IsraelAmerica

IsraelAmerica
IsraelAmerica

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Muslim Crimes in Mumbai Continue


The criminals responsible for the killings and mayhem in Mumbai are being
dispatched and imprisoned, the latest reports say 10 criminals killed and 4 arrested.
So far over 130 innocent victims are reported murderered and over 325 maimed.
Innocent people, unarmed civilians, women and children, brutally gunned down by insane religious fanatics.
The Taj Hotel is apparently secured, the Jewish Center
may still be in the hands of Nazi inspired Muslim gangsters.
Like many citizens of the world I watched CNN coverage throughout most of the night.
It's interesting how Muslim criminals have managed to make mass murder seem
almost routine.
On CNN last night Deepak Chopra called on Muslims to "take action against the criminals in our family"and not just verbally condemn them.
He added" What we have seen in Mumbai has been brewing for a long time, and the war on terrorism and the attack on Iraq compounded the situation.
What we call "collateral damage" and going after the wrong people actually turns moderates into extremists, and that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay"He continued to say:Ultimately the message is always toward Washington because it's also the perception that Washington, in their way, directly or indirectly funds both sides of the war on terror. They fund our side, then our petrol dollars going to Saudi Arabia through Pakistan and ultimately these terrorist groups, which are very organized. You know Jonathan, it takes a lot of money to do this. It takes a lot of organization to do this. Where's the money coming from, you know? The money is coming from the vested interests. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories, but what happens is, our policies, our foreign policies, actually perpetuate this problem."

1300hrs,mst, Just now, CNN reports that eight hostages have been rescued from the Jewish Center.
There is reported to be a standoff between the Police and the Muslim Gang members
at this moment at the Jewish center in Mumbai.
Muslim criminals, like their Nazi cohorts, have long blamed "the Jew" for their murderous, bloodthirsty behaviour.

Advice to a “house negro” — from a “terrorist”





Wit and wisdom from the beautiful and courageous Irshad Manji. MFB,SR


Originally posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Nov 20, 2008

Well, Mr. President-Elect, you’ve been publicly berated as a “house negro” by Muslim extremist Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Wear it as a badge of honor, sir.

You’ve scampered under Zawahiri’s skin.

He doesn’t know how else to attack your legitimacy, so he assaults your humanity in the hope that fellow Muslims will project their baggage onto you.
See, too many Muslims today remain nervous in their own skins and thus cower before their clerical masters.

Fearful of authenticity, Muslims are intimidated into slavery.

Deep down, they know it. And they hate themselves for it.

By labeling you the “house slave,” Zawahiri aims to distill their self-hatred into a collective repudiation of your chutzpah.
I’m well aware of this ploy.

It routinely appears as a fusillade of epithets in my own email inbox. Consider this message, sent to me just last week under the subject line: “You are a Terrorist!”
Stop terrorizing the Muslim Ummah you kaffir-loving (literally, you even lick kaffir vag!) lesbian whore… You probably never were a muslim, just a brown dyke bitch. - Eesa Abdullah

Quoi? Moi? A terrorist?
I suppose I am — to those whose identities are so fragile, whose sense of self so stunted, that they must dehumanize others to feel remotely valid. Such people can’t abide, let alone accept, our shared humanity.

Under these circumstances, then, it’s quite true that they feel terrorized by a campaign to reconcile Islam with universal human rights.
Similarly, Mr. President-Elect, you’re the house negro to those whose ideology results in maiming, raping, and murdering more Muslims than the foreign forces they indict.

Do you detect a pattern here?
It would be a no-brainer for me to say, “Pay no mind. Ignore Zawahiri.”

But that’s not what I’m saying.

Instead, my advice is to thank the rhetorical pugilist, for he hands you the highest of compliments.

He’s acknowledging your personal solidity.

And, after thanking Zawahiri, use his ugly message to tell Muslims the world over that you have faith in their capacity to be better.
It’s what you do best.

Do it again.
Still, I wasn’t born yesterday.

Not for a minute do I suggest that milk and honey will suddenly flow from your generosity. It won’t.

If people like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Eesa Abdullah ooze bile, then what do we make of someone entirely different who writes me a similar email — plainly stating “Dyke Bitch” — but whose automated signature sweetly reads as follows:
Happy moments, praise God.

Difficult moments, seek God.

Quiet moments, worship God.

Painful moments, trust God.

Every moment, thank God.

As you already know, Mr. President-Elect, the world is an absurd place.

I, for one, will stay grateful for the lessons — and laughs — that it offers.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Putting things in proportion (By Ben Dror Yemini)

So here it is - the third and final installment of my translation of Ben Dror Yemini’s article.
If you haven’t read the first and second parts, please read them first.

And the world is silent
Part One.
Part Two.


Part Three:
Lebanon: The Lebanese civil war took place from 1975 to 1990. Israel was involved in certain stages, by way of the first Lebanon War in 1982. There is no disagreement that a considerable part of the victims were killed in the first two years.
The more assessments talk of over 130,000 killed. Most of them were Lebanese killed by other Lebanese, on religious, ethnic grounds and in connection with the Syrian involvement. Syria transferred its support between various parties in the conflict. The highest estimates claim that Israeli activities were the cause of around 18,000 people, the great majority of which were fighters.
Lebanon summary: 130,000.
Yemen: In the civil war that took place in Yemen from 1962 to 1970, with Egyptian and Saudi involvement, 100,000 to 150,000 Yemenites were killed, and more than a thousand Egyptians and a thousand Saudis.
Egypt committed war crimes by incorporating the use of chemical warfare. Riots in Yemen from 1984 to 1986 caused the deaths of thousands more.
Yemen summary: 100,000 to 150,000 fatalities.
Chechnya:
Russia turned down Chechen Republic demands for independence, and this led to the first Chechen war of 1994 to 1996. The war cost the lives of 50,000 to 200,000 Chechens.
Russia put a great deal into this conflict, but failed miserably. This did not help Chechens, because although they had gained autonomy there republic was in ruins.
The second Chechen War began in 1999 and officially ended in 2001, but it has not really ended, and number of the victims is estimated at 30,000 to 100,000.
Chechnya summary: 80,000 to 300,000 fatalities.

From Jordan to Zanzibar: In addition to the wars and the massacres, there have also been smaller confrontations, that have cost the lives of thousands and tens of thousands, of Muslims and Arabs (killed) by Muslims and Arabs.
These confrontations are not even taken into account in the tables presented on these pages, because the numbers are small, relatively speaking, even though the numbers of those killed are far higher than the numbers of the victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Here are some of them:
Jordan: 1970 to 1971 the Black September riots took place In the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. King Hussein was fed up of the Palestians use of the country and their threatened to take control of it. The confrontation, mainly a massacre in the refugee camps, took thousands of lives. According to estimates provided by the Palestinians themselves - 10,000 to 25,000 fatalities. According to other sources - a few thousand.
Chad: Half of the population of Chad are Muslims: In various civil wars 30,000 civilians have been killed.
Kosovo: In the mainly Muslim area of Yugoslavia about 10,000 were killed in the war there from 1998 to 2000.
Tajikistan: Civil war from 1992 to 1996 left about 50,000 dead.
Syria: Hafez Assad’s systematic persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood ended in the 1982 massacre in the city of Hama, costing the lives of about 20,000 people.
Iran: Thousands were killed in the beginning of the Humeini Revolution. The precise number is unknown, but is somewhere between thousands and tens of thousands. The Kurds also suffered at the hands of Iran, and about 10,000 of them were murdered there.
Turkey: About 20,000 Kurds were killed in Turkey as part of the conflict there.
Zanzibar: In the early 1960’s the island was granted independence, but only for a short time. At first, the Arabs were in power, but a black group, made up mainly of Muslims, slaughtered the Arab group, also Muslim, in 1964.
The estimates are that 5,000 to 17,000 were killed.
Even this is not the end of the list.
There were more conflicts with unknown numbers of victims in former USSR republics with Muslim majority populations (like the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagurno Karabach), and a disputable number of Muslims that were killed in mixed population countries in Africa, such as Nigeria, Mauritania or Uganda (in the years of Idi Amins reign in Uganda, in the decade that began in 1971, about 300,000 Ugandans were killed. Amin defined himself as Muslim, but in contrast to Sudan, it is hard to say that the background for the slaughter was Muslim, and it certainly wasn’t Arab.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
To all the above, one can add this data: The great majority of Arabs killed in the framework of the Israeli-Arab Conflict were killed as a result of wars instigated by the Arabs and as a result of their refusal to recognize the UN decision regarding the establishment of the State of Israel, or their refusal to recognize the Jews’ right of self-definition.
The number of Israelis killed by Arab aggression has been relatively much higher than the numbers of Arabs killed. In the War of the Independence, for example, more than 6,000 Israelis were killed out of a population that was then made up of 600,000. This means: One percent of the population. In comparison with this, Arab fatalities in the war against Israel came from seven countries, the populations of which were already tens of millions. Israel did not dream, did not think and did not want to destroy any Arab state.
But the ostensible goal of the attacking armies was “to liquidate the Jewish entity”.
Obviously, in recent years, the Palestinian victims have received most of the attention of the Media and the Academia.
In actual fact, these make up just a small percentage of the total sum of all victims. The total sum of Palestinians killed by Israel in the territories that were conquered is several thousand. 1,378 were killed in the first Intifada, and 3,700 since the start of the second Intifada.
This is less, for instance, than the Muslim victims massacred by former Syrian president, Hafez Assad in Hama in 1982.
This is less than the Palestinians massacred by King Hussein in 1971.
This is less than the number of those killed in one single massacre of Muslim Bosnians by the Serbs in 1991 in Srebrenica, a massacre that left 8,000 dead.
Every person killed is regrettable, but there is no greater libel than to call Israel’s actions ‘genocide’. And even so, the string ‘Israel’ and ‘genocide’ in Google search engine leads to 13,600,000 referrals.
Try typing ‘Sudan’ and ‘genocide’ and you’ll get less than 9 million results. These numbers, if you will, are the essence of the great deception.
The occupation is not enlightened, but is not brutal
Another fact: Since WWII, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the national conflict with the lowest number of victims, but with the world’s highest number of publications hostile to Israel in the media and in the Academia.
At least half a million Algerians died during the French occupation. A million Afghanis died during the Soviet occupation. Millions of Muslims and Arabs were killed and slaughtered at the hands of Muslims. But all the world knows about one Mohammed a-Dura (whose death was regrettable, but there is some doubt whether he was killed by Israeli gunfire at all).
It is possible and acceptable to criticize Israel.
But the excessive, obsessive, and at times anti-Semitic criticism serves also as a coverup, and in some cases also as an approval, of the genocide of millions of others.Occupation is not enlightened and can’t be enlightened.
But if we try to create a scale of ‘brutal occupation’, Israel will come last.
This is a fact.
This is not an opinion.
And what would have happened to the Palestinians if, instead of being under Israeli occupation they were under Iraqi occupation? Or Sudanese? Or even French or Soviet? It is highly probable that they would have been victims of genocide, at worst, and of mass killings, purges, and deportations at best.
But luckily for them they are under Israeli occupation.
And even if, I repeat, there is no such thing as an enlightened occupation, and even if it is acceptable and possible, and at times necessary, to criticize Israel, there is no occupation and there has never been an occupation with so few fatalities (indeed, there are other injuries that are not manifested in the numbers of fatalities, such as the refugee problem. This will be discussed in a separate chapter).
Television screen ethics :
So why is the impression of the world the direct opposite? How come there is no connection between the facts and the numbers and the so very demonic image of Israel in the world?
There are many answers. One of them is that western ethics have become the ethics of television cameras.
If a Palestinian terrorist or a Hizballah man tries to shoot a rocket from the midst of a civilian neighborhood, and Israel retaliates with fire - causing the death of two children - there will be endless headlines and articles all over the world that “Israel murders children”. But if entire villages are destroyed in Sudan or whole cities are erased in Syria, there will be no television cameras in the area.
And so, according to television ethics, Jose Saramago and Harold Pinter sign a petition protesting ‘genocide’ and ‘war crimes’ perpetrated by Israel. They have never read the Geneva Convention either.
They probably do not know that, aside for very few exceptions, the actions of Israel against military targets hitting civilians is allowed according to the Geneva Convention (protocol 1 paragraph 52.2). And because these people are so submerged in television ethics, they will not sign any petitions in protest of the genocide of Muslims by Muslims.
Murder for the sake of it. They are allowed to do it.
Television ethics is a tragedy for the Arabs and the Muslims themselves.
Israel pays dearly because of it, but the Arabs and the Muslims are its real victims. And as long as this blue screen morality continues, the Arabs and the Muslims will continue to pay the price.
Epilogue
There are those that claim that Arab and Muslim states are immune from criticism, because they are not democratic, but Israel is more worthy of criticism because it has democratic pretences.
Claims like this are Orientalism at its worst.
The covert assumption is that the Arabs and the Muslims are the retarded child of the world. They are allowed. It is not only Orientalism.
It is racism.
The Arabs and the Muslims are not children and they are not retarded. Many Arabs and Muslims know this and write about it.
They know that only an end to the self-deception and a taking of responsibility will lead to change.
They know that as long as the west treats them as unequal and irresponsible it is lending a hand not only to a racist attitude, but also, and mainly, to a continuation of their mass murder.
The genocide that Israel is not committing, that is completely libelous, hides the real genocide, the silenced genocide that Arabs and Muslims are committing mainly against themselves. The libel has to stop so as to look at reality.
It is in the interest of the Arabs and the Muslims.
Israel pays in image. They pay in blood. If there is any morality left in the world, this should be in the interest of whoever has a remaining drop of it in him. And should it happen, it will be small news for Israel, and great news, far greater news, for Arabs and Muslims.
imshin

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Genocide

In order to defend Israel we need to expose the tactics of her enemies.
This three part series of articles does a remarkable of job of doing just that.

Genocide, Genocide, Genocide
part one:
(First Part)
by Imshin

Putting things in proportion
I have begun translating a rather lengthy article that appeared in the Rosh Hashanna edition of Maariv.
I’m bringing the first installment of the translation now.
I hope to continue tomorrow, so eventually you will be able to read the whole thing.
Please forgive the quality of the translation. First of all, the original Hebrew was not as well edited as one would expect (to put it politely). And secondly, it’s so long that I’m finding the task daunting.
I believe you will agree that the content is important enough that I (with Bish’s much appreciated help) should make the effort.

And the world is silent
By Ben Dror Yemini

Fact no. 1:
Since the establishment of the State of Israel a merciless genocide is being perpetrated against Muslims and/or Arabs.
Fact no. 2:
The conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and the Arabs as a whole and against the Palestinians in particular, is regarded as the central conflict in the world today. Fact no. 3: According to polls carried out in the European Union, Israel holds first place as “Danger to world peace”. In Holland, for instance, 74% of the population holds this view. Not Iran. Not North Korea.
Israel.
Connecting between these findings creates one of the biggest deceptions of modern times: Israel is regarded as the country responsible for every calamity, misfortune and hardship. It is a danger to world peace, not just to the Arab or Muslim world.
How the deception works
The finger is pointed cleverly.
It’s difficult to blame Israel for the genocide in Sudan or for the civil war in Algeria. How is it done? Dozens of publications, articles, books, periodicals and websites are dedicated to one purpose only: Turning Israel into a state that ceaselessly perpetrates war crimes. In Jakarta and in Khartoum they burn the Israeli flag, and in London, in Oslo and in Zurich hate articles are published, supporting the destruction of Israel.
Any request in Internet search engines for the words “genocide” against “Muslims”, “Arabs” or “Palestinians”, in the context of “Zionists” or “Israel” – will give us endless results. Even after we’ve filtered out the trash, we are left with millions of publications written in deadly seriousness.
This abundance brings results.
It works like brainwashing.
It is the accepted position, and not just a fringe opinion.
Only five years ago we were witness to a international anti-Israeli show in the Durban Convention.
Only two years ago we were shocked when a member of our Academia blamed Israel of ‘symbolic genocide’ against the Palestinian people.
Much ado about nothing.
There are thousands of publications blaming Israel of genocide, and not ‘symbolic’.
Under an academic and/or journalistic umbrella, today’s Israel is compared to the damned Germany of yesteryear.
In conclusion, there are those who call to terminate the ‘Zionist project’. And in more simple words: because Israel is a country that perpetrates so many war crimes and engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide – it has no right to exist.
This, for instance, is the essence of an article by the Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder (writer of “Sophie’s world”), who wrote, among other things: “We call killers of children by their name”). The conclusion is that Israel has no right to exist.
The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening. A genocide protected by the silence of the world. A genocide protected by a deception that is perhaps unparalleled in the history of mankind.
A genocide that has no connection to Israel, to Zionism or to Jews. A genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims.
This is not a matter of opinion or viewpoint.
This is the result of factual examination, as precise as possible, of the numbers of victims of various wars and conflicts that have taken place since the establishment of the State of Israel up till this time, in which the massacre continues. It is, indeed, death on a massive scale. A massacre.
It is the wiping out of villages and cities and whole populations. And the world is silent. The Muslims are indeed abandoned.
They are murdered and the world is silent.
And if it bothers to open its mouth, it doesn’t complain about the murderers. It doesn’t complain about the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity. It complains about Israel.
This great deception, that covers up the real facts, endures and even grows because of one reason only: The Media and Academia in the West participate in it. In endless publications, books, periodicals and websites Israel is portrayed as a state that perpetrates “war crimes”, “ethnic cleansing”, and “systematic murder”.
Sometimes it is because this is fashionable, sometimes it is mistakenly, sometimes it is the result of hypocrisy and double standards.
Sometimes it is new and old anti-Semitism, from the left and from the right, overt and covert. Most of the classic blood libels were refuted not long after they came into being. The blood libel of modern times, against the state of Israel, continues to grow.
Many Israelis and Jews are accessories to the nurturing of the libel.
The Arab-Israeli conflict
The Zionist settling of this country, which began at the end of the 19th century, did indeed create a conflict between Jews and Arabs. The amount of those killed in various clashes up till the establishment of the State of Israel was no more than a few thousands, of both Jews and Arabs. Most of the Arabs killed in those years were killed in armed struggles of Arabs amongst themselves; such as, for example, in the days of the Great Arab Uprising of 1936 – 1939. That was a sign of things to come. Many others were killed as a result of the harsh hand wielded by the British. Israel never did anything comparable.
Israel’s War of Independence, known also as the War of 48’, left between 5,000 to 15,000 dead from among the Palestinians and citizens of Arab countries.
In this war, as in any war, there were indeed atrocities.
The attackers declared their goal, and if they had won, a mass extermination of Jews would have taken place.
On Israel’s side there were also barbarous acts, but they were on the fringe of the fringe.
Less, far less, than in any other war in modern times.
Far less than what is being perpetrated every day in these very times, by Muslims, mainly against Muslims, in Sudan and in Iraq.
The next event of importance was the Sinai War of 1956. About 1,650 Egyptians were killed, about 1,000 at the hands of the Israelis and about 650 by the French and British forces.
Next came the Six Day War (1967- IJ). The highest estimates talk of 21,000 Arabs killed on all three fronts – Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
The Yom Kippur War (1973 – IJ) resulted in 8,500 Arab dead, this time on only two fronts – Egypt and Syria.
Then there were ‘smaller’ wars: The first Lebanon war, which was initially mainly against the PLO and not against Lebanon. This was a war in a war.
These were the years of the bloody civil war in Lebanon, a war we will discuss further later on. And thus also in the second Lebanon war, in which about a thousand Lebanese were killed.
Thousands of Palestinians were killed during the Israeli occupation of the territories, that began at the end of the Six Day War.
Most were killed during the two Intifadas, the one that commenced in 1987 and resulted in 1,800 Palestinian deaths, and the one that commenced in 2000 with a Palestinan death toll of 3,700.
In between, there were more military actions that caused further Arab fatalities. If we exaggerate, we can say that these were a few hundred more who were killed. Hundreds. Not hundreds of thousands. Not millions.
The total count reaches about 60,000 Arabs killed in the framework of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Among them only several thousand Palestinians, although it is because of them, and only them, that Israel is the target of the world’s anger.
Every Arab and Muslim death is regrettable.
And it is okay to criticize Israel.
But the obsessive and demonic criticism emphasizes a far more amazing fact:
The silence of the world, or at least relative silence, in the face of the systematic extermination of millions of others by Muslim and Arab regimes.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Why Do Arab "Militants" Hate Obama?

They fear him.
In a release from the second in command of Al Qaeda,they refered to President-Elect Obama as a "house nigger."
In the taped message from the terrorist group they also compared President-Elect Obama to Malcolm X, who they refered to as an honorable "negro".
It is believed that the eccentric traitor Adam Qadan was heavily involved in the content of Al Qaeda's latest choleric outpouring.
In the video they showed Obama in a kippa praying with Jews.
They railed against the President-elect's pledge to support Israel and to step up anti-terror operations in Afganistan.
Obama tends to blunt some of the racism practiced by Arab militants in general and Al Qaeda specifically by showing that unlike in the Arab world, in America minorities can hold the highest office in the country.
This web site has long maintained that Obama will be a firm ally of Israel.
So far all signs continue to point in that direction.

MichaelBlackburnsr

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim

1. Do you know Aramaic or Hebrew?Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice.
However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word.
In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities.[1]
Even for contemporary Arabic –speaking peoples, reading the Koran is far from being a straightforward matter. The Koran is putatively (in fact it is very difficult to decide exactly what the language of the Koran is) written in what we call Classical Arabic (CA), but modern Arab populations, leaving aside the problem of illiteracy in Arab countries [2], do not speak, read, or write, let alone think in Classical Arabic (CA). We are confronted with the phenomenon of diglossia [3], that is to say, a situation where two varieties of the same language live side by side. The two variations are high and low. High Arabic is sometimes called Modern Literary Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic, and is learned through formal education in school like Latin or Sanskrit, and would be used in sermon, university lecture, news broadcast and for mass media purposes. Low Arabic or Colloquial Arabic is a dialect which native speakers acquire as a mother tongue, and is used at home conversing with family and friends, and is also used in radio or television soap opera. But as Kaye points out, "the differences between many colloquials and the classical language are so great that a fallah (= farmer or peasant) who had never been to school could hardly understand more than a few scattered words and expressions in it without great difficulty. One could assemble dozens of so-called Arabs (fallahin or peasants) in a room, who have never been exposed to the classical language, so that not one could properly understand the other." [4]
Though some scholars do allow for some change and decay, they paint a totally misleading picture of the actual linguistic situation in modern Arabic speaking societies. These scholars imply that anyone able to read a modern Arabic newspaper should have no difficulties with the Koran or any classical Arabic text. They seem totally insensitive "to the evolution of the language, to changes in the usage and meaning of terms over the very long period and in the very broad area in which Classical Arabic has been used." [5] Anyone who has lived in the Middle East in recent years will know that the language of the press is at best semi-literary [6], and certainly simplified as far as structure and vocabulary are concerned. We can discern what would be called grammatical errors from a Classical Arabic point of view in daily newspapers or on television news. This semi-literary language is highly artificial, and certainly no one thinks in it. For an average middle class Arab it would take considerable effort to construct even the simplest sentence, let alone talk, in Classical Arabic. The linguist Pierre Larcher has written of the "considerable gap between Medieval Classical Arabic and Modern Classical Arabic [or what I have been calling Modern Literary Arabic], certain texts written in the former are today the object of explanatory texts in the latter." He then adds in a footnote that he has in his library, based on this model, an edition of the Risala of Shafi`i (died 204/820) which appeared in a collection with the significant title "Getting closer to the Patrimony." [7]
As Kaye puts it, "In support of the hypothesis that modern standard Arabic is ill-defined is the so-called ‘mixed’ language or ‘Inter-Arabic’ being used in the speeches of, say, President Bourguiba of Tunisia, noting that very few native speakers of Arabic from any Arab country can really ever master the intricacies of Classical Arabic grammar in such a way as to extemporaneously give a formal speech in it." [8]
Pierre Larcher [9] has pointed out that wherever you have a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language coexist, you are also likely to get all sorts of linguistic mixtures, leading some linguists to talk of triglossia. Gustav Meiseles [10] even talks of quadriglossia: between Literary Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, he distinguishes a Sub-Standard Arabic and an Educated Spoken Arabic. Still others speak of pluri- or multi- or polyglossia, viewed as a continuum. [11]
The style of the Koran is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Koran would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Koran.
You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Koran in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
So let me summarise: You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Paul Kurtz does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation. [12] You only need a critical sense, critical thought and scepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran, by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [13] which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it.
Endnotes below.
1. See Appendix, Bibliography of Translations, in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, edd. Beeston, Johnstone et al, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.502-520.
2. In Egypt, the rate of illiteracy is placed as high as 49.8 %, see Information Please Almanac, Boston, 1997, p.180
3. Charles Ferguson, Diglossia, Word, Vol.15, No.2 pp325-340, Aug.1959; William Marçais, La diglossie arabe, L’Enseignement public –Revue Pédagogique, tome 104, no 12, 1930, pp.401-409; Alan S. Kaye,Arabic, in The Major Languages of South Asia, The Middle East and Africa, ed. Bernard Comrie, London, Routledge, 1990, p.181
4. Ibid., p.173.
5. B.Lewis, Islam and the West, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.65
6. It is in fact becoming more and more westernized, i.e. de-semitized under the influence of the international news agencies.
7. P.Larcher,Les Incertitudes de la Poesie Arabe Archaique, in La Revue des Deux Rives, No.1, 1999,p.129
8. Kaye, op. cit. p.183.
9. P.Larcher, La Linguistique Arabe d’Hier a Demain : Tendances Nouvelles de la Recherche, Arabica, tome XLV, 1998, pp.409-29.
10. Gustav Meiseles, Educated Spoken Arabic and the Arabic Language Continuum, Archivum Linguisticum, vol. XI, Number 2, 1980, pp.118-142;quoted in P.Larcher,see note 10 above.
11. A.S.Kaye, Formal vs. Informal in Arabic : Diglossia, Triglossia, Tetraglossia, etc., Polyglossia –Multiglossia Viewed as a Continuum, ZAL, 27, 1994, pp.47-66.
12. P.Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation, Prometheus Books, Amherst,1986
13. There seems to be some controversy as to what the language of the Koran really is, see my introduction to What the Koran Really Says., Prometheus Books, Amherst, 2002.
2. Out of contextLet us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the “you have quoted out of context” defense. What do they mean by “You have quoted out of context”? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword.
Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:
Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say.
For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.
Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!
Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context.
The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point:
Sura IV.34: ”As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them ”
This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:
Sura IV.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”
If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word “lightly “in brackets after “beat “even though there is no “lightly “in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character.
Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre. Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: “O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”
How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX indeed makes it clear that “make war “in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura IX.5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them …” These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, “and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, “If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.” Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.
First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). “It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire.” (IX.113) So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX. 23 “O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.” In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral.
The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:
IX. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God ’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons. IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.
The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight –especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels.”
As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 –35:
“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.“The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!“They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!….“It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it.“O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …”
The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse.
3. Go to the Original SourcesWhen you do debate with a Muslim make sure you are armed with all your references from the original Arabic sources. The major sources are all available in English, and are the Koran, the Sira or the Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, and the Hadith, the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his companions. You must make the effort to familiarize yourself with these. Start with the Koran. It is not a very long text, about four hundred pages in the Penguin translation. Acquire at least four different translations, at least one of which should be by a Muslim. Yusuf Ali and, despite his name, Marmaduke Pickthall were Muslims, and their translations are easily available in paperbacks. At least one should be by someone whose mother tongue was Arabic, such as N.J.Dawood, an Iraqi scholar whose translation is quite readable. If you read French, I strongly advise you to acquire and read Regis Blachere’s translation - it has copious footnotes which reveal the opaqueness of the Holy text, and the grammatical errors of the original Arabic.
If you have read the Koran, you are already better informed of its contents than the majority of Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims have been genuinely surprised when I have apprised them of the verses preaching war, intolerance, hatred of Jews and Christians, misogyny, cruel punishments, etc. When you do read the Koran, read it with a highlighter in hand, and mark or underline the passages which preach intolerance, or which reveal injustice, cruelty and violence, absurdities, insults to women, contradictions, anti-Semitism, homophobic attitudes, superstitions, and, to be scrupulously fair, passages which teach morally acceptable principles. Someone has already undertaken just such a task at:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html. Our diligent skeptic found 511 passages of injustice, 384 of intolerance, 320 of cruelty and violence, 46 insults to women and just 60 passages of morally acceptable principles.
Here are some anti-Jewish sentiments from the Koran:
II.61: ….Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them (that is, the Jews), and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.
IV.44-46: Have you not seen those who have received a portion of the Scripture? They purchase error, and they want you to go astray from the path. But Allah knows best who your enemies are, and it is sufficient to have Allah as a friend. It is sufficient to have Allah as a helper. Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings, and say, ‘We hear and we disobey’, and ‘Hear without hearing,’ and ‘Heed us!’ twisting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said, ‘We have heard and obey,’, or ‘Hear and observe us’ it would have been better for them and more upright. But Allah had cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
IV.160-161: And for the evildoing of the Jews, We have forbidden them some good things that were previously permitted them, and because of their barring many from Allah’s way. And for their taking usury which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people’s wealth under false pretense. We have prepared for the unbelievers among them a painful punishment.
IX.29-31: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute [poll-tax] readily, and are utterly subdued. The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Those are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are! They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, and so too the Messiah son of Mary, though they were commanded to serve but one God. There is no God but He. Allah is exalted above that which they deify beside Him.
IX.34: O you who believe ! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of a painful doom.
V.63-64: Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evil-speaking and devouring of illicit gain? Verily evil is their handiwork. The Jews say, “Allah’s hands are fettered.” Their hands are fettered, and they are cursed for what they have said! On the contrary, His hands are spread open. He bestows as He wills. That which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the arrogance and unbelief of many among them. We have cast enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they light the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. They hasten to spread corruption throughout the earth, but Allah does not love corrupters!
V.70-71: We made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them. But whenever an apostle came to them with a message that did not suit their fancies, some they accused of lying and others they put to death. They thought no harm would follow: they were blind and deaf. God is ever watching their actions.
V.82: Indeed, you will surely find that the most vehement of men in enmity to those who believe are the Jews and the polytheists.
V.51: O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them.
V.57: O you who believe! Choose not for friends such of those who received the Scripture [Jews and Christians] before you, and of the disbelievers, as make jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah of you are true believers.
V.59: Say: O, People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians]! Do you blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evildoers?
V.66: ….Among them [Jews and Christians] there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
XXXIII.26: He brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them from among the People of the Book [Jews of Bani Qurayza ] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you killed and others you took captive.
V.60: Say:‘ Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from God ? Those whom [i.e. Jews] God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil. Worse is the plight of these, and they have strayed farther from the right path.’
Then pass onto the oldest source on the life of the Prophet, the Sira by Ibn Ishaq as quoted by Ibn Hisham. It is also available in an English translation. Again read it, with the same skeptical attitude and a highlighter in hand. It makes for very depressing reading. The biography is full of violence, cruelty, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Here are some of the passages from the Sira revealing Muhammad’s hatred of the Jews :
1. “Kill any Jews that falls into your power” said the Prophet: p.3692. The killing of Ibn Sunayna, and its admiration leading someone to convert to Islam: p.3693. The killing of Sallam ibn Abu’l –Huqayq: pp.482-4834. The assassination of Ka‘b b.al-Ashraf ,who wrote verses against Muhammad: pp.364-3695. The raid against the Jewish tribe of the Banu‘l-Nadir, and their banishment. pp.437-4456. The extermination of the Banu Qurayza, between 600-800 men. pp.461-4697. The killing of alYusayr. pp.665-666
Finally, pass onto the Hadith or Traditions, which are also, fortunately, available in English. The collection by Bukhari, who died in 870 C.E., is the best place to start. The Hadith or the Books of Tradition are a collection of sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back to him through a series of putatively trustworthy witnesses. Apart from what Muhammad did and enjoined these traditions include what was done in his presence that he did not forbid, and even the authoritative sayings and doings of the companions of the Prophet. These traditions serve as the theoretical basis of the Sharia or Islamic Law, and hence of Islam itself. Here you will find all that you suspected about Islam but were not sure where to look for. Jihad, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and the usual litany of violence and cruelty. Bukhari’s collection is highly regarded by the Muslims.
Thus furnished with precise references to and quotes from the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, you are well-equipped to criticise Islam, and ready to debate any Muslim.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

They Will Decide Their Own Fate

This article was first carried by Jewish World Review




The idea that the next American president, will be dictating peace terms to the next Israeli prime minister is more an Arab fantasy than reality. No person will have as much impact on decisions relating to the fate of the Jewish state as the one chosen by Israel's electorate.
Americans, and even many Israelis, tend to have it backwards when it comes to the question of who will be the one driving the peace process. From the first day of Israeli independence to the present, Israeli prime ministers have always been the ones in charge. Every leader, from David Ben-Gurion all the way to Ehud Olmert, has had the ability to make his or her own decisions concerning the nation's security. Peace initiatives involving the Israel-Arab conflict have had their origins in Jerusalem, not Washington.

Israel's security will be affected more by its own voting than by our election .


By Jonathan Tobin

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

American Jews have spent much of the past year tying themselves in knots debating which of the presidential candidates is the stronger supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
To the last week of the campaign, Republicans continued to argue that Barack Obama's protestations of sympathy for the Jewish state were faked.
Their last-ditch efforts centered around Obama's appearance at a 2003 dinner honoring Rashid Khalidi, an anti-Zionist academic, at which various other speakers said some nasty things about Israel without apparently sparking much protest from the Democrats' standard-bearer.
But, as with the litany of other charges against Obama, this story was unlikely to change anyone's mind.
Indeed, the Democrats have been so effective in conditioning their supporters to dismiss the GOP's arguments as false or irrational that the reaction from many voters was to merely assume (wrongly) that the incident never happened and to completely ignore it.
Yet, for all the ink spilled over the question of which candidate really loves Israel and opposes Palestinian terrorists or Iranian nukes, there is one fundamental problem with the entire debate. Behind most of the points used by both sides was an assumption that Israel's security, if not its existence, rests on our votes for a president.
MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS While the next president of the United States will, indeed, have a great deal of influence over what happens in the Middle East, the truth is the winner of a different election will have even more to say about it.
When Israeli voters go to the polls to elect their next Knesset and prime minister in February, certainly the question of which leader can get along better with Washington will factor into their decision. After all, the United States is Israel's only real ally in a largely hostile world and the source of its military aid.
But, the idea that the next American president, will be dictating peace terms to the next Israeli prime minister is more an Arab fantasy than reality.
No person will have as much impact on decisions relating to the fate of the Jewish state as the one chosen by Israel's electorate.
Americans, and even many Israelis, tend to have it backwards when it comes to the question of who will be the one driving the peace process.
From the first day of Israeli independence to the present, Israeli prime ministers have always been the ones in charge.
Every leader, from David Ben-Gurion all the way to Ehud Olmert, has had the ability to make his or her own decisions concerning the nation's security.
Peace initiatives involving the Israel-Arab conflict have had their origins in Jerusalem, not Washington.
In 1977, Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking trip to Israel and the subsequent peace with Egypt was hatched in spite of President Jimmy Carter
— who was not trusted by either Sadat or Israel's Menachem Begin — not because of him.
Similarly, the 1993 Oslo Accords were the result of back- channel negotiations with the Palestinians facilitated by Norway, not the United States.
In both instances, the Americans helped close the deal and, subsequently, took a lot of the credit. Many supporters of Israel feared U.S. pressure for Israeli concessions was at the root of these negotiations, but that wasn't the case.
Each time, the origin of the process was an Israeli decision that the potential risks were outweighed by the benefits of going ahead.
In particular, though the Oslo Accords may be rightly criticized today as being a colossal blunder on Israel's part, the fault cannot be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration that ultimately promoted the plan.
No American twisted the arms of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres to bring Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization into the territories where they could set up a terrorist-state-in-the-making that was recognized and aided by the rest of the world. They did it because they genuinely believed it was in Israel's best interest.
The same can be said of the most-recent example of peace- process folly — the Annapolis Summit — that took place last fall. Though President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hosted this pointless attempt to revive talks with the Palestinian Authority, the man who pushed for it was Olmert.
By the same token, at those times when Israeli leaders have felt impelled to use force to save Israeli lives, the constant calls for "mutual restraint" coming from Washington over the decades have not prevented them from acting.
That was certainly the case when Israel struck first in 1967 to forestall Arab attacks on the eve of the Six-Day War.
It was equally true when Menachem Begin launched an air strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.
The otherwise-friendly Reagan administration angrily punished Israel but, subsequently, the world, including even other Arab nations, was grateful that Saddam Hussein had been prevented from developing nuclear weapons.
Washington has never been able to prevent Jerusalem from launching a peace feeler to an Arab foe. In the last year, despite the unhappiness of the Bush administration, the Olmert government opened not-so-secret talks with the Syrians, whom the American preferred to isolate.
There are limitations on what Israel can do on its own.
And there are formidable pressures that any American president can bring to bear on the Israelis, if he chooses to do so, a fact that even the most independent-minded Israeli must acknowledge. The Jewish state is still far too dependent on American military aid and diplomatic support.
But an American president can't stop Israel from doing something — be it an act of self-defense or a peace feeler — that Israel is convinced is in its interest.
On questions relating to their nation's survival, Israelis always have the option of saying "no" to the Americans.
There may be consequences for challenging the United States for Israel to consider.
But there are also political costs for any American president to consider, if he wants to go to the mat against the Israelis.
COSTS FOR BOTH SIDES A Democratic president who wants to take on Israel needs to worry about alienating the Jews who are at the core of that party, though a not-influential, left-wing minority — represented by the J Street group — is supporting the idea of pressure on Israel.
A Republican who does the same would have to contend with conservative Christians who are, if anything, even more fervently pro-Israel than the Jews. This group was a major factor in 2002 when President Bush overruled Secretary of State Colin Powell and supported an Israeli counterattack against a Palestinian terror offensive.
By the spring, the reins of power in Israel will be in the hands of the winner of the election there: Kadima's Tzipi Livni, Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu or Labor's Ehud Barak. Anyone who cares about Israel should keep his or her focus on that contest. As in the past, it will be Israel's voters who will have the last word, not the Americans.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
Let him know what you think by clicking here.
Jonathan Tobin Archives

How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

One of the goals of IsraelAmerica is to educate.
I have spent over ten years resarching the issues we cover here, in depth.
IsraelAmerica, unlike most other sites, has no bias.
We do not lean to the left or the right.
I mention this because I want readers who follow some ideology which makes them comfortable with Islamic practices to becomed aware of the truth, and I present truth from an unbiased viewpoint.
The article I've posted below is based on Phyllis Chesler's personal experience.
During the eight years of the Bush administration I did not hear one comment from them on the horrific, daily, abuse of human rights to which Arab, Persian and other Muslim women are subjected to.
All of those who care about Human Rights need to address this issue.
For the most part all we hear is silence.

Michael




Is it racist to condemn fanaticism?

Phyllis Chesler

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/


Once I was held captive in Kabul. I was the bride of a charming, seductive and Westernised Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college. The purdah I experienced was relatively posh but the sequestered all-female life was not my cup of chai — nor was the male hostility to veiled, partly veiled and unveiled women in public.
When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. "Don’t worry, it’s just a formality," my husband assured me.
I never saw that passport again.
I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave.
Overnight, my husband became a stranger.
The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger.
He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.
In our two years together, my future husband had never once mentioned that his father had three wives and 21 children.
Nor did he tell me that I would be expected to live as if I had been reared as an Afghan woman.
I was supposed to lead a largely indoor life among women, to go out only with a male escort and to spend my days waiting for my husband to return or visiting female relatives, or having new (and very fashionable) clothes made.
In America, my husband was proud that I was a natural-born rebel and free thinker. In Afghanistan, my criticism of the treatment of women and of the poor rendered him suspect, vulnerable.
He mocked my horrified reactions.
But I knew what my eyes and ears told me.
I saw how poor women in chadaris were forced to sit at the back of the bus and had to keep yielding their place on line in the bazaar to any man.
I saw how polygamous, arranged marriages and child brides led to chronic female suffering and to rivalry between co-wives and half-brothers; how the subordination and sequestration of women led to a profound estrangement between the sexes — one that led to wife-beating, marital rape and to a rampant but hotly denied male "prison"-like homosexuality and pederasty; how frustrated, neglected and uneducated women tormented their daughter-in-laws and female servants; how women were not allowed to pray in mosques or visit male doctors (their husbands described the symptoms in their absence).

Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases.
It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: "Not even the British could occupy us." Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.

Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes — and that such "colourful tribal customs" are absolutely, not relatively, evil.
Long before al-Qaeda beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and Nicholas Berg in Iraq, I understood that it was dangerous for a Westerner, especially a woman, to live in a Muslim country. In retrospect, I believe my so-called Western feminism was forged in that most beautiful and treacherous of Eastern countries.
Nevertheless, Western intellectual-ideologues, including feminists, have demonised me as a reactionary and racist "Islamophobe" for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West.
I have been heckled, menaced, never-invited, or disinvited for such heretical ideas — and for denouncing the epidemic of Muslim-on-Muslim violence for which tiny Israel is routinely, unbelievably scapegoated.
However, my views have found favour with the bravest and most enlightened people alive. Leading secular Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents — from Egypt, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria and exiles from Europe and North America — assembled for the landmark Islamic Summit Conference in Florida and invited me to chair the opening panel on Monday.
According to the chair of the meeting, Ibn Warraq: "What we need now is an age of enlightenment in the Islamic world. Without critical examination of Islam, it will remain dogmatic, fanatical and intolerant and will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth." The conference issued a declaration calling for such a new "Enlightenment".
The declaration views "Islamophobia" as a false allegation, sees a "noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine" and "demands the release of Islam from its captivity to the ambitions of power-hungry men".
Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents.
To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals.
Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.
Ibn Warraq has written a devastating work that will be out by the summer. It is entitled Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Will Western intellectuals also dare to defend the West?
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York

Posted By Michael on 11/11/2008

Monday, November 10, 2008

Pali Terrorist and Holocaust denier, Thanks Bush. Condi calls on Israel to stop settlements




Continuing the historic scheme in which Israel is reprimanded and Palestinian terrorists are coddled, Rice on Friday repeated the Bush administration's calls for Israel to stop expanding
settlements in the Palestinian territories, by which she means Judea and Samaria, traditional Jewish land, often referred to as the "heart of the heart of the promised land."


She said that Israeli actions are damaging the "peace process".

"President Bush's vision of an independent state of Palestine,while it will not come in a single, dramatic moment, it will come," she vowed.



No mention was made during the trip of the thousands of bombs launched into Israel by Palestinian terrorists since the begining of the year.


That does not seem to be a problem as far as the Bush administration is concerned.

However, she did say that the talks were "stuck" on the issues of the final status of Jerusalem and the "right of return".

And settlements.

The Palestinian leader thanked the Bush administration for
brokering the round of talks.






Saturday, November 8, 2008

Obama will be a great friend and supporter of Israel.


By tapping Rahm Emanuel, a fierce partisan of Israel who volunteered in northern Israel during the first Gulf War, it is fair to say that President -elect Obama will be a great friend and supporter of Israel.
Rahm's father Benjamin Emanuel served in the Irgun to advance the goal of creating a Zionist state.
This week, the elder Emanuel has assuaged doubts about his son's pedigree. "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he told the Israel daily Maariv, "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab?"
This choice makes the entire "Does Obama support Israel?" conversation seem a bit ridiculous (Though the vast majority of Jewish voters seemed to have figured that out by the election). Rahm served in the Israeli Army, and he is deeply and emotionally committed to Israel and its safety.
He has already been called, by some Israelis, "Our man in the White House."
A further message is widely rumored to be forthcoming -- the naming as "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace" of Dennis Ross, the Israel advocate who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush administration, fought for Israel.
He currently heads the AIPAC/ Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Obama Appoints Hero, Zionist, to be Chief of Sraff


Emmanuel is a hero. His father is a hero. His mother is a hero.

His father was a fighter in Irgun, fighting British supporters of Arab terror and Arab terrorists. He is a close friend and advisor of Bibi Netenyahu, and served with the hero Menachim Began. He was instrumental in freeing the Jewish homeland from arab killers.

Emmanuel's mother fought with Haganah.

Benjamin Emmanuel's brother was murdered by Arab killers in Eretz Israel before Independance.

Rahm Emmanuel maintains friendships with numerous high level conservative personalities in Israel.

He is destested by anti-Jews who claim that he has been employed by Mossad.

Emanuel supported the October 2002 joint Congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq War, differentiating himself from all nine other Democratic members of the Illinois Congressional delegation (Sen. Richard Durbin, Reps. Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Bill Lipinski, Luis Gutiérrez, Danny K. Davis, Jan Schakowsky, Jerry Costello and Evans) elected in 2002. According to Fox News, in accordance with his deep Jewish roots he volunteered in Israel when it was under attack from Saddam Hussein's missiles in the first Gulf War,and he has indicated consistent support for Israel.

I am so proud of President-Elect Obama for making this appointment.

President Obama's First Appointment Angers Palestinians

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C11%5C07%5Cstory_7-11-2008_pg7_44

* Congressman Rahm Israel Emanuel is seen as consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Palestinian circles can only have been disappointed by the first appointment made by President-elect Barack Obama, because his hand-picked chief of staff, Congressman Rahm Israel Emanuel, who once served in the Israeli army, is a strong supporter of Israel, right or wrong.
His father, Benjamin Emanuel, a pediatrician, helped smuggle weapons to Irgun, the Zionist militia of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, in the 1940s.
The son continued his father’s tradition of active support for Israel. During the 1991 Gulf War, he volunteered to help maintain Israeli army vehicles near the Lebanon border .

As White House political director in the first Clinton administration, Emanuel orchestrated the 1993 signing ceremony of the “Declaration of Principles” between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Emanuel was elected to Congress representing a north Chicago district in 2002.

Pro-Israel hardliner: According to one observer, Emanuel accompanied Obama to a meeting of American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)’s executive board just after the Illinois senator had addressed the pro-Israel lobby’s conference last June.
In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, sometimes even more than President Bush.
In June 2003, he signed a letter criticising Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel.
In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticised Israel’s bombing of Lebanon.
Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments “totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies” in a 19 July 2006 speech supporting a House resolution backing Israel’s bombing of both countries .

He has also used his position to explicitly push Israel’s interests in normalising relations with Arab states and isolating Hamas.

In 2006 he initiated a letter to President Bush opposing United Arab Emirates-based Dubai Ports World’s attempt to buy the management business of six US seaports. Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, told Fox News that picking Emanuel is “just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the US-Israel relationship ... that was never true.”

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Barrack Obama Picks Orthodox Jew For Chief of Staff

The President of Iran said recently, "America will never elect a woman or black man to be President."
Last night was a blow to that despotic anti-Jew blowhard.
Today's announcement of an orthodox Jew to be his White house chief of staff is another.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel has reportedly accepted the job.
Here and around the world, the selection brought swift reaction. The Web site for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Wednesday was filled with articles on what an Obama presidency would mean for Israel.
The top story, on Emanuel, noted his deep Jewish roots.
Emanuel is the son of a Jerusalem-born doctor who worked for the Israeli underground before the nation's creation following World War II. The congressman belongs to an orthodox congregation in Chicago and worked as a volunteer in Israel during the first Gulf War.
Though Obama was accused of being conciliatory toward Iran and toward Palestinians during the presidential race, an Emanuel appointment could combat those perceptions.

President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday offered the job of White House chief of staff to Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who reportedly accepted the offer. Emanuel is the Chicago-born son of Israeli citizens.
Emanuel, 48, is a member of the Orthodox Jewish community of Chicago and grew up speaking Hebrew with his father, a pediatrician who was a member of the Jewish resistance in Palestine before the War of Independence in 1948.
During the Gulf War in 1991, Emanuel came to Israel to serve as a civilian volunteer.
Emanuel was named the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005.

With Emanuel, Obama is Sending a Signal to Israel.
Barack Obama, by tapping a prominent Jewish congressman to be his chief of staff, earned renewed support from the Jewish community here and abroad.
Obama's offer is an early signal to the Arabs and Iran that the new president intends to follow through on his promises to uphold the U.S.-Israeli alliance in his administration.
"It's just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship ... that was never true," said Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council.
Forman said Obama's selection of Emanuel helps build confidence that the United States will be vigilant in responding to any threats to Israel posed by Iran.
"Rahm has certainly never been accused of being too naive or not decisive in his analysis of these types of issues," Forman said.
Emanuel has indicated consistent support for Israel's rights.
Emanuel has explicitly condemned Fatah and Hamas leaders.
In June 2007, Emanuel condemned an outbreak of Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip and criticized Arab countries for not applying the same kind of pressure on the Palestinians as they have on Israel.
"Fatah and Hamas are tearing the Palestinian area of the Gaza strip apart in what they call a political rivalry, and the Palestinian people are paying a price for Palestinian violence," he said at the time. "Governments from around the world and the Arab world have said nothing. ... I just want you to think for a second, if this were the result of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities, would the international silence and the silence of the Arab world be this deafening?"
At a 2003 pro-Israel rally in Chicago, Emanuel told the marchers Israel was ready for peace but would not get there until Palestinians "turn away from the path of terror," according to the Chicago Tribune.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Bush And Israel: Credit Where Due

Jason Maoz - 11.04.2008 - 4:24 PM


Whatever else can be said about George W. Bush and his legacy on this day that his successor is being chosen, it is a near certainty that we shall not see a president quite as instinctively pro-Israel as he for a very long time to come–a president who entered office determined to pursue a policy that unambiguously favored Israel over its enemies.

In their anti-Bush book The Price of Loyalty, author Ron Suskind and his collaborator and protagonist Paul O’Neill, the treasury secretary who left the Bush administration on less than friendly terms, provided a revealing glimpse into Bush’s thinking on Israel.

On January 30, 2001, just ten days after his inauguration, Bush met with his senior national security team and, according to O’Neill as transcribed by Suskind, startled those in the room when the discussion turned to Middle East policy.

“We’re going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict,” Bush announced. “We’re going to tilt it back toward Israel. And we’re going to be consistent. Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. That’s why we’re in trouble.”

Bush reminisced about meeting Ariel Sharon when they shared a helicopter flight during Bush’s visit to Israel in December 1998.

“We flew over the Palestinian camps,” Bush said. “Looked real bad down there. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of that situation.”

Colin Powell protested that “such a move might be hasty” and spoke of the “roots” of the violence in the Palestinian areas. “He stressed,” wrote Suskind, “that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. “The consequences of that could be dire,” he said, “especially for the Palestinians.”

Bush, according to Suskind and O’Neill, shrugged. “Maybe that’s the best way to get things back in balance,” he said. “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.”

So here was Bush, the media-caricatured simpleton allegedly in thrall to a coterie of Machiavellian advisers, a week and a half into his presidency and some nine months before Sept. 11, making it clear that he was “going to tilt” U.S. policy “back toward Israel.”

Bush has been pilloried by his critics for supposedly neglecting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for most of his presidency. Of course, what those critics usually mean but don’t say is that Bush refused to push Israel in the manner they would have preferred, that he wasn’t even-handed enough, that he saw through Yasir Arafat’s pretensions and lies, that he actually carried through on the promise he made in that first NSC meeting “to tilt it back to Israel.”

It is up to us to see that America remains firmly Pro-Israel.
It is our only true ally in the middle-east, the only democracy.
G-d Bless Israel!

Palestinians continue to Bomb Israel

Yesterday 7 bombs were launched into the Western Negev.
1,087 rockets and over 1,218 mortar bombs fired from the Gaza Strip have struck Israel since the beginning of the year .


Hamas is considered by some to be the "bad" Palestinians and the Fatah, or P.A., the good Palestinians.
The Fatah charter remains unchanged.
It calls for the dismantling of the world's only Jewish State, and expulsion of Jews.
The major difference between Fatah and Hamas is that Fatah has some secular aspects, and they believe in destroying Israel through any means, including diplomacy, and Hamas believes in destroying Israel with terrorism being the only method.
Some of the latest criminality from Hamas is reported below.
MB


Hamas steals fuel from the civilian population:
A Jerusalem Post report, states that Hamas stole 60,000 liters of fuel from the civilian population of Gaza. This was confirmed by the head of the Palestinian Authority's gas agency, who added that Hamas gunmen had raided the Palestinian side of the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, stealing at least 60,000 liters of fuel meant for the Gaza power station, for use in their own vehicles.
The London Independent reported on the artificial crisis caused by Hamas, which even caused the UN to suspend food aid to 650,000 refugees in the Gaza Strip after running out of fuel for its delivery vehicles. An emergency tanker sent to the Nahal Oz terminal to collect fuel was turned back by demonstrators, and was forced to return empty. EU condemns Hamas actions which lead to further suffering of the Palestinian population
The Presidency of the EU stated that Hamas activities were obstructing and even preventing humanitarian work by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Hamas nationalizing fuel supplies meant for the civilian populationIn another report, Nissim Keinan of Israel's Second Radio channel reported on 4 May that Hamas was in fact holding the civilian population hostage. He stated that Hamas has nationalized all the fuel supplies transferred by Israel for the civilian population, and for operation of the electricity plant, and is using it solely for its own purposes. In addition, food sent by the donor countries is allocated in accordance with Hamas instructions. Of the thousands of tons of grains, food and fuel that were transferred, none was able to reach the civilian population.
See also

Main terrorist attacks carried out at Gaza Strip crossings

Fatal Mistakes by the "Palestinian Resistance"

IDF investigation concludes that terrorists responsible for the incident Beit-Hanoun on April 28th

Israel aid to Gaza and Hamas attacks

Pragmatic Arab views of Hamas

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Shai Ben-Tekoa did a statistical analysis of U.N. voting vis a vis Israel. The following is a summary of Mr. Ben-Tekoa's research.
Summary:
Security Council:
175 Total Resolutions74 Neutral 4 Against the perceived interests of an Arab state or body97 Against Israel
General Assembly:
Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938.Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642.
Detail
SECURITY COUNCIL:
1946-89
Frequency:
Since the Council first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on it in 39 of the body's first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Council. From December 1947, when the ?Palestine Question? first appeared on its agenda, to 1989, the Council held 2,682 meetings of which 747 (26%) were devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict. During this period, the Council passed 605 resolutions of which 175 (29%) concerned this conflict.
Balance or Tilt:
Of these 175, 74 (42%) may be labeled neutral or balanced. Of the remaining 101, 4 (4%) criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against, the perceived interests of an Arab state or body.Ninety-seven resolutions (96%) were critical, or opposed the actions, or judged against the perceived interests of Israel. The last time a resolution passed the Security Council whose major thrust criticized Arab actions was on September 1, 1949.
Requests:
Between 1947 and 1989, the Council "called upon," "demanded," "requested" etc. Israel to "comply," "desist," "refrain" etc. 123 times. An Arab state, states or body was "called upon" "ordered" "requested" 65 times, or 47% less.
Specificity:
In these requests, Israel was explicitly named 105 times. References to Arab states were usually implicit, as in "...the parties concerned". An Arab state was identified by name 12 times.
Expressions:
The Council expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "regret," "deep regrets," "shock" etc. about Israeli actions 31 times. Regarding Arab actions, the Council never expressed negative sentiments.
Condemnations:
The Council "condemned, "censured," "deplored," "strongly deplored" etc. Israel 49 times. The Council never "condemned," "censured," "deplored" etc. the Arabs.
Warnings:
The Council "warned," "solemnly warned" etc. Israel 7 times. The Council never warned the Arabs.The above data concern the entire post-war period until 1989, but by isolating the period June 1967-1989, the numbers rise into even starker relief.
1967-89
Frequency:
The Council held 1,517 meetings. Of these 459 (30%) were devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict.402 resolutions were passed. Of these, 131 (33%) concerned the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Balance or Tilt of U.N. resolutions:
Neutral, Of these 131, 43 (33%) were neutral. Of the remaining 88, all (100%) criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against the interests of Israel. 0 resolutions criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against the perceived interests of an Arab state or body, or the PLO (founded by the Arab League in 1964).
Requests:
The Council "called upon," "demanded," "ordered" etc. Israel to "comply," "desist," "refrain" 83 times. The Council "called upon," "requested" etc. an Arab state 29 times, 65% less. The Council never "demanded," "ordered" etc. the PLO to do or stop doing anything.
Expressions:
The Council expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "deep regrets." "shock" etc. regarding Israel"s actions 28 times. The Council never expressed negative sentiments regarding either any Arab state or the PLO.
Condemnations:
The Council "condemned," "censured," "deplored" Israel 43 times. No Arab state or group was ever condemned.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:
The labor of the Assembly, the larger if less potent U.N. chamber, on the other hand, makes the above numbers testimony to the power and moderating influence of the United States in the Security Council, whose numbers now, by contrast, will seem in retrospect only mildly anti-Israel.
1947-89
Number of Resolutions or Resolution Parts Voted On : 690
Balance or Tilt: Of these, 205 (30%) were neutral. Of these, 64 (9%) were adopted without a vote, without objection or by consensus. 18 (3%) were adopted unanimously. Thus the adjusted number of balanced resolutions: 123 (18%)
Resolutions against Israel"s desires: 429 (62%)
Resolutions against Arab desires: 56 (8%).
Of the 56 votes not to the Arabs" liking, 49 concerned the establishment or financing of peace-keeping forces. Of the remaining 7, one concerned inviting the Jewish Agency for Palestine to address the General Assembly (May 1947); 1 concerned the Partition Plan (November 1947); 1 concerned establishing a trusteeship for Jerusalem; 3 concerned refugees (1948); 1 protested admitting Israel as a member to the UN. Discounting the 49 votes concerning peace-keeping forces, the last anti-Arab vote of the General Assembly was in May 1949.
Requests:
The Arabs were "called upon" to "comply," "desist," "refrain" etc. 4 times. Israel was "demanded," "ordered" etc. to do General Assembly bidding 305 times.
Expressions:
The Assembly expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "anxiety" etc. about Israeli policies or actions 179 times. The General Assembly expressed itself in similar terms about Arab policies or actions 0 times.
Condemnations:
Israel was "condemned," "vigorously condemned," "strongly condemned," "deplored," "strongly deplored", "censured," "denounced" by the General Assembly 321 times. The Arabs were condemned 0 times.
Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938.
Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642.

The Chomsky Hoax

The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky