Since the world now revolves those eternal refugees, the Palestinians, we must know about their situation in Syria. While reading the article though, I came across some interesting facts. They aren't facts that are normally reported on since they can't be used to discredit Israel. For example,
While not citizens, Palestinians in Syria have greater rights than their brethren in other Arab countries. They can hold government jobs, attend state universities for free and serve in the military. Assad's regime has long billed itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause.
So in other Arab countries, Palestinians can't hold government jobs? They can't attend state universities for free or serve in the military? Let's find out.
They are not allowed to own property, and even need a special permit to leave their refugee camps. Unlike other foreigners in Lebanon, they are denied access to the Lebanese healthcare system. The Lebanese government refused to grant them permission to own land. The number of restrictions has been mounting since 1990. However, in 2010 the government of Lebanon removed work restrictions from Palestinians, enabling them to apply for work permits and work in the private sector.
What a relief, at least in Lebanon, things are improving. Palestinians can apply for private sector work permits, but how often are they granted? And if one gets a work permit, does this mean they get the corresponding permit to leave the refugee camp? Am I allowed to ask these questions? Did these changes come about because of the actions of human rights groups and pro-Palestinian organizations. If so, they must have worked a lot more quietly than those groups who focus all of their wrath on Israel.
We don't hear anything about it, so things are probably better in Jordan, right?
Palestinian scholars and political activists including Samer Libdeh and Mudar Zahran have described the political system of Jordan as anti-Palestinian apartheid. According to Libdeh, the royal policy of "ethnic cohesion" amounts to discrimination against the Palestinians, who comprise the majority of Jordanian subjects.
What? I'm outraged! Apartheid outside of the Zionist Entity? There must be plans afoot somewhere to boycott companies who do business with the Jordanian apartheid regime that is oppressing the Palestinians . . . somewhere.
Students for Justice in Palestine, where are you? Meanwhile in Israel, Arabs who didn't flee, are citizens of Israel with full rights, They're not "refugees". They don't live in "camps." They aren't denied access to jobs. Not that these minor details matter to people whose food and drink is hatred of Israel and of Jews.
"On the individual level, there's no love for the regime or its tools of oppression, and no one thinks that it will liberate Palestine for us," said a Palestinian refugee expert in Lebanon who visited Syria this month.
Liberate Palestine? Their friends and neighbors are being murdered in the streets in Syria. They've been denied basic human rights by their "supporters" for generations, and their solution is the same self-defeating tactic that created their stateless limbo. No matter what happens they refuse to look past the hatred, which seems to be the only thing they have that gives their lives meaning. Rather than find something positive, there is always "the struggle."
He dismissed the idea that Assad's regime has been a leader in the Palestinian struggle, pointing out that Syria's border with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights has been largely quiet since 1974.
In fact, he said he hoped a regime change would help the Palestinians achieve their ultimate goal: the return to their ancestral villages in what is now Israel.
"We have to work together with the free people to liberate Syria, then we'll go to the Golan and liberate Palestine," he said. "We'll work hand in hand."
With all this talk of liberation, what exactly do they mean? Outside of the destruction of Israel and the murdering of more Jews, what is this "liberation" they speak of? So far, liberation looks like trading a corrupt dictator for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law. It's still evolving in most of the Arab nations who are making that trade, but we only need to look to Iran to see how that liberation worked. The Iranians are not exactly dancing in the streets.
So the question remains, when Palestinians are living under real apartheid conditions in Arab/Muslim countries, why is Israel the one accused of Apartheid?
Vasily Grossman had the answer in his novel, Life and Fate. He devotes a chapter to anti-Semitism. In it, Grossman says,
Anti-Semitism is always a means rather than an end; it is a measure of the contradictions yet to be resolved. It is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and State systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of - I'll tell you what you're guilty of.
There is more, and if I ever feel ambitious enough, I will reprint the whole chapter. It's part two, chapter 31, and I think Grossman captures the essence of anti-Semitism and of the anti-Semite. Of course, that kind of thinking will never make into the media. It's not their kind of thinking. We're not supposed to use terms like "anti-Semitism" to describe anyone, any organization, any culture, or any country; especially if it's true. Look what happened at Yale when the Yale Anti-Semitism Institute dared tell the truth about Islamic anti-Semitism.
For now the media will dutifully report enough of the facts to make you think you know what's going on, and so that you read it in the correct frame of mind; that is, it's all Israel's fault.
I was struck by the following two articles and was also struck that they appeared on the same day. Coincidence? Perhaps. But they do compliment each other, and they should cause everyone reading them to think.
Muslim extremists continued destroying the heritage of the ancient Malian city of Timbuktu on Monday, razing tombs and attacking the gate of a 600-year-old mosque, despite growing international outcry.
The tombs they destroyed (and obviously the mosque) are Islamic, but not the brand of Islam preferred by the terrorists. Even worse,
Scholars held out hope that the Islamists would not also attack the city's 20,000-catalogued manuscripts, some dating as far back as the 12th century. Beyond the tombs, the manuscripts are considered to be the real treasure of the region and library owners have succeeded in spiriting some of the manuscripts out of the city, or else buried them in secure locations.
"We're talking about generations and generations of culture being destroyed," said New York-based Michael Covitt, chairman of the Malian Manuscript Foundation. "It's an outrage for the entire world."
I agree, it is an outrage. Whether or not anybody with the power to do so does anything except protest, remains to be seen. Nothing was done about the Buddahs.
Getting back to the destroyed tombs,
Meeting in St. Petersburg in Russia, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee, last week placed the mausoleums on its list of sites in danger due to earlier attacks by the Islamists, said UNESCO spokesman Rony Amelan.
With that in mind, why did UNESCO side with the Palestinians in granting world heritage status to the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank city of Bethlehem?
UNESCO, the United Nations cultural body, overrode Israeli objections to urgently grant world heritage status to the church worshipped as the birthplace of Jesus.
The 13-6 secret vote in Russia's Saint Petersburg to add the Church of the Nativity and its pilgrimage route to the prestigious list was received with rousing applause and a celebratory fist pump by the Palestinian delegation chief.
So while the UNESCO crew in their St. Petersburg meeting are decrying the Islamists' destruction of historic sites in Mali, they are rewarding the Islamists of Fatah with responsibility over the Church of the Nativity. The important thing, I imagine, is that no matter what happens, they absolutely must stick it to Israel.
So now, thanks to UNESCO, one more historical religious site will be overseen by Islamists. What can possibly go wrong?
Obama gave his speech at AIPAC today. He tried to mollify a room full of Jews and continue to make them believe that he is on Israel's side in their continuous fight for survival. Last year those idiots gave him a standing ovation. Since then it should be even more obvious that it's not that he doesn't care about Israel. He despises Israel. He is firmly on the side of the genocidal Palestinians.
While he doesn't like Israel, and probably doesn't care much for Jews except for the turncoats who aren't very comfortable with the concept of Judaism or with being Jewish, the ones who will sell out Israel and the Jewish community to any powerful political figure who will promise to be their friend and make them popular, he absolutely, one hundred percent, loves that Jewish money. As long as there are enough wealthy Jews who refuse to admit that Obama is endangering not only Israel, a country they may or may not care about, but he is creating a darker future for their children.
With that in mind, I would like to present for your entertainment and information (more for your information) a short movie about Obama's record on Israel. It's long by Internet standards, but it's well worth watching if you care about the future of the United States and Western civilization, because without Israel, the U.S. and the West will fall.
It took me a while, but thanks to Sarah Schulman, writing in the New York Times, I finally figured it out.
Israel has become a world leader in technology, agriculture, including drip irrigation and desalinization of water, medicine, including advances in battling heart disease and cancer, environmental quality, renewable energy, and defense; ten Israelis have so far won Nobel Prizes. (To compare, Muslims, accounting for 20 percent of the world's population, have won 8) It's the destination of choice for Sudanese refugees who survive the life-threatening trek through Egypt. it's the only country in the Middle East that allows equal rights for all of its citizens regardless of race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation; Muslims (especially female Muslims) in Israel have more rights than they do in any of the Islamic nations.
Israel opened the first field hospital in Haiti after their devastating earthquake, they assisted the Japanese after their recent earthquake and tsunami; Israel has sent humanitarian aid to more than 140 countries and authorities. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been treated in Israeli hospitals, including children suffering from life-threatening diseases who would die if not for Israeli resources. Also bringing better health to the children of the world is the Israeli-based charity, Save a Child's Heart, an organization that brings children suffering from heart ailments to Israel from 42 countries where adequate medical care in unavailable.
All of this, I now know thanks to Sarah Shulman, is done to cover up Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
Actually, the only place you're going to find that awful potentially deadly malady, Islamophobia, is in the mainstream press. According to this article in USA Today, (and I'm guessing it's echoed across the MSM, we'd better all beware of the rising tide of anti-Islamic right wing extremism that's feeding off of all the anti-Jihad groups and blogs.
Some British mosques are boosting security after Norway's horrific massacre was traced to a man who fears Muslims are taking over Europe — an attack that exposed a failure to root out Islamophobia that has bled into the European mainstream.
European government leaders may even be feeding fears of Islam through measures such as bans on face veils on the streets, aimed at appeasing a non-Muslim majority wary about the continent's rising Muslim population.
Of course the over 17,000 Islamic terrorist attacks had nothing to do with Islam or the Qu'ran, just lone nuts perverting a religion of peace. It's only the pernicious anti-jihad writings that drive people to shoot up groups of young adults and blow up government buildings.
I complain about the double standard the MSM demonstrates when it comes to Israel, but it's not just Israel. It's anything that disagrees with their perverted world view. They've misinterpreted reality in order to minimize terror attacks by Muslims, while exaggerating the danger from those scary right wing extremists. In addition to the 17,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11, there are also the ones that were broken up before they could come to fruition. I suppose those don't count, because the jihadists based their attacks on passages and commandments from the Qu'ran while ignoring or not even being aware of guys like Robert Spencer. Israel, in this case, is just a symptom of the problem. It's a lonely outpost of Western Civilization in the midst of Islamic barbarism. Since the Left romanticizes the barbarism that they don't have to live with, but only read about and excuse, Israel becomes the problem. It, like the rest of Western Civilization, ends up on the wrong end of the double standard.
The people who pass off Islamic terror attacks against Israel are in mourning over the terror attack in Norway. The irony is that the people who were murdered in Uyota were working to destroy Israel. While I think this massacre was a monstrous act committed by a truly evil individual, the victims too, were on the side of evil. They were destroyed by the same kind of monster they support when it's aimed at Israel. Check out the photo and article here. Glenn Beck was pilloried for comparing them to Hitler Youth, but their aim was the same.
We also have weasel words from the Norwegian ambassador comparing this massacre with anti-Israel terror attacks.
In an interview with the Israeli daily Maariv, Norway's ambassador to Israel Svein Sevje patiently explained that he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."
Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, "are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions."
"In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture," Sevje said, referring to Anders Breivik.
"We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel," he said. "Those who believe this will not change their mind because of the attack in Oslo."
This came after Israel was one of the first countries to reach out to Norway after the attacks and offer its condolences and assistance.
I'd like to feel more sympathetic toward the Norwegians in their hour of trauma, but I can't. They've embraced the evil of anti-Semitism and they've taken sides against the West, allowing and almost welcoming the Islamic conquest of their country. They ignore the fact that their granddaughters will be forced to dress "modestly" and their grandsons will be dhimmi. That's some legacy to leave your family. But rather than look that far ahead, we can see degradation of Norwegian society in what's happening right now.
Every rape in Oslo the past 5 years, where the rapist could be identified, was committed by a male of non-western background.
In Oslo all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year has been committed by males of non-western background this was the conclusion of a police report published today. This means that every single rape assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin.
Non-western, in this case meaning The Religion We're Not Supposed to Think About When Talking About Rape or Terrorism. And the problem has been growing. Back in 2001, only 2 out of 3 rapes were committed by Muslims. Of course, rather than expecting the invading Muslims - uh - I mean non-western immigrants to modify their antisocial behavior, Norwegians, descendents of the vikings (who would not have put up with this crap and are puking up their mead in Valhalla if they're looking down on their pusillanimous offspring), are being encouraged to modify their behavior.
The explosion in the number of rape charges in Oslo involved immigrant perpetrators, which were mostly Muslims. In 2001 a police study noticed that two out of three persons charged with rape in Oslo were “immigrants from a non-western background.” A glance at Norway’s population statistics shows between 3 and 4 times more immigrants living in Oslo than any other Norwegian city.
Yet Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, said in 2001 that because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative:
“Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes.”
The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite:
“Norwegian women must realise that we live in a multi-cultural society and adapt themselves to it.”
and
In a 2001 debate about the culture of rape amongst Muslim immigrants in Norway, Wikan said that Norwegian women were ‘blind and naive’ towards non-Western immigrants;
“I will not blame the rapes on Norwegian women, but Norwegian women must understand that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.” “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” (for example, by not inviting into their homes Muslim men with little knowledge of Norwegian culture).
Once they allow themselves to be totally cowed, we might as well say good bye to their art and society. As long as Israel and the United States don't succumb to the same self-destructive mode of thought evident in Norway, there will still be a remnant of freedom left, although the Progressives will still be fighting against that freedom.
I saw the report, but I forget where I saw it originally, that in Canada, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently proclaimed and demonstrated his unwavering support for Israel, that 71 percent of hate crimes of a religious nature in 2009, were committed against Jews. While I appreciate Harper's principled stand on Israel, something needs to be done about the attacks against Jews in Canada. The first thing that needs to be done is to ask the simple question: who is doing the attacking? That was my first question. That was Barry Rubin's question too.
Now the figures for "hate crimes" in Canada have been issued and guess what? Like the FBI's statistics for the United States, the number one victims of hate crimes are...Jews. Indeed, 71 percent of the hate crimes in the religion category are against Jews. The Jewish proportion of Canada's population? Around 1 percent. That's 71 percent of the hate crimes on a religious basis against 1 percent of the population.
For Canada, 4 per cent of the crimes were motivated by race or ethnicity, 29 per cent by religion and 13 per cent by sexual orientation
Makes you think, right?
Apparently not. Because the report is vague about just who might be attacking Jews and why these numbers have tended to rise. Skin-heads? Neo-Nazis? Russian peasant pogroms? Crusaders? The Klu Klux Klan? Peronists? Anti-Dreyfusards? Know-Nothings? Knights of the Camellia? Republicans? Tea-Partiers?
Because if we don't know who did it, then how can the situation be improved? Was it Anglicans? Bahai? Catholics? Dunkers? Episcopalians (oh, wait, they're the same thing as Anglicans), Franciscan monks or Fire-worshippers? Greek Orthodox? Hawaiian traditionalists? Idolotors or Illerati or Inuit? Jacobites? Kansans? Lutherans?
Of course, we know that answer to the question. And for those who are still having difficulty admitting to the answer, let me help by asking, which religion do you desperately try not to think of when you read reports like this?
Right.
Exactly.
But to admit to anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims destroys the "Muslim as victim of Western Society" paradigm that must be upheld at all costs, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are required to maintain that ridiculous idea. There are people who will fight tooth and nail to force that paradigm on others and battle fiercely against those who point out its falseness. And some of them aren't Muslims. They are the happy dhimmis.
Klavan's One-State Solution: Give the Middle East to the Jews
Yeah, sure, it sounds silly, and it may even generate a few laughs. But if you think about it, Klavan's plan makes more sense than Obama's plan to effectively eradicate the Jewish state slowly while claiming to be a friend of Israel.
OK, so it really is silly and impractical. But it still faces the reality of the situation better than Obama.
Netanyahu Schools Obama - and Lord Knows Obama Needs to Learn Something About How the World Works
Obama gave a speech. Here is an analysis of one of Obama's unnoticed bone-headed errors, not one of the big bold ones, but a tiny, telling one, that passed under most people's radars.
In doing his balancing act on Israeli and Palestinian fears and hostility, he says this:
“I'm convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past….We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. `I have the right to feel angry,’ he said. `So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,’ he said, `for tomorrow.’"
That’s genuinely touching. But in the specific case Obama cites—that of Izzedin Abuelaish on January 16, 2009-- there is strong reason to believe that the three girls were killed because of Hamas, that is Palestinian, actions.
But what's a bit of misrepresentation of the truth when "evenhandedness" is at stake? Truth be damned in the name of moral equivalence, a favorite tactic of Israel bashers and enemies of Western Civilization. Netanyahu begins talking about 7 minutes in, and he politely fills Obama in on some relevant facts surrounding Israel and its neighbors.
But there's more. Obama either doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand what the Israelis and by proxy, we in the United States, are facing. The Muslim world suffers from an "inner Nakba", a hatred so deep and so all consuming that it's the focus of their lives. We see it in the behavior of Hamas and Fatah in their refusal to stop the violence and the incitement, and we see it in the rest of the Islamic world in their war against Israel, in their overt Jew-hatred, and in their covert (or maybe not so covert, just not as pronounced as their Jew-hatred) hatred of Christians. For video evidence of the inner Nakba, watch this:
The lady is being honest, and a lot of people accept the fact that Muslims around the world are taught to hate Jews. When not accepted, it's rationalized. But if anyone even questions the claim that Islam is a religion of peace there are charges of racism and islamophobia. It's also accepted that Palestinians should get their Jew-free state. Ask for an Islamic-free state, and again, get ready for the name calling. Anyway, I'm rambling. The fact remains that when it comes to Israel, Obama is guided by ideology rather than facts. Israel should make no more concessions. Netanyahu needs to continue standing up to Obama. He needs to demonstrate loudly and clearly that the survival of the Jewish people is not open to compromise or concessions.
Sir Horace Rumbold, who took up the questioning, asked Churchill whether there was not ‘harsh injustice’ to the Arabs if Palestine attracted too many Jews from outside? Churchill replied that even when the Jewish National Home became ‘all Palestine’ there was no injustice. ‘Why is there harsh injustice done,’ Churchill asked his questioner, ‘if people come in and make a livelihood for more and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves? Why is it injustice because there is more work and wealth for everybody? There is no injustice. The injustice is when those who live in the country leave it to be desert for thousands of years.’
With those who shall henceforth be known as Fakestinians clamoring to get "their land back", we would do well to recall the above quote. We should also recall that before lots and lots of Jews began moving in to what was then Palestine, much to the chagrin of the Arabs and the British, Palestine was very sparsely populated. There were Jews, Christians, and Muslims even though this was a backwater of the Ottoman Empire.
In order to be classified as a refugee after the founding of Israel, an Arab only had to prove that they'd lived in Palestine for two years. But, beginning in the late 19th century, after Jews began immigrating en masse, started improving the land and beginning to make the desert bloom so that it would support a greater population, lots of Arabs began moving in to take advantage of the Jews' work and to begin claiming a 3000 year lineage. No archeological, historical, or scholarly evidence? Well, then, it's obvious that the evidence is racist and islamophobic.
Now, of course, the Fakestinians want all of Israel so they can return it to its natural state of barren desert punctuated by malarial swamps. Some of them no longer even bother to pretend that they belong to a religion of peace. Of course, if Islam is truly a religion of peace, how does Islamic terrorism come about? I mean, how do the isolated individuals who make up the "tiny minority" of terrorists pervert "peace" into murder, terrorism, and "kill the Jews?"
But anyway, for anyone who still asks, no, they don't deserve a state. Past and current actions exclude them from having one. They've been sucking at the U.N. teat for the past four generations while they create hatred, worship death, and demand more, and more, and more. Watch the following video and then tell me that this rot doesn't permeate their entire vile, wretched, pathological society.
I've been following the news reports coming out of Israel as the-pawns-who-call-themselves-Palestinians try to force their way into Israel from Lebanon and Syria. Are they kidding? When will this idiocy end?
Yeah, I know the answer to that last question. As long as there is a Jewish Israel, the surrounding Islamic nations will be bent on its destruction by any means necessary. I also know that their job is made easier by the increasing number of useful idiots, heirs of Western Civilization, who have no idea how good they have it because they were lucky enough to be born into the greatest civilization (even with its many flaws) the world has ever known.
Tomorrow Israel will be condemned, and the few Syrian rioters who demanded death from the IDF will be be all over the news while the hundreds of Syrian protestors who were murdered by Syrian forces will be forgotten or marginalized. Coptic Christians who are being murdered by Egyptian Muslims - uh - I mean pro-democracy will be promptly forgotten. Or the world press will play the moral equivalency game, because you know, some of the Copts were protesting against being murdered. And that's probably Islamophobic.
I have to ask: have we become so weak, has our belief in ourselves become so exhausted that we're willing to put up with a primitive culture of death that in thirteen centuries of existence has given nothing of value to humanity, and bow to its will? Have we allowed ourselves to become so soft and debased that we not only refuse to name the enemy but invite the enemy into our midst and then let them force their rules on us?
Tacitus, in his Histories, (but I forget where) states that men must always be at war to avoid becoming weak. The only thing Islam has given the rest of the world is war, terrorism, and slavery. But they are in constant warfare. Islam's bloody borders, like it or not, is a fact of life. They murder us. They murder each other. But they believe that they have that right. They execute Muslims who open their eyes, see Islam for what it is, and try to leave, or even suggest that it's time for reform in Islam. We, on the other hand, not only tolerate quislings, traitors, and vandals, some of the truly stupid among us afford them respect. I want to know how these twisted Western apologists for evil think they would do if they actually had to live in an Islamic society.
Israel has its share of useful idiots, but today they defended their borders. They will be condemned by the rest of the world, but as always, the world is wrong. Israel is right.
I usually post links I like over at the Garbanzo Annex on Tumblr, but today I thought I'd post them here too.
This one by Melanie Phillips is worth reading and so is the commenter who challenges the Israel bashers with this challenge,
How do you explain the whole Arab world raising against dictators, sacrificing lives in thousands.. everywhere except PA and Israeli Arab sector? - ..these ones are supposed to be first victims of "Zionist genocide".
Here it is, an awful secret. Netanyahu doesn't need to make peace with Arabs because de-facto peace is already established. Israel is not at war with those, even yesterday enemies, who have stopped hostility.
Taking into account the schizophrenic nature of "Arab street" there, and meagre prespectives for political stability, the factual peace is the best available option. And Arabs quietly accept this.
Of course, you should read what Phillips wrote. She is one of the best commentators writing today. And here is more proof of that.
The Times (£) reports that half the board of the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics, which has received money from Libya among other Arab dictatorships, has called for a boycott of Israel, the one democracy in the Middle East.
It figures.
Now, apparently, there are some red faces:
The university has already been urged by its own dons to give up the £300,000 it received from a foundation headed by the son of Colonel Gaddafi. Howard Davies, the LSE director, is said to have told academics this week that he was ashamed of the institution’s links to the dictatorship.
Questions have been emerging about the LSE’s wider reliance on finance from authoritarian regimes. One of its lecture halls has been named in honour of a sheikh reputed to have promoted anti-Semitic material.
Hypocrisy on the Left? Who could have imagined that? I've always been assured that hypocrisy is an exclusive failure of conservatives, as are all failures.
As long as were talking about Progressives' willful blindness on Israel and the Middle East, here's a good one by Nick Cohen.
The Arab revolution is consigning skip-loads of articles, books and speeches about the Middle East to the dustbin of history. In a few months, readers will go through libraries or newspaper archives and wonder how so many who claimed expert knowledge could have turned their eyes from tyranny and its consequences.
To a generation of politically active if not morally consistent campaigners, the Middle East has meant Israel and only Israel. In theory, they should have been able to stick by universal principles and support a just settlement for the Palestinians while opposing the dictators who kept Arabs subjugated. Few, however, have been able to oppose oppression in all its forms consistently. The right has been no better than the liberal-left in its Jew obsessions. The briefest reading of Conservative newspapers shows that at all times their first concern about political changes in the Middle East is how they affect Israel. For both sides, the lives of hundreds of millions of Arabs, Berbers and Kurds who were not involved in the conflict could be forgotten.
If you doubt me, consider the stories that the Middle Eastern bureau chiefs missed until revolutions that had nothing to do with Palestine forced them to take notice.
What's really surprising is that this is from a British newspaper. I wonder how Cohen got away with this.
Next up is this piece by Alan Dershowitz, a member of that rare species of pro-Israel liberal, in which he exposes the ACLU's attempt at censorship.
The international campaign to prevent speakers from delivering pro-Israel talks at universities has been assisted by leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union—an organization that is supposed to protect freedom of speech for all. The method used to silence these speakers and preclude their audiences from hearing their message is exemplified by a now infamous event at the University of California at Irvine.
Michael Oren—a distinguished scholar and writer, a moderate supporter of the two-state solution, and now Israel's Ambassador to the United States—was invited to speak. The Muslim Student Union set out to prevent him from delivering his talk Here is the way Erwin Chemerinksy, Dean of the law school, described what the students did:
"The Muslim Student Union orchestrated a concerted effort to disrupt the speech. One student after another stood and shouted so that the ambassador could not be heard. Each student was taken away only to be replaced by another doing the same thing."
Oh well, since they're only censoring pro-Israel speech, maybe it's not really censorship. We'll have to await the ACLU ruling.
And now for something completely different, a disturbing video showing another reason why support for education is not the same as support for the MEA.
And teachers in the audience really cheered this speech? Is that what really what they believe? They'd better hope this video doesn't get the attention it deserves.
I've always liked ridicule as a weapon against the Israel haters. It's easy to do because they're so mired in hatred, that the jokes go right past them, kind of like the facts do. I found the poster here. I like this site, and as you can see, I'm now linked to it.
I got the photo above from Talking Tachlis. They copied it from a flyer for an Israel-bashing event. I was at the event. There were a lot of pro-Israel people there to ask tough questions and to let the Israel haters know that we will challenge them and their useful Jewish idiots every chance we get. It was clear that the moderators of this Anti-Israel hatefest were intimidated by having a large minority of Israel supporters in the audience.
During the Q & A, they asked that questions be written on postcards. They were forced to ask some of our more intense questions, rather than just the easy ones from supporters.
As for the photo: the two photos, side by side, are supposed to show the moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the Palestinian's "plight". The viewer, if properly trained by years of exposure to anti-Israel rhetoric, and rehashed and updated anti-Semitic libels, is supposed to see the poor beleaguered walkers in both pictures as equal in their victimhood. They are also supposed to take a leap of hate, with help from Hajo Meyer and his morally deficient crew, in order to blame Israel and Zionists for the Arabs (now officially Palestinians) who were either forced from their homes in a war of attempted genocide started by the Arab/Muslim nations surrounding the nascent state of Israel, or picked up and left on their own after being promised by their genocidal leaders that they could return to their homes and maybe even pick up a bit of plunder from the Jews, after the Jews were driven into the sea. Oops!
It's true, the Arabs, once they removed themselves from their premises in what is now Israel discovered, much to their chagrin, that their move was permanent. Bummer. But lets take a look at what happened to the people in both photos in the days, weeks, and years after those two photographs were taken. The Jews from the Warsaw ghetto were most likely reduced to smoke and ashes a short time after they arrived at Auschwitz, the destination of trains that they are most likely headed toward. Some may have lived longer, maybe as long as a few months, and a very few actually survived to tell their stories. And to have children and grandchildren.
The Arabs in the other photo, temporarily (they thought) fleeing their homes (maybe, we have to take the word of Jew-hating terror supporters) will grow up and have families of their own. They will live to see their children grow up to have children of their own. The fact that this will happen in "refugee camps" is the fault of their own feckless leaders, the UN, the Arab/Muslim world, and generations of useful idiots in the West. Any abuse they suffer will be at the hands of their fellow Arabs who will force them and their descendants to live as pawns in a war against Israel, one of the fronts of the world wide Islamic jihad.
As they fester in "refugee camps", they will be taught that it's all the fault of the Jews. They will grow up knowing nothing but hatred to the point that some of them will be willing to turn themselves into human bombs and blow up Jews along with themselves. Among the Muslim world, they will be called heroes and martyrs for trying to finish the job that was started back in 1930s Germany. Their fondest wish will be to murder the descendants of Jews who were fortunate to either live through the Nazi death camps or who were even luckier not to live in Europe during the Holocaust.
The point is that the Arabs we see walking down a dusty road through a picturesque countryside got to live their lives. The Jews being herded through a Warsaw street didn't. And there can be no moral equivalence between life and death.
Everybody has a comment, or a prediction, or both, or more on Egypt and the current uprising there. I've been cogitating on their predicament, trying to decide what to say myself. I've been reading commentary from pundits that I respect. I think that once things settle down in Egypt, things will probably get much worse. What gives me that feeling is the following video:
These cannot be the only Egyptians who share this feeling. I'm guessing that it's pervasive throughout Egyptian society. And to go along with their irrational hatred of Israel, they now have a shiny new air force built with help from the United States, and billions of dollars transferred from American taxpayers to Egypt.
How many more Islamic dictatorships will be overthrown and replaced by a new generation of Jew haters whose first order of business will be the destruction of Israel?
Cyber Victory in Iran: Nobel Peace Prize for Stuxnet?
I found this interesting. The more I learn about Stuxnet, the more fascinating it gets.
Three attacks on developing nuclear centers have occurred in the world, the most recent scant months ago. It is amazing that the year 2010, pegged universally as crunch time regarding Iran's atomic ambitions, ended with such a whimper, not a bang. It was to be a year characterized ultimately by a crippling counter-blow to Teheran's plans -with nary a peep from the media. No "top 10 stories of 2010" inclusions. Not even a Wiki-leak.
Considering the fact that the destruction of these nuclear centers had such huge implications for the world and that elusive concept dreamed of by so many, "world peace", you would think that these, especially the latest, would garner more attention. Stuxnet has slowed down Iran's dream of nuclear weapons, but not shattered it. Even if Iran's nuclear scientists and technicians are looking over their shoulders on their way to work, they're still plodding ahead.
I have to assume though, that Israel and other concerned parties are working on other ways to slow down the Iranian nuclear nightmare.
Even though the ruckus has died down and Helen Thomas is no longer in the news for her irrational comments, there are still things going on that relate to that wrinkled, demented gasbag.
The first thing is - most people weren't even paying attention. When I speak to people who are not obsessed (or even interested) in what is happening when it comes to our local Arab/Muslim community, they either have a vague idea of who Helen Thomas is, or the entire controversy passed right by them and they didn't even notice. I suppose that's normal. How many people's lives were impacted by Wayne State's "Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award", and Wayne State's decision to pull it after Thomas' obnoxious statements? So why should they pay attention? I'll tell you why. Because, even when they don't know the facts, people still form an opinion. I do it. You do it. We all do it. Sometimes I get into arguments with people who operate on very little (or completely incorrect) information over Israel. Sometimes those opinions affect the way people respond to situations, the way they spend money, the way they treat people, the way they vote, and the way they let some people be abused. Example: Nobody is raising their voice anymore against the genocide in Sudan. We don't see it in the news, so it doesn't exist anymore.
The second aspect of this under-the-radar-but-still-ongoing situation, is the reaction of large portions of the Jewish community and our self-proclaimed leaders. At first, Thomas was roundly, logically, and accurately condemned, as she deserved. Of course, her partners in hate are trying to frame this as a free speech issue and an example of that all powerful Jewish conspiracy that shuts down any and all criticism of Israel. So how is it that they're able to foist these views in our local (allegedly Zionist controlled) newspapers again?
We have silence from the Jewish community over this article in the Detroit Free Press, where the writer, while supposedly writing about Muslims joining Jews to help Christians on Christmas, something the Jewish community has been doing for years (as part of the vast Zionist conspiracy, no doubt) turns it into another forum for Muslims to express their support for the Jew-hating Thomas.
When Micki Grossman of Farmington Hills read journalist Helen Thomas' comments about Zionists earlier this month, the Jewish woman was hurt. "It caused a lot of pain for me," she said.
"I also wish that we could have had more of our Muslim friends stand up and say, 'This was not appropriate.' "
But some Muslims and Arab Americans were upset that Jewish leaders pressured Wayne State University to remove an award in her name.
At the annual banquet this month of the local chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, people wore buttons reading "Defender of Thomas," said regional director Imad Hamad.
And you can't accuse Imad Hamad or any of the other Thomas supporters of "not getting it." They get it. They're taking advantage of the fact that most people don't pay attention, and with the limited amount of information they have, they can be convinced that this is a free speech issue - if they can even be reminded who Helen Thomas is and what she said that was so offensive.
Instead of deluding themselves that our local Islamic community is truly interested in improving relationships with, and working side by side with the Jewish community, our "leaders" need to wake up and really listen to these schmucks. They need to understand that any compromise with this Islamic evil is a victory for evil. I would ask them when, in our 3000 year history, has compromise with evil ever worked in our favor?
Wait, let's extend that. When, in the history of human civilization, has compromise with evil ever worked to the benefit of humanity? I suppose it's possible. Maybe I missed it.
The larger problem here, as some people have recognized while others have buried their heads in the sand, is that Islam is a world wide problem. Whether or not we have personally had to face the hatred or terrorism personally, it has already affected our lives and will continue to reduce them as the evil coming out of Islam continues to be excused. You would think the Jewish community would understand that and would stand stronger in openly battling it. You would be wrong.
Last year, the Jewish community invited Muslims to help them volunteer on Christmas. The partnership was a historic first, with about 60 Muslims helping 900 Jewish volunteers. This year, up to 400 Muslims led by the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan will take the lead on Christmas.
"We have many similarities," Grossman said. "Let's look for the sameness rather than the differences."
Such partnerships are playing out across metro Detroit.
Similarities? Sure, there are some. But I challenge Jewish leaders to examine Islamic texts and attitudes as to our differences. I also challenge Muslim leaders to honestly explain and answer questions about some of the more unsavory portions of the Qu'ran and the hadiths.
That will never happen, because it would be impolite of our Jewish leaders to do so. They will be called "Islamophobic" and racist. Samuel Huntington, in his Clash of Civilizations was subjected to name calling because he made people pay attention to Islam's bloody borders. He's got the impolite, politically incorrect facts to back up his ideas, but when people refuse to face the facts, name calling becomes their substitute.
It's time for the Jewish community to face the facts.
No, I have not been paying much attention to this blog. Sometimes life takes over, and some things have don't get as much attention as you would like to give them. This argument by Gabriel Latner though, is amazing and is one of those posts that just might grow into an Internet phenomenon. I posted the entire speech, but you can refer to the link, if you want the introduction and the link to where it was originally posted, which strangely enough is an ugly, nasty, anti-Semitic site. I also posted it at the Garbanzo Annex, where I have been posting a lot of collected articles and videos. I don't feel obligated to offer any commentary at the annex, so it makes it easier on me.
Please forgive any spelling or grammar errors, this was an oral presentation. Square brackets denote impromptu comments that were added into the text after the fact. I may have strayed from the text at a few points, but this was the gist of it.
This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I'm not. I'm a realist. I'm here to win. I have a single goal this evening – to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the 'Aye' door. I face a singular challenge – most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds.
This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it. I want to win, and we're destined for a tie. I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do – simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel. It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international 'laws' to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death. It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalised stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues. But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state' rogue'. If it did, Canada, the US, and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain's treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigour.
More importantly, I just don't think we can win with those arguments. It won't change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won't. So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I'm going to try and convince the die-hard zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech – I will have presented 5 pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a 'rogue state' than at least 'rogueish'. Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is 'bad'. I will not be arguing that it doesn't deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is 'rogue'. The word 'rogue' has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The OED defines rogue as 'Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time ', while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition 'behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way '. These definitions, and others, centre on the idea of anomaly – the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel. The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051% . In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% - more than twice as likely. Israel's jewishness is a statistical abberation. The second argument concerns Israel's humanitarianism, in particular,Israel's response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis – for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that – but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened – and is still happening in Darfur is genocide , whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. [ I actually hoped that Mr Massih would be able speak about this - he's actually somewhat of an expert on the Crisis in Darfur, in fact it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former Dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC. ] There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt – where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion – they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees Citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world. But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel.. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US's reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst – and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement. My Third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns -- it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands – they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP- an organisation of 'freedom fighters' that, under Abed Rabbo's leadership, engaged in such freedom promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli highschool students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA – the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing – and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue – behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Another part of dictionary definition is behaviour or activity 'occuring at an unexpected place or time'. When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle east- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the middle east, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality. In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America. Israel's protection of its citizens civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as 'Free' 'Partly Free' or 'Not Free'. In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a 'free' country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon- a country designated 'partly free', where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. [ I'm hoping Ms Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a 'journalist' for Iran,] Iran is a country given the rating of 'not free', putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, [as Ms Booth I hoped would have said in her speech], there is a special 'Press Court' which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the 'foundations of the Islamic republic' , using 'suspicious (i.e. western) sources', or insulting islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every western journalist during the 2009 election. [I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that] I guess we can't really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the middle east are. Theocracies and Autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the middle east, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored. I have one final argument – the last nail in the opposition's coffin- and its sitting right across the aisle. Mr Ran Gidor's presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel's embassy in London. He's the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he's doing. And he's here tonight. And it's incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off,to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That's remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was 'This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world', that Britain would allow any of it's officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never. And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning it's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Mr Ran Gidor to argue tonight against [a 'journalist' come reality tv star, and myself,] a 19 year old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand. Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now- because it forgot rule number one. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state. That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed OSIRAK – Sadam Hussein's nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq. That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something; while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. [Except Ms Booth]
"No one can find a safe way out for himself if socety is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result." -- Ludwig von Mises
War's legitimate object is more perfect peace. Flavius Vegitius Renatus
This is an optional footer. If you want text here, place it inside these tags, and remove this comment.
CHALLAH AKBAR
