Saeb Erekat thinks this is moral

"I believe that this harms Palestinian interests and is another act to sabotage efforts to revive the peace process and to sabotage the Palestinian elections," Erekat said.

Once again, Palestinians say they "condemn" a murderous terror attack - but only in context of how it is counterproductive for their cause, not because it kills innocent people. (As if the most efficient way for Islamic Jihad to sabotage an Arab election is by killing Jews!)

In other words, if killing many innocent Jews would help the Palestinian Arab cause in any way, Erekat would be all for it.

Yesterday I posted how the director of the film "Paradise Now" strenuously tries to distinguish between suicide bombings in Israel and those in Bali, London, Madrid, Iraq, New York, Afghanistan and anywhere else in the world. He said, "Palestine is a different conflict. The Palestinians are being physically oppressed. We face 60 years of occupation. Maybe they use the same methods elsewhere, but to understand anything, you must understand the conflict, not just look to the action."

This is not a unique perspective. The fact that the film has gotten so many awards shows that much of the left, and much of Europe, also subscribes to the notion that Palestinian terror attacks are somehow more justified - and the inescapable conclusion is that they feel that when the victims are Jews, it is somehow more moral. The Palestinian Arab leaders themselves are often quick to condemn attacks such as 9/11 on moral grounds.

Which begs the question - according to the smug genteel Jew-hating intelligentsia of Europe, what could the Palestinians do that would be considered immoral? In other words, once blowing up shoppers in a mall can be justified because of "occupation," what cannot be?

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that a Palestinian terrorist decides to murder a baby girl, gut out her insides and replace it with explosives, sew her back up and throw the baby bomb in the middle of a Jewish kindergarten.

Or let's say that the Palestinian terror leadership decides that while bombing Jews is an effective method of terrorizing Jews, mass raping teenage Jewish girls and boys would also cause Jews to be scared and consider ceding land.

Once the "occupation" justifies terrorism, what does it not justify? There are no red lines anymore, as long as the "greater good" of Jews giving up land to Arabs is the potential result.

Or to put it another way, anyone who considers Palestinian suicide bombings at all justified in any way, shape or form is a completely and thoroughly immoral person, and any moral justifications that they find for their cause is the worst sort of hypocrisy.

And Saeb Erekat is one such person.

Read More

Calm down - Iran still months away from nuclear bomb!

Let's see how much further in the sand El-Baradei can stick his head.

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

If Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only 'a few months' to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.

On the other hand, he warned, any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means would 'open a Pandora's box. There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution.'

And we all know that a diplomatic Pandora's box would be much worse than hundreds of thousands of dead Jews.

Much better to continue with the effective negotiations that the West has pursued with Iran over the years. There will be a breakthrough, any decade now.

Read More

What passes for scholarship in the Arab world

I came across an amusing piece in Asharq Alawsat just now. The author is described this way:

Ghida Fakhry is New York Bureau Chief of Asharq Al Awsat and a weekly columnist for the newspaper. From 2002 to 2004, she was Anchor of Al-Hayat/LBC’s main evening news broadcast live from London. During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, she reported on location from Kabul and Baghdad, and interviewed numerous senior US officials, including Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. During her journalistic career, she covered extensively the United Nations as New York Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera and for Abu Dhabi Television. She traveled on special assignments with Kofi Annan to the Middle East and conducted several in-depth interviews with the Secretary-General of the UN. She appears as a guest analyst on CNN, ABC News, NBC and MSNBC. Ghida Fakhry holds an M.A in Near and Middle Eastern Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, and an M.A. in International Relations from Boston University.

One would think that with such credentials she would have at least a passing familiarity with Middle Eastern history.

One would be wrong.

The United Nations marked last Tuesday the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" held every year on 29 November. Paradoxically, this is the day the General Assembly adopted in 1947 Resolution 181 on the "Future Government of Palestine" –a landmark if forgotten resolution that set forth the "Plan of Partition with Economic Union" that was to establish an "Arab State" in 43.5 percent of then British-occupied Palestine, a "Jewish State" in 56.5 percent of that territory, and an international enclave to include Jerusalem and its surroundings. In adopting the Partition Plan, the United Nations committed two sins. The first one, by paving the way towards the establishment of two States, the United Nations legislated a fundamentally artificial political segregation between "Arabs" and "Jews", as if an Arab could not belong to the Jewish faith and a Jew to the Arab world. It laid a barrier between communities that more often than not intersected, had more to unite than divide them. It was a conceptual distinction that pitted communities against each other that had coexisted peacefully for centuries and, aided by the migratory influx of European Jews into Palestine, fuelled hatred and deepened the sense of injustice. The second sin of the United Nations was to adopt a Plan and not ensure its implementation. To say the least, this is undoubtedly the international organization’s biggest blunder.

As the author well knows, there is no paradox to the date that the UN chose to annually condemn Israel and pretend to care about Palestinian Arabs. It was chosen on purpose.

As I have documented many times in the Palestine Postings blog, the life of Jews in Palestine was hardly peaceful (the 1929 massacres would seem to prove that), and to blame the UN for the Arabs' terroristic intransigence against allowing Jews to control any land in the entire Middle East is pretty funny. The separation between Jews and Arabs were wholly the fault of the Arabs who just couldn't stomach Jews in power.

But the funniest part of this poorly-written paragraph is that she is blaming the UN for not making sure that Resolution 181 was not implemented! The Jews accepted 181 wholeheartedly, it was the Arabs who rejected it unanimously - and tried to destroy the Jewish state that resulted.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Fakhry knows these facts as well as anyone.

So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this esteemed Arab journalist and scholar is simply a liar.

Which begs the question - why do CNN, ABC and NBC use easily provable liars as analysts?

Read More

Classic Jewish joke

Q: What did the 'Yekke' say to his wife before going to shul to daven on the night of December 4th?
A: "I'm going to be home a little late tonight, honey. "

(Indirect hat tip to JudeoPundit.)

Read More

Reuters' crocodile tears

AbbaGav points out some Reuters' photography bias.

An Israeli soldier (L) inspects a Palestinian man at a checkpoint in the West Bank city of Hebron on December 4, 2005. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

He notes:

You might think I'm just an oppressing Zionist with no empathy or sympathy. But believe me, I think I -- and indeed most Israelis -- can understand a little bit of the Palestinian's position, and then some. We go through the same checks countless times in our daily lives as well, just to get into the supermarket, the library, the swimming pool or our kids' schools. Nor do our spouses and kids just stand by watching the checks, they get checked too. And once we pass the security check we don't breathe a sigh of relief and hope the next guy gets off easier. No, we pray the security guard is as inconveniently intrusive with everyone else who follows, if not more so.

Read More

Haveil Havalim #47 released - another twofer!

I am really thankful that SoccerDad likes my blog, because whenever he hosts Haveil Havalim he always mentions me!

This time, as with #45, I am mentioned twice - for this news roundup from last Friday (which I considered pretty much a throwaway post myself) and for this post where the BBC blames Israel for the internal problems that the Palestinian "security forces" are having. (My "Palestinian Police Phunnies" series is a small sample of documentation that the Palestinian police problems are a little deeper than how the august BBC describes them.)

As I always say whenever I'm mentioned, it is an excellent roundup of the best of this week's JBlogosphere. (Although in the section entitled "Palestinian Democracy" I am at a loss as to why he didn't use scare quotes around the word "democracy.")

Read More

"Paradise Now" director shows his true colors

As the world heaps praise on the film "Paradise Now" as an even-handed and honest look at Palestinian terrorists as being just ordinary human beings who are pushed into blowing up Jews because they are forced to by Israel, it is interesting to read the articles where the reviewers are bending over backwards to say that the director, Abu Assad, is not making any judgments on the subject.

But as this article in the Toronto Globe and Mail shows, the director is hardly unbiased (and, frankly, his grasp of the politics is puerile.) A reporter destroyed everything the director claimed about the conflict, leaving only the idea that he just hates Israel's very existence:

By MICHAEL POSNER

I had intended to question director Hany Abu-Assad about his film Paradise Now, the story of two Palestinians, auto mechanics from the West Bank, who decide to become suicide bombers. It didn't work out that way.

When we met during the Toronto International Film Festival last fall, I began by telling Abu-Assad -- a tall, elegant, 43-year-old Palestinian who spends much of his time these days in Amsterdam -- that I considered the film provocative.

"Why provocative?" he asked.

Because it attempts to explain, and thus implicitly justify, the taking of innocent lives, I replied. And because suicide bombing is no longer a tactic that occurs only in Israel or even Iraq. In the current geopolitical climate, it could happen anywhere.

Abu-Assad disagreed. "Palestine is a different conflict," he insisted. "The Palestinians are being physically oppressed. We face 60 years of occupation. Maybe they use the same methods elsewhere, but to understand anything, you must understand the conflict, not just look to the action."

According to Abu-Assad, the despair that turns ordinary car mechanics and teenage girls into suicide bombers is the result of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (and until recently, the Gaza Strip).

But there was Palestinian militancy, even terrorism, long before the Six-Day War in 1967. Moreover, I countered, suicide bombing is not something generally organized by moderate Palestinians committed to finding a peaceful modus vivendi with Israel. It's the work of Hamas, which regards not just the West Bank, but all of Israel as occupied territory. In the film, the two bombers are trained and monitored by just such a shadowy, unnamed group. So where do you stand, I asked him.

Abu-Assad deflected the question. "It's not about where is Palestine and where is Israel. It's about denying the rights of Palestinians in their land. It's about the principle that both have to have equal rights, as individuals and as a nation. Hamas is no different than most of Israel. Most of Israel thinks it's all Jewish land. Hamas wants an Islamic state and Israel wants a Jewish state. So the same, yes?"

Well, no, actually. First of all, the vast majority of Israelis have renounced any claim to so-called Greater Israel. Indeed, the man who was once the chief proponent of that idea, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, has become the grand architect of disengagement, handing back the Gaza Strip and a handful of West Bank settlements this summer.

"They have just made Gaza a bigger jail," Abu-Assad maintained.

But the logic of that argument leads to the Hamas position. Whatever land Israel returns, it will always be simply "a bigger jail" until the Zionist cause is finally abandoned.

Look, he said, "the issue is equal rights. Unless they are equals, you will have conflict. There is no other solution." But true peace, Abu-Assad added, can only be achieved if Israel severs its ties with the United States. "How can you survive in a place where you are protecting the interests of someone else?" he asked.

But why would Israel do that, "surrounded by 22 Arab nations, many of which are committed to its dissolution?"

Very simply, Abu-Assad said, "To survive. To be part of the Middle East." Besides, he added, "Washington's interests will diminish when the oil is gone, and what will Israel do then?"

Moronic nonsense, in black and white. He doesn't even try to maintain a consistent position, except that he hates the Jewish state - everything else is a smokescreen to make him sound more reasonable that gets shredded at the slightest questioning.

Which, come to think of it, is pretty much the Arab and leftist position regarding Israel to begin with.

Read More

Good news/bad news

Good news	Bad news
Israel Successfully Tests Arrow Anti-Missile System Bolton proving his worth as UN ambassador Muslims Defend Israel at Asian Conference Economist: Israel Growing Faster Than Expected	Iran laughing at EU on nukes Gaza: Newly Formed al-Qaeda Cell Rice Envoy to "Monitor" Terrorists crossing into Gaza (and pressure Israel more) Kill a Jew - Go to Heaven

Read More

BBC blames Israel for Palestinian Police problems

Once again, the oh-so-impartial BBC ignores the endemic corruption and terror that is part and parcel of the Palestinian Arab "security forces" and blames Israel for all their problems.

Any problems that are internal are described in the passive voice that we are all familiar with; but Israel's supposed role is highlighted - as if the Palestinian police would otherwise be Scotland Yard.

Also implicit is the BBC's acceptance that the role of the Pal Police Phonies is only to stop internal crime; not a word about stopping terror against Israel. That way, when Israel defends itself it is just another attack against the upstanding police - trained by the EU.

Note as well the unsubstantiated "fact" that an Israeli missile dug out a massive crater in the picture. Perhaps it did, perhaps it was a Hamas rocket gone awry, perhaps it was an attack against a known terrorist - but the BBC will never say where their "facts" come from.

With the departure of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip this summer, attention is focusing on the ability of the Palestinians to assert control in an area of increasing lawlessness.

It is a challenge beset by problems: the infrastructure of the Palestinian security forces has been decimated by Israeli attacks and the territory is awash with illicit weapons and armed groups.

The multitude of security forces themselves are in poor shape - badly-equipped with ill-defined roles, competing branches and an unreformed hierarchical structure set up under the autocratic rule of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

But after a period of stagnation and disarray, the international community has begun a drive to transform the largest of the security services, the civilian police, into a modern force capable of enforcing the rule of law and stamping out growing chaos.

At the centre of this move is the European Union, which recently announced a new three-year mission to reform and rebuild the police force in the West Bank and Gaza.

"The civil police is the cornerstone of all the Palestinian security forces," Jonathan McIvor, the head of the EU Co-ordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support, known as EU-Copps, told the BBC News website.

"It is a cornerstone of democracy, it's the most important of all the Palestinian security forces in terms of building a Palestinian state, not to mention the most 'together'."

A fleet of new police cars sit near a crater carved by an Israeli missile

Kaj Stendorf, chief superintendent of the Danish national police, is among the advisers training the Palestinian police.

In a parade ground outside his office in the Palestinian police headquarters in Gaza City stands a fleet of gleaming blue patrol cars, part of a 1,000-strong consignment delivered by the European mission.

Beside them lies a deep crater gouged out by an Israeli missile - a reminder of the damage from which the police have yet to recover after years of conflict.

Within its first few months, the mission - with the help of Denmark, the UK and Norway - restored the radio communication system to 60% of the Palestinian police force, after it had been decimated by Israeli attacks.

Bomb squad

One of the EU-Copps' most important functions has been to modernise and train the Palestinian police's bomb squad, or Explosive and Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU).

The Gaza Strip is littered with deadly devices, from mines left behind by the Israeli army to explosives planted by militants and even shells dating back to WW1.

Palestinian children are often among the casualties caused by discarded explosives, prompting the UN children's charity Unicef to launch an awareness campaign....

By the end of its three-year term, Kaj says, the EU-Copps mission should benefit both sides.

"We aim to turn the Palestinian police into a modern, well-organised, well-structured, well-policed security service.

"It will provide safety not only for Palestinians, but by default Israel too."

How exactly arming known terrorists and giving them new cars and materials will help Israel is something that the BBC will have to explain a little better one day.

Read More

Terrorists for Democracy

Isn't it wonderful that the leaders of world terror movements have embraced democracy so enthusiastically?

Hamas Leader Says He Won't Renew Truce: "'The resistance must go hand in hand with political work,' he said. 'It is not accepted to pressure the resistance to choose between resistance and politics.'

Asked if Hamas would accept a peace accord creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, Mashaal said the group 'will never abandon any Palestinian right and will not recognize the legitimacy of occupation whatsoever.'"

The Muslim Brotherhood, spiritual forebearers of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda, also embraces democracy - much to the approval of Madeline Albright.

The president must be thrilled - democracy is spreading quickly throughout the Islamic world!

There's only the minor detail of what these new enthusiasts of democracy plan to do with their political clout.

Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy
(Points of Departure, Elements, Procedures and Missions)

This report presents a global vision of a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy [or "political Islam"]. Local Islamic policies will be drawn up in the different regions in accordance with its guidelines. It acts, first of all, to define the points of departure of that policy, then to set up the components and the most important procedures linked to each point of departure; finally we suggest several missions, by way of example only, may Allah protect us.

The following are the principal points of departure of this policy:

Point of Departure 1: To know the terrain and adopt a scientific methodology for its planning and execution.

Point of Departure 2: To demonstrate proof of the serious nature of the work.

Point of Departure 3: To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level.

Point of Departure 4: To reconcile political engagement and the necessity of avoiding isolation on one hand, with permanent education and institutional action on the other.

Point of Departure 5: To be used to establish an Islamic State; parallel, progressive efforts targeted at controlling the local centres of power through institutional action.

Point of Departure 6: To work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in multiple areas to agree on common ground, in order to "cooperate on the points of agreement and set aside the points of disagreement".

Point of Departure 7: To accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements in the broad sphere and on common ground such as the struggle against colonialism, preaching and the Jewish state, without however having to form alliances. This will require, on the other hand, limited contacts between certain leaders, on a case by case basis, as long as these contacts do not violate the [shariah?] law. Nevertheless, one must not give them allegiance or take them into confidence, bearing in mind that the Islamic movement must be the origin of the initiatives and orientations taken.

Point of Departure 8: To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic principles, bearing in mind that Allah's teachings always apply. One must order the suitable and forbid that which is not, always providing a documented opinion [? "Il faut ordonner le convenable et interdire le blâmable, tout en donnant un avis documenté"]. But we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.

Point of Departure 9: To construct a permanent force of the Islamic dawa and support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world, to varying degrees and insofar as possible.

Point of Departure 10: To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.

Point of Departure 11: To adopt the Palestinian cause as part of a worldwide Islamic plan, with the policy plan and by means of jihad, since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today.

Point of Departure 12: To know how to turn to self-criticism and permanent evaluation of worldwide Islamic policy and its objectives, of its content and its procedures, in order to improve it. This is a duty and a necessity according to the precepts of sharia.

Clearly, the goal is an Islamic state that is not going to be democratic. Using political means and temporary alliances to move closer to the goal of a worldwide 'ummah is acceptable, but ultimately such a state would be governed by Sharia law, and non-Muslims will either be banned (infidels) or have to pay their toll tax and accept second-class status (dhimmis.)

Unfortunately, the self-righteous hypocritical Islamist whining about "democracy" is very effective for wishful-thinking bleeding heart idiots like Albright.

Democracy without freedom is worthless.

Read More

Swedish imam calls for destruction of "Jews, Americans and Brits"

The Religion of Peace strikes again.

Perhaps more newsworthy than the headline, which can be looked at as the ravings of a single lunatic, are the explicitly anti-semitic literature that is being sold at the Great Mosque in Stockholm. The Muslims who claim that they are not anti-semitic don't expend too much effort to eradicate such hate from their midst, which waters down their arguments substantially. (A good example is the EJP interview with another Swedish imam who denounces the words of the other Imam but softpedals its importance.)

An investigation by a Swedish radio station has revealed a deep-set hatred for Jews amongst some of the country’s Muslim leaders who have were caught on tape calling for the destruction of Jewry and other “infidels”.

Last Friday, the Swedish Radio program Ekot, The Echo, broadcast an investigation they had made into what is said in mosques and Muslim prayer services in Sweden.

Using a hidden microphone, they taped prayer sessions and conversations with 15 imams in Sweden.

They found that all imams but one, stated that war, violence and terrorism are incompatible with Islam.

However, one imam led a prayer service in which he called for the destruction of the “Jews, Americans and Brits” and “enemies of Islam. " The service included the following call:

“God, keep Islam and Muslims high and protect Islam
God, humiliate the infidels
God, humiliate the enemies of Islam
Jews, Americans and Brits
And all those who support them
Who cooperate with them
And who are in alliance with them
God, destroy them all,
God, leave none of them alive,
God, give victory to mujahedin everywhere”

Antisemitic tapes sold at Mosque

On Sunday, the Echo program also reported that they had uncovered tapes featuring anti-Semitic content which are being sold in the bookstore of the Great Mosque in Stockholm.

On one tape, which featured a picture of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas leader that Israel assassinated in March 2004, said: “Oh God, eradicate the Jews, Oh God, eradicate the Jews, Oh God, eradicate the Jews! Oh God, curse them and banish them and let them be whipped by suffering. Oh God, over heaven and earth!”

According to Swedish Radio, the tape also spoke of “Jews as vermin, as brothers of monkeys and pigs, and that there is no solution to the Jews but a jihad – a holy war”.

On Monday, the Chancellor of Justice, a legal authority dealing with freedom of speech, stated that it will now consider the case whether, in selling this and similar tapes, the Great Mosque can be charged with incitement against Jews.

Read More

British Muslims: Using 7/7 to Promote Islam

In the wake of the 7/7 tube bombings, the British Home Office asked the British Muslim community to come up with a report containing ideas to contain extremism among British Muslims.

The report was issued a couple of weeks ago, and many of the recommendations seem more oriented towards proselytizing and promoting Islam in the UK rather than containing extremism. Not surprisingly, the Muslims who wrote the report seem to spend more time blaming the British for creating an environment that somehow forces Muslims to become terrorists than the terrorists themselves.

The (British) Asian News site has details. Notice how the "moderate" writers of this report take for granted that Palestinian suicide bombings against Jews are not terrorism and are justified, as well as the myth of al-Dura being factual:

The introduction to the report, for example, states: "Emphasis has also been placed repeatedly on the need to look not only at the events that occurred on those two days in July, but to the causes behind them."

In the section on security the working group is openly critical of legislation presented by the Blair government as a means of 'saving' the public from future suicide bombers. They warn in this section: "One cannot ignore the effect of successive UK Governments’ foreign policies........neither can Islamophobic attitudes, still largely prevalent in British educational institutions, much of them based on mythical paradigms of Islam and Muslims cultivated by orientalists over many centuries, be considered irrelevant to the issue."

This same group sound a grave warning on proposals to make "inciting, justifying or glorifying terrorism" a criminal offence. Does this mean, they ask, that UK Muslims who publicly support Palestinians who attack the state of Israel for occupying their land, will be arrested for justifying terrorism, indeed, under such new laws, would Cherie Blair have run the risk of charges when she was shown on television stating she could understand what motivated suicide bombers after witnessing a young Palestinian boy shot dead by Israeli soldiers as his desperate father attempted to shield him?

Other working parties suggested a series of reforms aimed at tackling violent extremist attitudes and boosting the image and knowledge of Islam in Britain.
A raft or reforms are proposed to improve the profile of UK imams and mosques. They amount to a regularisation of the Islamic clergy rather along the lines of the structure and training of the Church of England priesthood.
They want to see national advisory council of mosques made up of influential imams and Islamic thinkers representing the many traditions in the faith.
This would give guidance on training and practices in and around mosque.
A National Islamic Resources Centre is another suggestion. This is seen as a powerhouse for developing more affective training within the Muslim community and could also spearhead a campaign to improve the knowledge of Islam in mainstream schools.
There is also a proposal for forming similar centres in areas with a significant Muslim community including Manchester. They would be come a cultural hub for mosques and Muslims as well as representatives of other faiths.
For existing imams there would be professional development programs to keep them 'up to scratch'. Home grown imams would be encouraged as opposed to the present practice of bringing them in from the Indian sub-continent.
In order to win especially young Muslims from extremist, and to educate the non-Muslim population on the values of Islam, a travelling 'roadshow' of international Islamic scholars is suggested. They could tour the country staging conferences and seminars on the faith.
The report also suggests that a British Muslim toolkit could be established to help Islamic societies, mosques, parents and youth on how to develop in the faith.
The working party on education highlights what it calls the "gaping hole" in the national schools curriculum on the contribution of Islam to European civilization. One of the ways to remedy this, says their report, would be to create an Islamic way of life exhibition to tour schools.
On a national level the report wants to see an Islamic media unit, similar to the one that exists in the Foreign Office, created in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. This could disseminate positive information about Islam and counter, what it sees as the general negative reporting, especially in tabloid newspapers.
The proposals have been welcomed by Home Office minister Hazel Blears, but even if they are implemented, will they alone be able to overcome the rising anger in the Muslim world over perceived violent injustice against Islamic nations which began with the first Zionist land grab in Palestine and continues with the occupation of Iraq? Time will tell.

So not only does the British Muslim community completely abdicate any soul-searching for the existence of terrorists in their midst, not only do they continue to justify terror against Jews as being perfectly acceptable when writing a report to their own government, but they blame the British for how their terrorists act and cynically use a terror attack as a springboard to increase the influence of Islam in the UK!

Read More

Palestinian Arab democracy in action!

Let's give these guys a state!!

On Monday, Fatah leaders in the Gaza Strip called off primary elections after rival Fatah gangs fought street battles and stormed polling stations, firing into the air and stealing ballot boxes.

Primary elections that were held in five West Bank areas late last week have resulted in a stunning defeat for representatives of Fatah's old guard.

'What happened in the Gaza Strip is a real disaster for Fatah,' said Haitham Salah, a Fatah operative. 'It shows that we are living in a jungle full of gangs and militias.' (Bright guy, this Salah. - EoZ)

Many of the candidates who lost the vote have since complained of irregularities and cheating, urging Abbas to cancel the results and hold new elections. PA officials here said the turmoil in Fatah could force Abbas to postpone parliamentary elections scheduled for January 25.

PA Civil Affairs Minister Mohammed Dahlan, who is running in the primary elections, called on Abbas to form a commission of inquiry to look into the events that took place in the Gaza Strip on Monday. He accused veteran Fatah leaders of seeking to disrupt the vote to prevent young activists from winning.

Dahlan and many other Fatah activists fear that Abbas is planning to appoint his own candidates to run in the parliamentary vote because of the party's failure to hold free and democratic elections. "The era of appointments is over," Dahlan stressed, referring to times when Yasser Arafat used to appoint Fatah officials. "We insist on elections."

Sources in the Gaza Strip said Dahlan's followers were among the gunmen who raided several polling stations to protest against the fact that the names of thousands of Fatah members had been omitted from voting lists.

I love how the most violent people are the first ones to lecture others on democracy!

Read More

The Phantom Arab Moderate (Shmuel Katz)

A theme we've covered before, but well written and thought-out.

It must be emphasized again and again - so-called "moderate" Arabs do not accept the existence of Israel any more than "militants." All the wishful thinking in the world will not change this fact.

And when you look at modern Israeli history through this lens, every action by the Arab world vis-a-vis Israel is entirely consistent with the ultimate destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. This includes Camp David and Oslo.

Hat tip to IRIS blog.

Even those Israelis who claim that peace between sovereign Israel and the Arabs is a practical possibility rest their claim on the bald assumption that there exists a solid body of Arabs who are "moderate."

They do not face the reality, taught by many decades of experience, that the most "moderate" of the Arabs (who might have a hand in setting the policies of their people) do not differ, in their view of what Israel's future should be, from the manifestly immoderate mainstream Arabs. They differ only on the method, or process, by which the elimination of the Jewish state is to be accomplished.

This is true of all the Arab states - members of the Arab League - but most importantly of the states that have launched wars against Israel since 1948.

The outlook of such phantom moderates has not been kept secret. It comes to the surface from time to time from quite authoritative quarters.

In December 1980, shortly after Israel's peace treaty with Egypt was signed, a former prime minister of Egypt, Mustafa Khalil, delivered a guest lecture at Tel Aviv University. There, speaking - as he said - "frankly and scientifically," he pointed out that the Arabs do not "regard the Jews as a nation at all, but as a religion only. "When it come to nationality," he declared, "a Jew can be an Egyptian Jew, a French Jew or a German Jew." Egyptians, he said, wanted to be good neighbors with Israel, but they expected the Jews "to change."

Five years earlier, another leading Egyptian intellectual, Boutros Boutros Ghali, cabinet minister and subsequently secretary-seneral of the United Nations, gave equally cultured utterance to the same idea, but then gave voice also to its underlying threat. He told a Cairo journal that if Israel maintained "its Jewish character" and did not assimilate in the Arab homeland, "then we will have no integration of Israel with this region." Indeed, if Israel defended its right to sovereignty, he added, "I think you can have no peace in this region."

SHORTLY AFTER the Yom Kippur War, the editor of Egypt's leading weekly journal, Al-Mussawar, explained that the English word "peace" can be translated into Arabic by either salaam or sulh, but these words had different meanings. Thus, he wrote, if the Jews returned to the 1949 Armistice Lines (where the Arab states' aggression against newborn Israel had been halted) the Jews could expect no more than "salaam." It was "only by returning to their senses, and dwelling under one roof and under one flag with the Arabs of Palestine," that they could expect "sulh" (real peace, reconciliation).

At that very time reports were circulating in the West that in Egypt (which had launched four wars against Israel since the Jewish state's birth in 1948) a new, moderate, more friendly wind was blowing toward Israel. And so an American writer, Joan Peters, having been sent on a journalistic mission to Egypt, decided to test these reports on the spot.

Her findings were published in an article in Commentary magazine (May 1975) under the title "In search of moderate Egyptians." She started on her project in America by studying the literature attesting to a positive change in Egyptian attitudes toward Israel.

"To my amazement," she wrote, "once in Egypt I found virtually no evidence of such a change." She interviewed as representative a cross-section of Egyptians as she could find. She lists them: government officials, writers, academics, scientists, demographers, doctors, architects, engineers, housewives, shopkeepers, students, soldiers, salesmen, cab drivers, waiters, women's rights activists, secretaries, carpenters, travel agents, communists, leftists, nationalists and right-wing conservatives.

She recorded in detailed quotation a number of her interviews and learned that far from Egyptians being friendly to Israel, there existed a consensus not only of fierce hatred of Israel, but of virulent anti-Semitism - which in sum would deny the Jewish state's right even to exist.

TWENTY-FIVE, 30 years have passed, and one fine day in September we read the report of another search for moderate Arabs. This time it is in Israel itself, and the search is reported by an Israeli writer, Yossi Klein Halevi, who sought common ground - cultural, spiritual and hence, as a Jewish moderate, political - with Muslim Arab counterparts. He too, like Joan Peters three decades years earlier, had "numerous candid conversations with - in his case Palestinian Arabs - "at all levels of society." And he cites "one telling example," with Gen. Nasser Youssef, the Palestinian Authority's interior minister.

Halevi, as he related in The Jerusalem Post of September 28, asked Youssef hypothetically what would happen if Israel withdrew to the 1967 "borders," uprooted the settlements and redivided Jerusalem. Youssef replied that "the refugees would be returning to the area… and then there would be no need for an artificial border between Israel and Palestine."

"But," said Halevi to Youssef, "aren't we negotiating today over a two-state solution?"

"Yes," Youssef replied, "as an interim step. You aren't separate from us, you are part of us. Just as there are Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs, you are Jewish Arabs." He went on to speak of this unified Palestinian state joining with other Arab states.

General Youssef, adds Halevi, "is widely known as a moderate, deeply opposed to terror - because it is counter-productive to the Palestinian cause…."

Youssef is thus fully representative of the supreme hutzpa, precisely of the moderate Arabs. Emboldened by the great success worldwide in disseminating the grotesque claim to a "Palestinian" history that never existed, mainstream Arabs teach their children and make it plain to the world that their intention is to destroy the Jewish state, directly if possible, or by phases, as so often described by their late leader, Yasser Arafat.

Here the moderate Arab steps in and proposes a moderate alternative - the same one suggested in 1980 by former Egyptian Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil: vaporization of the Jewish national identity.

THE ARAB propaganda success has not been achieved without passive Jewish help - the help of unbelievable inaction. The most egregious blunder of successive Israeli governments and Jewish Diaspora leaders has been the complete failure to build a National Information Center (what we call hasbara), having the scope and authority of an Israeli government ministry, to tell the world - but first of all the Jewish people - the truth of their own nation's unique relationship with the Land of Israel, reaching back 3,000 years to its biblical history and resting on the momentous modern international acknowledgement of that relationship in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for the "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home" in Palestine.

That center would, moreover, enlist all possible resources, Christian as well as Jewish, to counter the monstrous fictions of the so-called Palestinian cause - and now the vicious waves of anti-Semitism swirling through the nations of the West.

The writer, who co-founded the Herut Party with Menachem Begin and was a member of the first Knesset, is a biographer and essayist.

Read More

Reasonable sounding liar - Dr. Sam Hamod

According to this site,
"Sam Hamod is a former advisor to the U.S. State Dept; founder of 3rd World News (Wash, DC);Director of The Islamic Center (Wash, DC); Professor at Princeton, Michigan, Howard and Iowa (ret.)." He is a Lebanese-American born in Indiana, according to another biography. He is also president of the American-Islamic Institute.

Dr. Hamod is retiring as main editor of his "Today's Alternative News" site, and he signs off with a somewhat reasonable-sounding defense of what he calls "true" conservatism and a statement of what he believes is best for America:

Since 2000, my site has been dedicated to truth, honesty and the pursuit of justice and democracy. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I am interested only in America being a moral leader in the world, a nation that aids those in need, a nation that takes care of its own and is interested only in the interests of mankind and follows the moral order of the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism and Bahai.

During this time, I have been critical of many things that have not measured up to what I thought was good for America or for the world; I have condemned those who called for violence, regardless of their alleged religion (whether they called themselves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) when they did evil things. In our time we have seen plenty of hatred being spread by people from all these faiths—there is no need for me to repeat their names—they are known to all of you, and we all know the evil of their deeds, and I have called them on it.

Some thought that because I have been so critical of GW Bush’s war on Iraq that I must have liked Bill Clinton—not so. I thought Clinton betrayed the Palestinians and offered them only a Bantustan existence.
To this day, I have no respect for Clinton or his wife; but I do respect George Bush Sr. for having the courage and insight to know that it was best not to enter and destroy the infrastructure of Iraq (even though he and I, and many others knew that Saddam Hussein was a devil).
America cannot police or control the entire world; just as the Spartans could finally not control the world of their time; nor could Rome when it became too big and wanted to conquer the known world of the time.

...
I liked Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams the first, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Carter and even Nixon ( I still feel that he did more good things than bad in office; but he, like many others made mistakes); I also liked the pre-presidency of Lyndon Johnson and his moves to help integration, and I liked the later John F. Kennedy after Kruschev taught him a lesson in power politics. I have always distrusted Henry Kissinger, I think the truth about him has come out in the long run; he did little for real peace in the Middle East, instead, he was a shill for Israel and still is. Henry, whom I’ve known for years, has always had a hatred for the Arabs and Muslims, even though he tried to cover it with slippery semantics. On the other hand, Zbignew Brezinski. has been a fair man in world affairs and did work for peace wherever he went. This shows you that we can have good men, like Z B, but also men who drag us into immorality, like H K.

Again, my main concern is peace and justice in the world.

You might quibble with his politics, but it sounds patriotic and well-thought out. He is, after all, a professor, and he must have spent many years defining his positions.

But in his conclusion, on the subject of Israel, any pretense of objectivity and reason (and truth) flies out the window before he retreats back into his pseudo-patriotism:

I also think it is high time that Amrericans realize that Sharon’s and Israel’s agendas are not America’s agendas. We must quit supporting Israel in a carte blanche fashion. We must not fund them if they continue this oppressive and inhumane behavior, this illegal behavior, toward the Palestinians. By our support, we are complicitous in this evil that Sharon and Israel perpetrate upon the Palestinian people. If America quit following the Tom Lantos’ , the Grahams, the other Zionist agents in our Congress, we’d be better off. Most Americans don’t realize that every Israeli is subsidized by America to the tune of at least $40,000.00 per person, per year—you show me an American, aside from a Congressperson, who gets that kind of financial assistance. Bah!

So then what am I—I am a true Conservative. I wish to conserve our Constitution, our moral leadership, our water, our air, our people’s rights, our honor in the world, our honor in our courts, our opportunity to lead the world and make it a better place. I fear our last two presidents have done just the opposite; neither have served our nation well. Let us hope and pray our future presidents will do better.

Now, if you look at his other writings and the contents of his on-line magazine you will see opinions that are far more way-out and bizarre than this piece quoted here. As we've seen in many other times, the anti-Israel crowd will filter their messages based on their audience, so they can sound reasonable on TV and we have to dig a little bit to see their true agenda.

The essay quoted above is a classic example. In the middle of looking back at his worldview, he makes a claim that he feels all Americans should know - that the US subsidizes Israel to the tune of $40,000 per Israeli, per year.

Really? A quick calculation shows that he is saying that Israel gets $251 billion dollars annually from the US! Such a breathtakingly idiotic statement (a quarter of a trillion dollars annually to Israel!) is hardly what one would expect from an impartial academic.

Not only that, but this article by Matt Welch from 2001 does a nice job at finding out that Dr. Hamod seems to subscribe to the Jewish-owned media worldview, as well, claiming that 90% of reporters are Jewish. Welch also finds a different quote from the professor, praising Palestinian "children" and saying that American children should emulate them - throwing stones at the US Capitol. How patriotic!

Like the other pro-terror propogandists, Sam Hamod is a charlatan, a bigot and a liar who uses his apparent academic credentials to espouse hate and falsehood. He is no patriot; his agenda is indistinguishable from those of Islamist supremacists. It is important to expose the real views of the terror-apologists and anti-semites when they get published in mainstream media opinion columns.

The truth is never far from the surface.

Read More