Hillary's speech on Islamists

On Monday night, Hilary Clinton gave the keynote address at the National Democratic Institute's 2011 Democracy Awards Dinner. Her speech has been much discussed since then.

Let's look at what she actually said:

How will America respond if and when democracy brings to power people and parties we disagree with?

We hear these questions most often when it comes to Islamist religious parties. Now, of course, I hasten to add that not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.

Now, reasonable people can disagree on a lot, but there are things that all parties, religious and secular, must get right—not just for us to trust them, but most importantly for the people of the region and of the countries themselves to trust them to protect their hard-won rights.

Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do. We applaud NDI for its work to arrive at a model code of conduct for political parties across the political spectrum and around the globe. We need to reinforce these norms and to hold people accountable for following them.

In Tunisia, an Islamist party has just won a plurality of the votes in an open, competitive election. Its leaders have promised to embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women. To write a constitution and govern, they will have to persuade secular parties to work with them. And as they do, America will work with them, too, because we share the desire to see a Tunisian democracy emerge that delivers for its citizens and because America respects the right of the Tunisian people to choose their own leaders.

And so we move forward with clear convictions. Parties and candidates must respect the rules of democracy, to take part in elections, and hold elective office. And no one has the right to use the trappings of democracy to deny the rights and security of others. People throughout the region worry about this prospect, and so do we. Nobody wants another Iran. Nobody wants to see political parties with military wings and militant foreign policies gain influence. When members of any group seek to oppress their fellow citizens or undermine core democratic principles, we will stand on the side of the people who push back to defend their democracy.

Clinton seems to be watering down the definition of "Islamist." The term itself is somewhat controversial, but I believe that a pretty good starting point for a definition is the one Wikipedia uses for Islamism: A set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system.

Now, Islam itself no doubt is a political system. Islam is not a personal religion but an encompassing worldview. So a more accurate definition for Islamism would be "a set of ideologies demanding that Islam be the basis of a political system instead of a personal religion." Or, simply, political Islam.

Given this, Clinton's statement about "faithful Muslims" is a red herring. Muslims in a democracy who accept the fundamental tenets of personal freedoms and equal rights are, by definition, not practicing Islamism. And the analogy with Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism is silly, as no one is seriously threatened by any political versions of those religions taking over any countries.

So here is the problem. Clinton is saying that the US would only support "Islamist" parties who accept freedom of religion, respect the rules of democracy,support full rights for women and so on. But if they do that, they are not Islamist by definition!

However, Clinton said that the Ennahda party in Tunisia has promised to "embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women." How can that be?

Because it didn't win a majority of the votes!

Islamists are nothing if not strategists. They are quite willing to compromise on their core principles in order to form coaltions, they are willing to set aside their beliefs in order to obtain leadership positions. But those are tactical moves. Their overall strategy remains the same, to ultimately use Sharia law as the basis for all legislation in the country - not only for personal laws governing marriage, for example, but also for foreign policy, for national initiatives and for everyday circumstances. If Ennahda won a majority vote, you can be certain that women would be barred from many jobs by law.

This speech betrays a fundamental flaw in American thinking on foreign policy.

Chances are that Clinton doesn't even believe what she is saying but the desire to work with Islamist parties that are distasteful outweighs, in the opinion of the State Department, the option of marginalizing them.

It is worth looking at history though. Three times in recent decades have Islamist parties been democratically elected to leadership roles.

In Turkey, the Islamists have been slowly dismantling the aggressively secular government policies of their predecessors.

In the Palestinian Arab territories, Hamas has forcibly taken over Gaza and freedoms are almost non-existent. It is literally inconceivable that Hamas would voluntarily give up their power base in Gaza in any agreement with the PA or as a result of any election.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has been maintaining their own separate militia and are well on their way to destroying a vibrant multicultural society.

The track record of democratically elected Islamists is very, very bad.

And time is not on the side of liberal democrats who espouse freedoms.

(Barry Rubin is much less charitable than I am about this speech.)

Read More

Hezbollah slowly taking over Lebanese army - and planning new kidnappings

Mako reports an analysis by the Northern Command of the IDF on the latest from Lebanon.

According to IDF sources, the number of Shiites who are joining the Lebanese army has dramatically increased in recent years. In the past, the senior command was dominated by Christians but now some 40% of them are Shiite, and a majority of  junior officers are also pro-Hezbollah.

Also, while most of the Christians in the army are deployed in the central part of the state, the Shiites are concentrated towards the Israeli border.

Moreover, there has been a recent increase in the expansion of villages in southern Lebanon near the border with Israel. This trend intensified in the last year and a half, and many new buildings can be identified within a few hundred yards from the blue line. "Of course some of this expansion is natural, but there are exceptions where some structures we know are not innocent," said an IDF source. "There are more patrols in vehicles belonging to Hezbollah, more observations and more buildings used by the organization."

The reason is to make it easier to kidnap Israeli soldiers and hide them quickly. Even though Hezbollah has not made recent kidnap threats the way Hamas does, it is clearly still part of its strategy. The Northern Command says it is on the alert for such a scenario.

(h/t Yoel)

Read More

Anti-semitism on PA TV

From Palestinian Media Watch, quoting PA TV:

The golden dome [of the mosque] shines with colors of the sky, with the white of clouds, while the joyous holiday [Eid Al-Adha] is good to the residents. The light rain cleanses the steps of the foreigners [Jews] so that the feet [of Muslims] in prayer will not step on impurity.

The program helpfully show a clip of religious Jews while talking about the "foreigners' impurity."

Isn't it great that Allah sends rain so that fervently devout Palestinian Arabs can play soccer on the Temple Mount - using the Dome of the Rock as a goal - without their feet stepping on impurity?


Not to mention - volleyball:

Read More

Egyptian forfeits Taekwondo match with Israeli

Al Ahram reports that Egyptian Rowan Ali refused to compete against Israeli Sivan Fenster in the quarterfinals of the women's 47 kg category of the 17th Zagreb Croatia Open Taekwondo competition.

When Ali learned that her next opponent was an Israeli she withdrew from the competition.

Fenster won a bronze medal as a result.

Altogether the Israeli team won four bronze medals at Zagreb.

Usually one only sees Iranians refuse to compete with Israelis. The idea that a country ostensibly at peace with Israel would allow such behavior tells you more about Egyptian-Israeli relations than any political analysis can.

An Iranian champion did refuse to attend a medal ceremony where Israeli Liran Malachi received his bronze so as not to stand next to him on the podium.

Read More

A lexicon of the Middle East

A great article at FrontPage, cross-posted at Honest Reporting.

Excerpts:

I have come to realize just how difficult it may be to decipher news about the Middle East, Islam, Israel, the Arab World, and all these powerful and explosive issues of our times for those who rely on such media stalwarts as The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the major television networks, cable news, etc. for their information. For example, how is a person to ascertain whether the slayer of a family is a terrorist or a militant or a gunman or an assailant or an activist or a freedom-fighter?

So, purely as a public service, I have organized the following glossary of the most pertinent terms and expressions, as typically used in the above-mentioned news sources. I hope, insha’allah, the reader will find it helpful to unravel the Gordian Knot of language that is today’s (and yesterday’s and tomorrow’s) Middle East!

Aggression: Killing people who are trying to kill you.

Apartheid: The political/social system of the one and only country in the Middle East that integrates Jews, Beduins, Arabs, whites, blacks, Muslems, Ethiopians, Russians, Christians, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Bahai, et al.

“Apes & Pigs”: See “Jew” below.

Arab King: Military dictator.

Arab President: Military dictator.

Arab Prime Minister: Military dictator.

Arab Spring: Replacement of one dictatorship with another, with the help of Western money and media cheerleading.

Compromise: To give something palpable, such as land, in return for a promise not to keep on trying to annihilate you.

Developing Country: A country that is not developing.

Disproportionate Response: Winning.

Father of the Palestinian People: An Egyptian man, raised by his uncle, Hitler’s buddy, and one of the world’s most successful kleptocrats. (See “PLO” below.)

Hamas: The democratically elected government of Gaza whose founding charter calls for genocide.

Holocaust: That genocide that did not happen, but that the Jews orchestrated in order to steal Arab land, and that of which the Jewish presence in Palestine is worse than.

Moderate Palestinian Leader: Former KGB operative, Holocaust denier, and financier of Munich Olympic massacre.

Peace: War of attrition.

Peace Process: The dismantling of Israel.

Peace Talks: The avoidance of peace.

PLO: Organization created in 1964 to end the 1967 occupation.

Palestinian Authority: The world’s most successful kleptocracy.

Palestinian Hero: Murderer of children.

Zionism: The ideology of the Jews who aspire to control, dominate and take over the world.

Zionist: Someone who is worse than a Nazi.

Zionist Entity: That place that does not exist, as on Arab maps, but that must be destroyed.

There's lots more, read the whole thing.

(h/t Ruchie)

Read More

Another Israeli TV show being retooled for the US

From Deadline Hollywood:

The CW has bought Danny Hollywood, an hourlong project based on the successful Israeli half-hour series of the same name. Easy A writer Bert V Royal is writing the adaptation and is executive producing with Mark Harmon, Eric & Kim Tannenbaum and Martha Haight for CBS TV Studios. In the time travel fantasy-musical, a young documentary filmmaker travels back in time in order to prevent the death of her ’90s musical idol Danny Hollywood, and finds that the story is even more complicated than she thought. In the original, created and produced by Tmira Yardeni and Ori Gross, the 21st century documentary filmmaker travels back to 1968. The series aired 200 episodes on Yes Stars channel, more than tripping the channel’s average viewership over its run and garnering a 12% market share — six times the channel average — for its finale.

This is the third broadcast project based on an Israeli format this development season, joining CBS’ Life Isn’t Everything, a comedy based on the successful Israeli sitcom of the same name; and NBC’s adaptation of mystery drama Timrot Ashan, aka Pillars Of Smoke.

Here's a trailer created after season 1 in Israel. It looks like a fun show.


Wow, the Zionists really are taking over Hollywood. (Although the American adaptation of Traffic Light [Ramzor] was pretty bad and was mercifully canceled very quickly.)

Read More

UC Davis Jewish Studies Dept. hosts an academic fraud (updated)

A very disturbing article by Gail Rubin, co-chair of the Davis Chapter of StandWithUs,  at BlueTruth:

Some UC Jewish Studies programs seem to be part of the growing problem of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist bias on UC campuses. Consider the lecture sponsored by the UC Davis [UCD] Jewish Studies Program on October 21st.

The lecturer was University of London professor Gilbert Achcar, author of the controversial book, “The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives.” He was introduced by Diane Wolf, current chair of the UCD program, Professor Susan Miller, and founding chair, David Biale. Professor Miller praised Achcar and called his scholarship “courageous.”

Achcar may have been courageous in acknowledging the Holocaust was a uniquely horrifying event directed at Jews and that Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-Semitism and collaboration with Hitler were deplorable. But after these observations, he careened into anti-Zionist, anti-Israel charges and distortions. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, he argued that the Mufti’s Jew-hatred had little influence on Palestinian and Arab hostility to Israel. He dismissed evidence about the cross-fertilization of Muslim anti-Semitism and Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism as hyperbole and charged that Israel exploits the Holocaust and exaggerates the Mufti’s influence only for propaganda purposes.

More disturbingly, he has argued that the rise of Zionism in 1920, not prejudice, spawned Arab Jew-hatred, essentially accusing Jews of causing anti-Semitism. Indeed, in his book, he excuses the current popularity of the Czarist anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in the Arab world, arguing it must be read from an anti-Zionist, not an anti-Semitic, perspective.

Achcar minimized pogroms against and expulsions of Jews in the Arab world after World War II and after Israel’s reestablishment, equating their expulsion with the American internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He repeated anti-Israel clichés, denying Israel’s right to exist and referring to it as a “settler colonial project” built on “Arab land,” accusing Zionists of "ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians", and downplaying any suggestion of Pan-Arab racism toward the Jewish people.

Despite these tendentious charges, challenging questions were not welcomed during the Q & A. I was abruptly censored while attempting to establish facts to challenge Mr. Achcar’s skewed conclusion that the Grand Mufti’s anti-Semitism had only a minimal impact on both Jews and Arabs. Professors Miller and Biale angrily told me the questions were insulting and to either stop or leave the room. So much for free speech and scholarly discourse in academia.

She has more about the more general issue of problems at UC Davis' Jewish Studies that is worth reading, but I would like to concentrate on Achcar.

In July 2010, I looked a little at Achcar's book. Immediately I saw that his claim that Arab anti-semitism was a reaction to alleged Zionist expulsion of Palestinian Arab farmers, or as Rubin describes him at UCD saying that it only started after 1920, is laughable.

The first Arab attack on Jews in Palestine was in 1886 in Petah Tikva, a community built on swampland that did not displace any Arab.

A quote from an 1874 travelogue says ""Men in Palestine call their fellows 'Jew,' as the very lowest of all possible words of abuse."

From the Saturday Magazine, 1840:

The most distressed position in which the Algerine Jews have been placed, was when the country was under the military despotism of the Janissaries. Often when the Janissaries met them in the streets, they would beat and otherwise ill-treat them, without their daring to offer the least resistance; and their only resource was, to run away if they could. If any one among them dared to complain, the Cadi would ask the offending Turk why he had struck the Jew. "Because he spoke ill of our holy religion," would be the reply. This sealed the poor Jew's doom; he was immediately put to death, and his property confiscated to the State. When a Jew went to a fountain, he was obliged to wait until every Mahometan had left it, before he presumed to take a drop of water. A Jew passing before a mosque was often butchered by the populace, if he chanced to turn his head towards the sacred building. The Jews were excluded from all public places frequented by the Mahometans, with the occasional exception of the bazaars. When a Jew met a Turk in the street, he was obliged to salute him by bowing his head almost to the ground. The Turk would enter a Jew's house, eat, drink, insult the family, and take away anything he had a fancy to, without the master of the house daring to offer any remonstrance.

This dreadful state of persecution was somewhat mitigated under subsequent governments; but still Jews have always been treated at Algiers with the contempt which they so generally meet with in Mahometan nations.

Another book from 1857, talking about Jews in Sanaa:

These poor people are awfully oppressed. The Jew is the object of continued insult and oppression. If he passes through the streets, the very beggars may knock him down, and he dare not venture to resent the insult. He is even not allowed to call a Mohammedan by his true name, but in addressing him must give him the title, "My Lord."

While Arab anti-semitism was and still is far different from Christian anti-semitism, it was real and obvious to many observers who came through Arab areas in the 19th century. It is also worth noting, however, that Palestinian Christians imbibed in traditional Christian anti-semitism and in no small part influenced their Muslim neighbors in the decades that followed.

But Achcar is far worse than just being selective in his history. As I proved in my earlier post, he actually frequents anti-semitic websites and used at least one quote in this book that was directly lifted from neo-Nazi literature - the proof being that he misspelled the name of the source in the same way that countless neo-Nazi sites do.

And his interest in insulting anyone who asks hard questions did not start at UC Davis; he acted in a similar way at a talk he gave with another fraud of a historian, Shlomo Sand, at SOAS.

Why would UC Davis Jewish Studies Department give any respect for a quasi-historian who gives no respect to his adversaries or even to the truth itself?

UPDATE: A long critique of Achcar's book and his response can be seen here. (h/t Alice)

Read More

PLO admits it will lose the UN vote

From AP:

The Palestinian foreign minister admits for the first time there is not enough support in the U.N. Security Council for recognition of a Palestinian state,

This comes as the Security Council receives a report saying there's no consensus among the 15 members. Nine votes would be needed for approval, and any of the five permanent members could cast a veto.

The U.S. and Israel insist that a Palestinian state must result from negotiations.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki told The Associated Press Tuesday, "It is clear now, with the U.S. counter effort and intervention, that we are not going to have these nine votes." They can still apply to the General Assembly.

According to the current thinking, here is how the voting would go:

	Yes	No	Abstain
Bosnia			x
Brazil	x
China	x
Colombia			x
France			x
Gabon	x
Germany			x
India	x
Lebanon	x
Nigeria	x
Portugal			x
Russia	x
South Africa	x
UK			x
USA		x

Which leaves the PLO one vote short of its goal of embarrassing the US.

The next question is - what is their Plan B? Dismantling the PA? Another threat by Abbas to quit? Swallowing their pride and going to the General Assembly?

Because one thing is for sure. They have no plans to return to serious negotiations that would necessitate their compromising in order to get a state that even Israel would vote for. No, their need for independence is not that pressing.

They prefer stunts to peace.

Speaking of....what's going to happen to that symbolic chair that went on  a world tour? Or, for that matter,  that giant UN chair shown off in Ramallah?

I hope they end up on eBay.

(h/t CHA)

Read More

Syrian Mufti threatens West - but says it nicely

From Gulf News:

The influential Grand Mufti of Syria, Shaikh Ahmad Hassoun, was quoted as saying on Monday that President Bashar Al Assad may return to practising ophthalmology after he implements promised reforms.

"There is no such thing as president for life," the cleric, a close confidant of the president, told the German magazine Der Spiegel.

Al Assad is a UK-trained ophthalmologist. He left the profession to assume the presidency following the death of his father Hafez Al Assad in 2000.

Why, he sounds so moderate!

But then...

The Grand Mufti also warned against NATO intervention in Syria saying it "could lead to disaster and suicide bombings in western countries".

Hmmm. And who would be responsible for such a terror spree?

For that, we must go back an entire month:

Syria's top Sunni Muslim cleric has warned Western countries against military intervention, threatening to retaliate with suicide bombings in the United States and Europe if his country comes under attack.

Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun gave a speech and told the U.S. and Europe that "we will prepare suicide bombers who are already in your countries if you bomb Syria or Lebanon."

The state-appointed cleric and loyalist of Syria's embattled President Bashar al-Assad spoke to a delegation of Lebanese women who came to offer their condolences for his son's death earlier this month at the hands of unknown gunmen.

To the Western media, he uses a passive voice ("could lead to...") but to Muslim women he makes it clear who would make the decision to fight with terrorism ("we will prepare suicide bombers....")

If I didn't know that Islam was the religion of peace, I would have thought that this Grand Mufti was threatening the West with terrorism against innocent civilians.

Notice also that Hassoun clearly considers Lebanon to be just a part of Syria.

Read More

The IAEA report on Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions is released

The IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program has been released.

It details evidence, both direct and indirect, that Iran is actively working on all stages of a nuclear weapons program.

The summary:

52. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

53. The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.

The specifics are found in the annexes, which go through much detail on what is necessary to create nuclear weapons and specific evidence of how Iran is shown to be engaged in every one of those activities:

• Programme management structure
• Procurement activities
• Nuclear material acquisition
• Nuclear components for an explosive device
• Detonator development
• Initiation of high explosives and associated experiments
• Hydrodynamic experiments
• Modelling and calculations
• Neutron initiator
• Conducting a test
• Integration into a missile delivery vehicle
• Fuzing, arming and firing system

Intriguingly, the report alludes to some information that seems to have been obtained via espionage:

A Member State provided the Agency experts with access to a collection of electronic files from seized computers belonging to key members of the network at different locations. That collection included documents seen in Libya, along with more recent versions of those documents, including an up-dated electronic version of the uranium metal document.

Altogether, the IAEA has pieced together a very convincing - if sometimes irritatingly circumstantial - argument that Iran has been, and still is, actively working to develop nuclear weapons.

Read More

Iran: "Western 'soft war' uses media, narcotics, sex"

From Iran's PressTV via MEMRI. No translation needed!

Reporter: The hidden invasion - the term refers to a new type of war with very different weapons, weapons that are not made to kill, but are made to create doubts, plant ideas, and change ideologies. The Hidden Invasion exhibition was inaugurated on Wednesday in Tehran, with one aim.

Ali Gholami, Iran Aerospace Industries: The aim of this exhibition is to familiarize our people with the soft warfare that is taking place as we speak in the country and its tools.
...

Major-General Hassan Firoozabadi, Joint Chief of Staff Iranian Armed Forces: Our definition of soft warfare is using means to, first of all, separate man from his rationality, and control him through his animal instincts and feelings, and stimulants, such as narcotics and sex.

They use many means to put their plan into action. They use satellite TV, radio, magazines, pictures, Hollywood movies, and fashion, especially for the young, and articles that one gets attached to, like ornaments or signs on their backs, clothes, and other belongings.

This system, as a whole, tries to change a revolutionary Iranian, and separate him from his school of thought.

Military experts say that Orange Revolution, Ukraine, is a good example of soft warfare and how it works.

Reporter: Military officials here say that soft war is the base for any successful hard war, and without a soft war campaign, the occupying forces will face resistance by the people, and will be defeated sooner or later. 

So if I am reading this correctly, Iran's leaders consider their own message so weak that a TV show can counter decades of propaganda.

And who is behind Hollywood and the media again?

Read More

Apparently, the US does not accept the Green Line

From AP yesterday:

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a Jerusalem-born boy's challenge to U.S. State Department policy that prevents him from having his passport show he was born in Israel.

Middle Eastern politics and the battle between Congress and the president over foreign policy are at play in the case being argued at the high court Monday. The boy, Menachem Zivotofsky, and his parents, Naomi and Ari, flew in from Israel to attend Monday's Supreme Court arguments.

The Obama administration, like its Republican and Democratic predecessors, says it does not want to stir up anger in the Arab world by appearing to take a position on the ultimate fate of Jerusalem. Longstanding U.S. policy says the status of the city that is important to Jews, Muslims and Christians should be resolved in negotiations.

But lawyers for 9-year-old Menachem argue that the foreign policy concerns are trivial. Thirty-nine lawmakers from both parties are siding with the boy and his parents, defending a provision in a 2002 law that allows Israel to be listed as the birthplace for Americans born in Jerusalem.

President George W. Bush signed the much larger law, but said the provision on Jerusalem interfered with his power over foreign affairs, including the authority to recognize foreign states. Bush issued a signing statement at the time in which he said that "U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed."

Israel has proclaimed the once-divided city as its capital; the U.S. and most nations do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital.

Had Menachem been born in Tel Aviv, the State Department would have issued a passport listing his place of birth as Israel. The regular practice for recording the birth of a U.S. citizen abroad is to list the country where it occurred.

But the department's guide tells consular officials, "For a person born in Jerusalem, write Jerusalem as the place of birth in the passport."

In late 2002, Naomi Zivotofsky, Menachem's mother, showed up at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to get her baby a U.S. passport, one that listed Israel as his birthplace. After State Department officials refused her request, the family sued.

While the case is very interesting on a number of legal and political levels, there is one important aspect that is being downplayed.

Menachem Zivotofsky was born on the western side of the Green Line.

Whenever you hear anyone claim that the Green Line represents "internationally recognized boundaries" - which it never did - ask yourself why exactly the world does not recognize the parts of Jerusalem under Israeli control since 1948 to be officially part of Israel.

Whenever you hear that American leaders follow their "Zionist masters," ask yourself why both the current and previous administrations were so dead-set against recognizing any part of Jerusalem as being in Israel.

People who insist that Israel withdraw to "pre-1967 lines" seem to be selective in recognizing Israel's claim to the western side of that same line.

Either the Green Line is a fiction or it isn't. Saying that even the western part of Jerusalem is not part of Israel  - the official White House position for the past two administrations - is a fundamentally inconsistent position with stated US policy, and it makes one wonder how much Israel should trust its best friend.

Read More

Anti-semitic Iranian film is a hit

From Walla:

An Iranian film with anti-Semitic insinuations is recently gaining much publicity in Iran. "Saturday's Hunter", a film originally screened at a film festival in Tehran, is featured in many publications, local television networks and social networks.

The plot centers around Zionist Rabbi Hanan, an Orthodox Jew wearing a skullcap with long side curls, who takes on his grandson Benjamin to teach him to create a war machine to destroy all the nations. Little Benjamin completes the transformation that his grandfather wanted to make him into a fearless warrior. "You should not kill people," the grandson says and his grandfather answers: "Only Jews you can not kill."

Menashe Amir, Israel Radio commentator on Iranian affairs, said that prominent Jewish community leaders [in Iran] sent letters of protest to the government in response to the movie, but got no answer. The director of the film, however, sent them a strong response, arguing that "Judaism is a symbol of evil" and that "these films will continue and will be filmed in the future."

Here are two Farsi-language trailers:



(h/t Yoel)

Read More

Miniature Christian prayer box found in Jerusalem

From Ha'aretz:

Walk through the Christian quarter of Jerusalem's Old City and you'll see souvenir shops selling assorted varieties of small plastic Christian prayer boxes displaying miniature icons, usually Mary and Jesus, surrounded by a gold halo. Not far from those shops, Israeli archaeologists have discovered what may be the oldest miniature Byzantine prayer box to date, archaeologist Yana Tchekhanovets announced last week.

The discovery - made by Tchekhanovets and fellow archaeologist Doron Ben-Ami about a year ago during an Israel Antiquities Authority excavation in the Givati parking lot across from the City of David - sheds light on art in ritual in Byzantine-era Jerusalem.

The box, discovered in the Byzantine strata (324-838 C.E.) in the plaster between two floor tiles, is approximately half the size of a matchbox: 2.2 centimeters by 1.6 centimeters, and a few millimeters high. The inside contains delicate and partially erased drawings of Christian icons. With a little effort it is possible to discern a blurred feminine face and, on the bottom, a clearer male face. The colors used to make the icons have survived and shades of red, blue, brown and white are detectable, all against a delicate gold background.

"Never before have we held such an object in hand," said Tchekhanovets, who announced the discovery at an archaeology conference held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in conjunction with the Israel Antiquities Authority. "It's very exciting that we uncovered it," she said.

The big question revolves around the identity of the two icons in the prayer box. The likely answer, says Tchekhanovets, is that they are Jesus and Mary, but it is certainly possible that they could be other local saints who flourished in that era. Like the prayer boxes sold today in souvenir shops, its Byzantine predecessor was used as a personal ritual object that could be taken anywhere. When worshipers wanted to pray, they would open the box and pray before the icons, and it would function as a miniature church.

Of course, this object - from the 6th century CE - predates Islam.

And isn't it interesting that it was found in the City of David archaeological dig? Anti-Zionists like to charge that Israel's archaeology, and City of David in particular, is politically-motivated and meant only to find Jewish objects. Yet these hateful Zionists seem quite proud to have discovered a Christian relic.

And those Zionist archaeologists find and publicize Islamic-era finds all the time as well.

(h/t Dan)

Read More

Journalists agree to not embarrass Sarkozy, Obama over Netanyahu quotes

From YNet:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not "stand" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier "is a liar."

According to a Monday report in the French website "Arret sur Images," after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.

The communication faux pas went unnoticed for several minutes, during which the conversation between the two heads of state – which quickly reverted to other matters – was all but open to members the press, who were still in possession of headsets provided by the Elysée for the sake of simultaneous translation during the G20 press conference.

"By the time the (media) services at the Elysée realize it, it was on for at least three minutes," one journalist told the website.

This is a big story, and others are all over it. But there is another troubling aspect to the story that is being overlooked.

The conversation happened on November 3rd. The story was only reported yesterday, November 7th, and then only because a French media watchdog website broke the story.

Which means that none of the journalists who were there reported about this explosive story.

Why not?

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue."

He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

Ah, so it was an ethical thing. Because of "sensitivity."

While I cannot find anything in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics to preclude reporting on a story like this, I guess we should trust their judgment that some open mic stories are fair game and others are way over the line. (There was another time that Obama kept his mic open and journalists reported on what he said, but he didn't say anything embarrassing.)

Under the same circumstances, these ethical journalists would no doubt have kept quiet about similarly indiscreet comments from, say, George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, and they would have happily signed an agreement muzzling them from reporting them.

And there would have been no news reports about how outrageous it is for world leaders to demand that something embarrassing to them be kept quiet.

(h/t amiyena for Bush link)

Read More