Monday, March 28, 2011

Bloodthirsty Savagery of 'mainstream' Arab-Muslim "Palestinians":

Bloodthirsty  Savagery of 'mainstream' Arab-Muslim "Palestinians": Itamar massacre, Islamists butcher children while asleep, city of Gaza celebrates!

The Itamar massacre, Arab-Muslim "Palestinians" infiltrate the Itamar town in Israel, butcher the Fogel family while asleep, the baby's throat was slashed. In the aftermath, the Arab Muslim city of Gaza celebrates the crime.
Horror in Samaria: Terrorist murders family of 5 / Yair Altman
Terrorist stabs five family members to death in settlement of Itamar early Saturday; three children, including baby girl, among victims. Paramedic describes horrific sight, toys next to pools of blood
Full story,7340,L-4040974,00.html

Three Year Old Stabbed in the Heart, Baby's Throat Slashed ...Mar 12, 2011 ... Report: Initial Probe of Friday night massacre in Itamar shows terrorists stabbed 3-year old in the heart and slashed 3-month old baby's ...

Palestinian Murder In Itammar

As painful as the images are to see, they must be seen, the world must know the horror of the Palestinian method of brutalizing innocent Jews.
Arabs point out that children have accidentally died in Israeli responses to terror on the part of Arabs, and this is true, but there is an internationally recognized difference between collateral damage and purposely cutting a baby's throat.
Shame on the Arabs who support this, which apparently is most of them.

Saturday, March 26, 2011


Racist MATERIAL On Facebook

Phillip Pasmanick and others have commented on the seeming inability of Facebook to uniformly apply standards.
I have been blocked when responding on issues related to antisemitism and Arab terror, and yet it seems that being virulently antisemitic and espousing views harmful to the Jewish Homeland is considered free speech.
This is an informative article on a new Facebook countenanced attack:

Last week, I asked Atlas readers to report a FACEBOOK page calling for another Islamic war against the Jews, a "Palestinian" Third Intifada. Knowing what we know about the malevolent use of social networking by the global jihadists (witness the "revolutions" across the Muslim world), starting a war against the Jews would be relatively easy in a population taught, urged, incited, and commanded to annihilate the Jewish people.
Despute the urging to report this page by my blog and many others, Facebook did not take the page down. Nice move, Zuckerberg. Striking, really, when you consider how much counter jihad content they censor. The situation is so incendiary and dangerous, the Israeli government has called upon Mark Zuckerberg to take the page down. Yet another Jewicidal numbnut.
Fb intifada
Israel Asks Facebook to Remove Page Calling for Third Palestinian Intifada Bloomberg
Israel asked Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg to remove a page that it says is supported by 230,000 “friends” that calls for a Palestinian intifada beginning on May 15.
The page includes remarks and movie clips that call for the killing of Israelis and Jews and the “liberating” of Jerusalem and ofPalestine through acts of violence, Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein wrote in a letter e- mailed to media yesterday.
“As Facebook’s CEO and founder you are obviously aware of the site’s great potential to rally the masses around good causes, and we are all thankful for that,” Edelstein said. “However, such potential comes hand in hand with the ability to cause great harm such as in the case of the wild incitement displayed on the above-mentioned page.”
Social media and other online information sources have taken center stage in uprisings in TunisiaEgypt, Bahrain, and Libya, with participants using Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook to spread news and coordinate protests.
“While some kinds of comments and content may be upsetting for someone -­ criticism of a certain culture, country, religion, lifestyle, or political ideology, for example -- that alone is not a reason to remove the discussion,” Debbie Frost, a spokeswoman for Facebook, said in an e-mailed statement.
“We strongly believe that Facebook users have the ability to express their opinions, and we don’t typically take down content, groups or Pages that speak out against countries, religions, political entities, or ideas,” she said.
Edelstein’s statement letter came on the same day that a bomb blast killed one person in Jerusalem and wounded at least 30 others. An Israeli cabinet minister blamed Palestinians for the attack.
Violence between Israel and the Islamic militant Hamas group that rules the Gaza Strip has also escalated. A rocket launched from Gaza injured an Israeli man yesterday in the southern city of Beersheba. At least seven Palestinians were killed this week, including several civilians, in what Israel said were attacks aimed at stopping rocket fire.

Two Helen Thomas Farces: What She Says and How She's Ridiculed

Posted: 25 Mar 2011 06:40 PM PDT
By Barry Rubin

It's amazing how bad the public discussion of issues is nowadays. Here's a tiny example. Helen Thomas was fired for her anti-Jewish statements and was recently interviewed in Playboy where she made more such remarks that are--correctly--being interpreted as antisemitic.

But why does Thomas hate Israel so much, a hatred that spills over into antisemitism? I haven't seen a single person who's gotten it right. She's no neo-Nazi or nut case. Thomas is of Lebanese descent, albeit Christian, and basically views herself on this issue at least as an Arab. The important factor is not her eccentricity but her typicality.

What Thomas is doing, then, and has done for many years, is to express ideas common in the Arabic-speaking world which are becoming increasingly common in the West. That's why she's significant and that's where she's coming from. Her blend of anti-Zionism and antisemitism--using traditional anti-Jewish themes, sometimes applied to Israel and at times to all Jews--is just like what exists in a high percentage of households in the Arabic-speaking and Muslim-majority worlds.

We're not talking about a funny old lady but about a worldview held by millions of people in a lot of countries, by revolutionary Islamists and terrorists, and by a growing number of people on Western college campuses and in elite circles. This is not some joke but rather a "craziness" that kills and shapes the fate of whole nations and continents.

Western Media Discover Egyptian Revolution Not So Moderate; Muslim Brotherhood is Powerful, Still Deny That It's Radical

By Barry Rubin
It seems mere days ago that every reporter and expert on all television channels and newspapers was preaching that Egypt's revolution was a great thing, run by Facebook-savvy liberals, inspired by President Barack Obama and "universal values." Those silly, paranoid Israelis had nothing to worry about. Christians were backing the revolution and everyone was going to be brothers, but not Muslim Brothers because the Muslim Brotherhood was weak, moderate, opposed to violence, and full of great people.

Anyone who said anything different was screened out and vilified.

Now, with no soul-searching, apologies, or even examining what false assumptions misled them, places like the New York Times are starting to admit they were completely wrong.

You mean they helped foist a policy that is a disaster for U.S. interests and regional stability? You mean the result might well be new repressive regimes, heightened terrorism, wars on Israel, and discrediting the United States as reliable ally or enemy worth fearing?

Oh well, what are a few hundred thousand lives lost, a whole region destabilized, and entire countries taken over by anti-American radicals who sponsor terrorism, and a couple of wars, more or less?

So now the New York Times tells us such things as “religion has emerged as a powerful political force.” How do they cover their past mistakes? They erroneously add, “Following an uprising that was based on secular ideals.” They have discovered that a lot of army officers like the Muslim Brotherhood, which we knew about long before simply by watching how officers’ wives were transformed from imitators of European fashions to being swathed in pious Islamic garb.

The newspaper explains, “It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the non-ideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.”

Note how they again cover their mistakes. First, the revolution is based on “secular ideals” but then it is “non-ideological.” The Facebook kids are out but perhaps only for the “moment,” meaning they might be back on top next week. But we warned from the start that this was ridiculous because there are no more than 100,000 Facebook kids and tens of millions of Brotherhood kids.

Last month the Brotherhood was weak and disorganized, now it is “the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence.”

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

Funny, I didn’t have any trouble finding plenty of people in Egypt worried during the revolution. Yet the Times and the other newspapers only wanted to quote people who said how great everything was, even as Christians sent out desperate messages about how scared they were.

Incidentally, the only person quoted as an expert in the article comes from the left-wing International Crisis Group, headed by an anti-American who hangs out with U.S. policymakers. The analyst tells us that the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t want the revolution, despite the fact that every action and statement of the group said the exact opposite.

Whether or not the Times reporters are “useful idiots,” they are certainly idiots. It isn’t just political slant but the violation of the most basic concepts of politics and logic. Consider this passage:

“This is not to say that the Brotherhood is intent on establishing an Islamic state. From the first days of the protests, Brotherhood leaders proclaimed their dedication to religious tolerance and a democratic and pluralist form of government. They said they would not offer a candidate

for president, that they would contest only a bit more than a third of the total seats in Parliament, and that Coptic Christians and women would be welcomed into the political party affiliated with the movement.

“None of that has changed, Mr. Erian, the spokesman, said in an interview. `We are keen to spread our ideas and our values,’ he said. `We are not keen for power.’”

Now, why is this nonsense? Simple:

First, political groups—especially revolutionary groups that want to impose ideological dictatorships—do not always speak the truth. They say what will benefit them. And the Brotherhood benefits by pretending to be moderate.

So statements about tolerance don’t show us where a movement is going: its ideology, record, and longer-term goals show us where it is going.

Second, seeking to create an Islamist state next Thursday does not have to be the Brotherhood’s aim. What all this material shows is merely that they see the process as longer-term and that the basis must be prepared.

It’s sort of like saying: The Communists aren’t intent on creating a Communist state. Oh no, they only want to spread their ideas and values! They say they are happy to work with capitalists and would be happy with thirty-three percent of the seats in parliament. And anyone who wants can join their party. So there isn’t any threat.

Reporters who write things like "Israeli authorities claim that the killing of its civilians are 'terrorist attacks'" are quite willing to take the Muslim Brotherhood at its word. They never recount the fact that this was a Nazi ally whose words for decades have stressed virulent hatred of America, democracy, Christians, and Jews. They never explain that it is a pro-terrorist group that endorsed killing Americans in Iraq and only last October called for Jihad against the United States.

Why go on? It’s as if the most prized institutions of the Western world—universities and media—have forgotten their mission, lost track of their values, thrown away their principles, and dropped one hundred points in IQ. And when they are proven to be terribly wrong, they merely shift to a slightly different position.

This farce has gone beyond embarrassing through disgraceful and has ended up being both deadly and ridiculous.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at and of his blog, Rubin Reports,

Gender Apartheid of Iranian women

Iran lacks basic women's rights - This "gender apartheid" of Iranian women is reminiscent of the treatment of blacks in South Africa. Let's stop Iran's Gender Apartheid together! Go to or

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Woman Murdered, 39 Injured as Terrorist Detonates Explosive

Friday, March 18, 2011

A New Respect For Human Rights In the Arabic World

Gaddafi, in the cowardly fashion typical of other terrorists and middle-eastern leaders in the last few years, blinked, and immediately proclaimed an unconditional ceasefire after previously threatening to show no mercy to the rebels in Libya, when informed of the vote sanctioning a no-fly zone in the UN today.
There are reports that he is continuing to murder Libyans, perhaps he feels that, like his fellow Islamist criminal leaders, such as the thugs running Iran, just saying he is not murdering innocent people will give him the “cover” to continue his butchery, as the murderers in Tehran are doing even now.
The consensus is that he will be removed from his office and prosecuted for war crimes or perhaps terminated by his erstwhile compatriots, the freedom loving people of North Africa, and specifically, of course, Libya.
What do the freedom loving people of Libya know of freedom?
Some would know the textbook definition, but most have no real conception of true freedom.
As politically incorrect as this may sound, the vast majority of the Arab, or "Arabic" peoples are brainwashed, bigoted and misogynistic, at least the males are.
There are those who have called for the civilized world to enter into the Arab world and bring freedom to the people there.
The civilized world will not have peace until we bring peace to the Arabs.
We have seen that already.
Ask yourself, what part of the world has not been impacted by Arab terror?
So, to paraphrase and old Broadway tune;
Either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of Islamism, particularly Arab Islamism, in your community.
Well, we got trouble my friends.

It's time to start speaking the truth, regardless of political correctness.
I applaud Obama and the British Prime Minister's support of the actions against Gaddafi.

Will Gaddafi die with a gun in his hand, or will he crawl out of a spider hole and be hung like a common criminal?
Time will tell.
However, when we leave, we should not just leave a Democracy behind.
Look what happened in Gaza and Iraq.
We should instruct the Arabs that they must include Human Rights in their new constitutions, and the world, perhaps under the UN, will remain in their “New” regimes and see that human rights are enforced, for all, including women.
They won’t like this.
I have spoken to many Arab men in the middle-east, and they like their women covered up and cowed.
There are males all over the world who would like to subjugate women, but civilized countries don’t permit it.
We should not permit it in the “ Arabic” world either.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Israel Now Has The Right To Attack Iran's Nuclear Reactors

by Alan M. Dershowitz
March 17, 2011 at 3:30 am

Iran's recent attempt to ship arms to Hamas in Gaza is an act of war committed by the Iranian government against the Israeli government. 
The Israeli Navy seized the ship, loaded with weapons designed to kill Israeli civilians, and traced the weapons back to Iran. Nor is this the first act of war that would justify a military response by Israel under international law. 
Iran has sent other boatloads of anti personnel weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. In addition, back in 1992, the Iranian leaders planned and authorized a deadly attack on Israel's embassy in Argentina. 
That bombing, which was carried out by Iranian agents, constituted a direct armed attack on the state of Israel, since its embassy is part of its sovereign territory. Moreover, the Iranian government has publicly declared war on Israel by calling for it "to be wiped off the map."

Under international law, these acts of war—known as Casus Belli—fully justify an Israeli armed response. Even the UN Charter authorizes a unilateral response to an armed attack. Providing weapons to a declared enemy in the face of an embargo has historically been deemed an armed attack under the law of war, especially when those providing the weapons intend for them to be used against the enemy's civilians. So too is the bombing of an embassy.

Two other recent events enhance Israel's right use military means to prevent Iran from continuing to arm Israel's enemies. The recent disaster in Japan has shown the world the extraordinary dangers posed by nuclear radiation. If anybody ever doubted the power of a dirty bomb to devastate a nation, both physically and psychologically, those doubts have been eliminated by what is now going on in Japan. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the next ship destined to Gaza might contain a nuclear dirty bomb and Israel might not intercept that one. A dirty bomb detonated in tiny Israel would cause incalculable damage to civilian life.

Moreover, the recent killings in Itamar of a family including three children, demonstrate how weapons are used by Israel's enemies against civilians in violation of the laws of war. Even babies are targeted by those armed by Iran. Hamas praised the murders.

Israel has the right to prevent its civilians from being murdered by Iranian weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction. Iran would have no legal standing to protest a surgical attack on its nuclear facilities that are designing weapons that could be used to achieve Iran's declared goal of wiping Israel off the map and killing millions of its citizens. The leaders of Iran have publicly declared that a nuclear exchange, killing millions of Jews and Muslims, would be acceptable to them because it would destroy Israel while only damaging Islam. A suicide nation cannot be deterred by the threat of retaliation. Israel's only realistic option may be a preventive military strike of the kind it conducted against Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. That surgical attack may have saved countless lives at the cost of one single casualty. By the way, Iran too tried to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor, but failed. Certainly Israel has the right to do what Iran itself tried to do—namely prevent a lethal enemy from developing weapons capable of mass murder of its citizens.

This is not to say that Israel should attack Iran's nuclear reactors now. That is has the right to do so does not mean that it should not wait for a more opportune time. The law of war does not require an immediate military response to an armed attack. The nation attacked can postpone its counterattack without waiving its right. The military option should always be a last resort after all other efforts have failed. It may well be that efforts to permanently disable Iran's nuclear computers will succeed. Although it is unlikely that economic sanctions will ever persuade Iran's ideological zealots to end their nuclear weapons program, a combination of quasi military, tough economic and diplomatic sanctions may slow it down to a point where the military option can be postponed. But under no circumstances should the military option ever be taken off the table. Israel must preserve its ability to exercise its fundamental right of preventive self defense. If possible, it should act together with other allies. But if necessary, it has the right to act alone to protect its citizens. Nearly everybody hopes that it won't come to that, but hope is not a policy. As George Washington cautioned in his second inaugural address, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."

Monday, March 14, 2011

Social Workers in Itamar: There is an Emotional Impact on All

The brutal murder in Itamar on Friday night has brought out many social workers to the community, who are now facing the difficult task of providing services both to the family members of those who were murdered, as well as to the members of the community at large.

Regional Social Worker Supervisor Dr. Pinchas Gerber explained to Israel National News TV on Sunday about some of the services he and his colleagues have been providing.

“A group of social workers and psychologists have been in Itamar since Shabbat,” said Dr. Gerber. “Now we’re going to be meeting with the families and we’re also organizing groups for the men and women. In addition, we have psychologists and social workers who are going into the school systems and into the nursery schools in order to help the teachers and students.”
Dr. Gerber spoke of the emotional difficulty involved in his work. “22 people have been slaughtered in the Itamar community in the last 15 years, and it definitely has an emotional impact on everybody: the people who live here as well as people like myself and our teams of social workers and psychologists, who have once again been called to meet and to treat these families.”
He specifically addressed the difficulty of having to explain a delicate situation such as this to children, especially in light of the fact that there is no other way other than telling them the facts.
“The children in the community of Itamar have really lost their childhood,” said Dr. Gerber. “They lost their childhood many years ago because of all the attacks and the difficulties that they have. One of the things we want to do is to legitimize any feelings or experiences that they have, and also to help their parents to be able to nurture them, to be with them, to hug them, and help them understand that they’re not alone.”

by Elad Benari and Yoni Kempinski
Follow Israel news on Twitter and Facebook.

Lenin's Lessons for Obama On Dealing With Radical Islamists

By Barry Rubin

I just don’t get it. The more degrees from famous universities U.S. leaders have, the less they seem to know, especially about history.

Consider this in light of their inability to understand that not only al-Qaida but also Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the AKP government in Turkey, as well as Iran’s regime and other Islamists are dangerous, anti-democratic forces.

1. In 1920, Vladimir Lenin, leader of the new Soviet Union and of the world Communist movement, wrote "`Left-Wing’" Communism: An Infantile Disorder.” Lenin ridiculed small, radical groups that believed only instant insurrection could bring revolution. He explained that Communists needed to maneuver, to use all sorts of tactics, sometimes to advance and sometimes to retreat.

In our time, al-Qaida is the equivalent of the groups about which Lenin was writing. It knows only one thing: terrorism. In contrast, the West’s really important enemies are the present-day parallels to the smarter Communist movement.

It knew how to do social welfare work, set up front groups, propagandize to hide its own nature, participate in elections, make and change alliances. That is how one goes beyond individual acts of terrorism or insurrection to seize control of whole countries and gain power over the lives of millions of people.

If the Obama Administration had been around in 1920, it would be explaining to us that while the little anarchist and extremist Marxist-Leninist sects were evil, the Bolsheviks and their Communist parties were good. They just needed to be in power in Russia for a while and would then become moderate. It sort of worked, didn’t it? But it just took almost 75 years and mountains of dead bodies.

2. At no time in the last two centuries has it been clearer that socialism—depending on how you want to put it—either failed or served its purpose. Personally, I’ll go with the latter response.

Yet why is the idea of socialism having a resurgence after Communism’s miserable failure and the obvious fact that while democratic socialist parties helped create better Western societies historically they now are only piling up entitlements, out-of-control spending, and oversized governments that diminish both freedom and economic success? How can Americans watch what's happening in Europe--notably Greece--and then advocate precisely the same policies that created those disasters?

3. The lessons of the Cold War, appeasement, and of the World War (Two)—in fact the basic lessons of the twentieth century--have been thrown into the garbage can by much of the current political elite. The fact that President Obama thought celebrations on the anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s fall not worth attending is most significant. The idea that the main enemy of freedom today is not some nineteenth-century caricature of a bloated capitalist in a top-hat but totalitarian radical ideologies, most notably Islamism and Communism (in all of its permutations), seems simply not to have been taught to young people in the West.

4. Just as the left mistook  many dictators of the past and present for heroes—you can make your own list—it is now glorifying the dictators and dictatorial regimes of the future. Why? Because these regimes promise dramatic change, a comprehensive organization of society from the top down, and oppose their own Western societies which they hate and think are evil.

But the problem is that in doing so, in helping revolutionary Islamists and extolling other radicals—Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, for example—they are going to create major headaches for their own countries and terrible oppressive regimes for those doomed to live under them.

In modern history the West’s leaders made mistakes leading to World War One, then World War Two, and then the Cold War. Today, we are seeing a repetition of that tragic pattern. But this time the outcome is—or perhaps I should say “was”—easier to avoid. This is a disaster not of necessity or even, by this point, of excusable error but of choice.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: His blog, Rubin Reports,

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Tahrir square today on International Women's Day.

Women were driven from Tahrir square today on International Women's Day.
The Arab men, who recently appreciated the strong support and presence of the Arab women, shouted, "Go home! That is where you belong!" and other taunts, to force women gathering to celebrate International Women's day to leave the square.
Today on Elliot Spitzer's show, he interviewed Brigitte GabrielLebanese American journalist, author, and activist.

The general reason for the interview was NY Republican Peter King's committee investigating radical Islam
Spitzer, whose claim to fame before this show was paying $1000.00 an hour for the services of a hooker, was rude and ill-informed.

Ms. Gabrielle, who was born in Lebanon, and speaks French, Arabic and Hebrew, was eloquent in her description of radical Islam, although she had to deal with Spitzer's characterization of her as a racist, or Islamophobe.

I started with a mention of the misogyny demonstrated in "liberated" Egypt, but that is only one of the clues we are getting from the revolutions occurring in the Middle-East.
They are anti-semitic, as well.
They are Jew haters.

They were screaming "Jew!Jew!" while they raped Lara Logan, the Reporter.
They painted their most hated symbol, the Magen David, on the forehead of images of the man they most hated, at the time, Hosni Mubarak.

Yesterday there was a protest, by moderate Muslims, in New York, against Rep. King's hearings.
The women were wearing hijabs.

The Chomsky Hoax

The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky