Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Your crazy Uncle Ned

This month's Muslim outrage has been directed towards Scandinavians over the Danish newspaper printing cartoons of Mohammed:

Norway's Foreign Ministry was heeding a warning Monday from Islamic groups that want all Scandinavians out of Gaza. The groups claim the Scandinavians have offended them by printing controversial caricatures of their prophet Mohammed.
One Islamic group burned a Danish flag over the weekend.
PHOTO: REUTERS/Abed Omar Qusini
The first drawing, which showed the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb, appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten in September and was re-printed in a Norwegian Christian publication called Magazinet earlier this month. Islamic law forbids any illustrations of the prophet Mohammed, so the caricatures have spurred protests from Islamic countries and from Muslims living in Denmark.
One Islamic group demanded on Sunday that all Scandinavians leave the Gaza Strip within 48 hours. Armed members of another group, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, handed out pamphlets in Gaza encouraging Danes and Swedes to leave within three days.
Members of the al-Aqsa Brigade burned a Danish flag, and a Norwegian Foreign Ministry official said the ministry has alerted Norwegians to the groups' threats.

A year ago it was supposed Koran desecrations, the year before that it was supposed Israeli digging under the Temple Mount. There is no end of source for Muslim "outrage", often resulting in riots and deaths.

World reaction to these periodic outbreaks of insanity is interesting. The craziness of the Islamic world is taken as a given in Western reactions.

Geopolitics is partially based on the idea that Arabs and Muslims are completely irrational. Instead of treating them like normal adults who need to take responsibility for their actions, we treat them like your crazy Uncle Ned who makes a scene every Thanksgiving. We smile nervously, say whatever we need to say to calm him down for now, lock up the liquor cabinet and hope he doesn't drive into a crowd. And when he acts sort-of rationally, we fall all over ourselves complimenting him on not setting the table on fire.

So we now see entire nations and former world leaders who publicly condemn the horrible fact that free speech exists in some parts of the world and try to say the right things to avoid a billion Uncle Neds from getting more pissed off. Better to say a little white lie than to risk finding out what Ned could do when he becomes really belligerent. It never works, of course, but what else can we do?

The Arabs have perpetuated this idea of their own mass psychosis when it is convenient for them. How many times have we heard threats that the "Arab street" will rise up unless the West does whatever the Arab world demands this week? Isn't that the same thing as threatening to unleash a few million Uncle Neds?

There is of course a solution. It is to treat everyone as actual mature grown-ups, and when they act irresponsibly they should be punished, not rewarded or coddled. It seems like an obvious point when the Uncle Neds are running nations, but somehow the West can't quite figure this out.

They'd rather condemn the rational parties.

The Arafatization of Hamas II

From MEMRI, a Hamas leader on Al-Jazeera, in Arabic of course:

Hamas Leader Khaled Mash'al: "Some people believe it is impossible to combine resistance with politics. As long as we are an occupied people, resistance is our natural right."

[…]

"The Legislative Council is one of the Oslo Accords' political frameworks, but the Oslo plan is over. It is no longer effective, and no one follows it anymore, and I don't think our people will accept the revival of Oslo, after it has been buried and eulogized by all."

[…]

"We will not accept any formula that undermines some or all of our rights. In other words, we are committed to the liberation of the land and to Jerusalem. We will not agree to any kind of disregard [of our right] to Jerusalem. We are more committed to Jerusalem than Sharon and the enemy leaders. We are committed to the right of return and to our rejection of the settlements. We are committed to the resistance and adhere to its weapons. These are our choices and our fundamental principles, which the Palestinian people supported even before the elections. In the elections, I believe, the Palestinian people clearly demonstrated this support, in a democratic manner. No one should accuse us of being out of line or singing out of tune. There are internal Palestinian agreements. True, the Palestinian Authority was founded on the basis of the Oslo Accords. We recognize that this is a reality, and we will deal with it with the utmost realism, but without neglecting our fundamental principles and our rights. We will honor any agreement or commitment, as long as they benefit our people and do not infringe upon its rights. In other words, we will honor our Palestinian commitments, provided they serve our people and do not infringe upon its rights, and we will not accept dictates. This is, very clearly, our position. We are capable of maintaining this position, despite all the pressure. As for recognizing [Israel] and amending our charter - Hamas is not the kind of movement that succumbs to pressure. The occupation has no legitimacy. We will not recognize it, no matter how much time passes. We will never recognize the occupation as legitimate, and we will not give up on our rights. However, we are realistic, and we know things are done gradually, in stages."

[...]

"America may not recognize a certain country, yet it succumbs to reality. Today we, the Palestinians, do not recognize the legitimacy of the occupation, but this does not mean I want to abolish Israel in a matter of moments. I have a plan of commitment to my land and my rights."

[...]

"Succumbing to the will and pressure of others is unacceptable, but by our own decision, we can either calm or escalate the situation, depending on what is required at each stage. But if anyone expects Hamas to agree to take steps that it would not agree to in the past, I say clearly, brothers and sisters: We will not withdraw from our fundamental principles, from our rights and our strategic goals. The map of Palestine, for any Hamas member and for any Palestinian, is the well-known Palestinian map, just like any European or American - if you ask him about his country's map, he says to you: 'My country's map is this and that...' When they bring us someone from Europe or America who is willing to give up his country's map, and accepts a distorted map - come back to us then. The Palestinian rights remain intact. But we believe in acting according to stages, gradually and realistically, and we have the ability to obtain our rights, step by step. We will establish our state on any piece of land we liberate, providing we have real sovereignty over this land, Allah willing."

[...]

"There is a difference between regarding the period of calm as divergence from the resistance - which will never happen - and regarding the period of calm as one of the tactics of the resistance."

Now look at a description of the PLO plan in 1974:

The PLO was born with a committment to the destruction of Israel and in the early days of the organization, they would consider nothing other than that immediate objective. The October 1973 Yom Kippur War convinced the Arabs that they would not be able to destroy Israel through military action within its post-1967 boundaries. Thus they embarked upon a new three-stage strategy for Israel's destruction, embodied in the Palestine Liberation Organization's 1974 Political Program, commonly known as the "Phased Plan", adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council, held in Cairo, June 9, 1974.

The plan has three main articles:

Through the "armed struggle" (i.e., terrorism), to establish an "independent combatant national authority" over any territory that is "liberated" from Israeli rule. (Article 2)

To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory of the national authority as a base of operations. (Article 4)

To provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely ("liberate all Palestinian territory"). (Article 8)

The Phased Plan remains the basis of PLO actions, even in the era of the Oslo Accords. Speaking on September 1, 1993, just after the announcement of the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat announced on Radio Monte Carlo that the Oslo agreement:

...will be a basis for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Palestine National Council resolution issued in 1974... The PNC resolution issued in 1974 calls for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws or which is liberated.

In addition to the action plan against Israel, Articles 5-6 of the PLO plan call for a revolution in Jordan to establish a new Jordanian regime which will ally itself with the Palestinian National Authority. Historically, Jordan comprised the bulk of the territory of Palestine, and a majority of its residents are of Palestinian origin. The PLO has never recognized the legitimacy of the Kingdom of Jordan as a state independent of Palestine.

Warning about posting on newspaper sites

At least one on-line newspaper will publicly leak out the IP address of a person making a comment on an article. This means that if you say something provocative, you can end up inviting hackers to attack your PC.

Knowing this information would have a dampening effect on free speech!

Another academic idiot

Yet another example of a terror-sympathizer masquerading as an unbiased academic. This one is at the University of Wisconsin.

My impression from the entire interview is not so much that he is maliciously against Israel as he is brainwashed from his academic forebears. He strives so mightily to be "even handed" that he completely loses his sense of morality, equating Israeli actions aimed at terrorists to suicide bombs aimed at children.

He is speaking at an anti-war, anti-Bush group, which the newspaper could have mentioned a bit more clearly.

Interestingly, his academic profile says that his specialty is the Jewish population of Algeria during French Colonial rule, which actually sounds interesting. I'm not sure what to make of his love of "classical Arabic music."

If you’re looking for a better understanding of the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict then University of Wisconsin-Parkside historian Nathan Godley’s presentation on the topic is a must.

He will speak Thursday evening at the presentation sponsored by the Racine Coalition for Peace and Justice.

Godley, 34, joined UW-Parkside’s faculty last fall and teaches courses on World History, the Middle East and Islamic World, and imperialism. He also teaches classes on the Mediterranean and on post-colonial migration, as well as on various aspects of modern European history. His research focuses on the Jewish population of Algeria during French colonial rule from 1830 to 1962.

Godley holds graduate degrees in history from the University of Iowa and the Université Charles de Gaulle in Lille, France. He earned his bachelor’s degree in French and history from Keele University in his native England in 1993.

Recently Godley spoke with the Journal Times about the conflict and its history.

Where do the roots of the conflict lie?

To my mind, the roots of the present conflict lie primarily in the period between the two World Wars, when Great Britain had control of Palestine.

During this time, the British government, which governed the territory under a mandate from the League of Nations, allowed large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine.

This led to tens of thousands of Palestinian peasants being forced off their land, and allowed the Jewish community to build up both its population and the institutions that would later become the state of Israel. So this is when the two communities began to see each other as enemies and rivals for territory. (I have never heard about a single Arab who was forced off any land in Palestine before World War II. - EoZ)

If there had been some way back then to help Jewish immigrants integrate with less of a negative impact on the existing population, I think we would not have the depth of bitterness that divides the two communities today. (Yes, helping build the economy and providing jobs for more Arabs to immigrate to Palestine was some negative impact. -EoZ)

Of course, many of the Jews who immigrated at this time were fleeing racist persecution in Europe, and most Western countries — including the United States — shut their doors, so perhaps many of them might have gone elsewhere and lessened the pressure on an already crowded land. (Um, right now the land holds perhaps four or five times as many people as it did then. It must be unbearable. - EoZ)

Do you think people understand the problems?

I do not think that most people in America have a clear understanding of what drives the conflict. The U.S. media, as a general rule, does not report reliably on the climate of fear, bitterness, and anger that exists on both sides, and which feeds violence on both sides.

People make their judgments based on the images they get, which tend to focus on the Israelis as a heroic people struggling to survive, and to portray the Palestinians only through the desperate acts of terrorism that a few of them commit.

It is important to understand that elements on both sides commit horrifically violent acts against the others’ civilian population, and that, as a result, the majority of people on both sides is very fearful and angry about what the other side has done and might do to them on future.

It’s much easier for us to say that one side is “good” and the other is “evil” than it is for us to understand that both sides basically want to be able to live a normal life, but each is very angry at and afraid of the other. (And one elects leaders who advocate the genocide of the other. - EoZ)

And this is a history teacher.

Shin Bet (Israel Security Services) head Yuval Diskin said Sunday that Iran was considering giving financial aid to the Palestinians if Europe and the US cease funding the Palestinian Authority in light of Hamas's victory in the PLC elections.

Sometimes, I hate it when I'm right.

The Democracy Pandora's Box

News-First Class (Hebrew) reports (translated by Daily Alert):

Islamic movements throughout the Middle East are lifting up their heads after Hamas's election victory.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan is demanding "true democracy" from the Jordanian king in order to win in elections there, and is threatening a popular uprising if the government continues to ignore "the will of the people."

Here is another case where the President's mantra of "democracy" is boomeranging on him. The Egyptian elections were purposefully rigged, seemingly with the support of the US, to limit the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood; Jimmy Carter is enthusiastically supporting the new "moderate" Hamas; and now Jordan is in the sights of Islamic fundamentalists, using "democracy" as the argument.

It isn't democracy that is needed; it is freedom. If these Muslim states can live for a decade or so with a truly free press, equal rights for women, and the ability to criticize without fear, and then they decide they would rather live in a Shari'a state, that's democracy. Pushing democracy on people who are clueless about freedom is counterproductive and could be tragic.

Freedom should have been the stated goal all along, because now the US just looks hypocritical.

UPDATE: I saw this article after I posted:

Wednesday's Palestinian election, hailed by the world for passing without incidents of violence, was not the same as democracy, Likud Knesset candidate Natan Sharansky told The Jerusalem Post outside the Knesset on Sunday.

Sharansky, who wrote the influential bestseller The Case For Democracy, said that there should have been a process of democratization in the Palestinian Authority that culminated with an election, instead of holding an election that he said came instead of real democratic reforms.

"Democracy isn't hocus-pocus; it's a process," Sharansky said. "An election between a terrorist organization that wants to destroy the state of Israel and a corrupt dictatorship that does not care about helping its own people is not democracy. The results of the election were clean but it has nothing to do with democracy."

The Arafatization of Hamas

Hamas is starting down the road well-worn (and successfully managed) by Arafat.

Until the Islamic 'ummah is self-sufficient, it requires the West and it needs to speak soothing words to the West. The West, especially the media and the EU, is so starved to hear the words it wants to hear that it will happily and uncritically listen to whatever the terrorists say. And the terrorists, in turn, have learned what key words they need to say to feed the insatiable desire to feed the "peace at all costs" cult of the West. If they lie enough, more and more people will believe it.

This week's Newsweek International amazingly and disgustingly gives an uncritical and uncommented forum to a terrorist, paving the way for European pressure on Israel in a few weeks or months to reward the "moderation."

"Just Be Fair With Us"
By Muhammad Abu Tir

Feb. 6, 2006 issue - My message to the West—to America, to Europe, to everybody—is this: Hamas wants peace. We hate bloodshed and killing. We don't want to fight. There is a verse in the Qur'an that says whoever kills one soul kills all souls. And whoever brings life to people brings life to a nation.

Our problem is with the Israeli occupation. Israelis are killing our children. The West has been oppressive, too. You are biased toward Israel. You support Israel. You are capable of telling Israel, "Enough." You are capable of telling Israel to withdraw. Why is the West concerned about the security of Israel and not concerned about our security?

Stop your support for Israel. Stop calling us terrorists. This policy creates a feeling of oppression. The feeling of oppression can lead to disaster. I don't want to reach that stage. If the United States were occupied, would the people put up with such a situation? In World War II, when the Japanese planes hit Pearl Harbor, America was not quiet. It reciprocated by hitting Japan with a nuclear bomb. Just be fair with us.

The European Union and America should cooperate with us. We have ways of creating understanding among our people. We are facilitators, helpers, aides. The presence of Hamas is a guarantee of safety and stability in the region. Any money that is given to us will be channeled to the correct path. It's better than giving your money to greedy people. The poor have never seen that money whatsoever; it goes only to the swollen bellies. We are honest people. Whatever money we receive, it will go to that purpose. We would use it for education, for social work, for establishing infrastructure, for health institutions, for poor people, for orphans. It would go to the lower levels of society.

Don't be afraid that we'll use the money to buy arms. We can always find arms on the black market. It is obvious that we have built our military infrastructure in that way. Our weapons are the only guarantee of our existence. If a proper Palestinian state were established, then all the militias would melt inside the Palestinian Army.

We are open to the world. But the PLO has negotiated with Israel for 30 years. And what did Israel do? It did not reciprocate. Shimon Peres has said that if Hamas gives up its arms, we will negotiate. They have said the same thing to the PLO before. Does Shimon Peres want another 30 years for us to negotiate with them? We would be happy to work under the Irish model. But is Israel prepared to respect our political wing? Is Israel ready for such a formula?

The West has nothing to fear from Hamas. We're not going to force people to do anything. We will not impose Sharia. Hamas is contained. Hamas deals only with the Israeli occupation. We are not Al Qaeda.

ABU TIR is a former militant who ranked No. 2 on the Hamas list of candidates in last week's elections.

What kind of a "news" source gives a terrorist an unfiltered opportunity to manipulate the morons of the left? Only one that subscribes to the same agenda to an extent.

How can any self-respecting "news" organization do such a thing? No follow-up questions. No pointing out the obvious lies. No irony in its description of Tir as a "former militant." Nope - let him talk about fairness when he wants to utterly destroy Israel, let him talk about children when he indoctrinates them in hate, let him talk about how he hates fighting when his charter glorifies it, let him talk about how he has no problem with the West when he celebrates 9/11, let him talk about orphans when he created hundreds of Jewish orphans, let him talk about a "feeling of oppression" when he sends rockets to communities in Israel and human bombs into pizza shops, let him talk about not being al-Qaeda when both organizations sprang from the same Muslim Brotherhood and they share exactly the same goals.

Don't bother interviewing him - just let him write his own news. Newsweek will be happy to publish it. Because Newsweek is fair, doesn't believe in oppressing him, and supports the orphans. Because Newsweek would occasionally allow someone who is against wiping Israel off the map to write an article. It's only fair, right?

Already we are seeing articles where Hamas obliquely proposes a temporary "truce" with Israel as long as Israel capitulates completely to the Islamic 'ummah. These articles don't mention suicide bombings or rocket attacks - that is so 2004. We need to be fair with the terrorists, give them a chance, surely they will reform, they're just like us. Except for Bin Laden - he's still bad, because he didn't limit his targets to Jews.

The cult of the "Peace Process"

Rarely has there been a real-life doublespeak term as egregious as "the peace process." Just in Googling the news from only today, I see 248 entries using that term - invariably without the scare quotes.

Hamas' win "casts a pall" over the peace process, we read.

What exactly is the "peace process"?

It is, bluntly speaking, the process where Israel dismantles itself "piece by piece" in exchange for empty Palestinian Arab promises. Israel concedes land, outsources its security to third parties who don't care about Israel's security, and is asked to arm those who want to destroy it. In response, Israel gets vilified that it hasn't done nearly enough and it gets rewarded with more international pressure to give more and more in exchange to a people who cannot even stomach a map of Israel anywhere on their territory. Occasionally, Israel does get some temporary diplomatic benefit as a result of a concession - but never any from the supposed "peace partners." )

There is nothing remotely peaceful about the "peace process." It directly led to more Arab bombs and more terror than before. It emboldened terrorists to kill Jews. It also led to more Palestinian Arab deaths than before this "peace process" started.

Any process that causes thousands of deaths can hardly be called "peaceful." Any objective observer would see immediately that the life in the disputed territories and in Israel proper were much more peaceful in the 12 years before Oslo compared to the 12 years since, including the first intifada - both for the Palestinian Arabs and for the Palestinian/Israeli Jews.

And yet the world drinks from the Kool-Aid of the supposed "peace process" and is up in arms at the realization that the Palestinian Arabs freely elected a slate of candidates who have no interest whatsoever in peace, or even in pretending to want peace (which would be enough to further the charade.)

Here's where the cognitive dissonance kicks in. Since the only hope for peace is the peace process, the reasoning goes, we need to find a way for a bunch of murderers and thugs and terrorists to pretend to moderate a little bit so we can get the process of Israel giving up more land to them back on track.

The Fatah-led PA was enthusiastic about the "peace process" as long as it doesn't involve any actual peace for any Jews that happen to live in the neighborhood. That was enough for the world - they were on board with the agenda.

But now we have people who not only reject Israel's existence (like the PA) but also reject the hallowed "process", too! What a shame! What a tragedy! Only Jewish "extremists" act in such ways!

There are many potential problems with Hamas leading the Palestinian Arabs, but the death of the "peace process" is not one of them. It has caused nothing but grief and pain to thousands of people on both sides.

Real peace agreements involve real, tangible, and irreversible concessions on the part of both parties. Real peace, itself, more often than not is the result of a crushing defeat in a war and an imposed solution to the vanquished.

The "peace process" was always a farce, a triumph of wishful thinking over reality, a willfully blind denial of truth. And if its adherents would be honest with themselves, they would realize that it would never end until Israel doesn't exist any more.

Hamas poses great threats to Israel's and the world's security. But we should not mourn the death of the fake "peace process."

JIB jab

OK, I have not once asked for votes for the JIB awards and I'm not going to start now, despite this blog's abysmal performance in the voting for Best Designed Blog.

But to see Cross-Currents in first place in this category?

I just asked the esteemed Daughter of Ziyon her opinion of the CC design, without telling her that it was in first place, and she said, "Honestly? Ewwww."

It is plain, it is boring, and worst of all - it has ugly ads tacked on to the side.

It is certainly readable and it is far from the worst blog designed out there, but, come on, people! Vote for a blog that actually deserves the award, like Jewlicious or The View from Here!

Not that I would complain if you want to tell DoZ how much you like her design....

(I am not kvetching about the awards themselves, of course, but how could I resist that title?)

The day's best pun: ותמלא הארץ חמס

Thanks to Blog HaMincha, which is an excellent pun as well.

(To those who don't understand Hebrew: It is a quote from Genesis 6:11. In English it is translated as "and the earth was filled with violence." The Hebrew word for violence in this verse is "Hamas.")

Interesting Holocaust article on alt.muslim

A flawed but illuminating article from a Muslim perspective about what the author claims represents the Muslim role in the Holocaust:

By Mas'ood Cajee, January 27, 2006

Six decades on since the slaughter of World War II and the Nazi holocaust, we hear extremist voices alternately exploiting or denying the Holocaust for political gain. By warping our memory of the Shoah (the Hebrew word for the Holocaust), both exploiters and deniers miss the stark, vital message of the Holocaust and its heroes - those who displayed uncommon moral courage in the face of evil.

Holocaust exploiters

A growing chorus of voices which exploits the Holocaust for political gain has been trying to smear Muslims - and Arabs in particular - with grand accusations of complicity in the Holocaust and support for the Nazis. These voices serve hawkish interests in Israel and the United States who wish to justify and legitimize continued war, violence, and yes - even genocide - against Muslims and Arabs. Identifying Muslims with and as Nazis eases the task of selling continued bloodshed to war-weary publics. Reading the books and op-eds of the smearers, one could almost conclude absurdly that the Nazi holocaust was an Arab Muslim and not a European Christian project. As evidence, the smearers usually trot out the pro-German Mufti of Jerusalem Amin Al-Husayni and the Bosnian Muslim SS "Handschar" division.

What these smearing Islamophobes don't like to tell you: the "Mufti" was actually an appointee of the Jewish administrator of British Palestine who completed one measly year at Al-Azhar and betrayed the Ottoman Sultan to join the British. The much-vaunted "Hanschar" SS division - disbanded after a few months due to mass desertions - was the only SS division ever to mutiny. Because they are allied to the power establishments in Israel & the United States, the Holocaust exploiters generally keep mum about American, Jewish, and Zionist complicity in the Holocaust. They aren't currently touting the cruel, forced 1939 return from Miami of the Jewish refugee ship SS St. Louis to Nazi Europe. Or that elites in the Anglo-American sphere widely admired Adolf Hitler throughout the 1930s - George Bush's hero Winston Churchill first condemned Hitler only five years after he came to power. Or that elements of the Jewish and Zionist leadership collaborated with the Nazis - as documented by Hannah Arendt and other Jewish historians (who called their actions "the darkest chapter of the whole dark story"). Or that today, Israel ironically dangles the specter of Holocaust - in its Nuclear avatar - over the mostly Muslim peoples of the Middle East.

Holocaust deniers

On the other side, too many Muslim and Arab intellectuals and leaders continue to fail in adequately addressing the Nazi holocaust and its implications for today in meaningful, humanitarian terms. Two recent examples include the Muslim Council of Britain's daft refusal to participate in Britain's annual Holocaust Memorial Day and the public indulgence in Holocaust revisionism and labeling of the Nazi holocaust as "myth" by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood chief Muhammad Akef. Deep-seated, knee-jerk anti-Zionism and the continuing occupation of Palestine have unfortunately blinded many Arabs and Muslims to the historical reality and legacy of the Nazi holocaust.

An intelligent and compassionate regard for the victims of the Nazi holocaust - Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled, and others - on the part of contemporary Muslims is critical for preserving ethical and communal integrity, for a just resolution of the Palestinian question and for the future - if there is to be one - of Western Muslims. Instead, the Holocaust remains a historical blindspot in Arab and Muslim discourse, and as a result it has become a potent political weapon to be exploited at will by those who view Palestinians and Muslims as enemies.

Holocaust heroes

In their perversion of memory, Holocaust deniers and exploiters share another moral ugliness. Both insult the memory of the countless Muslims who risked or gave their lives to rescue Jews threatened with extermination by the Nazis. The stories of the Muslim rescuers of Jews are largely unknown and unpublicized. Only in the past fifteen years have Holocaust researchers brought a few to the public's attention.

Several Muslims (whose stories of heroism and courage we know) have since been honored by Yad Vashem and other Holocaust memorial groups as Righteous Gentiles. They include: the Bosnian Dervis Korkut, who harbored a young Jewish woman resistance fighter named Mira Papo and saved the Sarajevo Haggadah, one of the most valuable Hebrew manuscripts in the world; the Turk Selahattin Ulkumen, whose rescue of several dozen Jews from certain death at Auschwitz led to the death of his wife Mihrinissa soon after she gave birth their son Mehmet when the Nazis retaliated for his heroism; the Albanian Refik Vesili who - as a 16-year-old - saved eight Jews by hiding them in his family's mountain home.

Most Holocaust historians would agree that Muslim Europe - Albania, Bosnia, and Turkey - responded courageously and righteously, especially in comparison to Christian Europe. While there were Muslims who collaborated with the Nazis, they were the exception and certainly not the rule. In addition, in North Africa the Sultan of Morocco, the Bey of Tunis, and the Ulema of Algeria all lent support to their beleaguered Jewish countrymen.

Continental Europe's only independent Muslim country - Albania - was also the only European country to have a larger Jewish population at the end of the war than at the beginning, according to Miles Lerman, a former director of the US National Holocaust Museum. Harvey Sarner, a Jewish American in awe of the Albanian Muslim response, penned the telling book "Rescue in Albania: One Hundred Percent of Jews in Albania Rescued from the Holocaust".

There were many Bosnian Muslims, especially in Sarajevo, who saved the lives of their Jewish compatriots. Indeed, the Jewish community in Sarajevo owed its very existence historically to the centuries-old Ottoman Muslim policy of providing sanctuary to Jews fleeing European Christian persecution.

Republican Turkey thankfully followed that same Ottoman tradition of rescue and sanctuary. Due to its neutrality during most of World War II, and its unique geographical proximity to both Europe and the Middle East, Turkey and Turkish diplomats living abroad played an important role for European Jews in danger during World War II and the Holocaust, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Muslim-majority Turkey rescued over 15,000 Turkish Jews and over 100,000 European Jews.

Like their Christian counterparts, the Muslim men and women who rescued Jews during the Holocaust are among history's true heroes, whose stories we should be telling our children and grandchildren. They represent the best of the Abrahamic and Islamic tradition and spirit. May He grant us true moral courage like them in the face of hardship and adversity. May God - the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful - free us of denying or exploiting the suffering of others.

Of course I have to strongly disagree with his characterizations of "Holocaust exploiters." The author minimizes the role of the Mufti of Jerusalem, the enthusiasm with which the Islamic world accepted German-manufactured anti-semitism, and he ignores the fact that the Arab world recruited Nazis to finish their job when Israel was born. This is not to accept his strawman that the Muslim world was a critical or even major component in the Holocaust; obviously the Nazis and willing European anti-semites didn't need any Muslim help in their quest for the utter destruction of all Jewish men, women and children. His points about European and American indifference to Hitler are well-known and utterly irrelevant in his attempt to minimize Muslim Jew-hatred.

It is also beyond obscene to characterize anything Israel does as "genocide", making the author guilty of his own accusation of exploiting the Holocaust.

It is a sad commentary to the Muslim world that even with these problems, the author is about as reasonable as one can find in the Islamic world, and the thrust of the article is an important one.

His points about Albania, Turkey and the Muslim "righteous gentiles" are well taken and do indeed deserve to be publicized to a wider audience. I was not aware of many of these details and they are an important chapter in the history of Europe during the '40s.

The nightmare Hamas scenario

My initial lack of concern over the Hamas victory may be premature. I had forgotten one of my own recent blog themes.

There is a way for Hamas to refuse to talk to Israel, ignore Western economic pressure, stay true to its Islamist roots and to appear to help the Palestinian Arabs in their day-to-day lives.

And the answer is Iran.

Iran would be overjoyed to have an Islamist fundamentalist terror statelet right next to Israel. It will provide more than enough money to offset the shortfall from any chance of the EU refusing to give aid to a terror group. It would increase Iran's influence and further its goals of being the world Islamist power. It would help Iran's popularity among the faithful, and it will solidify Iran's leadership role as the major threat to the West and eventual Islamist world domination.

As long as the world is willing to pay huge amounts of money to Iran for oil, the world will end up subsidizing the Hamastan terror statelet. For only a billion petrodollars a year, Iran can replace the EU, UN and US funds. (And the European twisted logic will then continue to find ways to give money to Hamas as a way to "maintain influence" over a bunch of thugs.)

Iranian missiles in Gaza could reach all of Europe.

Ultimately, Iran views Hamastan as the perfect delivery vehicle for nuclear weapons - an entire "nation" that would happily vaporize itself to destroy Israel.