Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

My Amazon review of "Who Speaks for Islam"

I finally received the book "Who Speaks for Islam," and it is exactly what I was hoping it would not be: an apologetic essay for Muslims that selectively uses numbers to prove a point.

Here is my Amazon review:

I purchased this book well aware of the articles the authors had already written about their findings. The articles would not give details of the poll results, and I had hoped to see the raw data in an appendix of the book. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

This is not a book of scientific fact; it is an opinion piece masquerading as science. When the authors say that only 7% of Muslims worldwide consider the 9/11 attacks "completely" justified they do not say how many consider the attacks "somewhat" or "mostly" justified. Then, the authors go on to label the 93% who may or may not consider the 9/11 attacks somewhat or mostly justified to be "moderates". This is absurd, and it appears that the reason that the authors do not release the raw data is because they realize that the detailed poll findings would not conform to the spin that they decided to clothe their results in.

An apparent example of question bias: the pollsters asked Muslims their opinion of democracy, and found that the "radicals" were more in favor of democracy than the "moderates." However, they do not illuminate these findings by asking questions about Western values like freedom of the press or freedom of religion, things that Westerners would associate with democracy but that Muslims may not. Could it be that the radicals are pro-"democracy" because they want to use democratic methods to establish a sharia state? The authors do not go down that path.

Most polls will show how the questions are phrased, the order of the questions, and the demographic breakdown of the respondents. This book does no such thing. As such, it is worthless propaganda, and raises far more questions than it answers. My opinion of the Gallup organization has gone down considerably to promote such propaganda as if the authors' opinions are proven by a scientific poll.

So far, mine is the only negative review the book has gotten - all the others gave it 4 or 5 stars, showing how shallow people are when a book fulfills their preconceived notions.

I also emailed the Gallup organization asking them to release the raw polling numbers that the book was based on; I received no response.

Polls are tricky enough when the pollsters try to be unbiased; they are downright dangerous when the pollsters withhold their own data in order to make the numbers represent something that they do not.

Gazans keep shelling Gaza crossings

As sure as night follows day, Gazans will attack the crossings that provide them with food, fuel and medicine.

From Ma'an Arabic:

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility of the bombing of the Karam Abu Salem crossing with three missiles of "maximum type 2"on Tuesday evening.

The battalions released a statement saying that the shelling comes in response to a series of Israeli massacres and an affirmation of the resistance option.

They are too lazy to even come up with any specific reason for the attacks nowadays.

But still the MSM cannot find any irony that Palestinian Arabs continuously attack their own lifelines. And the Israeli government cannot manage to emphasize this to the world.

UNIFIL buries report of Hezbollah arms smuggling

UNIFIL knows quite well that Hezbollah is smuggling arms from Syria - in direct violation of UN Resolution 1701 that ended the Second Lebanon War -but since it never had any direct evidence it always downplayed that fact.

So, for example, in the February report from the Secretary General on the implementation of 1701, we will see a paragraph that is skeptical about Israeli claims that Hizbollah is re-arming, like this one:

26. Israel maintains that Hizbullah is significantly rebuilding its military presence and capacity, inside the UNIFIL area of operations. At times, the Israel Defense Forces has provided UNIFIL with information about locations in the UNIFIL area of operations, in which it claims that these activities are taking place. UNIFIL, in collaboration with the Lebanese Armed Forces, immediately investigates all such claims if sufficiently specific information is received. To date, it has found no evidence of new military infrastructure in the area of operations. Israel also claims that Hizbullah has adapted its modus operandi in order to conceal its activities from UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces, and has relocated its operations mainly to urban areas. UNIFIL has observed that its operational activities are on occasion being closely monitored by unarmed civilians. However, UNIFIL constantly changes its patrolling patterns to maintain the highest level of effectiveness.

And then, much later in the report, the UN will grudgingly admit:

39. In my last report to the Council on the implementation of resolution 1701 (2006), I drew attention to alleged breaches of the arms embargo across the border between Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic and the claimed transfer of sophisticated weaponry from the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic across this border. In its letter dated 10 December 2007 (S/2007/724), the Syrian Arab Republic countered those claims and maintained that allegations of weapons smuggling across the Syrian-Lebanese border were motivated by political rather than security considerations. However, Hizbullah, by admission of its leaders on several occasions, has replenished its military capacity since the 2006 war with Israel. I therefore remain concerned that this border remains vulnerable to such breaches, which would represent serious violations of the resolution and constitute a significant threat to the stability and security of Lebanon.

And at the very end...

71. I remain concerned about ongoing reports and Hizbullah public statements that point to breaches of the arms embargo, in serious violation of resolution 1701 (2006).

So as of February, the UN knew that both Israel and Hezbollah claimed that Hezbollah was smuggling arms into Lebanon but it wasn't quite willing to admit that it was being hoodwinked by Hezbollah.

This seems to have changed in late March.

Armed Hizbullah militants warded off members of UNIFIL last month when the peacekeepers discovered a truck carrying weapons and ammunition.

On March 30, UNIFIL troops on patrol discovered the truck, chased it down and pulled it over. When the troops approached the vehicle, armed Hizbullah men exited the truck and threatened the troops at gunpoint. The UNIFIL patrol then went back into their cars, according to the source, and returned to their base.

The report submitted to the Security Council said the incident occurred on the night between the 30 and 31 of March. "This serious violation of the UN resolution raises concerns," the report said.

Israeli security officials believe that Hezbollah forces are usually found in areas where the organization enjoys centralized civilian support. There are many areas that answer to that description in south Lebanon because most of the residents in the south of the country are Shiite Muslims, who support Hezbollah.

The incident, referred to in a semi-yearly report submitted to the UN Security Council by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, was not reported in the media at the time.

I could not find this report on the UN website. If anyone else can, I would appreciate it.

Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace get prominently reported by UNIFIL, publicly, but Hezbollah violations that are much more severe are downplayed, minimized and essentially ignored. Not only that, but the obvious evidence that Hezbollah knows how to smuggle weapons under the UNIFIL radar, perhaps even in collusion with some UNIFIL troops, is ignored as well.

Israel blowing a PR opportunity again

There have been at least 6 terror attacks against Gaza crossings in recent weeks, that have killed an injured Israeli soldiers and civilians, the most recent being a foiled attempts Monday night. (I don't think that number includes the mortar attacks that the crossings constantly come under.) Jimmy Carter's pals in Hamas have claimed responsibility for some of them.

And yet, Israel today has opened two of these same crossings:

Israel has opened the Erez and Sufa border crossings into the Gaza Strip Tuesday morning.

86 trucks of supplies are expected to be transferred to the Palestinians through the Sufa crossing throughout Tuesday. The trucks will contain basic food supplies such as fruits and vegetables, meat products, fish, flour and sugar. Diapers and medicine will also be transferred.

The Erez border crossing will be opened for sick Palestinians who require medical treatment to cross into Israel.

Why does Israel consider itself obliged to supply those who want to see it destroyed?

Moreover, why does Israel continue to provide targets for those who actively use Israel's humanitarian desires as a weapon to kill Jews?

Wouldn't it make sense at the very least for Israel to announce that every crossing that gets attacked will be automatically, immediately closed for two weeks or a month? Just announcing it ahead of time, and following through, would at least force the world to look at the phenomenon of Arab terrorists purposefully placing their own people at risk.

By announcing these rules ahead of time, the onus for protecting Arab civilians goes from Israel to the Arab leaders of Gaza in the court of public opinion, and Hamas would be forced to explain to its own people why killing Jews is more important than their own food and medicine. Hamas apologists would be on the defensive.

Is this really so difficult?

Silky-smooth fatwa of the day

It turns out that there is something else that can get Muslims to seethe besides comics, pigs, dogs, and Jews:

Silk.

As for your question, it should be clear that there is nothing wrong with neckties unless they are made of pure silk. Responding to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states: "There is almost a scholarly consensus that wearing clothes made of pure silk in the form of a shirt or tie, etc., is forbidden for men. Some scholars permit it in exceptional cases such as when the man has a skin disease that requires wearing silk, or some kind of dire necessity, or because nothing else can be found to wear, etc. The above scholarly opinion concerning the prohibition of silk is based on the explicit statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), "Wearing silk has been forbidden for the men of my Ummah." The Prophet's words are categorical in their implication, so there is no way to justify wearing pure silk in ordinary circumstances. Concerning clothes that are not made of pure silk, but are a mixture of silk and other substances such as cotton, acrylic, wool, etc., scholars are divided on the ruling about them. When one looks closely at the various views concerning this issue, it can be concluded that if silk is not the main substance of the cloth, then it is permissible; say for example: if a certain piece of cloth is 60% cotton and 40% silk, then it shall be considered permissible for men to wear." Allah Almighty knows best.

When looking for the word "silk" in the Koran to find Mohammed's prohibition, though, I only see descriptions of Paradise, where silk (and gold jewelry, also haram for men) is in plentiful supply:

The Cave

1. [18.31] These it is for whom are gardens of perpetuity beneath which rivers flow, ornaments shall be given to them therein of bracelets of gold, and they shall wear green robes of fine silk and thick silk brocade interwoven with gold, reclining therein on raised couches; excellent the recompense and goodly the resting place.

The Pilgrimage

1. [22.23] Surely Allah will make those who believe and do good deeds enter gardens beneath which rivers flow; they shall be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and (with) pearls, and their garments therein shall be of silk.

The Originator

1. [35.33] Gardens of perpetuity, they shall enter therein; they shad be made to wear therein bracelets of gold and pearls, and their dress therein shall be silk.

The Smoke

1. [44.53] They shall wear of fine and thick silk, (sitting) face to face;

The Beneficent

1. [55.54] Reclining on beds, the inner coverings of which are of silk brocade; and the fruits of the two gardens shall be within reach.

Time

1. [76.12] And reward them, because they were patient, with garden and silk,
2. [76.21] Upon them shall be garments of fine green silk and thick silk interwoven with gold, and they shall be adorned with bracelets of silver, and their Lord shall make them drink a pure drink.

So what is the reason for the prohibition? Islam Online gives us the inside info (after a discussion about how the reasons are irrelevant because one must follow Allah's will anyway):

As for the point in question, the scholars have discussed the reasons for silk being forbidden for men. For example, ibn Al-Qayyim suggested in his brilliant work, Provision of the Hereafter, that:

“Among those who believe that there is reason and wisdom (behind the rulings of Islam) – and they are the majority – are some who answer that Islam has forbidden silk so that people will keep away from it for the sake of Allah, so they will be rewarded for that. Others reply that it’s basically created for women, as is the case with gold jewelry, so it’s forbidden for men lest it corrupts them by making them resemble women. Some scholars maintain that silk is forbidden because of what it may lead to in the way of pride and showing-off. Others relate the ruling (prohibition) to its having effect of femininity on men, as it goes against his masculinity and manliness. This applies to all men, even the most masculine and chivalrous of them. Whoever is too dense to understand this should just submit to the Wise Law-maker.” (Provision of the Hereafter, 4/80)"

I could not find anyone to answer the next obvious question: if a man wants to disguise himself as a woman to perform a terror attack, is the prohibition against silk still in force?

And when will we be seeing the firebombing of stores that sell silk ties?

Carter's love affair with Palestinian Arab terrorists continues

Fox News interviewed Jimmy Carter and asked at least one good question:

When asked whether he'd ever meet with Al Qaeda, Carter replied, "No, of course not."
"I don't see any redeeming features of Al Qaeda at all," he said.

But in defense of meeting with Hamas, Carter pointed out a Ha'aretz poll from February that said that 64% of Israelis supported direct talks with Hamas in order to free Gilad Shalit as well as the fact that Hamas was elected by the Palestinian Arab people.

But what Fox didn't ask him afterwards was, if Carter was so enamored of Hamas because of the poll and because they were elected, why he tried also to meet with Islamic Jihad which had none of those distinctions?

The fact that Carter wanted to meet with Islamic Jihad - a pure terror group - shows that his rationalizations to Fox News are just after-the-fact attempts to stave off criticism, and not deep-felt convictions.

Or perhaps he can enlighten us of the "redeeming features" that he feels that Islamic Jihad has?

Chag kosher v'sameach! חג כשר ושמח!

For those who don't have a Haggadah - even the Maxwell House version - you can download one here or here.

Here is a detail from a late 15th century German haggadah:

You guys already gave me an afikoman present - I passed a quarter of a million visitors today. Thanks to all my readers!

Have a great holiday!

Abbas shows again how little he cares for his people

Today, Mahmoud Abbas in Russia gave a stinging response to the suggestion that Palestinian Arabs living in Lebanon become Lebanese citizens I believe the statement is somewhere in this video but I did not look at the entire interview. Here is Palestine Press' description (autotranslated):

President Mahmoud Abbas denied today, the accuracy of the news reports about the possibility of settling Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

He said in an interview with satellite channel Russia Today that the idea was an "unacceptable and irreversible abrogation of the right to return, and we are guests in Lebanon, in the interest of us in the internal problems in this brotherly country, and assure the Lebanese brothers that the resettlement of refugees in their country is rejected. We will not accept it."

He explained that President Abbas Palestinian Lebanese relations entered in the task of reconciliation after being terminated bygone era.

Now, why exactly would citizenship in Lebanon abrogate the "right of return" for Palestinian Arabs? Is it impossible for them to become Lebanese citizens and then, should the opportunity arise, immigrate to a Palestinian Arab state under the "right of return?"

These people have lived for generations in miserable UNRWA camps, run by thugs, infiltrated by terrorists, with few human rights and sever restrictions on movement and jobs. If Lebanon would grant them full citizenship then they can become productive members of society while maintaining their identity as "Palestinian" and maintaining their "right of return." Why is Abbas so dead-set against this happening, and why is he fighting against justice for a significant proportion of the people he claims to represent as leader of the PLO?

The reason is obvious although rarely mentioned. Abbas knows that Palestinian identity is weak. If Palestinian Arabs had the opportunity to become full citizens in Arab countries, they would jump at the chance (as, indeed, Lebanese Palestinian Arabs did in 1994). They would never consider moving to a Palestinian Arab state afterwards, because most Arabs self-identify as merely Arabs, not by the artificial national boundaries imposed on them by the West after World War I.

And once they become happy Lebanese citiens they would be of no more use as political pawns and cannon fodder, and of no use to Mahmoud Abbas.

See my more elaborate posting from February when Abbas said something similar.

Today's peaceful Gaza news you won't read anywhere else

One of the people injured in the "mysterious" Hamas house explosion earlier this week in Jabalya has died (maybe two of them, the autotranslation is not clear.)

Fatah held a rally in Rafah; Hamas showed its open-mindedness by arresting 30 of them.

Gaza hospitals claim that they have no anesthesia because of Israel's blockade and cannot do any more surgeries. The last time they claimed something similar, Israel responded that they never requested the supplies and Israel does not stop medical supplies from going to Gaza. And as one of the commenters in that article noted, Hamas has stolen many medicines, supplies and food from hospitals in Gaza.

There was a tunnel collapse, the three people in the tunnel managed to escape.

There are reports of secret meetings between Hamas and Fatah in Cairo.

This morning, Ma'an reported on a dead, burned body found in a car in northern Gaza. That story has disappeared.

Our 2008 count of Palestinian Arabs violently killed by their own actions is at 64.

Reform Torah commentary not quite as innovative as they think

The Union of Reform Judaism Press just came out with "The Torah: A Women's Commentary" which they hail as "the first comprehensive commentary, authored only by women, on the Five Books of Moses, including individual Torah portions as well as the Hebrew and English translation."

It is possible that they meant to say "...that includes" instead of "...including" but the way that sentence is written one would think that this is the "first comprehensive commentary, authored only by women, on the Five Books of Moses." And that is not even close to being true.

The brilliant Orthodox Professor Nechama Leibowitz published her own commentary on the Torah beginning over fifty years ago, in 1954. Her depth of Torah study is undisputed, although the translation of this part seems lacking you can get an idea of her virtuosity (and get some ideas for some Seder discussions) on some of her commentaries to the Exodus here, with an index and appreciation of her work here.

Other published women's commentaries to the Torah, not only from Orthodox perspectives, can be found here.

The Reuters photographer case gets curiouser

Many of the Palestinian Arab claims about how Reuters' photographer Fadel Shana were killed are getting more and more inconsistent.

Snapped Shot takes a critical look at the still photos of the scene and notices that things are not adding up.

Israellycool points out that the photographer had been involved himself in a fishy fauxtography incident in Lebanon two years ago.

And now Israel is not accepting responsibility for the attack:

THE Israeli Defence Force says it does not admit responsibility for killing a Reuters TV cameraman who died in the Gaza Strip moments after he filmed a tank firing in his direction....An Israeli military official expressed sorrow but said the IDF did not accept responsibility for the killing. The official said that Israeli forces had only fired at armed militants who were shooting at them from close range. It did not know what kind of missile had struck the press vehicle, and it was unaware of reports of a second attack minutes later. The incident is being investigated, the official said.

"Not accepting responsibility" is no the same as "denying," and I am skeptical that a Palestinian Arab missile or anti-tank gun hit Shana at the same time one would expect the Israeli tank shell he filmed to have hit somewhere.

What seems most unlikely though is the PalArab claim that he was killed by a flechette:

A medical examination yesterday revealed that metal darts from a tank shell that explodes in the air killed Shana. X-rays showed several of the controversial weapons, known as flechettes, in his chest and legs. Several of the three-centimetre darts were also in his flak jacket and vehicle.

There is nothing in the photographic evidence that points to this. As my commenter Tom W. points out:

The Palestinians claim that the cameraman was killed by a flechette round, which contains 5000 steel darts and is used at close ranges.

Here is a Reuters video:

http://tinyurl.com/5om2rg

At 1:23 you can see that the windshield is shattered, but the hood is absolutely untouched. Also, the driver's door is torn off.

This type of damage is entirely inconsistent with what a flechette round would do.

Whatever happened, the Palestinians are lying about the type of munition fired.

So far, to me I think that it was an errant Israeli tank round that killed him, but I do not believe any reports of a second strike two minutes later by Israel and I think there was at the very least some staging of the scene by people at the scene and certainly some lying by the Palestinian Arab medical examiners, who have been known to lie in the past.

See also Israel Matzav's wrap-up.

Jimmy Carter gets more despicable by the hour

Jimmy Carter just gets more despicable by the hour:

Speaking at the American University in Cairo after talks with Hamas leaders from, Carter said Palestinians in Gaza were being "starved to death" and received fewer calories a day than people in the poorest parts of Africa.

I will say it again: I have been following the news very closely from Gaza, in Arabic as well as English, and I have not yet seen a single person reported or even rumored to have starved to death. If Jimmy the Dhimmi is going to slander Israel like this he needs to show some proof. Meanwhile, a couple of weeks ago I did a quick visual comparison between starving Gazans and starving Africans. See if you can tell the difference.

"It's an atrocity what is being perpetrated as punishment on the people in Gaza. It's a crime... I think it is an abomination that this continues to go on," Carter said.

Here Carter makes clear that he regards Israeli defensive actions to kill terrorists as more immoral than thousands of Qassam rockets designed to kill civilians (which he called merely "criminal."

Carter said Israel and the US were trying to make the quality of life in Gaza markedly worse than in the West Bank, where the rival Fatah group is in control.

"I think politically speaking this has worked even to strengthen the popularity of Hamas and to the detriment of the popularity of Fatah," he added.

Carter, who has done more to legitimize and popularize Hamas than any other Western figure, now has the nerve to blame Israel and the US for doing that? Since when is he against strengthening Hamas? What a hypocritical tool.

..."If you live in Gaza, you know that for every Israeli killed in any kind of combat, between 30 to 40 Palestinians are killed because of the extreme military capability of Israel,'' Carter said.

Yes, Jimmy would be much happier if more Hamas terror attacks hit their marks more accurately, so Israel wouldn't be acting so disproportionately. What a sick, twisted, decrepit man.

Carter has no fear of being kidnapped or assassinated while visiting the Middle East. He has shown himself to be more anti-Israel and pro-terror than the EU and the UN, by orders of magnitude. No wonder he gets embraced and applauded by terrorists.