In a special Internet announcement in Arabic, picked up DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources, Osama bin Laden’s followers announced Monday, Oct. 29, the launching of Electronic Jihad. On Sunday, Nov. 11, al Qaeda’s electronic experts will start attacking Western, Jewish, Israeli, Muslim apostate and Shiite Web sites. On Day One, they will test their skills against 15 targeted sites expand the operation from day to day thereafter until hundreds of thousands of Islamist hackers are in action against untold numbers of anti-Muslim sites.
DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report that, shortly after the first announcement, some of al Qaeda’s own Web sites went blank, apparently crashed by the American intelligence computer experts tracking them.
The next day, Oct. 30, they were up again, claiming their Islamic fire walls were proof against infidel assault.
They also boasted an impenetrable e-mail network for volunteers wishing to join up with the cyber jihad to contact and receive instructions undetected by the security agencies in their respective countries.
Our sources say the instructions come in simple language and are organized in sections according to target. They offer would-be martyrs, who for one reason or another are unable to fight in the field, to fulfill their jihad obligations on the Net. These virtual martyrs are assured of the same thrill and sense of elation as a jihadi on the “battlefield.”
In effect, say DEBKAfile’s counter-terror experts, al Qaeda is retaliating against Western intelligence agencies’ tactics, which detect new terrorist sites and zap them as soon as they appear. Until now, the jihadists kept dodging the assault by throwing up dozens of new sites simultaneously. This kept the trackers busy and ensured that some of the sites survived, while empty pages were promptly replaced. But as al Qaeda’s cyber wizards got better at keeping its presence on the Net for longer periods, so too did Western counter-attackers at knocking them down. Now Bin Laden’s cyber legions are fighting back. The electronic war they have declared could cause considerable trouble on the world’s Internet.
October 30, 2007, 9:31 PM (GMT+02:00)
Symbol of al Qaeda's Cyber Warriors
In a special Internet announcement in Arabic, picked up DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources, Osama bin Laden’s followers announced Monday, Oct. 29, the launching of Electronic Jihad. On Sunday, Nov. 11, al Qaeda’s electronic experts will start attacking Western, Jewish, Israeli, Muslim apostate and Shiite Web sites. On Day One, they will test their skills against 15 targeted sites expand the operation from day to day thereafter until hundreds of thousands of Islamist hackers are in action against untold numbers of anti-Muslim sites.
DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report that, shortly after the first announcement, some of al Qaeda’s own Web sites went blank, apparently crashed by the American intelligence computer experts tracking them.
The next day, Oct. 30, they were up again, claiming their Islamic fire walls were proof against infidel assault.
They also boasted an impenetrable e-mail network for volunteers wishing to join up with the cyber jihad to contact and receive instructions undetected by the security agencies in their respective countries.
Our sources say the instructions come in simple language and are organized in sections according to target. They offer would-be martyrs, who for one reason or another are unable to fight in the field, to fulfill their jihad obligations on the Net. These virtual martyrs are assured of the same thrill and sense of elation as a jihadi on the “battlefield.”
In effect, say DEBKAfile’s counter-terror experts, al Qaeda is retaliating against Western intelligence agencies’ tactics, which detect new terrorist sites and zap them as soon as they appear. Until now, the jihadists kept dodging the assault by throwing up dozens of new sites simultaneously. This kept the trackers busy and ensured that some of the sites survived, while empty pages were promptly replaced. But as al Qaeda’s cyber wizards got better at keeping its presence on the Net for longer periods, so too did Western counter-attackers at knocking them down. Now Bin Laden’s cyber legions are fighting back. The electronic war they have declared could cause considerable trouble on the world’s Internet.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Un-Holyland Foundation
Jewish World Review Oct. 25, 2007 / 13 Mar-Cheshvan 5768
A federal judge in Dallas declared a mistrial in the case of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) when a jury was unable to reach a verdict on 197 counts brought by the government that accused the Muslim charity of funding terrorism.
A hung jury, however, is not an acquittal and even if the Holy Land Foundation eventually is acquitted (the government has indicated it will retry the case) it doesn't necessarily mean the accused is innocent (think O.J. Simpson's murder trial).
Anyone in doubt about the game plan for infiltrating, undermining and attacking America from within our borders had better sober up. Our enemies know our ways and they are using them to gain a strategic advantage over us. From the rapid construction of mosques and Islamic schools across the country — many of which are financed by Saudi Arabia — to the use of front organizations as conduits to channel money to terrorist groups abroad, a "fifth column" has been opened in the United States. For those who are unfamiliar with the term "fifth column," it usually refers to a group of people who are assumed to have loyalties to countries other than their own, or who support some other nation in war efforts against the country they live in. We used to call such people traitors before the term was submerged in a wave of political correctness.
Despite the hung jury, a lot of useful information came out at the trial that people with terrorist intent would just as soon have remained hidden. Moving under the radar and hiding your real intentions is essential for fifth column members. Among the evidence revealed in court is the connection of Holy Land Foundation and a number of other Islamic groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Circle of North America, to the radical Muslim Brotherhood organization. Read a thoroughly researched and documented essay at Website http://www.nefafoundation.org/hlfdocs.html.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
The Holy Land Foundation is not an unfairly persecuted charity. While it exhibits some charitable work as window dressing, evidence presented at the trial show its connections with known terrorist groups.
Although scores of examples from the government's case show what we face, I offer just one found in a recent Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation report: "On Aug. 16, 2007, a Miami jury convicted Adham Hassoun, Jose Padilla and Kifah Jayyousi of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. A Department of Justice press release announcing the initial indictment against Hassoun, a Palestinian national living in Florida, stated, 'As part of the conspiracy, Hassoun allegedly wrote a series of checks over several years — from 1994 to late 2001 — to unindicted coconspirators and organizations, including the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, to be used to support violent jihad.' Further, Raed Awad, HLF's Florida representative and fund raiser, served as the Imam at Jose Padilla's mosque.'"
There is much more, including this from the government's case: "HLF is also mentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report in connection with the investigation of Anwar Aulaqi, an Imam in San Diego and Falls Church who allegedly had a 'close relationship' with hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. Investigators probing Aulaqi prior to 9/11 learned that he 'knew individuals from the Holy Land Foundation and others involved in raising money for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.'"
That the government was unable to convince a jury of this is either the fault of the prosecutors or the blindness of the jurors. I suspect it is the latter. Americans are extremely reluctant to brand a class of people and put them in categories. Our enemies know this, so they trade on our sorry history of slavery and racism and wrap themselves in the image of civil rights workers seeking only the same freedoms everyone else enjoys.
In a related matter, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has recommended that an Islamic school in Northern Virginia that is supported by the Saudi government be closed until it can be determined whether the school promotes radical Islam. The commission has criticized what it calls a lack of religious freedom in Saudi society and the promotion of religious extremism in Saudi schools. Officials at the Islamic school in Northern Virginia say the textbooks used to teach hate, but no longer do. They refuse to provide the "new" textbooks for examination. Here's a deal: condition the approval of every Islamic school and mosque in the United States on the construction of Christian and Jewish schools and houses of worship in Muslim countries. That would stop them dead in their tracks because the freedoms we offer here, which they want to destroy, are not offered there in a religiously intolerant and politically totalitarian environment.
The government should retry the Holy Land Foundation case and hope for a better jury and a better outcome.
By Cal Thomas
A federal judge in Dallas declared a mistrial in the case of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) when a jury was unable to reach a verdict on 197 counts brought by the government that accused the Muslim charity of funding terrorism.
A hung jury, however, is not an acquittal and even if the Holy Land Foundation eventually is acquitted (the government has indicated it will retry the case) it doesn't necessarily mean the accused is innocent (think O.J. Simpson's murder trial).
Anyone in doubt about the game plan for infiltrating, undermining and attacking America from within our borders had better sober up. Our enemies know our ways and they are using them to gain a strategic advantage over us. From the rapid construction of mosques and Islamic schools across the country — many of which are financed by Saudi Arabia — to the use of front organizations as conduits to channel money to terrorist groups abroad, a "fifth column" has been opened in the United States. For those who are unfamiliar with the term "fifth column," it usually refers to a group of people who are assumed to have loyalties to countries other than their own, or who support some other nation in war efforts against the country they live in. We used to call such people traitors before the term was submerged in a wave of political correctness.
Despite the hung jury, a lot of useful information came out at the trial that people with terrorist intent would just as soon have remained hidden. Moving under the radar and hiding your real intentions is essential for fifth column members. Among the evidence revealed in court is the connection of Holy Land Foundation and a number of other Islamic groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Circle of North America, to the radical Muslim Brotherhood organization. Read a thoroughly researched and documented essay at Website http://www.nefafoundation.org/hlfdocs.html.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
The Holy Land Foundation is not an unfairly persecuted charity. While it exhibits some charitable work as window dressing, evidence presented at the trial show its connections with known terrorist groups.
Although scores of examples from the government's case show what we face, I offer just one found in a recent Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation report: "On Aug. 16, 2007, a Miami jury convicted Adham Hassoun, Jose Padilla and Kifah Jayyousi of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. A Department of Justice press release announcing the initial indictment against Hassoun, a Palestinian national living in Florida, stated, 'As part of the conspiracy, Hassoun allegedly wrote a series of checks over several years — from 1994 to late 2001 — to unindicted coconspirators and organizations, including the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, to be used to support violent jihad.' Further, Raed Awad, HLF's Florida representative and fund raiser, served as the Imam at Jose Padilla's mosque.'"
There is much more, including this from the government's case: "HLF is also mentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report in connection with the investigation of Anwar Aulaqi, an Imam in San Diego and Falls Church who allegedly had a 'close relationship' with hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. Investigators probing Aulaqi prior to 9/11 learned that he 'knew individuals from the Holy Land Foundation and others involved in raising money for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.'"
That the government was unable to convince a jury of this is either the fault of the prosecutors or the blindness of the jurors. I suspect it is the latter. Americans are extremely reluctant to brand a class of people and put them in categories. Our enemies know this, so they trade on our sorry history of slavery and racism and wrap themselves in the image of civil rights workers seeking only the same freedoms everyone else enjoys.
In a related matter, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has recommended that an Islamic school in Northern Virginia that is supported by the Saudi government be closed until it can be determined whether the school promotes radical Islam. The commission has criticized what it calls a lack of religious freedom in Saudi society and the promotion of religious extremism in Saudi schools. Officials at the Islamic school in Northern Virginia say the textbooks used to teach hate, but no longer do. They refuse to provide the "new" textbooks for examination. Here's a deal: condition the approval of every Islamic school and mosque in the United States on the construction of Christian and Jewish schools and houses of worship in Muslim countries. That would stop them dead in their tracks because the freedoms we offer here, which they want to destroy, are not offered there in a religiously intolerant and politically totalitarian environment.
The government should retry the Holy Land Foundation case and hope for a better jury and a better outcome.
By Cal Thomas
Monday, October 22, 2007
Jews under 35 would not view the destruction of Israel as a tradgedy
In a disturbing report more than 50% of Jews under 35 would not view the destruction of Israel as a tradgedy, according to a recent study cited in an article in Jewish World Review .
according to Sociologists Stephen Cohen and Ari Kelman young Jews often feel alienation towards Israel.
Orthodox Jews hold a different view, those for whom their Judaism is important will remain connected to the fate of their fellow Jews in Israel.
Sociologists Stephen Cohen and Ari Kelman have now confirmed what everyone already knew: Young American Jews do not care very much about Israel. They are not just apathetic about Israel, that indifference is "giving way to downright alienation," write Cohen and Kelman.
More than half of Jews under 35 said that they would not view the destruction of Israel as a personal tragedy. The death and expulsion of millions is something they could live with. By those standards, they probably would not see the Holocaust as a "personal" tragedy either.
"These results are very upsetting," said Jewish Agency chairman Zev Bielski. He then proceeded to give an inane explanation for those numbers: the comfortable life of most American Jews.
Cohen and Kelman know better. And their answer is summed up in the demographic they did not interview for their study: Orthodox Jews. A survey of young Orthodox Jews would have yielded a diametrically opposed and highly embarrassing result.
Among younger Jews, those for whom their Judaism is important — primarily the Orthodox — will remain connected to the fate of their fellow Jews in Israel. Most Orthodox American youth will study in Israel after high school, some for many years. And almost all will visit Israel many times. Eretz Yisrael is not a mere abstraction for them, but the center of the spiritual life of the Jewish people.
Even an anti-Zionist Satmar chassid living in the secluded village of Monroe will intensify his prayers when Israel is at war and follow the action closely. Why? Because for him the name Jew means something.
The majority of young American Jews and the majority of young Israelis share in common a lack of interest in their Judaism. But that shared negativity provides little basis for a relationship. Shared gene pools won't do it either — that smacks of racism. And ethnic identity, it turns out, cannot be passed down, or survive the breakup of ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods.
What young Jews under 35 feel towards Israel goes beyond apathy to outright resentment. Israel complicates their social lives and muddies their political identity. Only 54% profess to be comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state at all. In Europe and on elite American campuses, internationalism and a world-without-borders are the rage. The Jews of Israel, with their stubborn insistence on protecting their nation-state, are, as always, out-of-sync.
Young American Jews do not wish to be tarred with their atavisms. On campus and where enlightened folk meet, Israel is scorned as a colonial oppressor. Who wants to be identified as a sympathizer with apartheid? Once Reform Judaism disavowed Zionism for fear of being thought disloyal to their host countries, and young American Jews today share similar fears of being out of step with their enlightened peers.
Molly Umberger, whose mother is program director of the leftist New Israel Fund (NIF), told the Jerusalem Post that she views both Israel and Palestinians as having made lots of mistakes and the situation as complicated, but generally "tries not to think about [ Israel]." (No wonder when Bruce Temkin, the director of the NIF, describes Israel as a "turn-off.") Daniel Alperin, 33, describes his interest in Israel as waning when he began to hear "the bad stuff" — probably about the time he entered college.
Already the trends lines were pointing in this direction forty years ago. In a 1965 Commentary symposium of younger Jewish intellectuals — the least religiously identified segment of American Jewry — only one expressed complete comfort with Israel's creation and pride in its accomplishments, and he eventually made aliyah. The rest expressed various degrees of discomfort with Israel's militarism (and this was before 1967 and the "occupation"). The only Jewish identity they acknowledged at all was that of the "Jew" as the perpetually alienated critic of those in power — not exactly one upon which to base a connection to other Jews. Now the rest of American Jewry is catching up to those once young intellectuals.
The implications of Cohen and Kelman's findings for American Jewry are great. The historic bargain linking American Jewry and Israel since the founding of the State is coming to an end. The terms of the deal were unspoken, but clear: Israel would provide American Jews with a sense of pride and identity as Jews, and they, in turn, would shower upon Israel their financial and political support. But Israel is no longer a source of pride for non-Orthodox Jews, and the identity it provides is not one which they wish to share.
But the survey signals something else as well: a declining understanding on the part of American Jews of Judaism in terms of a national identity that imposes obligations to one's co-nationals.. That is being replaced by a return to the self-definition of classic German Reform: German (or in this case American) nationals of the Mosaic persuasion.
Cohen and Kelman are wrong to argue that ethnic identity is being replaced by religious identity. For when young American Jews say that they view their Judaism as a religious not national identity, the religion they refer to is a pretty tepid affair. Precisely because it is so tepid does it fail to provide them a sense of connection to their fellow Jews, whether in America or abroad. It is a religion largely lacking connection to the Land of Israel, and even more importantly to the defining event in Jewish history the giving of Torah at Sinai. Absent the latter, there is no common mission to link the descendants of those who stood at Sinai.
The impact of the declining sense of responsibility to one's fellow Jews is being felt within American Jewry itself, not just in attitudes towards Israel. Already only 6% of giving by mega-Jewish foundations goes to remotely Jewish causes. It is hardly surprising, for instance, that non-Jewish spouses are not eager to contribute to Jewish causes. In time, funding the institutions of American Jewry will become ever more difficult. And the Orthodox will be left to donate to Israel.
The political implications for Israel are large as well. Fortunately, Professors Walt and Mearsheimer are wrong about an Israel Lobby comprised mostly of those with Jewish-sounding names. It is devout Christians, and not some nefarious Israel Lobby, which is the primary bulwark of American support for Israel today. That we have to rely on Christian support, rather than our fellow Jews, however, is a very mixed blessing indeed.
E
according to Sociologists Stephen Cohen and Ari Kelman young Jews often feel alienation towards Israel.
Orthodox Jews hold a different view, those for whom their Judaism is important will remain connected to the fate of their fellow Jews in Israel.
Sociologists Stephen Cohen and Ari Kelman have now confirmed what everyone already knew: Young American Jews do not care very much about Israel. They are not just apathetic about Israel, that indifference is "giving way to downright alienation," write Cohen and Kelman.
More than half of Jews under 35 said that they would not view the destruction of Israel as a personal tragedy. The death and expulsion of millions is something they could live with. By those standards, they probably would not see the Holocaust as a "personal" tragedy either.
"These results are very upsetting," said Jewish Agency chairman Zev Bielski. He then proceeded to give an inane explanation for those numbers: the comfortable life of most American Jews.
Cohen and Kelman know better. And their answer is summed up in the demographic they did not interview for their study: Orthodox Jews. A survey of young Orthodox Jews would have yielded a diametrically opposed and highly embarrassing result.
Among younger Jews, those for whom their Judaism is important — primarily the Orthodox — will remain connected to the fate of their fellow Jews in Israel. Most Orthodox American youth will study in Israel after high school, some for many years. And almost all will visit Israel many times. Eretz Yisrael is not a mere abstraction for them, but the center of the spiritual life of the Jewish people.
Even an anti-Zionist Satmar chassid living in the secluded village of Monroe will intensify his prayers when Israel is at war and follow the action closely. Why? Because for him the name Jew means something.
The majority of young American Jews and the majority of young Israelis share in common a lack of interest in their Judaism. But that shared negativity provides little basis for a relationship. Shared gene pools won't do it either — that smacks of racism. And ethnic identity, it turns out, cannot be passed down, or survive the breakup of ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods.
What young Jews under 35 feel towards Israel goes beyond apathy to outright resentment. Israel complicates their social lives and muddies their political identity. Only 54% profess to be comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state at all. In Europe and on elite American campuses, internationalism and a world-without-borders are the rage. The Jews of Israel, with their stubborn insistence on protecting their nation-state, are, as always, out-of-sync.
Young American Jews do not wish to be tarred with their atavisms. On campus and where enlightened folk meet, Israel is scorned as a colonial oppressor. Who wants to be identified as a sympathizer with apartheid? Once Reform Judaism disavowed Zionism for fear of being thought disloyal to their host countries, and young American Jews today share similar fears of being out of step with their enlightened peers.
Molly Umberger, whose mother is program director of the leftist New Israel Fund (NIF), told the Jerusalem Post that she views both Israel and Palestinians as having made lots of mistakes and the situation as complicated, but generally "tries not to think about [ Israel]." (No wonder when Bruce Temkin, the director of the NIF, describes Israel as a "turn-off.") Daniel Alperin, 33, describes his interest in Israel as waning when he began to hear "the bad stuff" — probably about the time he entered college.
Already the trends lines were pointing in this direction forty years ago. In a 1965 Commentary symposium of younger Jewish intellectuals — the least religiously identified segment of American Jewry — only one expressed complete comfort with Israel's creation and pride in its accomplishments, and he eventually made aliyah. The rest expressed various degrees of discomfort with Israel's militarism (and this was before 1967 and the "occupation"). The only Jewish identity they acknowledged at all was that of the "Jew" as the perpetually alienated critic of those in power — not exactly one upon which to base a connection to other Jews. Now the rest of American Jewry is catching up to those once young intellectuals.
The implications of Cohen and Kelman's findings for American Jewry are great. The historic bargain linking American Jewry and Israel since the founding of the State is coming to an end. The terms of the deal were unspoken, but clear: Israel would provide American Jews with a sense of pride and identity as Jews, and they, in turn, would shower upon Israel their financial and political support. But Israel is no longer a source of pride for non-Orthodox Jews, and the identity it provides is not one which they wish to share.
But the survey signals something else as well: a declining understanding on the part of American Jews of Judaism in terms of a national identity that imposes obligations to one's co-nationals.. That is being replaced by a return to the self-definition of classic German Reform: German (or in this case American) nationals of the Mosaic persuasion.
Cohen and Kelman are wrong to argue that ethnic identity is being replaced by religious identity. For when young American Jews say that they view their Judaism as a religious not national identity, the religion they refer to is a pretty tepid affair. Precisely because it is so tepid does it fail to provide them a sense of connection to their fellow Jews, whether in America or abroad. It is a religion largely lacking connection to the Land of Israel, and even more importantly to the defining event in Jewish history the giving of Torah at Sinai. Absent the latter, there is no common mission to link the descendants of those who stood at Sinai.
The impact of the declining sense of responsibility to one's fellow Jews is being felt within American Jewry itself, not just in attitudes towards Israel. Already only 6% of giving by mega-Jewish foundations goes to remotely Jewish causes. It is hardly surprising, for instance, that non-Jewish spouses are not eager to contribute to Jewish causes. In time, funding the institutions of American Jewry will become ever more difficult. And the Orthodox will be left to donate to Israel.
The political implications for Israel are large as well. Fortunately, Professors Walt and Mearsheimer are wrong about an Israel Lobby comprised mostly of those with Jewish-sounding names. It is devout Christians, and not some nefarious Israel Lobby, which is the primary bulwark of American support for Israel today. That we have to rely on Christian support, rather than our fellow Jews, however, is a very mixed blessing indeed.
E
Thursday, October 18, 2007
In the name of ‘promoting peace,’ Rice and her Israeli underlings could foment a new war
Thanks to Jewish World Review for this timely and insightful article.
It seems that the U.S. Administration is intent on selling out Israel for political benefit.
The respected writer Carolyn Glick tells the sad tale of betrayal and incompetence.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is moving boldly down the rabbit hole. This week, Rice is due back in the Middle East for meetings in Jerusalem and Ramallah. The purpose of her upcoming visit, like her previous ones, will be to pressure the Olmert government and the Fatah terror organization to reach "substantive agreements" that she'll be able to present to the world at her peace summit in Maryland next month.
It is far from clear what American interests Rice is advancing with her unswerving effort to reach a peace accord between Israel and Fatah. Indeed, Rice's efforts are detrimental to US interests in the region.
On Tuesday, 77 senators signed a letter to Rice regarding her plans for the summit. Among other things, the senators called on the Arab states, which Rice hopes will participate, to "recognize Israel's right to exist and not use such recognition as a bargaining chip for future Israeli concessions."
The senators' warning was well placed. Far from cooperating with the US, the Arab world is undercutting its policies. Not only are the Arabs - including Egypt and Jordan - distancing themselves from Israel; in a direct slap at the US, the Arabs are subverting the US's goal of isolating Hamas. Rather than blackball the jihadist movement, the Arab states led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia are devoting themselves to bringing about a rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas.
Unfortunately, due to Rice's missteps, the US today has little influence over the Arab states. Washington's primary diplomatic leverage over the Arabs stems from its ability to confer legitimacy on them. The US could have used this leverage if it had stated from the outset that it would only invite states to the Middle East conference that support the US's goals of isolating Hamas and accepting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
But rather than condition their invitation, Rice and President George W. Bush made it clear from the outset that they want Arab states to participate in the summit. In so doing, the US turned the turned the tables on itself. Now it is the Arabs who by accepting or rejecting the US offer will confer legitimacy on Washington. Needless to say, in the interests of securing their participation, states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not be called to task for their sponsorship of Hamas or their hostility toward Israel.
So the US has been weakened just by organizing the conference. Yet, if there were any chance that the conference next month in Annapolis could yield real progress toward peace, then at least the Arabs' humiliation of Washington could be said to have been worth it.
Given that since the failed Camp David summit in 2000 the Palestinians have yet to make one substantive concession to Israel, it is clear that the only way the upcoming conference can succeed in advancing peace is if the Palestinians make some dramatic concession to Israel.
But there is absolutely no chance that the Palestinians will be forthcoming. Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas led Fatah to electoral defeat to Hamas in 2006 and to surrender in Gaza in June. The only reason that Abbas remains in power in Judea and Samaria is because the IDF is maintaining security there.
The weak, ineffectual Abbas has no ability to agree to Israeli offers that Yasser Arafat rejected. In addition to Arafat's legacy, Abbas has Hamas to contend with. Any major concessions to Israel would imperil his rule - and his life.
Over the past week, Abbas announced his adherence to maximal Palestinian demands from Israel. These include the full transfer of sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians; the complete surrender of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians; and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called "right of return" that would force Israel to accept millions of foreign Arabs as immigrants within its truncated borders. Abbas's stances are a reflection of his inability to make any concessions for peace.
The failure of Rice's summit will directly benefit Hamas, which will be able to say that as it had warned, diplomacy is pointless. Understanding this, Abbas himself has let it be known that he is negotiating with Hamas. Then too, ahead of his meeting this past Wednesday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Abbas dispatched his representatives to threaten Israel with war.
On Tuesday, Abbas confidante and representative in negotiations with Hamas Azzam al-Ahmed told reporters, "If we don't prepare well for the conference so that it will result in something positive, the repercussions will be more dangerous than what happened after the failure of Camp David."
Hamas is not the only actor that will be strengthened by the failure of the summit. Anti-American, jihadist forces throughout the Arab world will similarly benefit. Like Hamas, they will be able to say, "We told you so." America's humiliation will also weaken liberal democratic voices in the Arab world. With America perceived as weak and incompetent, they will feel compelled to join the anti-American bandwagon.
RICE IS dragging Israel with her in her madcap descent down the diplomatic rabbit hole - and not for the first time. Rice has a record of forcing Israel to sacrifice its security in the interest of her "peace" processes.
In November 2005, Rice coerced then-prime minister Ariel Sharon into accepting her agreement on the passages joining Gaza to Egypt and Israel. That agreement denied Israel the ability to prevent terrorists and arms from being smuggled into Gaza. This week's Egyptian agreement to allow some 90 Hamas terrorists - many of whom underwent military training in Iran and Syria - to enter Gaza was easily implemented in spite of Israeli objections in large part as a consequence of Rice's heavy-handed treatment of Israel.
So too, Rice forced Israel to agree to have US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton train and arm Fatah forces in Gaza. That disastrous plan led to the indirect US arming of Hamas when Fatah forces surrendered their weapons to Hamas without a fight in June. And of course, Rice was the architect of the cease-fire with Hizbullah last year that has enabled the Iranian terror group to rearm and to reassert its control over south Lebanon.
ALTHOUGH THE content of the talks is officially secret, various leaks make the depth of Israeli concessions clear. Israel is agreeing to transfer sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to the Palestinians and to renounce its sovereignty over the Temple Mount; Olmert and his colleagues have agreed to surrender more than 90 percent of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians while destroying most of the Israeli communities there; and Israel is agreeing to certain "symbolic" concessions regarding the so-called "right of return."
In short, Olmert is regurgitating former prime minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak's offers to Arafat at Camp David and Taba from seven years ago.
Many on the Left argue that since Israel offered these concessions in the past, the fact that the government is returning them to the bargaining table today is nothing to get excited about. This is untrue.
There is a huge difference between the situation in 2000 and today. Seven years ago, Barak's offer of territory was based on the expectation that in exchange for territory the Palestinians would eschew terror and live at peace with Israel. Today, after seven years of war that was largely directed by Fatah, after Hamas's takeover of Gaza and Iran's takeover of Hamas, this expectation is no longer realistic. By offering Barak's concessions for a second time, Olmert isn't simply offering land. He is sending the message that Israel neither expects nor demands that the Palestinian state live at peace with Israel.
Perhaps Israel's greatest diplomatic failure since 2000 has been its failure to disavow Barak's offers and remove them from the negotiating table. Once Arafat refused Barak's far-reaching concessions and chose instead to launch a war against the Jewish state, Israel had numerous opportunities to make clear these concession were no longer on offer.
Disavowing them is crucial not simply because they are diplomatically unwise. They are strategically suicidal.
As Israel's experience in south Lebanon and Gaza show clearly, areas that Israel vacates become terrorist enclaves. Given Abbas's embrace of terrorism and his political weakness, it is absolutely clear that an Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will render these areas terror bases as well. Yet here the consequences will be far worse that those of previous withdrawals. An Israeli surrender of Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem will divest Israel of the ability to defend itself.
Although theoretically attractive, it is impossible to partition Jerusalem between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods because there is no geographical distinction between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods. Beyond that, if Jerusalem is partitioned, the Arabs with Israeli ID cards will move to the Jewish neighborhoods and Arabs from Judea will flood the Arab neighborhoods. Far from strengthening the Jewish character of the Jewish half of the city, a partition will destroy Jewish Jerusalem. The Jews will flee, and the eternal capital of the Jewish people will be transformed into an Arab city.
As for Judea and Samaria, not only would their handover transform 250,000 Israelis into internal refugees, it would leave 80% of the citizens of the truncated Jewish state within mortar and rocket range of the Palestinian state. Moreover, an Israeli relinquishment of the areas will clear the way for Arab armies to enter the Jordan Valley unopposed. The path from there to the Mediterranean is a short and easy one.
Given all of this, it is manifestly clear that by succumbing to Rice's obsession with summitry, the Olmert government is playing with fire. It is committing Israel to negotiating positions that deny the country the ability to demand that the Palestinians come to terms with the Jewish state and live at peace with it. And it is rendering strategically suicidal seven-year old offers the starting point of all negotiations for years to come.
On Wednesday, the State Department announced that Rice's conference is being postponed until the end of November to give the parties sufficient time to "prepare the groundwork" to somehow ensure the summit's success. Also Wednesday, Olmert and Abbas reportedly agreed that the conference would be nothing more than the starting point for future negotiations.
It can only be hoped that these approaches will be combined. All negotiations should be postponed until after the summit, and the summit should be delayed for weeks, then months, then years. Otherwise, in the name of "promoting peace," Rice and her Israeli underlings will foment a new war.
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
It seems that the U.S. Administration is intent on selling out Israel for political benefit.
The respected writer Carolyn Glick tells the sad tale of betrayal and incompetence.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is moving boldly down the rabbit hole. This week, Rice is due back in the Middle East for meetings in Jerusalem and Ramallah. The purpose of her upcoming visit, like her previous ones, will be to pressure the Olmert government and the Fatah terror organization to reach "substantive agreements" that she'll be able to present to the world at her peace summit in Maryland next month.
It is far from clear what American interests Rice is advancing with her unswerving effort to reach a peace accord between Israel and Fatah. Indeed, Rice's efforts are detrimental to US interests in the region.
On Tuesday, 77 senators signed a letter to Rice regarding her plans for the summit. Among other things, the senators called on the Arab states, which Rice hopes will participate, to "recognize Israel's right to exist and not use such recognition as a bargaining chip for future Israeli concessions."
The senators' warning was well placed. Far from cooperating with the US, the Arab world is undercutting its policies. Not only are the Arabs - including Egypt and Jordan - distancing themselves from Israel; in a direct slap at the US, the Arabs are subverting the US's goal of isolating Hamas. Rather than blackball the jihadist movement, the Arab states led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia are devoting themselves to bringing about a rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas.
Unfortunately, due to Rice's missteps, the US today has little influence over the Arab states. Washington's primary diplomatic leverage over the Arabs stems from its ability to confer legitimacy on them. The US could have used this leverage if it had stated from the outset that it would only invite states to the Middle East conference that support the US's goals of isolating Hamas and accepting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
But rather than condition their invitation, Rice and President George W. Bush made it clear from the outset that they want Arab states to participate in the summit. In so doing, the US turned the turned the tables on itself. Now it is the Arabs who by accepting or rejecting the US offer will confer legitimacy on Washington. Needless to say, in the interests of securing their participation, states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not be called to task for their sponsorship of Hamas or their hostility toward Israel.
So the US has been weakened just by organizing the conference. Yet, if there were any chance that the conference next month in Annapolis could yield real progress toward peace, then at least the Arabs' humiliation of Washington could be said to have been worth it.
Given that since the failed Camp David summit in 2000 the Palestinians have yet to make one substantive concession to Israel, it is clear that the only way the upcoming conference can succeed in advancing peace is if the Palestinians make some dramatic concession to Israel.
But there is absolutely no chance that the Palestinians will be forthcoming. Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas led Fatah to electoral defeat to Hamas in 2006 and to surrender in Gaza in June. The only reason that Abbas remains in power in Judea and Samaria is because the IDF is maintaining security there.
The weak, ineffectual Abbas has no ability to agree to Israeli offers that Yasser Arafat rejected. In addition to Arafat's legacy, Abbas has Hamas to contend with. Any major concessions to Israel would imperil his rule - and his life.
Over the past week, Abbas announced his adherence to maximal Palestinian demands from Israel. These include the full transfer of sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians; the complete surrender of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians; and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called "right of return" that would force Israel to accept millions of foreign Arabs as immigrants within its truncated borders. Abbas's stances are a reflection of his inability to make any concessions for peace.
The failure of Rice's summit will directly benefit Hamas, which will be able to say that as it had warned, diplomacy is pointless. Understanding this, Abbas himself has let it be known that he is negotiating with Hamas. Then too, ahead of his meeting this past Wednesday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Abbas dispatched his representatives to threaten Israel with war.
On Tuesday, Abbas confidante and representative in negotiations with Hamas Azzam al-Ahmed told reporters, "If we don't prepare well for the conference so that it will result in something positive, the repercussions will be more dangerous than what happened after the failure of Camp David."
Hamas is not the only actor that will be strengthened by the failure of the summit. Anti-American, jihadist forces throughout the Arab world will similarly benefit. Like Hamas, they will be able to say, "We told you so." America's humiliation will also weaken liberal democratic voices in the Arab world. With America perceived as weak and incompetent, they will feel compelled to join the anti-American bandwagon.
RICE IS dragging Israel with her in her madcap descent down the diplomatic rabbit hole - and not for the first time. Rice has a record of forcing Israel to sacrifice its security in the interest of her "peace" processes.
In November 2005, Rice coerced then-prime minister Ariel Sharon into accepting her agreement on the passages joining Gaza to Egypt and Israel. That agreement denied Israel the ability to prevent terrorists and arms from being smuggled into Gaza. This week's Egyptian agreement to allow some 90 Hamas terrorists - many of whom underwent military training in Iran and Syria - to enter Gaza was easily implemented in spite of Israeli objections in large part as a consequence of Rice's heavy-handed treatment of Israel.
So too, Rice forced Israel to agree to have US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton train and arm Fatah forces in Gaza. That disastrous plan led to the indirect US arming of Hamas when Fatah forces surrendered their weapons to Hamas without a fight in June. And of course, Rice was the architect of the cease-fire with Hizbullah last year that has enabled the Iranian terror group to rearm and to reassert its control over south Lebanon.
ALTHOUGH THE content of the talks is officially secret, various leaks make the depth of Israeli concessions clear. Israel is agreeing to transfer sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to the Palestinians and to renounce its sovereignty over the Temple Mount; Olmert and his colleagues have agreed to surrender more than 90 percent of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians while destroying most of the Israeli communities there; and Israel is agreeing to certain "symbolic" concessions regarding the so-called "right of return."
In short, Olmert is regurgitating former prime minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak's offers to Arafat at Camp David and Taba from seven years ago.
Many on the Left argue that since Israel offered these concessions in the past, the fact that the government is returning them to the bargaining table today is nothing to get excited about. This is untrue.
There is a huge difference between the situation in 2000 and today. Seven years ago, Barak's offer of territory was based on the expectation that in exchange for territory the Palestinians would eschew terror and live at peace with Israel. Today, after seven years of war that was largely directed by Fatah, after Hamas's takeover of Gaza and Iran's takeover of Hamas, this expectation is no longer realistic. By offering Barak's concessions for a second time, Olmert isn't simply offering land. He is sending the message that Israel neither expects nor demands that the Palestinian state live at peace with Israel.
Perhaps Israel's greatest diplomatic failure since 2000 has been its failure to disavow Barak's offers and remove them from the negotiating table. Once Arafat refused Barak's far-reaching concessions and chose instead to launch a war against the Jewish state, Israel had numerous opportunities to make clear these concession were no longer on offer.
Disavowing them is crucial not simply because they are diplomatically unwise. They are strategically suicidal.
As Israel's experience in south Lebanon and Gaza show clearly, areas that Israel vacates become terrorist enclaves. Given Abbas's embrace of terrorism and his political weakness, it is absolutely clear that an Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will render these areas terror bases as well. Yet here the consequences will be far worse that those of previous withdrawals. An Israeli surrender of Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem will divest Israel of the ability to defend itself.
Although theoretically attractive, it is impossible to partition Jerusalem between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods because there is no geographical distinction between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods. Beyond that, if Jerusalem is partitioned, the Arabs with Israeli ID cards will move to the Jewish neighborhoods and Arabs from Judea will flood the Arab neighborhoods. Far from strengthening the Jewish character of the Jewish half of the city, a partition will destroy Jewish Jerusalem. The Jews will flee, and the eternal capital of the Jewish people will be transformed into an Arab city.
As for Judea and Samaria, not only would their handover transform 250,000 Israelis into internal refugees, it would leave 80% of the citizens of the truncated Jewish state within mortar and rocket range of the Palestinian state. Moreover, an Israeli relinquishment of the areas will clear the way for Arab armies to enter the Jordan Valley unopposed. The path from there to the Mediterranean is a short and easy one.
Given all of this, it is manifestly clear that by succumbing to Rice's obsession with summitry, the Olmert government is playing with fire. It is committing Israel to negotiating positions that deny the country the ability to demand that the Palestinians come to terms with the Jewish state and live at peace with it. And it is rendering strategically suicidal seven-year old offers the starting point of all negotiations for years to come.
On Wednesday, the State Department announced that Rice's conference is being postponed until the end of November to give the parties sufficient time to "prepare the groundwork" to somehow ensure the summit's success. Also Wednesday, Olmert and Abbas reportedly agreed that the conference would be nothing more than the starting point for future negotiations.
It can only be hoped that these approaches will be combined. All negotiations should be postponed until after the summit, and the summit should be delayed for weeks, then months, then years. Otherwise, in the name of "promoting peace," Rice and her Israeli underlings will foment a new war.
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Tehran's Nuclear Timeline
The Islamic Republic may be much closer to an atomic capability than originally thought, the French government has warned. Officials in Paris have told reporters that they believe Iran will have nearly 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges running by the end of this month. They base their assessments on a new analysis by the UN's atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which states that the Iranian regime is expected to have 18 separate centrifuge cascades - totaling nearly 3,000 centrifuges in all - operational by late October. (Associated Press, October 3, 2007)
[Note: The new IAEA finding is significant - and ominous. Nuclear experts say that 3,000 centrifuges represents a key atomic threshold, since that number spinning continuously for one year will generate enough highly-enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon. Based on these projections, and barring any technical glitches or other unforeseen eventualities, Iran will have enough fissile material to field a nuclear weapon by sometime next fall at the latest.]
American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, DC
[Note: The new IAEA finding is significant - and ominous. Nuclear experts say that 3,000 centrifuges represents a key atomic threshold, since that number spinning continuously for one year will generate enough highly-enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon. Based on these projections, and barring any technical glitches or other unforeseen eventualities, Iran will have enough fissile material to field a nuclear weapon by sometime next fall at the latest.]
American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, DC
Monday, October 15, 2007
Why So Many Arab "refugees"?
I often wonder what a place the world would have been had every Jew across the globe, from Rio to Toronto to Philadelphia to Paris and London, had waged a decades-long campaign of terror to avenge the genocide of six million of their co-religionists in the ovens, torture chambers and gas chambers of Auschwitz, Belsen, Treblinka, et al?
If every time a synagogue is attacked or a rabbi coming out of a service in North London is attacked young Jews decide to blow up a bus ?
Why is the immensely wealthy Arab world not capable of helping its own ?
Why should one Iraqi be living in squalor?
And where is the Arab League, or worldwide Muslim charities, when they should be helping get Iraq back into some semblance of order?
The overriding conclusion of the panel was that the sudden departure of coalition troops would create a disastrous scenario and chaos.
The Americans seem incapable of comprehending this and are bitter at the ingratitude shown by Iraq, including what is perceived as a lazy government constantly taking time off for leisure whilst the nation descends into a cauldron of violence.
Around the world the majority view is that Americans are not all that bright about things foreign.
In my view, the hard-working, forward-looking, compartmentalised American psyche simply cannot comprehend a nation of people descending into internecine turmoil and blowing each other, including children, to kingdom come after a tyrant has been toppled.
And before I am bombarded with emails about the bloody American Civil War, it must be noted that it was fought to free the slaves, a noble cause. Americans did not go out and blow each other up because of tribal religious fanaticism.
If the Iraqis, after the Americans leave, can put aside their hatred of the Jews, I think of the many contributions Israel could make to showing Iraqis how to pull a country together and develop wonderful symphony orchestras, art galleries, architectural projects, scientific institutions and other endeavours. If the survivors of the death camps could create magnificent agricultural achievements, including the award-winning Yarden wines, then why can the Iraqis not create a nation filled with creativity and dynamism as is found in tiny Israel?
If every time a synagogue is attacked or a rabbi coming out of a service in North London is attacked young Jews decide to blow up a bus ?
Why is the immensely wealthy Arab world not capable of helping its own ?
Why should one Iraqi be living in squalor?
And where is the Arab League, or worldwide Muslim charities, when they should be helping get Iraq back into some semblance of order?
The overriding conclusion of the panel was that the sudden departure of coalition troops would create a disastrous scenario and chaos.
The Americans seem incapable of comprehending this and are bitter at the ingratitude shown by Iraq, including what is perceived as a lazy government constantly taking time off for leisure whilst the nation descends into a cauldron of violence.
Around the world the majority view is that Americans are not all that bright about things foreign.
In my view, the hard-working, forward-looking, compartmentalised American psyche simply cannot comprehend a nation of people descending into internecine turmoil and blowing each other, including children, to kingdom come after a tyrant has been toppled.
And before I am bombarded with emails about the bloody American Civil War, it must be noted that it was fought to free the slaves, a noble cause. Americans did not go out and blow each other up because of tribal religious fanaticism.
If the Iraqis, after the Americans leave, can put aside their hatred of the Jews, I think of the many contributions Israel could make to showing Iraqis how to pull a country together and develop wonderful symphony orchestras, art galleries, architectural projects, scientific institutions and other endeavours. If the survivors of the death camps could create magnificent agricultural achievements, including the award-winning Yarden wines, then why can the Iraqis not create a nation filled with creativity and dynamism as is found in tiny Israel?
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
IDF: Hamas now in full control of Gaza arms smuggling
The current border between Gaza is a mess, due to the fact that the town, Rafah, straddles the border - where 99% of the smuggling takes place.SO MOVE THE DEFACTO BORDER!! Occupy a 3km belt of Gaza in the nearly unpopulated zone North of Rafah (too wide for them to tunnel under), depopulate it completely relocating the small population North or South, and turn it into a fenced off HEAVILY FORTIFIED closed military zone (like Korean DMZ). Egypt can reassume full control of Rafah and the old Philadelphi route if they want. No Gazans live in airport district or in former settlements by coast. Easy to reclaim 3km wide empty areas as part of this new zone. Boot out the EU "monitors" and restrict anything entering/leaving Gaza except on condition of good behavior by whoever is in charge of this perennial cesspool. Don`t do this, and Gaza will turn into Mogadishu/Pyongyang/Pakistan "tribal area". Forget the mad Peres fantasy that "Palestinians" were ever going to turn it into a Hong Kong.
Hamas now has complete control over the smuggling routes from Egypt, having forced the clans that previously controlled these routes to take orders from it, say senior officers in the Israel Defense Forces. The officers said there has been a sharp increase in the quantity of explosives, including various types of rockets, smuggled into the Gaza Strip from Egypt over the last few weeks.
Hamas now has complete control over the smuggling routes from Egypt, having forced the clans that previously controlled these routes to take orders from it, say senior officers in the Israel Defense Forces. The officers said there has been a sharp increase in the quantity of explosives, including various types of rockets, smuggled into the Gaza Strip from Egypt over the last few weeks.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Islam, the Barbaric Religion
After it was determined that 9-11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, we were assured that they were fanatics. George Bush told us that Islam is a religion of peace. Islamics in our regions have called in to say how scandalized they were at the terrorists' actions, and how Islam is a great and wonderful religion. We are not supposed to say anything bad about Islam.
“There is no such thing as separation of the church and state, or between the state and morality, in Islam. The church IS the state IS morality.”
Since I'm about as Politically Correct as a Promise Keepers convention, I don't care. I don't listen to anyone except my own morality. If I'm the only one who's going to tell the truth about Islam, so be it.
The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. It was founded, built and maintained on the basis of open warfare - against other Muslims and against Christians. Its "prophet" Mohammed, a rich trader turned savage warrior, shed the blood of fellow Muslims who refused to follow his new religion. He and his savages conquered proud cultures such as Persia and Egypt and reduced them to slaves of Allah.
Mohammed first became magistrate of Medina (in 622 CE), where he and the followers of his new religion looted their countrymen and amassed a great fortune. In 10 years, his gang conquered the entire Arabian peninsula, and Mohammed died. The Quran is the story of his conquests - how Mohammed came to kill a great number of his fellows. In the next century, Islam conquered the land from North Africa to Spain, not to mention all that is called the Middle East.
It would have conquered Europe and plunged the world in a perpetual Dark Age, if it had not been for the Battle of Tours (732 CE). By the years 1000 CE, Islam once again threatened Europe, and forced all of Christendom to unite in what is now called the Crusades, a series of wars and jihads which would last 450 years. Finally the war machine of Islam was exhausted by the Crusades.
Mohammed was the analogy of a Hitler or a Mussolini, in the sense that he used nationalist pride to establish the tyrannical reign of his religion. By declaring Islam the only true religion, and all infidels as enemies of Islam, this unity became a force of war. And as the Quran says, he is the model for all Islamic believers : "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah." Quran 033.021
That is the history and model of the "religion of peace".
Are the teachings of the Quran and the sharia propitious to human rights ? In the Quran, as in most religions, rights belong first and foremost to Allah, since he owns everything : "But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things." Quran 004.126
And man's role is to worship him. "I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me." Quran 051.056. Allah has already chosen man's religion, it must be Islam : "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." Quran 005.003
The Quran states clearly that the right of the believer is to kill, in exchange of which he will go to Paradise : "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an" Quran 009.111
This is the basis of the "religion of peace".
While in economical terms Islam does not exert direct control, in social terms it makes the Nazis look like angels. The politics of Islam is superpowered fascism.
Islam does not acknowledge the equality of all humans. There are three types of people : men, women and infidels.
Women are worth half a Muslim man. As proof, the Quran states that a woman may only receive half the inheritance due to a man, and her testimony in court is worth that of half a man. She may not hold most jobs, even in "liberal" Islamic countries. In Iran, the worth of a man's life is equal to the market value of 100 camels or 200 cows and that of a woman is equal to half of the man's, 50 camels or 100 cows. Women cannot vote.
Non-Muslims are worth nothing. A Muslim man may commit any crime against a non-Muslim with impunity, even murder.
Here are some of the verses that deal with these questions :
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means: For Allah is Most High, great." Quran 004.034
"And say to the believing women that they should (...) not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex" Quran 024.031 (this verse is typically used to justify the ignominious enforcement of the hijab)
"Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women" Quran 002.282
"Allah directs you as regards your Children's [inheritance]: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half." Quran 004.011
Believers in Allah are the best people in the world : "Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah." Quran 003.110
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him;" Quran 003.085
"O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong." Quran 009.023
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran 009.029 (Jizya : tribute)
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" Quran 005.033
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing : But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks;" Quran 004.089
There is no such thing as separation of the church and state, or between the state and morality, in Islam. The church IS the state IS morality.
This is the politics of the "religion of peace".
Islamic law - the Sharia (also spelled Shari'ah) - is based on the prevention of heresy and crime by killing independent thought. Here are a number of barbaric practices enforced by Islamic law, apart from those already discussed in the Quran verses above :
Adulterous couples are stoned to death, prostitutes are hanged in public, and women in the company of men who are not blood relatives are executed.
Rape victims are punished.
"Zina laws" prohibit adultery, prostitution, and rape. Punishment is execution or amputation of the hands. This is done to the victims as well.
Women cannot vote or get elected.
Husbands can beat up their wives at their heart's content.
Women cannot do anything outside of the house without the father or husband's consent.
Women cannot get custody of their children.
Women are banned from a number of fields of education.
Women must wear the hijab when outside of the house.
In more extremist countries like Iran, a woman arrested for wearing make-up is forced to clean up with cotton balls rolled in broken glass.
In Pakistan, insulting Mohammed is punished by death (Contempt of Prophet's Act)
Four countries add up to 90% of all executions in the world. Two of them are big and stupid (China, United States), and two of them are Islamic (Iran, Saudi Arabia). From 1981 to 1990, 9 girls under 13 were executed in Iran, the youngest being 10 years old (NOW).
It is my opinion that there is no religion more despicable, and which must be more opposed, than this "religion of peace". Its violent doctrines have destroyed the hopes of an entire region, and almost took over the world. Islamic traditions, like all other religious oppressions, must be rejected by any sane society.
by Francois Tremblay (e-mail: FTremblay@liberator.net)
“There is no such thing as separation of the church and state, or between the state and morality, in Islam. The church IS the state IS morality.”
Since I'm about as Politically Correct as a Promise Keepers convention, I don't care. I don't listen to anyone except my own morality. If I'm the only one who's going to tell the truth about Islam, so be it.
The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. It was founded, built and maintained on the basis of open warfare - against other Muslims and against Christians. Its "prophet" Mohammed, a rich trader turned savage warrior, shed the blood of fellow Muslims who refused to follow his new religion. He and his savages conquered proud cultures such as Persia and Egypt and reduced them to slaves of Allah.
Mohammed first became magistrate of Medina (in 622 CE), where he and the followers of his new religion looted their countrymen and amassed a great fortune. In 10 years, his gang conquered the entire Arabian peninsula, and Mohammed died. The Quran is the story of his conquests - how Mohammed came to kill a great number of his fellows. In the next century, Islam conquered the land from North Africa to Spain, not to mention all that is called the Middle East.
It would have conquered Europe and plunged the world in a perpetual Dark Age, if it had not been for the Battle of Tours (732 CE). By the years 1000 CE, Islam once again threatened Europe, and forced all of Christendom to unite in what is now called the Crusades, a series of wars and jihads which would last 450 years. Finally the war machine of Islam was exhausted by the Crusades.
Mohammed was the analogy of a Hitler or a Mussolini, in the sense that he used nationalist pride to establish the tyrannical reign of his religion. By declaring Islam the only true religion, and all infidels as enemies of Islam, this unity became a force of war. And as the Quran says, he is the model for all Islamic believers : "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah." Quran 033.021
That is the history and model of the "religion of peace".
Are the teachings of the Quran and the sharia propitious to human rights ? In the Quran, as in most religions, rights belong first and foremost to Allah, since he owns everything : "But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things." Quran 004.126
And man's role is to worship him. "I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me." Quran 051.056. Allah has already chosen man's religion, it must be Islam : "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." Quran 005.003
The Quran states clearly that the right of the believer is to kill, in exchange of which he will go to Paradise : "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an" Quran 009.111
This is the basis of the "religion of peace".
While in economical terms Islam does not exert direct control, in social terms it makes the Nazis look like angels. The politics of Islam is superpowered fascism.
Islam does not acknowledge the equality of all humans. There are three types of people : men, women and infidels.
Women are worth half a Muslim man. As proof, the Quran states that a woman may only receive half the inheritance due to a man, and her testimony in court is worth that of half a man. She may not hold most jobs, even in "liberal" Islamic countries. In Iran, the worth of a man's life is equal to the market value of 100 camels or 200 cows and that of a woman is equal to half of the man's, 50 camels or 100 cows. Women cannot vote.
Non-Muslims are worth nothing. A Muslim man may commit any crime against a non-Muslim with impunity, even murder.
Here are some of the verses that deal with these questions :
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means: For Allah is Most High, great." Quran 004.034
"And say to the believing women that they should (...) not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex" Quran 024.031 (this verse is typically used to justify the ignominious enforcement of the hijab)
"Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women" Quran 002.282
"Allah directs you as regards your Children's [inheritance]: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half." Quran 004.011
Believers in Allah are the best people in the world : "Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah." Quran 003.110
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him;" Quran 003.085
"O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong." Quran 009.023
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran 009.029 (Jizya : tribute)
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" Quran 005.033
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing : But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks;" Quran 004.089
There is no such thing as separation of the church and state, or between the state and morality, in Islam. The church IS the state IS morality.
This is the politics of the "religion of peace".
Islamic law - the Sharia (also spelled Shari'ah) - is based on the prevention of heresy and crime by killing independent thought. Here are a number of barbaric practices enforced by Islamic law, apart from those already discussed in the Quran verses above :
Adulterous couples are stoned to death, prostitutes are hanged in public, and women in the company of men who are not blood relatives are executed.
Rape victims are punished.
"Zina laws" prohibit adultery, prostitution, and rape. Punishment is execution or amputation of the hands. This is done to the victims as well.
Women cannot vote or get elected.
Husbands can beat up their wives at their heart's content.
Women cannot do anything outside of the house without the father or husband's consent.
Women cannot get custody of their children.
Women are banned from a number of fields of education.
Women must wear the hijab when outside of the house.
In more extremist countries like Iran, a woman arrested for wearing make-up is forced to clean up with cotton balls rolled in broken glass.
In Pakistan, insulting Mohammed is punished by death (Contempt of Prophet's Act)
Four countries add up to 90% of all executions in the world. Two of them are big and stupid (China, United States), and two of them are Islamic (Iran, Saudi Arabia). From 1981 to 1990, 9 girls under 13 were executed in Iran, the youngest being 10 years old (NOW).
It is my opinion that there is no religion more despicable, and which must be more opposed, than this "religion of peace". Its violent doctrines have destroyed the hopes of an entire region, and almost took over the world. Islamic traditions, like all other religious oppressions, must be rejected by any sane society.
by Francois Tremblay (e-mail: FTremblay@liberator.net)
A Divided Jerusalem?
Technorati Profile
A confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that his government would support a division of Jerusalem, which is reportedly a key component of an Israeli-Palestinian declaration to be made at a U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference next month.
As part of recent negotiations between the sides, Deputy Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon has proposed turning over many of the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Ramon said the Palestinians could establish the capital of a future state in the sector of the city, which Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war.
In return, Israel would receive the recognition of the international community, including Arab states, of its sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods and the existence of its capital there, Ramon said.
On Monday Ramon said even hawkish elements of Olmert's coalition, like Cabinet Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party, would back such an Israeli concession. The centrist Labor Party would also support the proposal, Ramon said.
"There are two central parties that agree to this," Ramon told Army Radio. "The most important thing is to preserve the state of Israel Jewish and democratic."
Under his proposal, neighborhoods in east Jerusalem where about 170,000 Palestinians live would be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, Ramon said.
But Israel would not transfer control of the Holy City and neighborhoods around it to the Palestinians, he said. He did not elaborate but media reports have said that he has proposed Israel relinquish some sovereignty in the area that contains the most contentious sites in the 60-year-conflict.
Vice Premier Haim Ramon's Jerusalem plan would damage Israel both on a national and a security level.
Hopefully, this idea to divide Jerusalem won't pass in any Israeli government.
In a few months Israel will be facing a Fatah-Hamas alliance so we must be realistic and responsible in our proposals to the Palestinians.
jew
Israel
A confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that his government would support a division of Jerusalem, which is reportedly a key component of an Israeli-Palestinian declaration to be made at a U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference next month.
As part of recent negotiations between the sides, Deputy Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon has proposed turning over many of the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Ramon said the Palestinians could establish the capital of a future state in the sector of the city, which Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war.
In return, Israel would receive the recognition of the international community, including Arab states, of its sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods and the existence of its capital there, Ramon said.
On Monday Ramon said even hawkish elements of Olmert's coalition, like Cabinet Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party, would back such an Israeli concession. The centrist Labor Party would also support the proposal, Ramon said.
"There are two central parties that agree to this," Ramon told Army Radio. "The most important thing is to preserve the state of Israel Jewish and democratic."
Under his proposal, neighborhoods in east Jerusalem where about 170,000 Palestinians live would be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, Ramon said.
But Israel would not transfer control of the Holy City and neighborhoods around it to the Palestinians, he said. He did not elaborate but media reports have said that he has proposed Israel relinquish some sovereignty in the area that contains the most contentious sites in the 60-year-conflict.
Vice Premier Haim Ramon's Jerusalem plan would damage Israel both on a national and a security level.
Hopefully, this idea to divide Jerusalem won't pass in any Israeli government.
In a few months Israel will be facing a Fatah-Hamas alliance so we must be realistic and responsible in our proposals to the Palestinians.
jewIsrael
Thursday, October 4, 2007
This seems to be a good thing.
Christians have traditionally been one of the deadliest foes of Jews, but with the rise of radical
Islam, Christians are begining to rally behind Yisrael.
Men wearing shirts with the Star of David marched during a parade of international Christian Zionist groups in the city centre of Jerusalem on September 24, 2002. Some 7,000 mostly evangelical Christians from across the world flocked to the Holy Land this week to celebrate the Jewish festival of Sukkoth and to show support for Israel.
Let's hope this trend continues, and we can make common bonds with righteous Christians against the evil of Islam.
אני מנגנת-שיר לשלום- song for peace
A deeply moving song to which Shir adds her own emotional drive and force to wonderful effect!
Monday, October 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky