Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Camera: Gun-running Bishop in Flotilla

Retired Archbishop Hilarion Capucci joined the Free Gaza Movement's aid Flotilla to the Gaza Strip on the Mavi Marmara.

To Reuters he said:

"Our trip to Gaza was a trip of love and God was with us. Israel by its actions had rightly drawn world outrage over its brutality against unarmed people carrying a message of love to an innocent occupied people under siege."

However, Reuters does not fail to mention in this article that this "peace-loving" Bischop was imprisoned by Israel in 1974 and later deported.

Camera has more and dug into his past:

Capucci was arrested by Israeli police on Aug. 18, 1974 and charged with smuggling weapons into the West Bank. The following day the New York Times reported that Capucci, who was born and raised in Syria, was accused of “acting as undercover liaison man between Al Fatah guerrilla group [in Lebanon] and Palestinian guerilla cells” in the West Bank [see also the article below as published in Star-News - Aug 19, 1974 , Suz.] . According to a Times summary, police reported that

large quantities of weapons and explosives were found hidden in his Mercedes sedan in Aug after he returned from visit to Lebanon. Source says Capucci was associated with abortive incident in May during Sec Kissinger's visit in which 3 Katyusha rockets were aimed at the center of Jerusalem. Rockets were discovered before they went off.

Later that month (Aug. 24), the Times reported that Capucci had allegedly told Israelis that he was “forced into guerrilla service by threats of blackmail.” Capucci told the Israelis that he was threatened with physical violence and “the disclosure of actions that might jeopardize his position” within the church. The Times also reported that Capucci faced charges of being accessory to murder because three men who were accused of murdering a Jerusalem taxi driver obtained their weapons from one of Capucci's drop points.

During the trial, Capucci refused to give a statement or sworn evidence because he said Jerusalem was Arab territory and that “Israeli law does not apply in the city” (New York Times, Oct. 30, 1974).

Eventually, Capucci was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He spent two years in prison before the Israeli government released him after a special request from the Vatican. On Nov. 4, 1977 the Washington Post reported from Jerusalem about Capucci's impending release:

Demands for Capucci's release have turned up regularly in the lists submitted by airplane hijackers, including the Entebbe hijackers, but where the threats have failed, a personal letter from Pope Paul has apparently succeeded. …. The price Israel extracted from the Vatican for Capucci's release was a personal letter from the Pope which, according to officials here, contains some admission of Capucci's guilt and the acknowledgement that he received a fair trial. At the very least, sources said, the letter cannot be construed as a denial of his guilt. The appeal is being made on humanitarian grounds.

The understanding with the Vatican, according to Israeli sources, is that Capucci will not be allowed to make propaganda for the Arabs against Israel and that he is to be posted to a place outside the Middle East.
….

There seems to be very little question that Capucci was in fact smuggling arms for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and at least one Israeli is thought to have died as a result. The PLO denies his guilt and has declared him a martyr, but privately many PLO members do not bother to deny his guilt and deplore his carelessness in getting caught.
.…

Capucci has been held in the maximum security prison in Ramleh since his conviction, according to diplomatic sources who have visited him, and has been accorded better treatment than the average prisoner.

Israel's demand that Capucci would not propagandize was likely a response to a letter he wrote from prison which was published in a number of venues including the Journal of Palestine Studies. In the letter, Capucci portrays Israel as violating and desecrating the Holy Land, undermining the Al Aska Mosque and violating the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. “Our most precious land has been desecrated and we have shuddered with repulsion to see it happen.”

Upon his release from Israeli prison on November 4, 1977, Capucci was assigned to serve Melkite communities in Latin America (Washington Post, Dec. 23, 1977). “His assignment to a post outside the Middle East was thought to be a condition of his release,” the Post reiterated.

On May 8, 1979, the Washington Post reported that Capucci “surprised the Vatican and irked Israel by attending a Palestine Liberation Organization Meeting in Damascus. The Vatican reportedly has told Israel it will try to keep him out of the Middle East.”

During the Iran hostage crisis, Capucci was sent to Iran to ascertain the condition of the Americans held in Tehran. His presence was not welcome by the American hostages. On Jan. 29, 1981 the New York Times reported the following about Capucci's visit to the hostages in Iran:

From his home in Olyphant, Pa., Michael J. Metrinko, political officer, criticized Archbishop Hilarion Capucci of the Melkite Church of the Eastern Rite. He said the Archbishop, who made one trip with Father Rupiper [another priest who had visited the hostages], had seen a few well-treated prisoners ''and spent the rest of the time enjoying himself with the guards.''

''I tried to tell Capucci what things were like, and he just went into a diatribe about how bad things were in Israeli prisons,'' Mr. Metrinko said.

Hilarion Capucci, man of peace.

Such a peaceful man, indeed! At least he admits he did not serve the years he should have served in jail. To the Brisbane Times he said:

''They warned if I tried to return again they would lock me up for the eight years of the jail sentence which I did not serve,'' he told the Herald.

''I would prefer to be in a small jail in Palestine than in the bigger prison of exile.''

Israel let him go, though.

Google translates its caption as:

"The pilothouse of the rope to where the ships are waiting to here with the three Israeli commandos in the brawl took place between a group of volunteers. In the melee one soldier was trying to cast into the sea, but some groups opposed to it. Neutralizing the soldiers return, then downloaded to the hall on the second floor."

How believable is that version of the story after seeing this?

Look carefully at 0:28. I'm starting to believe that the picture they took was of the soldier right of the soldier who was thrown overboard. What do you think?

"Enjoy the 'Bridge'" - Turkish op-ed slams Erdogan's love of Hamas

From Burak Bekdil at Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper (English edition):

From the first day under the rule of an Islamist elite, Turkey was bound to be a “Muslim bridge between the East and East.” It is becoming one, if it was not already. Those Western diplomats who wholeheartedly believed in the bridge between the West and East tale… those who wholeheartedly believed in the “Turkey-is-an-honest-broker-between-Israel-and Hamas/Syria” tale deserve the finest of all decorations and promotions for their incredible prophesy and reason, including early retirement and postings to challenging capitals such as Bujumbura, Belmopan, Malabo, Suva, Melekeok, Sao Tome and Nuku’alofa (though they are lucky I am not anyone’s minister).

Forget the silly “bridge talk.” The inescapable truth is that Turkey as an honest broker between Israel and Hamas or between Israel and Syria is tantamount to Israel as an honest broker between Turkey and Israel.

A few days ago, the Washington Post reminded its readers that Hamas had killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings and other attacks, and that most Western countries considered it a terrorist organization. But what does the chief engineer of the bridge between the West and East think of Hamas?

At a public rally where anti-Israeli emotions were running high, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shouted loud and clear that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Its members are, Mr. Erdoğan argued at the weekend, resistance fighters. The prime minister’s justification is that Hamas cannot be a terrorist organization because it was democratically-elected.

That could be a dangerous precedent. I think the immediate and wisest thing for the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, to do is to run for the next Turkish elections under the name PKK. Murat Karayılan and his comrades in arms will be recognized as democratically-elected politicians and not terrorists by Mr. Erdoğan when they comfortably win seats in Southeast Turkey.

What, then, makes the Israeli government a “terrorist state” in the eyes of Mr. Erdoğan? Did the Israeli government seize power by force? Was it not “democratically elected?”

In the meantime, what did the head of the “humanitarian aid organization” that spearheaded the Gaza flotilla tell a crowd that looked more like an army of jihadists than volunteers? Listen to Bülent Yıldırım, “the ace” humanitarian activist:

“Last night [the night of the Israeli raid on the flotilla] everything in the world changed, and everything is progressing toward Islam. Anyone who does not stand alongside Palestine – his throne will be toppled!”

See, typical humanitarian aid activist language. I am sure the believers of the bridge tale will also believe Mr. Yıldırım is the Muslim reincarnation of Mother Teresa.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t DM)

"The One About Hamas" (video)

Here is satire that contains more truth than a thousand sober op-eds

From No Laughing Matter:

(h/t Daled Amos and some commenter I can no longer find.)

Two of the dead "humanitarians" were in the Khaybar rally

Suzanne noticed, and I agree, that two of the people who were killed on the Mavi Marmara have a strong resemblance to the two people to Osama Qashoo's left on the video of the pre-flotilla, anti-Jewish "Khaybar" rally. One is Ali Haydar Bengi and the other is Cengiz Songur.

They were sitting in a semi-circle, with Qashoo in the middle:

At the 0:30 point, we see two people who strongly resemble two of the dead:

But I'm sure that they were very "humanitarian" as they called for the massacre of Jews.

HuffPo logic: "People who support Israel are anti-semites"

Sam Sedaei, a self-proclaimed "International Civil Resistance Trainer," has written a nonsensical article for the Huffington Post that asserts that people who support Israel are anti-semites.

Say what?

Israel was established following World War II and the wake of horrific crimes against the Jews by the Nazis and other axis powers. It was created as a Jewish state based on the rationale on the part of advocates of modern Zionism that historically, Jewish people have always been the subject of persecution, and hence, they can never be safe anywhere else but in a Jewish homeland.

The same people who are vigorous supporters of Zionism are also the ones who speak out fiercely against any action that implies a deep-seated hostility toward Jews. But if one thinks about it, this is counter-intuitive. The very reason why Israel is a Jewish state--a theocracy, like Iran, rather than a melting pot democracy like the United States, or Turkey--is because Zionism itself is based on the notion that Jewish people are different in some sense than non-Jews. Why else would one believe that Jews and only Jews can never be safe anywhere in the world and must have their own homeland? Ins't [sic] one really then arguing that there is something that is different about Jews, which makes them subjects to persecution?

How much stupidity can fit in such a small space?

First of all, Israel is no theocracy. It is not governed by Jewish religious law. The fact that Sedaei makes this assertion as fact shows his ignorance right off the bat.

Secondly, this is a neat inversion of truth. If Jews have been persecuted by others throughout history (undeniable fact) and if Jews want to stop that from happening (undeniable fact) then the Jews must think they are special and different by wanting some measure of self-determination to protect themselves from being slaughtered (ridiculous.) No, Sam, it is the people who hate the Jews who are saying that Jews are different.

Thirdly, the implication that Zionism says that "Jews and only Jews" must have their own homeland is a straw man. Why would Zionism be against a homeland for Kurds, Armenians, Tibetans or any other persecuted, cohesive group?

And here is the second question: Those who support Israel as a Jewish state are also the most vocal in their condemnation of anti-Semitism. But once again, those two are also contradictory concepts. How can one at once argue that there should be no anti-Semitism and then claim that anti-Semitism is the reason why Israel should forever be a Jewish State? How can one at once pretend to fight anti-Semitism with the implied belief that it can be eradicated and then support a state that was created with the justification that anti-Semitism can never be eradicated elsewhere in the world and accepts anti-Semitism as an ineffaceable human phenomenon?

Sedaei is saying that people who are working to eliminate bigotry in this world cannot do anything concrete to protect the people being persecuted - because any practical steps would imply that the bigotry will never be eliminated, which is in his twisted mind a contradiction.

The idea that one can try both to protect the persecuted from being slaughtered at the same time that one tries to convince the slaughterers to become nice, peaceful people is perfectly consistent, and not contradictory at all. It would be like saying that a school bully cannot be punished as well as given sensitivity training, because punishment implies that he cannot be changed while the training would.

Meanwhile, let the kids on the playground be terrorized.

I wonder - would Sedaei say that his exact same arguments would mean he is against Kurdish independence?After all, by the fact that they want their own country it implies that they think they are special, right? How déclassé.

He drives his non-point home by asking these supposedly pointed questions meant to uncover the huge hypocrisy of Zionists:

Nonetheless, the real questions are for those who accuse Helen Thomas of anti-Semitism. Do these individuals believe anti-Semitism can ever be eradicated?

Not in the foreseeable future.

If they do, how can they support Israel as a permanently Jewish state?

Because even if it does happen, it won't happen for a very long time.

And if they believe Jews must have special rights in the Jewish state, are they saying that Jews are inherently different in some way from non-Jews?

No, they are saying that Jews should enjoy the exact same rights as other nations do in their own respective countries.

Doesn't that make them the real anti-Semites?

No, but these questions make me wonder about other people.

Apparently, Sedaei thinks that people who have breast cancer should not get mastectomies, because that implies a belief that breast cancer can never be cured. It is therefore hypocritical to separate the cancer from the body rather than to work really, really hard to eradicate it.

Better to be "consistent" and let the cancer kill you, because only then would you have the respect of idiots like Sedaei.

The failure of the media to get the flotilla background right (Landes)

Richard Landes writes a devastating piece for Pajamas Media showing how media sloppiness ends up helping those who support terror.

It centers on a CNN interview with one of the "activists," Osama Qashoo:

As a flotilla of boats heads towards Gaza to break the blockade, CNN has anchor Rosemary Church perform an interview with a participant from one of the boats, “Free Gaza” activist Osama Qashoo. The report has so many flaws, it’s hard to list and analyze them all. (For the entire interview, click here.)

Let’s focus on the main flaws.

The Nature of the Flotilla

Eight hundred “peace activists” and 10,000 tons of supplies. We’ll return to the “peaceful” nature of the activists, but even on the matter of the supplies, she merely parrots the statistics proffered by the organizers. A little research suggests that they’ve been exaggerated by at least a factor of two, and now that the Israelis have unloaded it, I’m guessing closer to a factor of five or ten. As for the organizations involved, the monikers — humanitarian, human rights — are clearly what the groups themselves have to say about themselves, not what CNN, after researching and passing judgment, discovered.

Take, for example, the IHH. This is a group that even the Islamist government of Turkey found too radical for its taste, with ties to al-Qaeda and other organizations that target civilians (of all faiths) as a major tactic in their jihad. Second, it’s an unindicted co-conspirator to groups found guilty of helping plan terror attacks in the U.S. It’s fairly easy to find information on the web that makes it clear how inappropriate “humanitarian group” is for this organization.

Mind you, it’s not out of character for CNN anchors to characterize various organizations negatively for their audience if they don’t like them. Jim Clancy repeatedly refers to AIPAC as the “right-wing, pro-Israel lobby.”

Having misstated the context dramatically, Church then interviews Qashoo. This occupies over six minutes of an eight-minute piece. Not only does Church let Osama carry on at length, she only challenges him with canned Israeli responses.

Apparently the claim that Israelis are acting like Nazis and Gaza is a concentration camp is not a problem for Rosemary.

So rather than challenge his comparison of Israel to the Nazis and Gaza to a concentration camp, Rosemary reads him Mark Regev’s comment that Gaza is not in a state of humanitarian crisis and asks for his response — which essentially is a repeat of his previous remarks, with emphasis on “love for the whole world.”

By this point in time, the footage of the fellows on Qashoo’s boat singing a jihadi song — promising the Jews that Muhammad’s army was coming back to do to them what he did to the Jews of Khaybar (i.e., massacre the men and sell the women and children into slavery) — was released.

And if she, or anyone else at CNN, had done their homework and looked carefully, they would have seen Osama himself waving his fist with the rest of the peace-loving group.

In other words, Qashoo is a particularly unambiguous case of a demopath: someone who presents himself and his companions as pacifists and lovers of humanity even as he chants jihadi songs about wiping out whole populations. Even to Church he shows his hand, by claiming that nothing will stop them, and that they will treat the Israelis as pirates if they try. Demopathy is perhaps jihad’s greatest weapon, precisely because we are so receptive to claims of good will and peaceful intent. Identifying demopaths is one of the most pressing needs of the 21st century, and one of the reasons for that importance is that behind the demopathic façade that invokes human rights and respect for the Muslim minority lies another reality.

Read the whole thing.

The "humanitarian" with ties to Bin Laden (Zvi)

Zvi has put together a portfolio of one of the "humanitarians" aboard the Mavi Marmara, with some serious ties to terrorism:

One of the British participants on the Mavi Marmara included Abdullah Anas [1] (using his birth name, Boudjema Bounoua [2]) and his 19 year old son Muhammad.

Anas co-founded the Office of Services (Maktab al-Khidamat, or MAK), the precursor of al Qaeda, with his father and Osama bin Laden, whom he knew personally [4]. He also helped to start a group that sent jihadis to fight in Bosnia & Herzgovina [4]. He then ran an MAK branch that funded this activity. He sits on the Council in Exile of Algeria's FIS.[9]

Anas is the son-in-law of Sheikh Abdullah Yussuf Azzam, Osama bin Laden's mentor. Azzam co-founded MAK (see above) and helped to start Hamas [5]. Azzam adhered to the bloodiest end of Islamic extremism; his slogan was "Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, no dialogs."[6]. Aside from bin Laden, Azzam supervised the PhD thesis of Mullah Krekar (who later led the Kurdish terror group Ansar al-Islam)[6]. He believed in the "defense of Muslim lands"; not even a handspan of land that was ever controlled by Muslims must be allowed to remain in the hands of infidels. Unlike bin Laden, who had other priorities, Azzam wanted to focus on destroying Israel.

Azzam's daughter Sumayya (Anas' wife, Muhamad Bounoua's mother) is herself an extremist. She has expressed a willingness to sacrifice Anas and all of her 5 children for Allah. Anas brought his 19 year old son Muhammad on the Mavi Marmara. His 17 year old son Ahmed now wants to join the next convoy. Sumayya supports this, naturally, now that she sees what a wonderful career opportunity it represents: instant credentials in the jihad business.

This "peace activist" family reside in the UK, which granted them political asylum. I'm not sure if this happened as a result of Anas' participation in the FIS or whether it happened because Anas gave reports critical of bin Laden[7]. However, Anas is said to maintain close links with the Taliban and al Qaeda.[8]

Azzam was assassinated in Pakistan, though who killed him is a mystery. His death gave bin Laden control of MAK.[10]

Sources:
[1] http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177457

[2] http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001117.html

[3] http://www.speroforum.com/a/33949/ProPalestine-protesters-denounce-Israeli-raid
[4] http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=boudjemaa_bounoua_1

[5] http://slate.msn.com/id/2064385/

[6] http://www.pwhce.org/azzam.html

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Anas

[8] http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/11-us-involved-in-secret-talks-with-senior-taliban--il--06

[9] http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/about/show_jihad_film.html

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Azzam

Arab article moans Turkish and Iranian co-opting of Arab causes

Abdel Bari Atwan, writing in Al Quds al-Arabi, says that the recent events on the flotilla as well as out of Iran show that the Arab world is impotent to do anything on its own, and that the Turks and Iranians are acting as more effective leaders of Arabs than the Arab countries themselves.

To be sure, he knows that these moves are political, as using the Arab street to accomplish your goals is an old and well-known tactic. Nevertheless, he notices - as do ordinary Arabs - that the people who are in the forefront of the Arab cause are non-Arabs.

And, by Arab cause, he means - the fight against Israel.

He compares the Arab world today to the Ottoman empire in its dying days during World War I, when it was divided and making deals with the West. Their desire to work with the US and Europe are an insult to Arabs who are brought up to hate the West and it leaves them vulnerable to these other Muslim nations to take the mantle of anti-Israelism from the Arabs.

Erdogan's apparent standing up to Israel is striking a chord in the Arab world, even though his country still has relations with Israel. Arabs, after decades of feeling impotent, are attracted to a leader who appears to hold to his convictions.

And, while the author doesn't say this, the only example he can find of a pan-Arab ideal is the pure hatred of a Jewish state.

Details of Israel's interrogation of Marmara passengers leak out

Israel's Intelligence and Terror Information Center, which has close ties to the IDF, has released a report that discusses in some detail the real story behind the Mavi Marmara, based on unreported IDF investigations in the days following its capture.

(Past experience has shown that the ITIC has been highly accurate. It is a far cry from Debka, for example, which has a more checkered track record.)

The upshot is that there was a core of about 40 IHH members who, with Turkish government support, unofficially took over the Mavi Marmara and planned the clashes with the IDF.

Their summary:

1. An initial analysis of statements taken from passengers aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara after it was towed to the port of Ashdod show that operatives belonging to the radical Islamic Turkish IHH1 led the violent confrontation with the IDF.

2. The statements confirmed that the violence met by the IDF soldiers was not spontaneous but rather an organized, premeditated action carried out by a hard core of 40 IHH operatives (among the 500 passengers). The operatives, who acted according to a clearly-defined internal hierarchy, boarded the ship in the port of Istanbul without undergoing a security inspection (as opposed to the other passengers, who boarded in Antalya after a full inspection).

3. The IHH operatives’ preparations included handing out walkie-talkies as they boarded the ship, taking over the upper deck, setting up a situation room for communications, and a briefing given to the operatives two hours before the confrontation by IHH head Bülent Yildirim, who was on board the ship and commanded his men. IHH operatives wore ceramic vests and gas masks, and were armed with large quantities of cold weapons which they had prepared from equipment found on board (knives, axes, metal cables, metal pipes used as clubs, wrenches, etc.). They were also equipped with box cutters which had been prepared on the upper deck in advance.

4. The passengers, including the IHH operatives, stated that there were close relations between the organization and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and that the Turkish government was involved in preparations for the flotilla. The statements reinforce the original assassment that the objective of the flotilla was not merely to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, but focused on provocation and a violent confrontation with Israel.

Interesting details:

* The Turkish prime minister Erdogan would not have been elected without the help of the IHH.

* " During the voyage a group of IHH operatives supervised the ship. IHH guards were posted in the passageways and did not permit passengers to reach the upper deck. They also limited the movements of the crew, who needed permission from the IHH men to go from one place to another."

* Eight of the nine killed were IHH operatives and volunteers (including an IHH journalist.)

There has been criticism in Turkey as well concerning the ties between Erdogan and the IHH.

As far as the accuracy of the passenger "eyewitness testimony," YNet reports on the firestorm in Egypt over an Egyptian passenger that detailed how the IHH took IDF soldiers captive:

A storm has been kicked up in Egyptian media after experiences on the flotilla are recounted. The version of events on the Gaza-bound flotilla as heard by an Egyptian member of parliament have evoked the ire of a number of state-run media outlets in the country because, they claim, the stories help Israeli PR efforts.

An Egyptian member of parliament from the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Beltagy, took part in the flotilla to the Gaza Strip that was commandeered by the Israeli Navy. After participating in the clashes on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, he was arrested by Israel and later released to Egypt.

On Tuesday of last week, he was interviewed on the "10 at Night" program on the Egyptian channel Dream. During the interview, he said that the flotilla participants overtook three Israeli commandos and snatched their weapons from them. This admission of employing force against IDF soldiers has evoked a media storm among Egyptian columnists, who claim this was a "public relations gift to Israel."

In other words, there is a usually unspoken rule in the Arab world not to say anything that could help Israel, especially if it is true. Pseudo-"peace activists" adopt the same rule as their hatred of Israel is what colors all of their actions, not their desire for helping Gazans.

The main factor that has helped Israel confirm its narrative has indeed been Muslims whose cultural desire to show their manliness in resisting the IDF outweighed their realization that this very testimony of supposed IDF weakness is really a clear demonstration of initial IDF restraint. The Free Gaza folks wouldn't fall into that trap because their own fake public narrative is that they are against all forms of violence - but Arabs and Turks have cultures that celebrate militancy and abhor any appearance of weakness, ironically making their testimonies more accurate.

(Update: deleted a sentence - I misunderstood a part of the report.)

Saudi clerics want adults to breastfeed - to reduce temptation

From AOL News:

Women in Saudi Arabia should give their breast milk to male colleagues and acquaintances in order to avoid breaking strict Islamic law forbidding mixing between the sexes, two powerful Saudi clerics have said. They are at odds, however, over precisely how the milk should be conveyed.

A fatwa issued recently about adult breast-feeding to establish "maternal relations" and preclude the possibility of sexual contact has resulted in a week's worth of newspaper headlines in Saudi Arabia. Some have found the debate so bizarre that they're calling for stricter regulations about how and when fatwas should be issued.

Sheikh Al Obeikan, an adviser to the royal court and consultant to the Ministry of Justice, set off a firestorm of controversy recently when he said on TV that women who come into regular contact with men who aren't related to them ought to give them their breast milk so they will be considered relatives.

"The man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman," Al Obeikan said, according to Gulf News. "He should drink it and then becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam's rules about mixing."

Obeikan said the fatwa applied to men who live in the same house or come into contact with women on a regular basis, except for drivers.

Al Obeikan, who made the statement after being asked on TV about a 2007 fatwa issued by an Egyptian scholar about adult breast-feeding, said that the breast milk ought to be pumped out and given to men in a glass.

But his remarks were followed by an announcement by another high-profile sheik, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, who said that men should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman's breast.

Shortly after the two sheiks weighed in on the matter, a bus driver in the country's Eastern Region reportedly told one of the female teachers whom he drives regularly that he wanted to suckle milk from her breast. The teacher has threaten to file a lawsuit against him.

Under Islamic law, women are encouraged to breast-feed their children until the age of 2. It is not uncommon for sisters, for example, to breast-feed their nephews so they and their daughters will not have to cover their faces in front of them later in life. The custom is called being a "breast milk sibling."

But under Islamic law, breast milk siblings have to be breastfed before the age of 2 in five "fulfilling" sessions. Islam prohibits sexual relations between a man and any woman who breastfed him in infancy. They are then allowed to be alone together when the man is an adult because he is not considered a potential mate.

"The whole issue just shows how clueless men are," blogger Eman Al Nafjan wrote on her website. "All this back and forth between sheiks and not one bothers to ask a woman if it's logical, let alone possible to breastfeed a grown man five fulfilling breast milk meals.

"Moreover, the thought of a huge hairy face at a woman's breast does not evoke motherly or even brotherly feelings. It could go from the grotesque to the erotic but definitely not maternal."

Al Nafjan said many in the country were appalled by the fatwa.

"We have many important issues that need discussing," Al Nafjan told AOL News Friday. "It's ridiculous to spend time talking about adult breast-feeding."

The original adult breast-feeding fatwa was issued three years ago by an Egyptian scholar at Egypt's al-Azhar University, considered Sunni Islam's top university. Ezzat Attiya was expelled from the university after advocating breast-feeding of men as a way to circumnavigate segregation of the sexes in Egypt.

A year ago, Attiya was reinstated to his post.

It is only a matter of time before we start hearing about Saudi lacto-porn.

Sorry about two posts in a row about sucking. (Three, if that's your opinion of the NJ terrorist/Juiceman.)

(h/t OBOZ & co)

Syria at UNHRC: "Jewish kids sing of sucking Arab blood" (UPDATED)

From the Vancouver Sun:

Syria on Tuesday accused Israel of indoctrinating its children with hatred towards Arabs, telling the United Nations Human Rights Council that Israeli youngsters sing about sucking Arab blood, and learn how to sign missiles destined for military activity against Arabs.

The tirade, delivered by Syrian diplomat Rania Al Rifaiy, was part of a Syrian appeal at the world body for countries to unite behind a campaign to "put an end to Israeli brutality."

"Hatred is widespread, taught to even small children, who are taught to use weapons, and who are taught to sign missiles that will be fired at Arabs," Al Rifaiy said

"Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school: 'With my teeth I will rip your flesh, with my mouth I will suck your blood.'"

Come on - "blood" and "flesh" don't even rhyme!

This is, of course, the same Human Rights Council that the current US administration has joined, rather than treat it with the contempt it so richly deserves.

But to me, when I hear the phrase "teeth ripping flesh" and "sucking blood" together, I am reminded not of Israeli children, but - Syrian girls!

As I mentioned a while back, Syria used to have annual celebrations of the Yom Kippur war, featuring Syrian girls ripping apart live snakes with their teeth and then eating them, as well as soldiers breaking puppies' necks and drinking their blood, while President Assad watched and smiled his approval.

I have the video of the Syrian Snake Eating Girls. (You only have to watch the first two minutes. Warning: Very gruesome.)

Can you say "projection"?

UPDATE: I had heard rumors about Syrian soldiers breaking the necks of puppies and then ripping their flesh with their teeth as well. This very poor quality video seems to show it (they start with eating scorpions, then snakes, and finally what appears to be a living puppy or other small animal.) The apparent puppy murder starts at about the 6:30 mark. Warning: Very gruesome.

The Juiceman is arrested

A while back, a lot of the blogosphere was enjoying this picture taken at a Muslim demonstration:

Well, the Jawa Report is saying that this hater is none other than Carlos Almonte - one of the would-be jihadists who were just caught trying to go to Africa to fight Americans!

Almonte had posted it on his Facebook page.

Some of his defenders have stated that he really doesn't hate all juice, just the ones with pulp. In fact, some of his best friends are said to be juice - but the righteous, clear kind, the kind that is watered down so much that it is indistinguishable from any flavored water. His pals are saying that he only hates the juice that looks and tastes like juice.

Orange and grapefruit juices are much more skeptical, saying that when he says "death to all juice" he really means all juice, and it would be foolhardy not to take him at his word. His defenders, however, say that this is merely a cultural thing, and not to take it seriously. Even some of the clear juices themselves are vociferously defending Almonte and attacking the slanders from the 100% juices. Certainly, they proclaim, clear watery juice has no reason to be worried, as they cannot possibly be mixed up with the pulpy, opaque kind - it looks more like water, or maybe Kool-Aid, and how can Almonte even consider killing all juice when he might end up killing some innocent Gatorade instead?

Kuwaiti Journalist: The Flotilla Was Violent; Israel Has a Right to Defend Itself

Kuwaiti journalist 'Abdallah Al-Hadlaq supported Israel's decision to stop the Gaza flotilla in the daily Al-Watan, saying that the outcome of the Israeli navy's operation was "in direct proportion to the violence" of the flotilla activists, and that the flotilla organizers are known to have ties with global and regional terror organizations.

The following are excerpts:[1]
"The Weapons had Clearly been Prepared in Advance... and the Soldiers had No Choice but to Respond"
"The Israeli navy gave repeated warnings to the ships [of the flotilla], which tried to break the blockade on the terroristic Hamas movement in Gaza, and also invited them to enter the Ashdod port and unload their cargo of 'aid' supplies, so it could be thoroughly examined by the security [forces] before being delivered by land to the Gaza Strip. When the flotilla failed to heed these warnings and requests, the Israeli navy had no choice but to take over the ships. [In doing so], the IDF troops encountered violent [opposition] that had been planned in advance: the flotilla participants assaulted them with firearms, metal pipes, knives and clubs, and grabbed the rifle of one of the soldiers. The weapons had clearly been prepared in advance... and the soldiers had no choice but to respond, including with live fire.
"The Israeli navy operation was conducted according to orders and instructions of the highest political echelons, [and aimed at] stopping the ships and keeping them from breaching the naval blockade and reaching Gaza. The warning message sent by the Israeli navy [to the Mavi Marmara] was as follows: 'To the captain of the [Mavi] Marmara: You are approaching an area of hostilities, which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza coastal area and Gaza Harbor are closed to maritime traffic. We invite you to enter the Ashdod port, from whence the aid supplies will be delivered through the formal land crossing [to Gaza], after which you can return to your home ports."[2] It should be noted that, according to the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel retains control of a 40-kilometer strip of water off the Gaza coast."

"The [Flotilla] Organizers are Supporters of Movements and Organizations such as [Global] Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda"
"The flotilla, which was supported by the terroristic Hamas movement and tried to breach the blockade on this movement in Gaza, was a preplanned provocation against Israel. The grave outcome [of the takeover] was in direct proportion to the violence [employed by the flotilla activists] as they tried [to breach the blockade]. The [flotilla] organizers are supporters of movements and organizations such as [global] Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda, and have a black record in terms of smuggling arms and [perpetrating] terror operations. And indeed, the Israeli forces discovered on the ships weapons and ammunition that had been prepared in advance.
"The naval blockade on the Hamas movement in Gaza is legal in light of this movement's actions in the Strip. Had Israel allowed the flotilla – which was not legal – to reach the Hamas movement, it would have opened a route for smuggling weapons and terrorists into the Gaza Strip. No sovereign country would allow its citizens or its sovereignty to be harmed. Moreover, the attempt to force a path to Gaza by sea does not [really] benefit the people of Gaza, since the land crossings are sufficient for [the purpose of] supplying their needs. International aid organizations provide Gaza with all the necessary food, clothing and medical [supplies]. Over 15,000 tons of basic aid supplies enter the Strip every week. Construction materials enter it under the supervision of international organizations, in order to prevent the terroristic Hamas movement from commandeering them and using them for building military fortifications. The land crossings are the most efficient way to deliver supplies to Gaza, and the flotilla organizers know this perfectly well. They also know that since December 2008, their ships are not allowed to approach [the Gaza coast].
"The protests and demonstrations that broke out in various capitals are without meaning or value, as are the emergency summits [convened by] the Arab League, the E.U. and the U.N. The wave of protests will not change a thing, but a full and immediate investigation of the events will reveal all the details of what really happened... and [then] everyone will know the truth about the Hamas movement..."

Endnotes:
[1] Al-Watan (Kuwait), June 3, 2010. It should be noted that, at a June 4, 2010 rally, Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah said that some papers in the Gulf had published papers supporting the IDF raid on the flotilla, but their authors were a minority that would be taken care of by people of honor. Al-Safir (Lebanon), June 5, 2010.

[2] The full message of the Israeli navy was as follows: "You are approaching an area of hostilities, which is under a naval blockade. Gaza coastal area and Gaza Harbor are closed to maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in Gaza Strip and invites you to enter Ashdod port. Delivery of supplies will be in accordance with the authorities' regulations and through the formal land crossing to Gaza and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports." The reply was: "Negative, negative. Our destination is Gaza."

Away from computer - open thread

Will be away from my desk most of the day. Posting from a phone just ain't fun.

Feel free to post anything new. Although i do admit to being a bit sick of the word "flotilla."

Even if it tripled my readership.