Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Elder of ZiyonSomeone found my site by searching for "elder porn".
Apparently, some Canadian likes me!
Apparently, some Canadian likes me!
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Elder of Ziyon
How else can you reconcile these two statements?
This is our close ally.
In other remarks, al-Faisal said that for all the shock in the Western world about the suicide attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and in Iraq, most Muslims were even more surprised.And then immediately afterwards, in the same talk:
The attacks were the result of a cultlike attitude fomented by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden that ran counter to the central tenets of Islam, which holds that "killing one soul is like killing all of mankind," Prince Turki al-Faisal said.
"Inasmuch as the West was surprised, if you like, by this culture of death, I can assure you that the majority of Muslims were even more surprised because this culture of death runs counter to everything that Muslims hold dear to themselves," al-Faisal said.
"Nothing justifies any terrorist act whether through suicide bombing or through any other activity," al-Faisal said.
Still, he distinguished the suicide attacks carried out by Palestinian groups against Israel, saying the attacks were justified by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad as "legitimate means of war under occupation."So "killing one soul is like killing all of mankind" unless that soul happens to be Jewish and living in an area that Muslims consider Judenrein. In that case, it is praiseworthy.
This is our close ally.
- Tuesday, February 14, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
Honest Reporting is giving away a free trip to Israel.
"Grand Prize is a trip for 2, including round trip airfare from New York, with a 5 night stay at the 5 star Jerusalem Pearl Hotel, plus a 2 night stay at the Dan Hotel in Herzliya.
"When you sign up for the raffle, you'll also become an HonestReporting subscriber, supporting Israel's battle against media bias."
(Disclaimer: If you enter the raffle by clicking on the link above, I get an additional chance to win myself. But I am a big fan of Honest Reporting anyway.)
"Grand Prize is a trip for 2, including round trip airfare from New York, with a 5 night stay at the 5 star Jerusalem Pearl Hotel, plus a 2 night stay at the Dan Hotel in Herzliya.
"When you sign up for the raffle, you'll also become an HonestReporting subscriber, supporting Israel's battle against media bias."
(Disclaimer: If you enter the raffle by clicking on the link above, I get an additional chance to win myself. But I am a big fan of Honest Reporting anyway.)
- Tuesday, February 14, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
We all know that the Intifada was an amazingly bad move on the part of Arafat, taking the Palestinian Arabs from being hopeful about a possible future state into a suicidal terror existence. We know that most Palestinian Arabs were employed in Israel before the Intifada and that the Palestinian Arab economy has plummeted because of the loss of most of these jobs.
But I just stumbled onto some Palestinian economic statistics showing to what degree Palestinian Arabs depend on Israel for their livelihoods. Without Jews buying their goods, Palestine could never exist.
Over 92% of their exports went to Israel before the intifada. The same site shows 73% of Palestinian Arab imports came from Israel in 2000.
Arafat must have known these statistics. He must have known that starting up a war with the very nation that you are completely dependent upon is economic suicide.
Yet, who among the Arab world is willing to say a bad word about Arafat? Who has the honesty to say that Arafat caused more pain to the Palestinian people than any other human being? While Israel built their infrastructure, increased their life expectancy and decreased their infant mortality rates, gave them jobs and electricity and water and a hope for peace and independence, Yasir Arafat single-handedly threw it all away.
As long as Arabs consider him a hero, as long as their capacity for self-delusion is so spectacularly high, as long as their hatred for Jews surpasses their love for their own people, there is no hope for peace. And everyone with a brain knows this.
But I just stumbled onto some Palestinian economic statistics showing to what degree Palestinian Arabs depend on Israel for their livelihoods. Without Jews buying their goods, Palestine could never exist.
(Palestinian Arab) Foreign TradeForeign Trade Indicators, 1997-2000 Value in Million US $
Exports Imports Indicators 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Palestinian Exports 382 395 372 401 Total Palestinian Exports by Country Exports to Israel 358 382 360 370 Exports to Arab Countries 19 11 10 29 Export to other countries 5 2 2 2
Over 92% of their exports went to Israel before the intifada. The same site shows 73% of Palestinian Arab imports came from Israel in 2000.
Arafat must have known these statistics. He must have known that starting up a war with the very nation that you are completely dependent upon is economic suicide.
Yet, who among the Arab world is willing to say a bad word about Arafat? Who has the honesty to say that Arafat caused more pain to the Palestinian people than any other human being? While Israel built their infrastructure, increased their life expectancy and decreased their infant mortality rates, gave them jobs and electricity and water and a hope for peace and independence, Yasir Arafat single-handedly threw it all away.
As long as Arabs consider him a hero, as long as their capacity for self-delusion is so spectacularly high, as long as their hatred for Jews surpasses their love for their own people, there is no hope for peace. And everyone with a brain knows this.
- Tuesday, February 14, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
An air train of 27 cargo jets have delivered 100 million flowers over the past two weeks for St. Valentine’s Day tomorrow. El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. (TASE: ELAL), Cargo Air Lines (CAL) and foreign airlines handled the shipments.
Israel Flower Growers Association secretary general Haim Hadad says Valentine’s Day is a peak export event for flower growers, who prepare for it months in advance, growing special red flowers. Target markets are the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France, the UK, US, and Russia. Flower growers, exporters and airlines have created an efficient network for delivering flowers to Europe within 24-48 hours of being picked.
Israel’s flowers centers are the northern Negev, Lachish region, Sharon, Emek Hefer, Jezreel Valley, Arava, and Jordan Valley.
Flowers overseas cost $0.50-0.60 each ahead of Valentine’s Day, double the usual price. Hadad estimates that export sales will total $50 million. Valentine’s Day has been marked in Israel in recent years, with many people sending red flowers to their loved ones.
- Tuesday, February 14, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
self-death
It is nice when knowledgable columnists echo things I've been saying. I think that he is overemphasizing the role of the West in creating this "neo-Islamic" Salafist movement (clearly there are masses of Middle Eastern Muslims brainwashed by political Islam without any help from the West) but altogether a very worthwhile article.
February 12, 2006 -- 'GOD? What about him?" the sheik asked with a frown.We were in a London mosque, discussing the sermons the sheik delivers at Friday congregations. I had asked why God almost never featured in (or, at best, got a cameo role) in sermons that focused almost exclusively on political issues.
For the sheik, what mattered was "the sufferings of our brethren under occupation." In other words: In our Islam, we don't do God — we do Palestine, Kashmir and Iraq!
Here we have a religion without a theology, a secular wolf disguised as a religious lamb.
How did this neo-Islam — a political movement masquerading as religion — come into being, and how can those who know little about Islam distinguish it from the mainstream of the faith?
USING Islam as a vehicle for political ambitions is not new. The Umayyads used it after the Prophet's death to set up a dynastic rule. Three of the four caliphs who succeeded Muhammad were assassinated in the context of political power games presented as religious disputes.
Fast forward to the 19th century, and the Persian adventurer Jamaleddin Assadabadi, who disguised himself as an Afghan to hide his Shiite origin and set out to build a career in the mostly Sunni land of Egypt. Although a Freemason, Jamal (who dubbed himself Sayyed Gamal) concluded that the only way to win power among Muslims was by appealing to their religious sentiments. So he transformed himself into an Islamic scholar, grew an impressive beard and donned a huge black turban to underline his claim of being a descendant of the Prophet.
His partner was Mirza Malkam Khan, an Armenian who claimed to have converted to Islam. Together, they launched the idea of an "Islamic Renaissance" (An-Nahda) and promoted the concept of a "perfect Islamic government" under an "enlightened despot."
Malkam had a slogan of unrivaled cynicism: "Tell the Muslims something is in the Koran, and they will die for you."
The trick worked, because the overwhelming majority of Muslims didn't know Arabic, and those who did had as much difficulty reading the Koran as an English speaker has with Chaucer.
LATER in the century, the campaigns of Sayyed Gamal and Mirza Malkam produce the Salafi movement. The term comes from the phrase aslaf al-salehin ("the worthy ancestors") and evokes the hope of reviving "the pure Islam of the early days under Muhammad."
The Salafi movement gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Moslemeen) led by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt (1928), and to an Iranian Shiite version, the Fedayeen of Islam, led by Muhammad Navab-Safavi (1941).
In the '40s the movement produced two other children. The first was a hybrid of Marxism and Islam concocted by a Pakistani journalist Abul-Ala al-Maudoodi, who saw himself as "the Lenin of Islam." The other was a hybrid of Nazism and Islam promoted by the Palestinian Mufti Haj Amin al-Hussaini and Rashid Ali al- Gilani, an Iraqi firebrand of Iranian origin.
From the 1930s through the 1960s, the offspring of Salafism organized terrorist operations killing hundreds of people, but failed to win power anywhere. Instead, most Muslim nations were seduced by Western ideologies such as nationalism, socialism and communism. Yet most of those ideologies lost their luster by the 1970s — and various versions of the Salafi movement began to fill the vaccuum.
In 1979, it won power in Iran under a semi-literate mullah named Ruhallah Khomeini. In the 1980s, it dominated Pakistan through a group of army officers known as "the Koran Generals." In 1992 it came close to seizing power in Algeria through the Front for Islamic Salvation (FIS). In 1995, it seized power in Kabul under the banner of the Taliban. Most recently, it won the election in the West Bank and Gaza under the label of Hamas.
SALAFISM'S biggest successes, how ever, have come in the West — where the emergence of large communities of Muslims has created a space in which neo-Islam can thrive.
This new space is of crucial importance for two reasons.
* It allows Salafism to promote its ideas and recruit militants in freedom — something not possible in most Muslim countries, where local despots won't tolerate any breach of their control of the public space.
* Muslims living in the West have no first-hand experience of the intolerance and terror that neo-Islam has practiced in Muslim countries for decades. Instead, they see Islam as an element of their identity and, although seldom going to the mosque, consider neo-Islamist militants as "lobbyists" for themselves.
Anxious to control its constituency within Western democracies, neo-Islam, in its different versions, uses tactics developed by other totalitarian ideologies, notably fascism and communism.
ITS first move was to promote a visual apartheid to distinguish its adherents from the rest of society — in the same way that Lenin, Hitler and Mao wanted their followers to wear specific uniforms.
For men, the props are beards, khaksari (earthly) garments such as shirts falling down to the knees, baggy shalwar (pantaloons), an araqchin (cloth cap), a checkered Palestinian neck-scarf and sandals or shoes without laces. The garments must never come in bright colors (although green was the color of Mohammed's clan, the Bani-Hashim); black and white are the preferred shades of neo-Islam. The neo-Islamist will also always carry a worry bead plus a miswak (a wooden tooth pick), which is supposed to have been favored by the Prophet.
When it comes to women, the choice of clothes is even more limited. Women are obliged to cover their hair, and also avoid bright colors. The more radical neo-Islamists promote the burqa, a head-to-toe drape with two holes for the eyes.
Only a small minority of the world's Muslims follow this visual apartheid. Some of the most outrageous neo-Islam outfits can be seen only in the West, never in any Muslim country.
Once visual apartheid is achieved, the neo-Islamist moves to Phase Two: making his followers brain-dead. This is done by persuading them that there is a unique Islamic answer to all questions ever asked or ever to be asked.
And where does the answer come from? From "fatwa factories" set up by (often semi-literate) sheiks in some Muslim countries. The most complex issues of life, from banks charging interest to euthanasia, are often answered with a simple "yes" or "no."
The idea is that, as Maudoodi (the "Lenin of Islam") believed, Islam was sent by God to turn men into robots obeying divine rules as spelled out by the sheiks.
Maudoodi claimed that, when God created man, He made His creature's biological existence subject to "unquestionable laws." Yet God failed to to apply the same rule to man's spiritual, political and cultural existence. Realizing His mistake, God sent Mohammed to preach Islam, which provides the "unquestionable laws" needed for the non-material aspects of man's existence.
NEO-ISLAM pursues its culture of apartheid by dividing the world into "Islam" and "un-Islam."
Wherever Muslims are a majority is designated as Dar al-Islam (House of Peace); the rest of the world is Dar al-Harb (House of War) or, at best, Dar al-Da'awah (House of Propagation). The claim is that it is enough to be a Muslim to be always right against non-Muslims.
This is not how Muhammad taught Islam. His biography is full of instances where he ruled against a Muslim in a dispute with a non-Muslim. For him, the world was divided between "right" and "wrong," and "good" and "evil," not Islam and non-Islam. It is possible to be a Muslim and do evil things, while a non-Muslim could also be an agent of good.
That neo-Islam is uncomfortable with the idea of religion as something to do with God is not surprising. In Islam, the only absolute and immutable truth is the Oneness of God. Thus what the Koran or shariah (not to mention self-appointed sheiks) offer are relative matters, open to infinite interpretations.
Neo-Islam's attempt at destroying individual freedoms is as much a threat to Islam as the Inquisition was to Christianity.
To protect itself, Islam needs to revive its theology with emphasis on divinity (marefat al-ilahiyah). In other words, Islam must re-become a religion.
THIS does not mean that Muslims should stay out of politics or ignore Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir or any other cause. What it means is that they should recognize that these and similar causes are political, not religious, ones. Nobody prevents Muslims from practicing their faith in Palestine or Kashmir. These disputes are about territory, borders and statehood, not about faith.
Neo-Islam is a form of fascism, hence the term Islamofascism. Its primary victims are Muslims, both in Muslim majority countries and in the West.
In many Muslim countries, neo-Islam has been exposed as a political movement and can no longer deceive the masses. In the West, however, it is has managed to dupe parts of the media, government and academia into treating it not as the political movement it is, but as the expression of Islam as a religion.
It is time to end that deception and recognize neo-Islam in its many manifestations as a political phenomenon.
Neo-Islam has as much right to operate in the political field as any other party in a democracy. But it does not have the right to pretend to be a religion — it is not.
Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.
Monday, February 13, 2006
- Monday, February 13, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
- self-death
The Betrayal of Denmark
It is worth reading in full. Here are my comments:
The West has sacrificed its ideals and thrown democratic, liberal Denmark under a train to try to mollify people who want us dead anyway. It is a disgrace and it is against our own deeply-held convictions.
In the end, everyone does what is in their self-interest. Sometimes the self-interest in money, sometimes it is human lives, but too rarely does self-interest easily coincide with ideals, except for those who truly can think long-term.
I once worked for a major telecommunications company who proudly spoke of its ideals, and how it would stand up against discrimination in its own policies as well as when dealing with others. When we were being told this spiel, I asked a simple question: If Saudi Arabia wanted a billion dollar contract with the company but says that no Jews may come and work on it, would they turn down the contract? The hemming and hawing answer made it clear that ideals only go so far.
Denmark does not have the market share of many products that Arab countries do. Denmark does not threaten the lives of those who do things that it disagrees with. Therefore, Denmark gets shafted.
Newspapers that pretend to have lofty standards suddenly forget their own slogans when faced with either economic or physical harm. If they would be honest about it, that wouldn't be so bad, but when they cloak their fear in high-minded concepts like "respect for the feelings of others" they are just hypocrites.
It is not only newspapers; but it is countries as well. The lack of vehemence in supporting Denmark's free speech and the amount of scraping and bowing to irrational demands of a few members of a religion is telling.
It is understandable that nations and companies and media outlets will want to act in short-term self-interest, but what they are not seeing is that in the long term, this is not self-interest - it is slow suicide before the onslaught of radical Islam in its desire to take over the world. Apologizing to would-be mass murderers will not make them like you; all it does is make it easier for them to crap on you next time.
It is worth reading in full. Here are my comments:
The West has sacrificed its ideals and thrown democratic, liberal Denmark under a train to try to mollify people who want us dead anyway. It is a disgrace and it is against our own deeply-held convictions.
In the end, everyone does what is in their self-interest. Sometimes the self-interest in money, sometimes it is human lives, but too rarely does self-interest easily coincide with ideals, except for those who truly can think long-term.
I once worked for a major telecommunications company who proudly spoke of its ideals, and how it would stand up against discrimination in its own policies as well as when dealing with others. When we were being told this spiel, I asked a simple question: If Saudi Arabia wanted a billion dollar contract with the company but says that no Jews may come and work on it, would they turn down the contract? The hemming and hawing answer made it clear that ideals only go so far.
Denmark does not have the market share of many products that Arab countries do. Denmark does not threaten the lives of those who do things that it disagrees with. Therefore, Denmark gets shafted.
Newspapers that pretend to have lofty standards suddenly forget their own slogans when faced with either economic or physical harm. If they would be honest about it, that wouldn't be so bad, but when they cloak their fear in high-minded concepts like "respect for the feelings of others" they are just hypocrites.
It is not only newspapers; but it is countries as well. The lack of vehemence in supporting Denmark's free speech and the amount of scraping and bowing to irrational demands of a few members of a religion is telling.
It is understandable that nations and companies and media outlets will want to act in short-term self-interest, but what they are not seeing is that in the long term, this is not self-interest - it is slow suicide before the onslaught of radical Islam in its desire to take over the world. Apologizing to would-be mass murderers will not make them like you; all it does is make it easier for them to crap on you next time.
- Monday, February 13, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
The Telegraph is reporting on US contingency plans to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities, and the Boston Globe is talking about how Iran could react to a strike:
Plus a US strike to Iran would not be surgical but could lead to a much longer engagement:
It seems clear that fears of Iranian retaliation now should not enter into the equation of deciding when to attack, because their capabilities will only increase over time, heading towards nukes (anyone who believes that their nuclear program is peaceful is a fool.)
I think that any US attack on Iran will result in a full scale ground-war retaliation - against Israel. Just like Saddam Hussein sent his Scuds to Israel trying to escalate the war into an Arab/Israeli war, Ahmadinejad will do the same thing in his attempt to be the undisputed leader of the Muslim world. Unlike Saddam, he really will send chemical warheads and dirty bombs to Israel. Any military option will be very, very ugly.
But waiting for UN Security Council resolutions will make the ultimate war even worse. A nuclear Iran is far worse than a nuclear North Korea.
The US should immediately enforce a total embargo against Iran of all goods. It should tell every trading partner that if they trade with Iran, they lose their business with the US. Iran is getting stronger by the week but it cannot survive for more than a few months without trade with Russia and other countries. The main non-military option to avoid the deaths of thousands of people cannot wait. And it is time for the US to use its economic might as a non-lethal weapon, exactly the way that Arabs and Muslims always threaten to use theirs.
It would start an economic crisis, but that is far better than the alternative.
Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new U.S. intelligence assessments. Obtained with the assistance of North Korea, Shahab 3 long-range missiles could be tipped with chemical warheads and strike Israel and U.S. military bases in the region. Iran is believed to have at least 20 launchers that are frequently moved around the country to avoid detection.
Iran purchased at least a dozen X-55 cruise missiles from Ukraine in 2001 that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as Italy. Intelligence officials also point out that Iran controls a small island at the mouth the Strait of Hormuz and could use missiles and gunboats to temporarily shut off access to the economically vital Persian Gulf, sparking an oil crisis.
Plus a US strike to Iran would not be surgical but could lead to a much longer engagement:
A report, "Iran: Consequences of a War," written by Professor Paul Rogers and published Monday by the Oxford Research Group, says attacks on Iranian facilities, most of which are in densely populated areas, would be surprise ones, allowing no time for evacuations or other precautions. Rogers, of the University of Bradford's peace studies department, says: "A military operation against Iran would not...be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation.
It seems clear that fears of Iranian retaliation now should not enter into the equation of deciding when to attack, because their capabilities will only increase over time, heading towards nukes (anyone who believes that their nuclear program is peaceful is a fool.)
I think that any US attack on Iran will result in a full scale ground-war retaliation - against Israel. Just like Saddam Hussein sent his Scuds to Israel trying to escalate the war into an Arab/Israeli war, Ahmadinejad will do the same thing in his attempt to be the undisputed leader of the Muslim world. Unlike Saddam, he really will send chemical warheads and dirty bombs to Israel. Any military option will be very, very ugly.
But waiting for UN Security Council resolutions will make the ultimate war even worse. A nuclear Iran is far worse than a nuclear North Korea.
The US should immediately enforce a total embargo against Iran of all goods. It should tell every trading partner that if they trade with Iran, they lose their business with the US. Iran is getting stronger by the week but it cannot survive for more than a few months without trade with Russia and other countries. The main non-military option to avoid the deaths of thousands of people cannot wait. And it is time for the US to use its economic might as a non-lethal weapon, exactly the way that Arabs and Muslims always threaten to use theirs.
It would start an economic crisis, but that is far better than the alternative.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
- Sunday, February 12, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
This week's Haveil Havalim is being hosted this week by one of my favorite bloggers, AbbaGav. As usual, it is an excellent roundup, taking up far more time than I can imagine.
Through it I found some interesting cartoon comments that I had missed, plus lots of interesting posts on other topics.
And I am honored that AbbaGav mentioned two of my posts as well. He hit the posts that I liked the best, but the blogosphere liked this one by far (thanks to a link from SimplyJews, a blog made up by fellow Elders.)
While I am at it, last night I passed the 20,000 page hit mark, with the last 10K coming much quicker than I had hit the initial 10K (5 months versus 12). Thanks to all who read me and hopefully appreciate my posts.
Have a great week!
Through it I found some interesting cartoon comments that I had missed, plus lots of interesting posts on other topics.
And I am honored that AbbaGav mentioned two of my posts as well. He hit the posts that I liked the best, but the blogosphere liked this one by far (thanks to a link from SimplyJews, a blog made up by fellow Elders.)
While I am at it, last night I passed the 20,000 page hit mark, with the last 10K coming much quicker than I had hit the initial 10K (5 months versus 12). Thanks to all who read me and hopefully appreciate my posts.
Have a great week!
Saturday, February 11, 2006
- Saturday, February 11, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
- self-death
The Detroit News, last Sunday, printed an editorial that is a little simple-minded but largely accurate:
Meanwhile, the Arab American News is calling for the editorialist to be fired. Where they can't parse simple explicit language in the Hamas charter, they somehow see vicious racism in a pretty accurate article:
Notice that not once were any of Finley's statements shown to be inaccurate, or his logic shown to be faulty.
An almost comical example of fake pathos comes via another article in Arab American News. The author describes the scene as he read the editorial to his proud Palestinian children (who were born in the United States):
So, in summation, the Arabs reacted to an editorial by attacking the author, by trying to get him fired, by calling him bigoted without a shred of evidence, and by defending terrorists. And not a single acknowledgement that, hey, maybe the policies of the people they are so strenuously defending, that their people voted for in great numbers, may have something to do with why people aren't exactly supporters of a Palestinian terror state.
The author with the 13-year old wrote in other articles that he cried when the mass-murdering uber-terrorist, Yasir Arafat, died. But somehow he cannot tell his son honestly that Americans don't support terrorists because people like him name streets and public squares after people who murder Jewish children, that his people celebrated the deaths of thousands of Americans, and that his people overwhelmingly supported Saddam Hussein and now support Iran's Ahmadinejad in his quest for a second Holocaust.
Nah, it's easier to pretend that he is interested in high-sounding concepts like freedom and justice (but apparently not freedom of speech for people who hate terror.) The truth sometimes hurts too much.
The large Arab community in Detroit is up in arms. One article that got printed in the Detroit News espouses absolute, provable lies, defending the indefensible in praising Hamas:Nolan Finley
Palestinians failed democracy, not the other way around
Democracy didn't fail when the Palestinians used their first truly free vote to install terrorist leaders. The Palestinians failed. Again.
Those who see the Hamas victory as evidence that democracy is not the answer for all people in all places ignore the unique nature of the Palestinians. They lack a key ingredient for sustaining freedom - self-interest.
The Palestinians' lust for Jewish blood is stronger than their desire to lead peaceful, secure lives, to rule an independent state, to lift themselves out of their misery.
That, given the opportunity, they would give their votes to terrorists should not be a shock. This is the same people who deified Yasser Arafat, the father of modern-day terrorism.
Terror defines Palestinians
Under Arafat, terrorism became an inseparable part of the Palestinian identity. He perfected the use of terror as a means of gaining a political wedge, proving that those willing to shed blood without relenting, without remorse and without regard to external pressure will be rewarded with a seat at the table.
Their suicide bombers should have made the Palestinians international pariahs. Instead, apologists depicted the violence as the natural response of a persecuted people. The excuses invited more terror, from more sources and in more places.
Even the Bush administration pretended that the Palestinians were the victims of terrorists within their midst, but beyond their control. The Hamas victory makes it impossible to sustain that pretense.
The Palestinians knew what Hamas was when they gave it their votes. They chose terror over peace, just as they did five years ago when they answered Arafat's call to unleash a brutal wave of terror to cover his impotence at the bargaining table.
The defenders of terror are now spinning a new scenario, one that has Hamas morphing into a political organization and renouncing violence.
Hamas is unrepentant
But note that Hamas is not saying that. Its leaders remain committed to wiping the Jewish blot from the Middle East.
Even if Hamas mouthed the right words, who could believe that it has suddenly turned away from decades of violence?
Terrorism is the history of the Palestinian people, and it will be their future if they are allowed to again slip past the supposed zero-tolerance policy on terror.
Hamas is no different from al-Qaida. Both are terrorist groups, and both target innocent victims.
It was considered in the interest of world stability to smash the al-Qaida-backed Taliban government in Afghanistan. Why isn't it similarly desirable to smash the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories?
Hamas doesn't want to lead, it wants to kill, and has done so in more than 200 terrorist attacks against Israel during the past five years, including dozens of suicide bombings.
Pretending Hamas can be something other than it is will only lead to more killing.
Hamas is not part of an effort to take someone else's land away. Its struggle is defensive, not offensive.Looks like the author hasn't read the Hamas charter. But, hey, lying isn't a problem when you are defending the blameless Palestinian people. And the parts where they want to kill all Jews is just an inconvenient detail, not to be mentioned in a major American newspaper.
Neither does Hamas want to create a state wherein one religion reigns supreme. In Israel, Jews have automatic citizenship and other rights not afforded to people of other faiths. The double standard applied to Hamas -- and Arabs and Muslims -- is fueling support for more extremist groups.
Meanwhile, the Arab American News is calling for the editorialist to be fired. Where they can't parse simple explicit language in the Hamas charter, they somehow see vicious racism in a pretty accurate article:
The venom that poured forth from Finley's pen was like the pre-Holocaust venom directed by Hitler against Jews.
We are shocked that an editor would write such a racist diatribe. We are more shocked that a publication like the Detroit News would print it.
While Finley's bias against Arabs is very well known, he has generally hidden it under the cover of his very pro-Israeli views.
This time there was no such veil. Finley openly, directly, shamelessly consigned an entire group of people to hell: "Terror defines Palestinians," he wrote, and "The Palestinians' lust for Jewish blood is stronger than their desire to lead peaceful, secure lives, to rule an independent state, to lift themselves out of their misery."
Unfortunately, the new publisher of the News, Dave Butler, upheld Finley's right to say what he did. In several email discussions with several community members, Butler insisted this was an issue of free speech and that a debate over the column would educate and inform.
How do you debate, Mr. Butler, whether Palestinians are human beings or not?
Neither Butler nor Finley would suggest such a debate about any other group of people.
Apparently the new ownership of the Detroit News doesn't know what responsible journalism is.
There are no words strong enough to adequately condemn these statements. Nolan Finley should be fired. Now.
Notice that not once were any of Finley's statements shown to be inaccurate, or his logic shown to be faulty.
An almost comical example of fake pathos comes via another article in Arab American News. The author describes the scene as he read the editorial to his proud Palestinian children (who were born in the United States):
I read them the piece to show them that even in America; hate is alive and well, as long as it is “couched” in a newspaper “Editorial” and excused as a mere expression of free speech. Of course, there are limits placed on free speech, but those limits do not apply as long as those on the receiving end are Palestinians.Here's a great spokesman against hate, don't you think?
After I read them Mr. Finley’s column, my youngest son, who is 13 years old, looked up at me with a painful expression on his face, and asked me “Why do they hate us”?
I pondered his question for awhile, trying to answer him, but I was at a loss for words. Why do they hate us was the same question that many Americans, elected officials, and pundits were asking after the horrible attacks of 9-11. One not very enlightened answer was that they hate us because of our “freedom.”
The answer that I finally gave my son was that we, the Palestinian people, are hated by our enemies because of our legitimate and moral struggle for freedom. They hate us because we are tenacious in our struggle for justice, a word that is bandied about, but few understand in relation to what the Palestinian people have had to and are continuing to endure. They hate us because when most people would have given up and disappeared silently into the night, we remain, standing erect, firm in our conviction that we deserve to live in freedom and dignity, and we will not be denied.
In a way, I guess I am thankful for Mr. Finley finally showing the world his fangs and for the Detroit News for helping expose his hatred to the world at large. His words have reenergized me and many others to work harder than ever to combat bigotry whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. I also want to thank him for helping me show and explain to my children that Mr. Finley lives on the fringes of American society, even though his bosses at the Detroit News are trying to make him and his hatred part of America’s mainstream.
Next time I am sitting with my children sipping a cup of Arabic coffee under one of my family’s ancient olive trees, overlooking the landscape of the village of my birth - ringed by Jewish-only colonies that were built on stolen lands - I will once again tell my children about Mr. Finley’s remarks.
Maybe when Mr. Finley finally retires from spewing forth his poisonous venom in the pages of the Detroit News, he will be allowed to immigrate to Israel and make his home alongside his fanatic brethren in the extremist, Jewish-only colonies that are built on stolen Palestinian lands. He would make a great spokesman for them; after all, he has been practicing for many years.
So, in summation, the Arabs reacted to an editorial by attacking the author, by trying to get him fired, by calling him bigoted without a shred of evidence, and by defending terrorists. And not a single acknowledgement that, hey, maybe the policies of the people they are so strenuously defending, that their people voted for in great numbers, may have something to do with why people aren't exactly supporters of a Palestinian terror state.
The author with the 13-year old wrote in other articles that he cried when the mass-murdering uber-terrorist, Yasir Arafat, died. But somehow he cannot tell his son honestly that Americans don't support terrorists because people like him name streets and public squares after people who murder Jewish children, that his people celebrated the deaths of thousands of Americans, and that his people overwhelmingly supported Saddam Hussein and now support Iran's Ahmadinejad in his quest for a second Holocaust.
Nah, it's easier to pretend that he is interested in high-sounding concepts like freedom and justice (but apparently not freedom of speech for people who hate terror.) The truth sometimes hurts too much.
Friday, February 10, 2006
- Friday, February 10, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
Sad but not surprised say Jewish community leaders following the release of a poll that asked for the views of British Muslims towards Jews and Israel.That is a bizarre interpretation, to put it mildly. I don't know anything about Dr. Stone, but it is strange that he looks at abject Jew-hatred through a lense of Islamophobia, rather than ask for Muslims themselves to teach tolerance.
Conducted by Populus for a group of Jewish organisations and first published in The Times, it surveyed 500 people across the country between December 9 and 19 last year, nearly 50 percent agreed with the conspiracy theory that "the Jewish community in Britain is in league with the Freemasons to control the media and politics". while 37 per cent believed that Anglo-Jewry was a "legitimate target as part of the struggle for justice in the Middle East".
Of the conspiracy theory, Board of Deputies chief executive Jon Benjamin said it was "completely bizarre" while he added. "It is concerning to hear that Jews are considered legitimate targets."
...Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala told the Jewish Chronicle on the question of Jews being an legitimate target, "completely unacceptable. I just hope people were confused by the question, otherwise it is very disturbing."
Jewish leaders have called for seeking better dialogue with Muslims.
"None of these responses surprises me at all," said Dr Richard Stone who is active in interfaith dialogue and is chair of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. "It's a demonstration of how urgently work is needed to bring Jews to meet Muslims."
- Friday, February 10, 2006
- Elder of Ziyon
The brave Fatah greenhouse guards should be commended. After all, they managed to avoid robbing what they were meant to guard for months.Some 200 dunams of greenhouse space in the Gaza Strip were ransacked recently by dozens of armed Palestinians and residents of Khan Yunis.OK, one more time: The Palestinians have 52,000 paid "security" personnel. Why exactly do they have to outsource the mission of guarding greenhouses to terrorists?
International donors had purchased the greenhouses from evacuated Gush Katif settlers for the benefit of the Palestinians.
According to Palestinian and international sources involved in running the greenhouses, the armed robbers belonged to two militias, the Assistance Committees and the Popular Army, affiliated with former Palestinian ruling party Fatah. These militias had been hired by the Palestinian Authority to guard both the ruins of the former settlements and the greenhouses, which were all under cultivation. But instead of guarding the greenhouses, the guards decided to rob them.
According to the sources, the robbers used bulldozers to break the iron
supports of the buildings' frames, then swarmed over the equipment inside, which included piping and irrigation computers. The damage to the greenhouses, which are meant to provide employment for hundreds of Palestinians and increase the PA's exports, is irreparable, the sources added.
The incidents were accompanied by exchanges of fire between the militias and Palestinian policemen, in which several policemen were wounded.
However, the police were unable to halt the robbers.
This is not the first time Palestinian vandals have attacked the greenhouses, but the previous incidents caused less damage.
It is a trick question, of course. The paid security personnel are also terrorists.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
