Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Prince Charles and the Terror Sheikh

Prince Charles is in Egypt to accept an honorary degree from Al Azhar University. While there, Charles addressed terror:

REFLECTING on how a terrorist outrage shattered his own life as a young man, the Prince of Wales spoke last night of his “heavy heart” at the death and destruction he sees in the world as he called for a greater tolerance between faiths.
Arriving in Egypt at the start of only his second official overseas tour with the Duchess of Cornwall, the Prince spoke of how the murder of his mentor Earl Mountbatten, who was blown up while out fishing with his family in Ireland, had given him a personal insight into the impact of terrorism.

“I find my heart is incredibly heavy from all the destruction and death that occurs,” he said. “I know so well from having experienced the horror of terrorism myself, in losing my beloved great-uncle Lord Mountbatten back in 1979 when he was blown up in a terrorist bomb. I do have some understanding I think, a little, of what people go through with these horrors.”

He and his wife listened to the a sheikh at the university speaking. The speaker was in fact it is Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi:

That name may sound familiar. As Robert Spencer points out:

George W. Bush knows that Islam is a religion of peace because Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi said so. Two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the President told the United Nations that Tantawi, "the Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic institution of higher learning, declared that terrorism is a disease, and that Islam prohibits killing innocent civilians."

But Tantawi seemed to change his mind shortly thereafter. Spencer mentions the MEMRI report about Tantawi, quoting an Al-Azhar website:

The great Imam of AlAzhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, demanded that the Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [i.e. suicide attacks] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the highest form of Jihad operations. He says that the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all."

"[Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat…"

So Prince Charles is happily accepting a doctorate from someone who explicitly advocates and praises the murder of innocents, and also praising his brand of Islam.

And as far as I can tell not a single UK newspaper has bothered pointing out this fact.

European dance magazine supports suicide bombers

From YNet:

The world of dance is in an uproar: British magazine Dance Europe was accused last week by the London Jewish Chronicle of politicization and racism after the magazine refused to publish an article on Israeli dance troupe Dance Drama, whose choreographer is Sally-Anne Friedland.

Several weeks ago journalist Stephanie Freid approached the editors of Dance Europe about writing a piece on Dance Drama. Freid notes that after interrogating her about Dance Drama’s views on the occupation, editor Emma Manning “told me they had allowed an Israeli advertisement once, but only with a disclaimer saying it disapproved of the occupation.”
Manning told the Jewish Chronicle that “as an editor, I am entitled to choose what to print.” The magazine’s head of advertising, Naresh Kaul, was even more explicit: “We are opposed to the occupation. If any company in Israel cooperates with us by adding a disclaimer saying it is opposed to the occupation, settlements and everything else, we will cooperate with them.”
The list of artists and troupes that appears in Dance Europe makes no mention of Israel. Under “Palestine”it lists the El-Funoun dance troupe from Ramallah. In response to a question from the Jewish Chronicle about whether the Palestinian troupe was required to condemn suicide bombings, Kaul stated that “there’s a reason for people to become suicide bombers. Their land has been occupied.”

This season's Top 10 Conspiracies in the Arab and Iranian Press (NY Sun)

From the New York Sun's "MEMRI Report" (Steven Stalinsky):

10) "Israeli security organizations are in efforts to spread flagrancy and corruption among young [Iranians] to harm the Islamic establishment" and Israel has been behind the smuggling of liquor into Iran, the Islamic Republic News Agency quoted an Iranian police commander, Colonel Hossein Abdi, as saying on January 31. A Syrian government daily, Teshreen, on January 8 quoted the Iranian foreign minister condemning an unnamed Zionist company "that published certain cards insulting Muslims and their religious traditions in Iran."

9) "The U.S. propagates a long-term plan for conflict with Muslims. The plan designates no countries, cultures, [or] history ... It is war against some unidentifiable mass entity, where the only visible landmarks are vital ports and strategic natural resources," the Syrian minister of expatriates, Bouthaina Shabban, wrote in a February 22 column in the London Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

8) America instructed some Muslim countries to "eliminate" verses from the Koran, Ayatollah Nuri Hamadani told elite members of the Iranian military, according to a Tehran Iranian Labor News report released the first week of January.

7) An article in the Egyptian government Al-Ahram Weekly of March 2-8 by Khaled Amayrch reported on Israeli religious political party platforms for dealing with the Palestinian Arabs: "enslavement whereby non-Jews living under Jewish law are forced to become 'water carries and wood hewers,' expulsion, or outright extermination."

6) Turkish Muslims discovered America, according to documents presented by a Turkish professor, Ruat Sezgin, who founded and chairs the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, at the Association of Written Heritage office in Tehran on February 5.

5) "British Hand Behind Ahvaz bombings," a headline published by the Mehr News Agency on January 26 read. Iran's foreign minister expressed the same sentiment when speaking to Al-Jazeera on January 25; in a January 26 interview with the network, Iran's interior minister claimed America, Britain, and Israel were behind a series of plane crashes in Iran.

4) The Mossad has planned terror attacks in Lebanon, the January 31 edition of Teshreen quoted President Lahoud of Lebanon as saying, while a Qatari daily, Al-Raia, on January 26 quoted a former Syrian defense minister, Mustafa Tlas, as saying Israel assassinated a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri.

3) Small teams of CIA-sponsored militias are behind all the kidnapping and killing of foreigners in Iraq, Firas Al-Atraqchi wrote in an extensive report in the Al-Ahram Weekly of February 9-15. It included a picture of a kidnapped Christian Science Monitor reporter, Jill Carroll.

2) "The Jewish Walt Disney Company" created the Tom and Jerry cartoon to improve the image of Jews, because Jews were called "Dirty Mice" in Europe, an Iranian government adviser, Hasan Bolkhari, said February 19 on Iranian TV Channel 4.

1) Israel created the avian flu virus in order to damage "genes carried only by Arabs," a January 31 column by Abd Al-Rahman Ghunwym in a Syrian government daily, Al-Thawra, said. Another possibility given was that the virus was created to attack "the yellow race - especially in China and Vietnam" that are "rising powers" threatening "American hegemony over the world."

One more "Lobby" paragraph - Israel the root of all terror

As I go through the larger paper demonizing the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient Israel Lobby that has the academics from Harvard and Chicago so frightened, I came across this classic:

More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S. support for Israel is not the only source of anti‐American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight this issue.

First of all, the statement "Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat" is not showing a causal relationship. It shows something that the two have in common. It is interesting that the academics do not seem to know what the word "causal" means.

But I suppose they had to resort to such sophistry because of the point they were really trying to make: "The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel." They then qualify that absurd statement a bit: "U.S. support for Israel is not the only source of anti‐American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult." And then the home run: "There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians."

Notice the implication of that sentence, which clearly means to say that Israel is the primary motivation of Bin Laden and "many al Qaeda leaders." The authors are careful not to say that explicitly, because Bin Laden's own words show that his fatwa was mostly a reaction to US troops on holy Muslim lands, and his Zionist rhetoric was clearly just to pump up the fatwa.

Then the authors engage in the same sort of deception that occurs throughout the paper: "According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight this issue."

Now, what percentage of Bin Laden's actions were motivated by Israel and what part from other factors ("its (unnamed) policies in the Middle East")?

Reading this paragraph shows that the authors are trying hard to imply that Israel is the major reason for Arab terror, (notice "in good part") even as each individual sentence is technically accurate (except for the causal part.) It of course does the authors no good to mention that Muslim terror attacks in London, Madrid and Bali, which were the most similar attacks to 9/11, clearly had no Israel component. That would undermine their relentless attempts to demonize Israel.

Notice also that Saudi Arabia, which hosted the US troops that Bin Laden was so upset about, is also a terror target to al Qaeda. The authors' contention that being more pro-Arab would reduce terror against the US is utterly incompatible with the fact that terrorists target Arabs themselves. If being Arab cannot inoculate you from terror, how can being a more pro-Arab "crusader" help you?

Beyond that, there is the subtext that if there is a terror attack, it must be the West's fault. This is the typical academic Left's bigotry against Arabs, for like little children, they cannot be held responsible for their actions, and their attacks follow a logic that always leads back to the evil white Christian or Jew.

This is only one paragraph of a paper filled with such illogical premises, subtexts and implications. When you start off with the "fact" that Israel is a liability to the US, it is easy to find "proofs." (It is stated as a fact in the very first endnote.) It is especially easy when you decide to ignore any evidence that might disprove your premise.

This is today's Harvard.

Fisking the Harvard Elite

The American Thinker does a masterful job at exposing the fallacies in the article "The Israel Lobby" mentioned in my previous blog entry.

As one reads the article itself, with its ominous constant repetition of the dangers of "The Lobby" (they might as well just say "The Elders"), it brings home a point that we can learn from.

People who hate Israel (and Jews, however nicely they want to pretend it isn't at all about Jews) are not necessarily stupid or backwards. They are not all crazy rioting Arabs or white-hooded cross-burning Klansmen.

As much as we would like to pretend that knowledge and intelligence can inoculate people from prejudice and bigotry, it simply isn't true. If a person has an irrational fear or hatred, they can marshal tons of "evidence" to prove their point. Such evidence may be laughable coming from a garden-variety racist but from an academic it can have the veneer of respectability, almost as if their hate is a scientific theory and can be proven true.

Even hard scientists, with checks and balances built into the scientific method, can fall prey to bias. How much more so the hundreds of academics, who believe in their own intelligence so much so that they cannot look objectively at their own biases, who go through life with the fear and respect of their students giving them nothing but positive feedback - how easy it is for them to believe that their own ugly biases are really Truth, and they have no problem finding like-minded colleagues who can reinforce their beliefs. They pretend to look at all sides of an issue but they know the answer before they even start.

Being intellectual has nothing to do with being intellectually honest.

The article has this amazing paragraph:

One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.

When the irrational hatred of all things Zionist extend to the argument that an Iranian nuclear weapon is not something for the US to worry about, presumably because only Israel would be annihilated, we have left the realm of facts and figures and into the world of fantasy and wishful thinking, of reckless disregard for facts to advance a tendentious argument. No amount of footnotes or sources or nuclear fallout could persuade these authors that they are wrong, because they are so utterly convinced that they are right, and objectivity has disappeared long, long ago along with their ability to think critically.

The idiots at Harvard and the lessons of Denmark

The New York Sun publishes extracts of "a paper issued this month by the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government in its 'Faculty Research Working Papers Series' and written by two American professors, Stephen M. Walt and John Mearsheimer."

"The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security. ... Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?... The explanation lies in the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. Were it not for the Lobby's ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today.... AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress.... manipulating the media... Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element....the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel...Viewed objectively, Israel's past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians...Israel and its American supporters want the United States to deal with any and all threats to Israel's security. If their efforts to shape U.S. policy succeed, ...Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."

Others have written very good rebuttals of the paper, which is more in line with neo-Nazi and modern Iranian thought than reality.

I would like to mention one one minor point that easily destroys the entire premise of the paper, that if the US would stop supporting Israel then the world's Arabs and Muslims would have no problem with America.

Denmark.

Was there any European country that was more sympathetic to Palestinian Arabs than Denmark? Was there any Western nation that allowed Muslims more freedom within its borders? If there was, it wasn't by much.

And yet a single set of cartoons in a small Danish newspaper caused the entire Muslim world to rise up and unify behind utter vilification and hate towards the entire nation of Denmark and all of Scandanavia, including serious death threats and actual deaths, that continues to this day.

Now, imagine that the US had adopted the strategy advocated by the authors of this paper. The Muslim logic of Jyllands-Posten is that an entire nation is responsible for the blasphemy of a single act by a private institution. Is it conceivable by anyone, from a typical red-state redneck all the way down to Harvard intellectuals, that the Muslim attitudes towards the US would moderate in the least as long as US newspapers and Hollywood studios and book publishers remain independent? Is it possible that in a nation of 300 million people who treasure freedom that none of them will do something that upsets the Muslim world to the point of riots? Or would the authors also advocate that the US shut down the Washington Times and the New York Post because their existence (like Israel's) could cause Arabs and Muslims to seethe?

The US, as the leader of the free world, stands for everything that Islamists are against, and no amount of support for Arabs (such as billions in aid given every year) will change that fact one bit.

The dhimmified attitude of academia may or may not be related to the funding that it receives from those who advocate terrorism, but it is clear that there is no relationship between the ability to write papers and intelligence. To even consider that the foreign policy of our nation be held hostage to a large group of fundamentally irrational people who hate us is the height of stupidity, notwithstanding that those who espouse such views can also write in multisyllabic words.

The latest from Iran's IRNA

I have found that Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency is a very accurate mirror of what the leadership of Iran is thinking, and as such it is a valuable tool to see if there are any changes in Iran's attitudes and methods in its quest to destroy Israel and the US.

As usual, there are still articles quoting "scholars" that the US and Israel is the source of all evil. These sorts of article, usually quoting Lebanese and Indian "scholars", have been a staple at IRNA. Even so, apparently it is OK to speak to Satan when it is convenient.

Islamic supremacism is still there but there is an interesting nod towards multiculturalism, in speaking a bit less of Islam and more of "divine religions" which include Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism as being implacably opposed to the West. As Muslims are wont to do, they promote "dialogue" as a means to spread their message and to ignore the ideas of the supposed partners in conversation.

This means that they are positioning themselves not only as the center of Islam, but as the center of all "divine religions." Clearly they are trying to broaden their appeal beyond the Islamic world in their attempt to dominate the world.

They remain completely intractable on nuclear technology even as they pretend that it is only for peaceful purposes.

So in most cases there haven't been any real changes but even the small differences need to be watched carefully.

The pain of the Iranian journalist

From IranMania.com:

Iran News - Iran finishes in 2nd place in Berlin showcase: "LONDON, March 13 (IranMania) - The Iranian pavilion finished in second place at the International Tourism Exchange, which was held from March 8 to 12 in Berlin, IRNA reported.

Oman and the United Arab Emirates finished in third and fourth places respectively, while the Zionist regime finished in first place. "

Can you imagine how hard it was for the reporter to have to write those words?

(In the interests of accuracy, Israel came in first and Iran second only in the Middle East category of the competition.)

Muslim "dialogue"

There was a conference last week in Copenhagen for 25 selected international Muslim youth to "dialogue" with Danish youth, to "build bridges."

It was marred by one Muslim preacher who insisted that Denmark owed the Muslim world an apology, but otherwise the Muslim participants thought it went well, according to Egypt's Al-Ahram.

No wonder. Look at what they consider the success of their "dialogue":

The first day of the two-day conference was dedicated to dialogue among the youths. They discussed who Islam's prophet is; what Islam is all about; freedom of expression from the Muslim point of view; respect of the other's holy scriptures. Young Muslim participants also proposed practical projects encouraging mutual respect and co-existence.

"The Danish youths were impressed and we, too, were very happy to find that many Danes are friendly to foreigners, had no biases against Arabs and Muslims, and in some cases, wore the Palestinian scarf to show solidarity with the Palestinian issue," Barakat said. The impression was based on field survey the young Muslims carried out, talking to Danish people in the streets, and asking them questions about the cartoon crisis.

"Many said they were against the publication of the offensive cartoons, but that they were equally offended to see their flags and embassies burnt," Barakat went on. "The dialogue was indeed a step forward on the way to building bridges. People should realise that the Danes are not a single entity and that we still have friends there. It's enough to know that we left with tears in our eyes."

Once again, the Muslim idea of dialogue is to have an opportunity to preach without having to listen to the other side's point of view. Nowhere does the author say that "I had never realized how important free speechwas inthe West" or anything remotely resembling a change of his attitudes or opinions. Only that he felt he impacted Danish thinking.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a dialogue - this is a monologue, a lecture under the pretext of being two-sided. And almost every single time you hear the word "dialogue" in the context of Islam they really mean the opportunity to spread their message, whetherit is religious or political (and usually the two are one and the same.) As can be seen, the recommendations of the conference are completely one-sided:

The conference concluded with recommendations, including the establishment of a cultural centre in Denmark, adding some information on Islam in school textbooks and promoting dialogue with various parties.

Of course, even this one-sided "dialogue" is criticized by Islamists:

The very concept of promoting dialogue with the Danes, even though the Danish government insisted it will not apologise for the cartoons, had already been a bone of contention among Islamic scholars. Many, like Qatar-based Egyptian Islamic scholar Sheikh Youssef El-Qaradawi, who heads the European Council on Fatwa and Research, argued that dialogue is an unwanted compromise for the time being. The Danish government, El-Qaradawi said, had blown the matter out of proportion when it refused to apologise or meet a delegation of Muslim figures to settle the matter. Meanwhile, El-Qaradawi was happy that "what happened in Denmark has stirred the Islamic world to move and unite after suffering long years of rifts."

But then we return to our theme of pretend bridge-building when it is actually buildin a mosque in Copenhagen:

For Khaled, however, the cartoon crisis should be invested to build bridges with the West, eliminate misconceptions and stereotypes about Islam and abort attempts by antagonists to Islam to attract neutral non-Muslims to their side and alienate Muslims. Which was, more or less, the same conclusion reached by 170 Islamic scholars at a recent conference in Qatar. The conference concluded that while public furor was only a normal reaction to the cartoons, it was high time for more dialogue with the West.

Prominent Al-Ahram columnist and Islamic thinker Fahmi Howeidi, however, insists that Khaled, although a "superb preacher", was not qualified enough for the job. Howeidi argued that fostering dialogue with the West involves many "sophisticated dossiers" that need the efforts of more experienced Western- based organisations that are acquainted with the Western mentality and legally complicated issues like freedom of expression and coexistence. Howeidi expressed widespread fears that Khaled's initiative would be abused by the Western media in attempts to abort more serious efforts by such well-known Islamic organisations as the World Islamic Conference.

Khaled had also repeatedly said he was greatly encouraged to launch the initiative "after 93 per cent of some 100,000 Muslim youths polled opted for a dialogue with the Danish people."

A very long article about dialogue without a single example of dialogue - only preaching and lecturing, not a bit of learning about the West or accepting the legitimacy of Western thinking.

It is important to realize when we are being taken for a ride.

Saga of two Nazi Arab paratroopers

In October, 1944, at least six Nazis parachuted into an area near Jericho, presumably to sabotage British interests in Palestine. Each team of three Nazis included one Arab who was involved in the 1936 Arab riots against Jews and subsequently went to Iraq and then Germany where they joined the Nazis.

One team was captured a week after they landed:

Details of the operations were not publicized until after the war. The captured Arab, Zul Kifel Abdul Latif, tried to contact the Arab leaders in Jericho to support his mission.

To their credit, they didn't want to help him.

Of course, they didn't report him to the British, either.

The other team managed to evade capture. Since it is known that Latif tried to get protection from local Arabs, it is reasonable to assume that the other team actually was protected for the duration of the mission, and possibly the war. Its leader is identified here as Sheikh Hassan Salameh, a notorious terrorist leader and ally of the Mufti during the riots from 1936-39.

After the war, the Arabs started appealing for the Nazi Arab Abdul Latif to be freed from prison.

When the British refused to release the war criminal, the Arabs decided to do it themselves. They attacked the prison he was in and got him out, under the watchful eyes of the British.

I don't know what happened to Abdul Latif after that.

Meanwhile, the other Nazi Arab who evaded capture resurfaced as a leader of an Arab gang in Jaffa, again associated with the Mufti:

Sheikh Hassan Salameh is known to have fought against the Jews in 1948 with German Nazi recruits to the Arab cause. (Salameh died in June, 1948 in a battle for Ramallah.)

(His son, Ali Hassan Salameh, was chief of operations for Black September, the terrorist group responsible for the Munich massacre, and was assassinated by the Mossad in 1979.)

So here we have:

Arab connections to Nazis,
Arab terrorists who become national heroes, and
Arabs helping convicted terrorists escape from prison.

Once again, we ignore history at our own peril.

------
A small footnote: The Zionists also on at least one occasion freed a prisoner during the 1948 war. Here is a case where they freed an Egyptian sheikh who was imprisoned for the horrendous crime of advocating Arabs living in peace with Jews.

A Palestinian militant from the Fatah movement holds his weapon during a press conference in the West Bank city of Nablus, in which they claimed responsibility for the killing of an Israeli soldier in Jenin earlier Thursday, March 16, 2006.

They have press conferences, we have press conferences. They are just like us! We just have to learn to respect their cultural mores such as wearing masks, carrying sniper rifles everywhere and being proud of killing Jews.

Three good 'uns

I haven't been too inspired lately, but others have.

Check out Daled Amos' great post on stringers and media bias, Soccer Dad's scoop on a Forward article on Ariel Sharon, and AbbaGav's incredible Hollywood Squares spoof.