE:

AL-QAEDA is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal.

A network of “extremist recruiters” is circulating on campuses targeting people with “technical and professional qualifications”, particularly engineering and IT degrees.

But I thought the terrorists were poverty-stricken!

Time to wake up, Mr. Blair. The terrorists include people who are smart, technical, and dedicated to wiping out Western civilization. To even imply that Israel is part of the problem is to hand them a big, fat reward for killing scores of Londoners.

UPDATE 2: It seems Blair never said that; it came from the fevered imaginations of the AP.

LONDON - In a July 9 story about Prime Minister
Tony Blair's comments on overcoming global terrorism, The Associated Press erroneously reported that he spoke of easing the conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians. Blair did not specifically mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.

We are all infidels

A very nice post in the Is Full of Crap blog.

The world will be a better place when it realizes that we are all in the fight against the same enemy. As long as "enlightened" Westerners try to make hair-splitting distinctions between the murderous intentions of Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Aqsa/Islamic Jihad and the murderous intentions of Al Qaeda, they will not understand the nature of the war that we are in now, one that we didn't declare but that the enemy declared against us centuries ago.

Five op-eds on London

Excerpts from Daily Alert:

British Islamists Threatened Violence - Daniel Pipes
In April 2004, Sayful Islam, head of the Luton branch of Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: "the immigrants"), an Islamist British group, announced that he supports Osama Bin Laden "100 percent" in the quest to achieve "the worldwide domination of Islam." "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children....But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here."
In an August 2004 story in the New Statesman, "Why Terrorists Love Britain," Jamie Campbell cited Mohamed Sifaoui, author of Inside Al Qaeda, that it has long been recognized by the British Islamists, by the British government, and by UK intelligence agencies that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt [an overtly pro-terrorist Islamist], the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur there.
But in January 2005, Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian immigrant to the UK who headed Al-Muhajiroun, determined that the covenant of security had ended for British Muslims because of post-9/11 anti-terrorist legislation that meant "the whole of Britain has become Dar ul-Harb [the Abode of War, the territory open for Muslim conquest]." Therefore, "the kuffar [unbelievers] has no sanctity for their own life or property." Thursday's explosions mark the end of the "covenant of security."
Let's hope they also mark the end of an era of innocence, and that British authorities now begin to preempt terrorism rather than wait to become its victims. (FrontPageMagazine)

Rules of Conflict for a World War - Efraim Halevi
The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force. We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe. We are in for the long haul and we must brace ourselves for more that will follow.
The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting. The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted and international law must be rewritten to permit civilization to defend itself. There is no doubt that international cooperation is essential. Yet this cannot replace the requirement that each and every country effectively declare itself at war with international Islamist terror and recruit the public to involve itself actively in the battle. The writer, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad. (Jerusalem Post)

The Attacks on London - and the Battles to Come - Johann Hari
Anybody who tells you these bombers are fighting for the rights of Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, or Chechnya should look at the places they chose to bomb. Aldgate? The poorest and most Muslim part of the country. Edgware Road? The center of Muslim and Arab life in London and, arguably, Europe. Does anybody need greater evidence that these Islamic fundamentalists despise Muslims who choose to live in free societies, and they would enslave Muslims everywhere if they were given the opportunity? Nor is this tit-for-tat revenge for deaths in Iraq: very similar jihadist plots have been foiled in France and Germany, countries that opposed the invasion. Anybody who doubted that the fight against Islamic fundamentalism - a murderous totalitarian ideology - was always our fight should know better now. (Independent-UK)

And This Is Why They Did It - Amir Taheri
According to witnesses, Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, who was shot by an Islamist assassin on his way to work in Amsterdam last November, tried to reason with his assailant. "Surely we can discuss this," he kept saying as the shots kept coming. Van Gogh was reacting like BBC reporters did Thursday, assuming that the man who was killing him may have some reasonable demands which could be discussed in a calm, democratic atmosphere. But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you. (Times-UK)

If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution - Thomas L. Friedman
When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb. Either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit, and denounce its own extremists, or the West is going to do it for them.
The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. To this day, no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden. (New York Times)

Reuters: You are not a terrorist if you attack Jews or Americans

More than once, Reuters seems to have broken with their "impartial" tradition of not describing terror attacks as such:
:
"US officials reacted with little public fanfare to the terrorist attacks in London on Thursday"
"after a series of explosions hit London's transport network in an apparent terror attack. ..."
"as dealers calculated the potential economic fall-out from terror attacks in central London. ... "

Well, it didn't take long for Reuters to show its hypocrisy. It even quotes Blair calling it a terrorist attack without putting it in scare quotes.

Remember - 9/11 was never described by Reuters as a terrorist attack.

Here was Reuters' policy in the wake of 9/11:

" Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. We do not characterise the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity or background. As a global news organisation, the world relies on our journalists to provide accurate accounts of events as they occur, wherever they occur, so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts."

Apparently, the Reuters style manual only applies if the victims are Jews or Americans.

Not "militants", not "activists", not "insurgents."

Amazing how UK newspapers have no problem calling the murderers "terrorists" without the scare-quotes.

But Reuters sticks to its guns.

Terror intent, terror attempts, terror successes

The West, understandably, doesn't want to punish people for crimes not committed. There is great discomfort at implementing a "future crime" scenario as in the movie "Minority Report."

However, most people would agree that for people who could pose a future threat, who have stated an intent to kill Westerners, it is prudent to keep a close eye on them and to be ready if and when such a threat materializes.

And, aside from the loony tree-hugging Left, most reasonable people would agree that Western powers are quite justified in responding forcefully and directly to successful terror attacks.

But when dealing both with terror and crime, for some reason the West is lenient on those whose attacks are not successful. Only when there are mass casualties is there any resolve to strike back, hard, at the terrorists. When the damage is "limited"or the plot is foiled, then it is only expected to give a "proportional" response. For some reason it is not considered fair to have a massive counterattack when the terrorists didn't fully succeed.

This makes no sense. Sending a few cruise missiles, as Clinton did after the 1998 Al Qaeda attacks on US embassies (when "only" 200 people died), is not only ineffective - it is counterproductive. It emboldens the terrorists to try again.

Today was not the first time that terrorists targeted London. Scotland Yard has foiled other attacks. It seems obvious to me that when a country or an organization intends to kill massive numbers of people, and shows its seriousness by actually attempting such an attack, that one is morally obligated to pro-actively make sure that this nation or organization is not going to remain a threat.

Right now, in almost all cases, Islamic terror pays. Terror is being rewarded today in Israel and elsewhere and it has been successful in making heroes out of Muslim murderers throughout the world. Terrorists get fame, they get recruits, they get money, and they get political results. Unless this calculus changes dramatically, unless there is a concerted and united effort to make sure that terrorists will lose far more by each attack than they gain, we will continue to see more and more days like today.

MEMRI exposes another "moderate" Muslim leader - this one from NYC

An imam at the Islamic Society of Mid-Manhattan and a lecturer on Islamic studies at Manhattanville College, Ahmad Dewidar, was recently called "the face of the next generation of Muslims in America." He has met with President Bush, Mayor Giuliani, Governor Pataki and U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

Recently, Dr. Dewidar attended the annual Conference of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs in Egypt, where he gave a series of interviews. In one that aired on MBC TV on June 9, he discussed the spread of Islam in America. He referred to sermons he had heard in 1995 that stated, "We are going to the White House so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become Muslim House." To view the broadcast, visit www.memritv.org.

On June 15, Dr. Dewidar was interviewed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's Web site, www.ikhwanonline.com. When asked about how the attacks of September 11, 2001, impacted the spread of Islam in America, he said that he witnessed hundreds of Americans converting to Islam. Hinting at an American government conspiracy related to the attacks, he said, "Whether or not these events were planned, or pinned on the Muslims, or something else - [it] provided an opportunity for [the American government] to legislate dubious laws that restrict the growth and presence of Islam in the U.S."

Regarding American skepticism toward Islam following September 11, 2001, he said, "The media - most of which is under Zionist control - has helped to spread this perception." Later in the interview he said that "the Jews" control the press. When asked, "What is the extent of the Muslim community's influence on American society?" He answered, "The Zionist community numbers only 3 million, but they control the government, the politics, the economy, and the media in the U.S."

Also while speaking to the Web site of the Muslim Brotherhood, he denounced President Bush's policy in the Middle East, claiming it was dictated by Natan Sharansky: "This Jew has despicable goals, and we see their effects today in America's actions in the region, imposing its opinion and its outlook on democracy, education, and political involvement on our countries."

Dr. Dewidar and Sheik al-Gamei'a's interviews shared some themes, such as blaming Islam's poor image in America on a Zionist-controlled press. They also both said the Zionists control political decision-making and economic institutions. Both were extremely positive on the future of Islam in America and discussed a trend of Americans converting to Islam following September 11, 2001.

While the New York press has yet to pay this story adequate attention, it is being discussed by blogs such as Little Green Footballs. Others, such as Solomonia.com/blog, wrote about Dr. Dewidar's statements: "Before MEMRI - people could give these kinds of interviews abroad and no one would ever be the wiser. While still not broadcast widely, at least now, there's a chance of people wising up." On June 30, EconoPundit wrote: "MEMRI.org's most important contribution has been to make it harder for Middle East leaders to say one thing to their English-speaking audience while saying opposite and often contradictory things to their non-English-speaking constituents and allies. It now seems MEMRI's mandate has extended itself to U.S. Islamic leaders as well.

Recognize a pattern here?

Just like Hezbollah is claiming more and more land in the north, the PA is now claiming more and more in the south. And they are setting the stage for another round of terror in the name of "Palestinian" land. And the Jew-hating world will think they have a legitimate point.

As I've said time and time again, the only thing consistent about Arab actions vis a vis Israel is the desire to not allow any Jews to own land in the Middle East. Everything else is window dressing.

Palestinian Authority Civil Affairs Mohammed Dahalan, in charge of coordinating disengagement with Israel, has raised questions on the status of the current Gaza Strip border demarcations, according to National Security Council chief Giora Eiland.

A moshav, Netiv Ha'asara, is situated in the disputed area.

According to Eiland, in talks with Israeli counterparts, Dahalan claimed the northern Gaza border had been moved 2 km to the south, and the Palestinians were demanding that it be recognized as such according to 1949 armistice lines.

But Eiland insisted Israel had made it "clear" to the Palestinians that the Gaza border recognized by Israel was set with Egypt in 1950 in a protocol with a map, and the same border was reconfirmed in 1994 under the Oslo accords. He said that the protocol had recognized a land swap in which the territory of the strip had been moved south by 2 km but had also moved to the east.