Friday, February 10, 2006
Elder of Ziyon
We're really too hard on the guy. He's just an ordinary Joe, who likes to kick back with a Bud and watch some football and occasional porn. (Little known fact: He's also a big fan of Desperate Housewives.)
(Hey, it's late at night.)
Friday, February 10, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
Elder of Ziyon
A writer for Saudi Arabia's Dar al Hayat named Jihad el Khazen gives his readers a "heads-up" on what he considers the latest neoconservative bigotry:
The term "Islamofascism" may not be 100% accurate, as fascism has some components that Islamism does not. But it is a pretty good description of today's political Islam. As Wikipedia explains:
In almost all cases, when writers on the Right refer to Islamofascism they are referring not to the religion of Islam in the Western sense, but to its political manifestation. And political Islam can accurately be described as evil. Political Islam has as its goal the literal takeover of the world and subjugating everyone to Islamic law.
Other religions either have very little political dimension, or their political dimensions have been blunted over time. Christianity has a message to all of mankind as well but it has morphed to fit in with Western concepts of general separation of church and state. I am unaware of any historic theocracies based on Buddhism or Taoism.
Western thinkers naturally separate religion from politics, because such a separation is part of their worldview from birth. A great percentage of Western criticism of Islam is political, not religious (with the notable exception of women's rights.) But Islamic thinkers have no such separation.
The fuzziness between religious Islam and political Islam is caused not by bigoted Westerners but by the Islamists and Muslims themselves. Very few Muslims that I have read accept the idea of Islam as purely a personal or communal religion; it is a global movement and it has a unquestionably political dimension.
Muslims like the Mr. El Khazen above purposefully blur the lines as well when it is convenient for them. They choose to be offended when political Islam is attacked, hiding behind the fiction that Islam is a religion in the Western sense. Practically all the attacks from the "neocons" are of Islamism, not religious Islam; very few have a problem with a billion practicing believers of Allah as long as they keep their religion away from geopolitics. But it is in Islamism's interest to keep that line blurred so they can claim that attacks on Islam are religious, not political.
If today's Islam cannot separate its faith components from its geopolitical ambitions, then it cannot ever fit in the 21st century together with the rest of the world. It will ultimately be regarded as the enemy not only of the West but of everyone.
The challenge for Muslims today is to clearly define who they are and what they believe with respect to the rest of the world.
I cannot say how accurate this is, but I found a list of four goals of the Koran from a British mosque website. The blurring between what the West would consider religion and politics is blatant:
If these goals are accurate, if the eternal war against unbelievers is part and parcel of Islam, then the fight against Islam is indistinguishable from the fight against Nazism. The world of the non-believers and the Islamic 'ummah cannot co-exist, and Islam already declared war against the rest of the world centuries ago.
(An interesting corollary to the description above is that it seems to be in the interest of would-be leaders of Islam to stoke the fires of hate against the West, interpret Western actions as being anti-Islamic and provoke the war; because believing Muslims would have no choice but to fight their perceived enemies. The cartoon riots can be seen in this context.)
Unless Islam reforms and becomes a personal and communal belief system as opposed to a supremacist political ideology, the rest of the world had better wake up to the reality that the war has already started and that Islam has already defined its goals and its vision of the future. Being against political Islam is not bigotry; it is survival.
Readers have heard of Islamic fundamentalism, radicalism, extremism and terrorism, but I would like to introduce an expression that I hope they memorize, since they will hear it much in the future. It's Islamic fascism, or Islamofascism, one of the favorite expressions of neoconservative writers these days.Besides the fact that the writer engages in the same namecalling that he decries from others (referring to "Likudniks", "American imperialists", "neoconservatives" and other choice epithets of the Left and the Arab world), he is missing the point in his zeal to find anti-Muslim sentiment everywhere in the US.
Before the issue of the cartoons exploded, the Likudist Washington Times had published a series warning of the threat of an Islamic state in Europe, focusing on Bosnia, as the corridor of al-Qaida to Europe. Bosnian Muslim fighters have joined "Islamofascist terrorists in their barbaric campaign against American forces."
There have been 100,000 Iraqis killed compared to 2,400 American soldiers, so who's the barbarian here? The articles argue that NATO bombed the Serbs "a day after an auto-massacre committed by Bosnian Muslim forces in the central market of Sarajevo," because Saudi Arabia has signed contracts for billions of dollars to purchase Boeing aircraft." I swear that I'm quoting this correctly. The articles quote the following from an older article in the same newspaper: "La France est morte [France is dead]. In fact, the only things that are growing in France right now are crime and Islamism." This is 3 years before the riots in the suburbs of French cities.
The Weekly Standard, the neoconservative mouthpiece, published an article entitled "Fascism, Islamism and Anti-Semitism," objecting to doubting the Holocaust and discussing the rise of Islamo-fascism in Iran, and the "Dictator in Tehran" - meaning President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who was elected in very democratic fashion and who enjoys continuing, huge popularity.
[...]
Returning to the topic I began with in this column, the harsh anger against the cartoons, I selected the easiest aspects of the campaign against Islam and Muslims. The danger is from the extremists in the ranks of the neoconservatives, who have waged a conscious campaign with a single goal of serving Israel at the expense of everything else.
The term "Islamofascism" may not be 100% accurate, as fascism has some components that Islamism does not. But it is a pretty good description of today's political Islam. As Wikipedia explains:
Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.This sounds like a pretty decent description of much of political Islam today.
In almost all cases, when writers on the Right refer to Islamofascism they are referring not to the religion of Islam in the Western sense, but to its political manifestation. And political Islam can accurately be described as evil. Political Islam has as its goal the literal takeover of the world and subjugating everyone to Islamic law.
Other religions either have very little political dimension, or their political dimensions have been blunted over time. Christianity has a message to all of mankind as well but it has morphed to fit in with Western concepts of general separation of church and state. I am unaware of any historic theocracies based on Buddhism or Taoism.
Western thinkers naturally separate religion from politics, because such a separation is part of their worldview from birth. A great percentage of Western criticism of Islam is political, not religious (with the notable exception of women's rights.) But Islamic thinkers have no such separation.
The fuzziness between religious Islam and political Islam is caused not by bigoted Westerners but by the Islamists and Muslims themselves. Very few Muslims that I have read accept the idea of Islam as purely a personal or communal religion; it is a global movement and it has a unquestionably political dimension.
Muslims like the Mr. El Khazen above purposefully blur the lines as well when it is convenient for them. They choose to be offended when political Islam is attacked, hiding behind the fiction that Islam is a religion in the Western sense. Practically all the attacks from the "neocons" are of Islamism, not religious Islam; very few have a problem with a billion practicing believers of Allah as long as they keep their religion away from geopolitics. But it is in Islamism's interest to keep that line blurred so they can claim that attacks on Islam are religious, not political.
If today's Islam cannot separate its faith components from its geopolitical ambitions, then it cannot ever fit in the 21st century together with the rest of the world. It will ultimately be regarded as the enemy not only of the West but of everyone.
The challenge for Muslims today is to clearly define who they are and what they believe with respect to the rest of the world.
I cannot say how accurate this is, but I found a list of four goals of the Koran from a British mosque website. The blurring between what the West would consider religion and politics is blatant:
O brothers and sisters!It is a stretch, but it may be possible to interpret the third goal as only applying to existing Muslim nations. It is difficult to interpret the fourth goal as anything but a declaration of war against all unbelievers who do not submit to Islamic superiority.
Come today to learn about the fundamental goals of the Qur’an! Come to call the Qur’an to teach us the goals that it was revealed for, and by which Allah was pleased to have it as the seal of books. Come and call the Qur’an to have its goals implemented in us, in our societies, in our reality and in our lives.
The foundational goals of the Qur’an are four:
The first is guidance to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala, true steadfast guidance, complete guidance for the individual in his entire being, his feelings and senses, and in all aspects of his life. It is complete guidance for the ummah, for its individuals, its facilities, its fields, its life, its reality, its transactions....
The second goal is to create a balanced comprehensive Islamic personality (this is done by its commands and prohibitions, its manners and morals, its instruction and legislation)....
The third goal is the creation of an Islamic and Qur’anic society. The Qur’an builds an Islamic society and it builds it on the foundations of the way of the Qur’an and its principles and instructions, and when we proceed with the lights of the Qur’an, our society is revived with great and noble life, pure and happy, otherwise our society will be dead mulling over its grief and tragedies and it swallows its humiliation and cowardice in every moment....
The fourth goal is to lead the Islamic ummah in the battlefields against its enemies and opponents. The Qur’an takes the ummah by its hand and guides it and gives it the means of victory and informs it of the reasons of animosity that others have towards it. It shows them their goals and ambitions and their use of whatever they are able to destroy it. It shows their methods and conspiracies and their trickery. ...The Qur’an takes the ummah by its hand to show it the tool of victory and the provision of the path and strengthens its connection to its Lord and its Islam.
This is what the Qur’an did with then noble companions in their jihad with their enemies, this is what the Qur’an did with the Muslims when they devoted themselves to the Qur’an, and this is what the Qur’an will do with us if we consider it and adhere to it and follow its rulings. Therefore, Allah says:“Listen not to the unbelievers but strive against them with the utmost effort, with the Qur’an.” (Furqaan: 52)
This is a divine instruction for the messenger, peace be upon him, and for the Islamic ummah that comes after him, to make the noble Qur’an an instrument and a means by which to seek help in its jihad.
If these goals are accurate, if the eternal war against unbelievers is part and parcel of Islam, then the fight against Islam is indistinguishable from the fight against Nazism. The world of the non-believers and the Islamic 'ummah cannot co-exist, and Islam already declared war against the rest of the world centuries ago.
(An interesting corollary to the description above is that it seems to be in the interest of would-be leaders of Islam to stoke the fires of hate against the West, interpret Western actions as being anti-Islamic and provoke the war; because believing Muslims would have no choice but to fight their perceived enemies. The cartoon riots can be seen in this context.)
Unless Islam reforms and becomes a personal and communal belief system as opposed to a supremacist political ideology, the rest of the world had better wake up to the reality that the war has already started and that Islam has already defined its goals and its vision of the future. Being against political Islam is not bigotry; it is survival.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
- Thursday, February 09, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between Arabs and the Onion.
Now, what Syria should have claimed is that the greedy Joooz developed bird flu so that they could market an antidote and make bilions of shekels to fulfill their purpose of keeping Palestinian Arabs in refugee camps forever. That at least is more believable.
The state-run Syrian daily al-Thawra lately hinted that Israel developed the bird flu virus to harm the genes of its Arab neighbors.This is a quantum leap over last month's Palestinian Zionist bird flu conspiracy: (via Iranian news):
An article published by the newspaper argues that Israel spread the virus in the Far East to mislead the world.
Tehran, Jan 17 - The Palestinian Authority accused the Zionist regime of attempts to transfer the deadly bird flu virus to the Palestinian-settled areas by burying infected birds there.This is not to be confused with the Lebanese freaking out over thinking that an Israeli carrier pigeon that strayed over the border was biological warfare.
PA's Environment Preservation Minister, Yusof Abu Safiyah, revealed to a press conference in Gaza Monday that the regime has buried 85 thousand of infected birds on January 9 in Beit Forik region, close to Nablus.
Now, what Syria should have claimed is that the greedy Joooz developed bird flu so that they could market an antidote and make bilions of shekels to fulfill their purpose of keeping Palestinian Arabs in refugee camps forever. That at least is more believable.
- Thursday, February 09, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
The only source for this story is the bizarro Iranian news agency IRNA, but they don't usually make things up out of thin air. And it is altogether possible that they have sources in the PA that others do not.
The story is somewhat believable. I could see a former US ambassador to some Arab state talking to Hamas with unofficial US approval.
The Western desire to do something, anything to make it look like there is progress in the moribund "peace process" means that they will inevitably inch towards dealing with Hamas. There is zero chance that the West will throw up their hands and admit that there will be no peace with Hamas in power. The strong instinct for wishful thinking will kick in soon enough, and that means that any absence of outright calls for genocide on the part of Hamas will require pressure on Israel to reciprocate with money or land to reward Hamas' "pragmatism."
Several European and Western diplomats have secretly been meeting with leaders of the Islamic Resistance Group, Hamas lately, Palestinian Islamic sources said.(I wasn't kidding when I said "bizarro.")
The sources intimated that American, British, French and Scandinavian diplomats met lately with Hamas leaders, including newly-elected lawmakers, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Hamas leader and elected lawmaker Muhammed Abu Tir was quoted as saying on Tuesday that he had met with a British diplomat who is close to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Abu Tir did not reveal the identity of the diplomat nor did he say when the meeting took place.
Last week, a number of British diplomats as well as several former American diplomats met with Hamas leaders in the Hebron area as well as the northern part of the West Bank.
The two sides reportedly discussed Hamas's political outlook following its resounding victory over Fatah in the January 25 elections.
Hamas, observers say, has been displaying moderation.
The story is somewhat believable. I could see a former US ambassador to some Arab state talking to Hamas with unofficial US approval.
The Western desire to do something, anything to make it look like there is progress in the moribund "peace process" means that they will inevitably inch towards dealing with Hamas. There is zero chance that the West will throw up their hands and admit that there will be no peace with Hamas in power. The strong instinct for wishful thinking will kick in soon enough, and that means that any absence of outright calls for genocide on the part of Hamas will require pressure on Israel to reciprocate with money or land to reward Hamas' "pragmatism."
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
- Wednesday, February 08, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
At least some Jews are getting rich off the Iranian mass psychosis.
The larger-than-life mural lionising Reem Saleh al-Riyashi, a Palestinian female suicide bomber, is as vivid an illustration as any of the Islamic republic's implacable hostility to Israel.Two years ago, al-Riyashi entered the realms of Palestinian martyrdom when she blew herself up, killing four Israelis in the process, at the Erez crossing point in Gaza. Today, motorists and passersby gazing down from Motahari Street, in central Tehran, can contemplate her grimly resolute features as she holds her young son in one hand and a gun in the other.
Next to her portrait, set against a backdrop showing the Jerusalem landmark the Dome of the Rock and two booted feet trampling an Israeli flag, is another giant picture celebrating the actions of a further seven Palestinian women suicide bombers.
On the face of it, the banners are the highly predictable artistic reflection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent wave of fervently anti-Zionist rhetoric, in which he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and dismissed the Holocaust as a myth. But there is one twist: they have been created with technology made in Israel.
Experts in Iran's printing industry say they are typical of images produced by hi-tech digital printers made by Scitiex Vision, based in Tel Aviv. Printing equipment originating in Israel is commonly used in Iran.
"Those two banners are five metres wide, and no printing company other than Scitex produces that kind of technology," said one Tehran printing company owner, who requested anonymity. "The large-format printing industry is Israeli-led. Their equipment is very reliable. The result is that Israeli-made equipment is sold in Iran, and a lot of the anti-Israeli and anti-American propaganda you see here is made by this kind of equipment.
"Last year a company run by a friend of mine produced a mural listing a number of goods produced in Israel and saying: 'By boycotting these products, let's give a punch in the mouth to Israel.' But he made it using a Scitex machine. We laughed about it."
Iranian intermediary companies import the Israeli-made printing machines into the country, bypassing the Islamic regime's ban on trade with Israel by buying the equipment in a third country and then rebranding it under another name. Scitex machines are purchased in Holland under the brand Blaze and then exported to Iran; printers made by another Israeli firm, Nur, are bought in Belgium and disguised for the Iranian market under various names, including Salsa.Printing industry insiders say the Iranian authorities are either unaware of the practice or turn a blind eye. As a result, most of the campaign posters for this year's presidential election - including those for Mr Ahmadinejad - were churned out using Israeli technology. Experts also believe it was Israeli printers that produced the banner for the recent World Without Zionism conference, at which Mr Ahmadinejad made his first call for the Jewish state to be wiped out.
Iranian print specialists are convinced the Israeli manufacturers know their products are bound for Iran. "The whole thing is to the benefit of the Israeli companies," said the printing company boss. "They sell to a country that is officially banned from trading with them, meaning they have no after-sale service obligation.
But the move towards printed propaganda, especially using Israeli technology, has left many revolutionary artists disillusioned. Falling demand has forced Khasrow Karami to pay off several artists at his gallery, in an old disused cinema. Having once specialised in images of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iran-Iraq war - in which he was seriously wounded - Mr Karami, 43, is now painting advertising posters for the Canadian government urging Iranians to emigrate to Canada.
"I would rather be painting martyrs from the war than doing this. It's a big contradiction," said Mr Karami. "When I heard that this banner-printing equipment was being imported from Israel, it was a heavy blow for me. It leaves us confused about what we should believe. Do we accept the government's propaganda against Israel or do we admire the Israelis' brilliant technological innovation?"
- Wednesday, February 08, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
Sandmonkey saw that Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr printed the Mohammed cartoons - last October!
Hat tip LGF via Solomonia.
Hat tip LGF via Solomonia.
- Wednesday, February 08, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
I stumbled onto Islamiblog, where a devout Muslim tries to describe his feelings about the cartoons. He is clearly in pain, soft-spoken, earnest, literate - and wishes dearly that we should all live in a shari'a state where the people who publish such blasphemy would be killed.
They sound so normal on TV, yet their goal is the exact same as Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad - world Islamic domination where they can enforce strict Islamic law on everyone.
In response to some queries on why I haven't written something specifically on the abuse of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then that is because:These are the people that scare me - seeming moderates who are against the current violence (like the editor of Arab American News who was on MSNBC tonight) yet when they speak frankly, they are only against the violence because it makes them look bad - but they truly believe that the cartoonists deserve to die for their "crime."
1. Many good people have written enough about it already
2. I feel too ashamed, living in Europe, to write when I know what the Shari'ah demands of us
Let there be no doubt: the crime of belittling the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) results in instant death for the Muslim by unanimous opinion of the scholars, and the majority believe it to be the case as well for the Dhimmi and the Musta'man (those who have peace treaties etc) living in the Muslim lands under Islamic Law. That is how serious a crime this is.
As for these Europeans that are reviling the Prophet under their 'law' then we're at a dead end. As these non-Muslims are our own people living under their own law, we are forbidden to do anything that would contravene that law. How shameful for us.
Want to get an inside opinion on how I'm feeling at the moment on this subject? Have a little read of al-Shifa by Qadhi 'Iyadh (r) or if you're feeling really upto it, al-Sarim al-Maslul by Ibn Taymiyyah (r) and then tell me to calm down.
Why do we not have Shari'ah to preserve the Prophet's honour? Where is our Ameer al-Mu'mineen to run and avenge the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? Where is that strength of the Believers that would make these criminals think twice before they lie under the banner of 'free speech'?
Seeing as we have no Shari'ah and seeing as we have no Leader and seeing as that we're struggling to gather even a motley crew of good enough 'believers' to grace the word 'Islam', then let us put our heads down in shame and humiliation, and let all those who can do something they feel worthwhile, do it.
Let us boycott, let us demonstrate, let us make our feelings known, let us educate, let us show the higher ethic - but let us also realise our individual pathetic state when we know the greatest of creation has been reviled and the criminals walk around smiling, and we just talk the talk and sell more European newspapers.
Wa Allahu Musta'an.
I know I shouldn't have written anything, because I find it difficult with such topics to control anything I write or say (cf the khutbah) descending into uncontrolled emotional rhetoric - so let me stop there and have mercy on my head and let the honourable Shaykh Riyad Nadwi put it a whole lot better than I ever will.
They sound so normal on TV, yet their goal is the exact same as Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad - world Islamic domination where they can enforce strict Islamic law on everyone.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
- Tuesday, February 07, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
Here are some of the recent search keywords that hit my blog:
danish mohamed prophet cartoons turbine bomb
sam hamod on danish cartoons
danish cartoon mohamad turbine
flemming rose cartoons
flemming rose jewish
actual danish cartoon of prophet
is flemming rose jewish
flemming rose neocon
flemming rose
publication of the cartoon truly insults the dignity of muslims
view danish islamic cartoons
flemming rose caricature
arab cartoons jews
sam hamod on danish cartoons
danish cartoon mohamad turbine
flemming rose cartoons
flemming rose jewish
actual danish cartoon of prophet
is flemming rose jewish
flemming rose neocon
flemming rose
publication of the cartoon truly insults the dignity of muslims
view danish islamic cartoons
flemming rose caricature
arab cartoons jews
Clearly there is intense interest for people to actually see these cartoons.
So, as a public service, here is a reproduction of the cartoons that I found (just linking to Support Denmark):
So, as a public service, here is a reproduction of the cartoons that I found (just linking to Support Denmark):
To compare offensiveness, here are some random anti-Jewish cartoons from a 3 month period in 2002 of the sort that the Arab world publishes daily, courtesy of the ADL:
The Jew on the right says: "Say: 'I hate the Arabs'!", and the American on the left repeats: "I hate the Arabs, I hate the Arabs".
A stereotypical Jewish caricature is shown pointing to an acquiescent President Bush saying "He understands Hebrew, not Arabic."
Uncle Sam is shown cleaning up after the bloody tracks of Israel,
shown as a stereotypical Jewish caricature.
Jewish caricature is writing the "The USA's modern history."
A Jewish caricature writes President Bush's speech. The caption reads "America's attitude towards Gaza's massacre."
A Jewish devil - possibly Ariel Sharon - walks over the skulls of its victims.
The Jew on the right says: "Say: 'I hate the Arabs'!", and the American on the left repeats: "I hate the Arabs, I hate the Arabs".
Remember, a black hat and beard is not something Zionists or most Israelis wear; just religious Jews.
- Tuesday, February 07, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
As the cartoon kerfuffle spirals out of control and the death-toll increases, it is clear that this is one battle that the Muslims will lose.
I recently wrote that the reason that Arabs are so absurdly upset over the publication of the Mohammed cartoons was because it showed Arab impotence. Because their initial protests were not reacted to instantly the way that Europe usually does, they keep upping the ante until they get noticed and treated with respect. Recent history shows that threats of riots bring this bizarre respect that is craved, and the illusion of relevance.
The centuries-long slide into irrelevance of the Arab world that I described hit two major speedbumps in the middle of the 20th century:
Either way, these two developments gave the Arabs a taste of what they had been losing for so long - the feeling of power, the impression that they can influence world events again. Oil made the Arab world an economic power and their liberal friends gave them a way to start to literally take over Europe with little protest.
Their power over European colonial guilt became close to absolute, turning tiny Israel into a perceived colonialist state and shielding the Arabs themselves from most criticism. The European liberal press was a major component of their brief rise to relevance and perceived power.
Their friends in the Europress might be willing to go along with their agenda as long as it is only indirectly anti-semitic and anti-American (remember, the Europeans are chafing under their relative irrelevance since World War II as well), but when the Arab world starts attacking the freedom of the press in the Western world, they don't stand a chance.
After all, the press has its own religion, with only one commandment: We shall publish whatever we want.
Freedom of the press is far more difficult to limit than other freedoms, because in our increasingly connected world it is easier to read the newspapers from China on the Internet than to go outside and pick up the one delivered to your house. The almost total voluntary ban on the Mohammed cartoons in US newspapers is meaningless when anyone can find them online with a single click. (It is still instructive that the AP refuses to even distribute the pictures to its member newspapers for them to make theie own choice of publishing them.)
When Iran publishes its Holocaust denial cartoons, the reaction from blogs will be not just publishing mild caricatures of Mohammed. They will create cartoons of Mohammed screwing camels and raping little girls. The Muslim world will get an idea of what real bad taste is, comparable to the explicitly anti-semitic cartoons that they see daily in their mainstream newspapers. In comparison, the Danish cartoons will look like they published the Koran in Arabic.
While there will be speedbumps (such as Google's capitulation to Chinese censorship), the Internet will ensure that everything will be available to everyone, and the Arab world will get more and more used to it the way everyone else has.
And their allies in the European press are already thinking twice about their support for regimes that are so opposed to their own holy mission.
In the end, the middle-east Muslims (who are the only ones violently protesting the cartoons) will lose the cartoon war, just as their short stewardship over the world's energy reserves will disappear in a few decades. Unfortunately, there will be many more casualties before that happens.
UPDATE: When I predicted what the blogs would do, I wasn't aware that they already were doing it.
I recently wrote that the reason that Arabs are so absurdly upset over the publication of the Mohammed cartoons was because it showed Arab impotence. Because their initial protests were not reacted to instantly the way that Europe usually does, they keep upping the ante until they get noticed and treated with respect. Recent history shows that threats of riots bring this bizarre respect that is craved, and the illusion of relevance.
The centuries-long slide into irrelevance of the Arab world that I described hit two major speedbumps in the middle of the 20th century:
- Oil became the most important fuel in the world, and the Arab countries ended up on top of it.
- The liberal backlash against European colonialism turned into a religion of its own where anyone who is not from old Europe is automatically presumed to have a moral advantage.
Either way, these two developments gave the Arabs a taste of what they had been losing for so long - the feeling of power, the impression that they can influence world events again. Oil made the Arab world an economic power and their liberal friends gave them a way to start to literally take over Europe with little protest.
Their power over European colonial guilt became close to absolute, turning tiny Israel into a perceived colonialist state and shielding the Arabs themselves from most criticism. The European liberal press was a major component of their brief rise to relevance and perceived power.
Their friends in the Europress might be willing to go along with their agenda as long as it is only indirectly anti-semitic and anti-American (remember, the Europeans are chafing under their relative irrelevance since World War II as well), but when the Arab world starts attacking the freedom of the press in the Western world, they don't stand a chance.
After all, the press has its own religion, with only one commandment: We shall publish whatever we want.
Freedom of the press is far more difficult to limit than other freedoms, because in our increasingly connected world it is easier to read the newspapers from China on the Internet than to go outside and pick up the one delivered to your house. The almost total voluntary ban on the Mohammed cartoons in US newspapers is meaningless when anyone can find them online with a single click. (It is still instructive that the AP refuses to even distribute the pictures to its member newspapers for them to make theie own choice of publishing them.)
When Iran publishes its Holocaust denial cartoons, the reaction from blogs will be not just publishing mild caricatures of Mohammed. They will create cartoons of Mohammed screwing camels and raping little girls. The Muslim world will get an idea of what real bad taste is, comparable to the explicitly anti-semitic cartoons that they see daily in their mainstream newspapers. In comparison, the Danish cartoons will look like they published the Koran in Arabic.
While there will be speedbumps (such as Google's capitulation to Chinese censorship), the Internet will ensure that everything will be available to everyone, and the Arab world will get more and more used to it the way everyone else has.
And their allies in the European press are already thinking twice about their support for regimes that are so opposed to their own holy mission.
In the end, the middle-east Muslims (who are the only ones violently protesting the cartoons) will lose the cartoon war, just as their short stewardship over the world's energy reserves will disappear in a few decades. Unfortunately, there will be many more casualties before that happens.
UPDATE: When I predicted what the blogs would do, I wasn't aware that they already were doing it.
- Tuesday, February 07, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
The infamous Mufti of Jerusalem waged a reign of terror from 1936-39 in Palestine, not only against Jews but against Arab rivals as well.
His amazing and under-reported war against all who opposed his leadership resulted in 3000 murders and over 18,000 Arabs fleeing Palestine out of fear.
One man emerged as a rival to the Mufti. Fakhri Bey Nashashibi wrote a letter to the British High Commissioner in 1938 detailing the corruption and crimes of the supposed leader of the Palestinian Arabs:
Keep in mind that then, as today, "moderate" is a relative term. It is clear that Fakhri Bey was against partition, he was against legally selling any land to Jews to the point of condoning murder, he supported terror against Jews. But he was against corruption and against the Mufti.
His fight to marginalize the Mufti intensified in 1939, with a detailed letter to Arab leaders with more accusations against the Mufti, where censorship did not allow his original letter to become known to the mainstream Arab communities. Particularly stinging was his accusations of how money meant for charities were being diverted to the Mufti terror campaign, and how "no school was opened, no hospital built, no mosque erected, anywhere in Palestine during the long years of Haj Amin's administration."
The end of the story is predictable. Fakhri Bey was murdered by a "Palestinian terrorist" in Baghdad in November, 1941.
His amazing and under-reported war against all who opposed his leadership resulted in 3000 murders and over 18,000 Arabs fleeing Palestine out of fear.
One man emerged as a rival to the Mufti. Fakhri Bey Nashashibi wrote a letter to the British High Commissioner in 1938 detailing the corruption and crimes of the supposed leader of the Palestinian Arabs:
Keep in mind that then, as today, "moderate" is a relative term. It is clear that Fakhri Bey was against partition, he was against legally selling any land to Jews to the point of condoning murder, he supported terror against Jews. But he was against corruption and against the Mufti.
His fight to marginalize the Mufti intensified in 1939, with a detailed letter to Arab leaders with more accusations against the Mufti, where censorship did not allow his original letter to become known to the mainstream Arab communities. Particularly stinging was his accusations of how money meant for charities were being diverted to the Mufti terror campaign, and how "no school was opened, no hospital built, no mosque erected, anywhere in Palestine during the long years of Haj Amin's administration."
The end of the story is predictable. Fakhri Bey was murdered by a "Palestinian terrorist" in Baghdad in November, 1941.
- Tuesday, February 07, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
The Yemen Times employs one of the most talented Arab comedians on the planet. His name is Hassan Al-Haifi, and his is one of the most consistently hilarious voices on the Arab scene.
His main shtick is if anything happens on the planet that hurts anyone - it's gotta be the Jews.
Some priceless routines of his:
Is it any surprise that he knows who is behind the cartoons?
His main shtick is if anything happens on the planet that hurts anyone - it's gotta be the Jews.
Some priceless routines of his:
- The Zionists were behind the USS Cole attack.
- The Zionists were behind Monica Lewinsky.
- Zionist-backed Americans are behind the Iraqi insurgents;
- Mossad is also behind the Iraqi insurgents;
- Zionists plan to control the entire world production of fossil fuels;
- "The Arabs will someday wake up to find that they will only be able to buy meat with a coupon stamped by the Jewish Defense League or the Untied Jewish Appeal."
- AIPAC was behind a supposed decision by Yahoo to drop the Yemen Times from its distributions;
- Zionists were behind the French ban on Hezbollah Terror TV;
- Zionists were behind the kidnapping of four Christian workers in Iraq;
- Zionists bombed Iraqi churches;
- Zionists were behind the Istanbul bombings;
- Zionists were behind massacres in Bosnia;
- AIDS and "Foot and Mouth disease" are punishments from God for the Western support of Zionists.
Is it any surprise that he knows who is behind the cartoons?
Monday, February 06, 2006
- Monday, February 06, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
South Africa has chosen dhimmitude over freedom of the press, with an amazing display of tortured logic.
In other words, by flipping the definition of "incitement to violence" into referring to violence from the supposed victims, it changes the intent of the law from reducing violence to increasing it! It gives effective veto power over any article by the press to the victim group - by threatening violence. This ridiculous reasoning ends up chilling freedom and rewarding violence, the exact opposite of its intent.
Not only that, but the hypocrisy in South Africa is stunning. It's Almost Supernatural points out to overtly anti-Jewish themes in recent SA "anti-Zionist" cartoons:
Also, there was a recent incident where a Muslim radio station in Cape Town broadcast explicitly anti-semitic material, and SA Muslims screamed about freedom of speech for over a year defending it.
As always, see It's Almost Supernatural for details on what's happening in South Africa.
The controversial interdict passed on Friday by the Johannesburg High Court, banning the publication of the infamous Danish cartoon strip depicting caricatures of the revered Islamic figure Prophet Mohammed, may be frustrating to the media fraternity but it does well to remind us that most of the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute and can – and will – be limited should the need arise.In the real world, it is true that there are limits on freedom of the press from inciting violence. But that is inciting violence against the victims, not by the victims! Cartoons that call for the eradication of Islam could be considered incitement, but these cartoons that are less offensive than even the commentary above in its description of Flemming Rose's motivations.
An obvious example is the limitation of the right to equality in labour practice, where fair discrimination is condoned.
The section within the Bill of Rights granting the right to freedom of expression also expressly limits the right. In other words, the right to freedom of expression is inherently limited even before being limited by other competing rights, such as the right to dignity.
According to the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media, “does not extend to incitement of imminent violence or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”.
The caricature cartoons, which were commissioned by one Flemming Rose, a supporter of the anti-Islamic Zionist "clash of civilizations" Neo-Cons behind the “war on terror”, were drafted with the intention to insult and outrage Muslims – an aim well achieved.
The surge of violent protests emanating from the Arab world in response to the cartoons is an indication that the publication of the cartoons in South Africa may incite violence from the Muslim community and, because the source intended the cartoons to advocate hatred based on religion, the publication in South Africa could very well constitute “incitement to cause harm”.
A law professor at Wits University has said that although the cartoons did not amount to hate speech, they did amount to an incitement of violence and, as such, limit the press’ right to publish them.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa – a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange – has said that the interdict is an “unacceptable intrusion on media freedom and freedom of expression by the courts and believes it is unconstitutional”.
The interdict will be challenged in court by at least one media organisation on 28 February 2006.
In other words, by flipping the definition of "incitement to violence" into referring to violence from the supposed victims, it changes the intent of the law from reducing violence to increasing it! It gives effective veto power over any article by the press to the victim group - by threatening violence. This ridiculous reasoning ends up chilling freedom and rewarding violence, the exact opposite of its intent.
Not only that, but the hypocrisy in South Africa is stunning. It's Almost Supernatural points out to overtly anti-Jewish themes in recent SA "anti-Zionist" cartoons:
|
|
As always, see It's Almost Supernatural for details on what's happening in South Africa.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
- Sunday, February 05, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
A lot of the pundits that are analyzing the cartoon kerfuffle are missing the point.
The reality is inadvertently revealed in this bizarre but neat bit of psychological projection, courtesy of Arab News:
Centuries of the Muslim world consistently losing against the West in every field of endeavor that matters - scientific, military, cultural - coupled with an almost genetic Arab (not Muslim) sense of pride - brings an incredible dissonance between their beliefs that the world will inevitably become a Muslim ummah, and reality.
When someone who craves control finds that he is irrelevant, he will latch onto anything to make himself feel important.
Almost worse than the fact that the cartoons were published at all, from the Muslim viewpoint, the fact that they were published by a small irrelevant Danish newspaper - and they still couldn't control even that. They couldn't get the automatic condemnation that they expected. They couldn't call upon one of their perceived bases of power - their ability to control the European Left with impunity.
Every Muslim demonstration, with imams whipping up the crowds into a frenzy, is an attempt at relevance - if they can scare the Western world to move even a little bit, their sense of pride is somewhat restored and they can go to sleep with their delusions that they matter. Threats of economic sanctions or oil boycotts are nothing more than pathetic attempts to show that they have a little bit of control left in this world.
Terror serves exactly the same purpose. The very asymmetry of terror, where a small number of people can instill fear in a much larger population, is a way to show relevance for a people who cannot compete on a level playing field. This is why terror is celebrated by such a huge percentage of the Arab world, even as they pretend to denounce it - they are proud that they can still make a difference.
Unfortunately, this is not a problem that can be cured by counseling or self-esteem books.
There is an entire other dimension to this psychological history of the Arab (and to some extent the Muslim) world, but it will have to wait for another time.
The reality is inadvertently revealed in this bizarre but neat bit of psychological projection, courtesy of Arab News:
Let me step back for a moment to give a little background information that may help you make better sense of what is happening.The deluded author subconsciously reveals the true roots of Muslim rage: it is Muslim impotence.
For a number of years now Western nations have suffered from a growing doubt; they fear that the global hegemony the West has enjoyed for the last couple of centuries is finally coming to an end.
This uncomfortable realization is by no means confined to Westerners; in fact most non-Western people have come to believe this as well.
So a gradual, but perceptible, fading of their global hegemony coupled with a growing fear of an uncertain future motivates Western society to intimidate weak nations in an attempt to keep their power unchallenged and intact.
A US neocon put it very succinctly when he said (I am not quoting exactly): “We must periodically find a weak country, hold it against the wall and slap it around to impress others”.
The ideal target for Westerners has been the Muslim world, due to its extensiveness and perceived weakness.
The current assault on our Prophet by the Danes and other Europeans must be seen within this context.
Centuries of the Muslim world consistently losing against the West in every field of endeavor that matters - scientific, military, cultural - coupled with an almost genetic Arab (not Muslim) sense of pride - brings an incredible dissonance between their beliefs that the world will inevitably become a Muslim ummah, and reality.
When someone who craves control finds that he is irrelevant, he will latch onto anything to make himself feel important.
Almost worse than the fact that the cartoons were published at all, from the Muslim viewpoint, the fact that they were published by a small irrelevant Danish newspaper - and they still couldn't control even that. They couldn't get the automatic condemnation that they expected. They couldn't call upon one of their perceived bases of power - their ability to control the European Left with impunity.
Every Muslim demonstration, with imams whipping up the crowds into a frenzy, is an attempt at relevance - if they can scare the Western world to move even a little bit, their sense of pride is somewhat restored and they can go to sleep with their delusions that they matter. Threats of economic sanctions or oil boycotts are nothing more than pathetic attempts to show that they have a little bit of control left in this world.
Terror serves exactly the same purpose. The very asymmetry of terror, where a small number of people can instill fear in a much larger population, is a way to show relevance for a people who cannot compete on a level playing field. This is why terror is celebrated by such a huge percentage of the Arab world, even as they pretend to denounce it - they are proud that they can still make a difference.
Unfortunately, this is not a problem that can be cured by counseling or self-esteem books.
There is an entire other dimension to this psychological history of the Arab (and to some extent the Muslim) world, but it will have to wait for another time.
- Sunday, February 05, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
A woman was murdered and five other people sustained wounds after a Palestinian terrorist of about 20 stabbed Route 51 minibus passengers in the town of Petach Tikva, east of Tel Aviv, Sunday morning.Just waiting for the condemnations pouring in from the Muslim world. Any minute now.
Four of the stab victims are reportedly in serious condition, while another was lightly injured. MDA Director-General Eli Bin said the murder victim, a woman of about 60, sustained numerous stab wounds in her chest and abdomen.
UPDATE: Hamas never disappoints:
On the murder of an Israeli woman and injuring of five others near Tel Aviv earlier in the day by a Palestinian, the Hamas leader blamed the Israeli occupation.
He said if Israel wanted stability in the region, it should "stop its aggression and start to seriously think about leaving, and for the Palestinians to regain all their rights."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
