Culture for All

Photos from a Purim rally against Iran's nuclear program, terrorism, and genocidal incitement

2009-03-09T16:21:00.004-04:00

These pictures were taken by Iran's Mission to the UN - today. A last minute rally was organized by AMCHA at Iran's Mission to the UN to protest against Iran's genocidal incitement, nuclear program, and state sponsored terrorism. The few but proud showed up to voice their outrage at what is going on in Iran. Hopefully there will be more rallies like this to get the attention of the media regarding the abomination that is allowed to occur in Iran.

Please see the rest of the pictures right here!

Germany slammed for not boycotting Durban II; Britain recognizes Hizballah as a political party

2009-03-06T15:22:00.002-05:00

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

It seems that Germany has decided to not follow Obama's lead in boycotting Durban II, despite the fact that not only will the conference be an antisemitic hate fest, it also will seek to criticize criticism of Islam (and thus is anti-free speech). Not good. Any legitimacy given to this illegitimate and anti-humanity exercise is a bad thing.

http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=3722

And in other news, it appears that Britain is going to recognize Hizballah and 'negotiate' with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/05/uk-set-for-hezbollah-talks

Please remember that Hizballah is a Final Solution terrorist group, whose leader, Nasrallah, literally said "If all Jews were to gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just words, as Hizballah has attacked Jews as far away as Buenos Aires, Argentina. Hizballah also bombed US Marines in 1983, killing over 300 of our brave young men and women. They are actively fighting US and British soldiers in Iraq, and are building up a massive arsenal in the South of Lebanon, in order to continue its war against Israel. Last year, Hizballah set up a 'tent city' in Beirut, and got a power sharing part of the Lebanese governement via its brute force. Right now, Lebanon is jointly ruled by the relatively secular Faoud Seniora, and by the Final Solution Hizballah.

Essentially, Hizballah is like the modern Nazi party, without having achieved the results yet of the Nazi party, despite their best hopes otherwise. They have explicitly stated their goal is the worldwide annihilation of every Jew on earth, and they air disgusting propoganda such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and scenes from a Passover "blood libel" (i.e., showcasing Jews eating the blood of Arab babies, mixed with Passover matzos), on Al-Manar TV, in order to brainwash Lebanese citizens into desiring genocide. (this is similar to what was done in Nazi Germany) I would say Al Manar is easily as bad or worse as anything that has come out of Nazi Germany, based upon the numerous MEMRI clips I have seen over the years. (and I do not exaggerate when I say that)

The fact that Britain now is recognizing Hizballah as a legitimate "political party" to be negotiated with is so beyond repugnant, it defies description.

I only hope that things will improve in the future. It is soon to be Shabbat, and I hope you have a good weekend!

The New York Times gives an incomplete picture re: talks with Syria

2009-03-06T10:45:00.007-05:00

As Obama endeavors on a 'new' journey of talks with Syria, the New York Times has decided it supports this 'engagement.' This is well evidenced by the way a 'neutral' article was written in the Times about this 'engagement.' This article places the onus upon Israel to 'negotiate' and ignores the ways in which Syria has obfuscated all efforts at 'peace' in the past. Syria's state sponsor of terrorism is barely a blip in this article, and it appears at the very bottom of this article. Instead, the onus is on Israel. Feel free to read for yourself what passes as 'news' in the New York Times. This article was not even one that hit CAMERA's website. Just another day the Times, which has their 'two state solution' ideology, and their 'Israel should concede something for 'peace' ideology, as well as their 'diplomacy is always a good thing' ideology. For more information about the New York Times and the ideology that appears in the news pages (as apart from the OpEds, please go to How Fit to Print, a new blog which examines the ideology of the New York Times.

Please see the article right here.

Below is my Fisking of this article.

JERUSALEM — Signaling a new direction in Middle East diplomacy, the Obama administration will send two senior officials to Syria this weekend to begin discussions with the government, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on a visit to Israel on Tuesday.

The overture suggests how the Obama administration intends to tackle three interlocking challenges in the Middle East: the nuclear threat posed by Iran [Note: this ignores the fact that Syria itself is going nuclear]; long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria; and the grinding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Syria, regional experts say, could be the key to alleviating all three. [NOTE: the names of these ‘regional experts’ is not given, and there is no reason given as to why Syria could be of help. Moreover, the fact that Syria itself is a major part of the problem, having occupied Lebanon for decades, including to this day, is ignored.]

By seeking an understanding with Syria, which has cultivated close ties to Iran, the United States could increase the pressure on Iran to respond to its offer of direct talks. Such an understanding would also give Arab states and moderate Palestinians the political cover to negotiate with Israel. [NOTE: The definition of what a ‘moderate’ is is left out. This is a crucial term and yet the reader is left to guess as to the meaning.] That, in turn, could increase the burden on Hamas, the Islamic militant [NOTE: the term ‘militant’ and not ‘terrorist’ is used; this is an editorial decision by the Times.] group that controls Gaza, to relax its hostile stance toward Israel. [NOTE: It is not suggested how this could be reconciled with Syria’s decision to allow Hamas terrorists sanctuary on their soil.]

But in a region where even small steps take years to negotiate, officials sought to tamp down expectations of rapid progress. “It is a worthwhile effort to go and begin preliminary conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting Syria’s wide influence in the region, as well as its troubled history with the United States. Yet, she cautioned, “we have no way to predict what the future of our relations with Syria might be.”

The State Department declined to elaborate on the issues the emissaries would broach in Syria or why negotiators were going now.

The two emissaries are Daniel B. Shapiro, a senior director at the National Security Council, and Jeffrey D. Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Mr. Feltman, a former ambassador to Lebanon, has extensive experience with Syria; Mr. Shapiro advised the Obama campaign on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Middle East experts say they believe that conditions for an opening to Syria are ripe on both sides. [NOTE: Who are these experts?] “We’ve got a Syrian government that wants to engage,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. [NOTE: Was Mr. Indyk the ‘expert’ the whole time? And why does he want to believe that? How does this wash with Syria’s statements that they will never give up on the Golan? Where is that proof of ‘engagement’? Moreover, how does this wash with his earlier statements of Syria's involvement in terrorizing Lebanon, and its close ties to Iran?] “We’re likely to get an Israeli government that will find it easier to engage with Syria than with the Palestinians.”

There are clear benefits to Israel from better relations with Syria [NOTE: What about the benefits to Syria? Why is it framed as if Israel and not Syria has everything to gain?]: the government of President Bashar al-Assad is a sponsor of Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon, and provides a sanctuary for Hamas’s leaders in Damascus, Syria’s capital. [NOTE: Aren’t these also reasons to NOTE ‘engage’ with Syria?]

In May, Israel and Syria announced that they were in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty through Turkish mediators. [NOTE: The Turkish Prime Minister’s recent statements against Israel are omitted here, and the reader is left without the knowledge of how that would/could affect negotiations.] Israel’s departing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said he planned to brief Mrs. Clinton on those talks on Tuesday.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who is likely to become Israel’s next prime minister, will face pressure from the United States to move forward with the peace process. [NOTE: The Times outright says it will be Israel which is pressured and not Syria. Furthermore, stating that ‘negotiating’ is part of the ‘peace process’ is an editorial which is presented as news.] Mr. Indyk said that Mr. Netanyahu would find it more politically palatable to engage Syria than to alienate the settler movement by slowing or halting settlements as a concession to the Palestinians. [NOTE: The notion of a powerful ‘settler movement’ is introduced as an obstacle to ‘peace.’ Of course, the fact that this did not stop the Gush Katif evacuation is not worthy of mention to the Times.]

Nonetheless, Israeli public opinion polls show wide opposition to giving up the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. [NOTE: The Syrian public opinion is seen as irrelevant. Only the Israeli public opinion is an ‘obstacle’ to ‘peace.’ Also note that the Times omits the fact that the Golan Heights was annexed by Israel and that fact affects its legal status.] In his previous stint as prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu initiated peace talks with Syria, but they came to nothing.

The Obama administration has carefully laid the groundwork for the envoys’ visit. Members of Congress, including Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, have recently traveled to the region. [NOTE: Depending on when the trip was scheduled (i.e., if it was during when Bush was in office, it could be a violation of the Logan Act. This is deemed irrelevant to the Times.] Last Thursday, Mr. Feltman met with Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha.

“We don’t engage in discussions for the sake of having conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, after a meeting with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. “There has to be a purpose to them; there has to be some benefit accruing to the United States and our allies.” [NOTE: What is the purpose, if Assad has stated on numerous times his demand for the Golan Heights?]

The Bush administration largely shunned Syria, recalling its ambassador in February 2005, after the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. [NOTE: Syria’s role in the Hariri assassination is buried at the bottom of the article, despite the fact that this could be a major impediment towards any fruitful ‘negotiations.’] Many Lebanese accuse Syria of involvement in the assassination, a charge it denies. A United Nations tribunal has begun proceedings in the case.

While Mr. Feltman was the ambassador in Lebanon, three people were killed when a car bomb exploded next to an American Embassy vehicle in Beirut in January 2008. Suspicions again fell on Syria. [NOTE: The fact that Hizballah leader Nasrallah called Lebanon’s Seniora-led government “Feltman’s government” is omitted. Surely this would affect 'negotiations'!]

Mr. Feltman and Mr. Shapiro are accompanying Mrs. Clinton on her first tour of the Middle East as secretary of state, which began Monday in Egypt, where she said the United States would pursue peace “on many fronts.”

Meeting on Tuesday with Israel’s leaders during a time of political transition, Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed the desire of the United States for an agreement that would create a separate Palestinian state side by side with Israel. [NOTE: Why is this American desire relevant? What about the desire of Israel? Lest we forget, it is none of America’s business whether there is a ‘Palestine.’ This frames the issue of forcing Israel to concede territory that lawfully belongs to it.]

But she was plainly reluctant to step into a domestic political tussle. [NOTE: The Times is right to call this a domestic issue.] Mr. Netanyahu, who is likely to form a right-wing government in the coming days, has emphasized economic development in the West Bank over negotiations to create a Palestinian state.

“We happen to believe that moving toward the two-state solution, step by step, is in Israel’s best interests,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But obviously, it is up to the people and the government of Israel to decide.” [NOTE: Good acknowledgement that it is up to Israel to decide a domestic issue, BUT, Clinton is editorializing that “two states” is indeed a solution. The Times does not call her on that.]

Ms. Livni said she embraced a two-state solution [NOTE: Again, an editorial presented as fact that “two states” is a “solution.], a crucial difference between her Kadima Party and Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and one that has impeded Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to form a coalition with Kadima. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Netanyahu on Tuesday.

She promised to consult Israel and other Middle Eastern countries as the United States develops its policy toward Iran. At a Gaza donors’ conference in Egypt on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates that she did not believe that Iran would respond positively to the Obama administration’s offer of direct talks.

Ms. Livni said she had no qualms about the American offer, but she maintained that Israel’s Muslim neighbors were as worried as Israel by Iran. “They feel that Iran tries to undermine their regimes,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton also declined to publicly press Israel to open border crossings into Gaza; critics say that closing the crossings has impeded the flow of humanitarian relief. [NOTE: This is untrue and Israel does allow aid to flow into Gaza.] Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza after Hamas took control of the territory in June 2007. [NOTE: the fact that this blockade was a defensive response to terror attacks is not mentioned.] It has allowed in aid since the end of the recent three-week assault on Hamas, but has not opened the crossings for many other goods.

On Monday, European officials said they expected Mrs. Clinton to raise the issue with the Israelis.But she said: “It’s very difficult to solve this dilemma when Israel is under physical attack. We have a humanitarian challenge in Gaza, with a lot of innocent Palestinians who need the help [NOTE: What about innocent Israelis in Sderot? Why is it framed as a ‘humanitarian crisis’ only for Gazans?], and Hamas decides to continue to rain rockets down on Israel.”

Go to Aussie Dave's website today!

2009-02-10T02:17:00.003-05:00

Greetings, all! Aussie Dave is live blogging the election, and is taking your questions and comments. He will have experts on hand to answer your questions as well! So, what are you waiting for? Go to his site and ask the questions on your mind!

Arab Israeli acknowledges the Arab Israeli radicalism

2009-02-09T11:49:00.003-05:00

As readers of this blog might know, Arab Israelis have become increasingly and troublingly radical over the years. I covered this topic a few days ago in my discussion of the "Future Vision" document. However, please read the link below, which is a new take on the subject. It is an Arab Israeli asking the Arab Israelis to vote in 'moderates,' so as to avoid the resulting bigotry which will befall Arab Israelis, should they vote in radical Arab parties who seek the destruction of the state. His claim is that the Arab Israeli support for extremism has caused the rise of the 'racist' Israel Beitenu party, led by Avigdor Lieberman.

His words:

The Arab-Israeli leadership is increasing pushing us into anti-Israel radicalism. This extremism climaxed with the “Death to the Jews” chants during Operation Cast Lead. Here is what I have to say to those leaders: Look at what you’ve done.

We did not cry out in the face of rocket attacks on southern residents that went on for years. We did not cry out in the face of the suffering of our brethren, Gaza residents, who have been brutally repressed by Hamas. Yet we cried out, of all things, in the face of an onslaught against the most radical element in the Arab world.

The Arab-Israeli leadership won’t connect, heaven forbid, to the moderate Arab elements such as Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, or Jordan. These are of no interest to it. We saw Azmi Bishara, who left, and we saw where he went to.

I don’t need to explain what Hamas is all about. The Egyptians and Palestinian Authority officials are doing it better than me. They ask Hamas how it can talk about victory when the war against Israel – which it sought and advanced – was managed on the backs and blood of thousands of Palestinians that were killed, wounded, or lost their property, while Hamas’ leadership stayed at fortified bunkers or in Damascus.

So now we can accurately measure the result of this conduct: 18. Why 18? Because this is the number of Knesset seats that the polls predict for Avigdor Lieberman’s party, Yisrael Beiteinu.

Apparently, we got what we deserve. If we, citizens of the State of Israel, which has a Jewish majority, connect to the worst enemies of the State, why are we surprised that this is what we get?

Anyway. My thought is that Avigdor Lieberman may or may not be a racist, but it is a terrible idea for Jews to vote for his Israel Beitenu party, regardless. He plans on dividing Jerusalem, and casting out parts of the Galilee (which have large blocks of Arab Israelis) in exchange for a 'territory exchange' within the West Bank. It is true that Lieberman has said rather incendiary things about Arabs and Arab Israelis, but that does not mean he is necessarily acting in the best interests of Jews. One does not mean the other.

I just think it is interesting to see the strange dynamics of politics in Israel and beyond. Lieberman is branded as anti-Arab, but that does not mean he is pro-Jew. One should not imply the other. On election day, I personally am rooting against Lieberman, as I believe he represents the worst of all worlds. Given I am not Israeli, it is not my place to be advocating for any politician on this blog. but please - do not vote for Lieberman, thinking he will be a true 'hawk' on security issues! He has openly said things to contradict such sentiments!

The Armenian genocide of 1914-15

2009-02-09T11:18:00.006-05:00

I have been in communique with a Turkish diplomat concerning the recent deplorable actions of President Erdogan, as well as the treatment of the Israeli basketball team, and general Turkish antisemitism. Out of the blue - unprompted by me - he sent me a long article which denied the Armenian genocide. I sent his letter to a friend, who post a Bernard Lewis video, which similarly engaged in a form of denialism. This is my response to her, and to anyone who uses Bernard Lewis as justification for the offensive denial of the Armenian genocide of 1914-15.

I understand and know Bernard Lewis's statements vis a vis the Armenian genocide. (link which discusses Lewis's opinion - please note it is a very leftist site, but it accurately depicts Lewis's positions, which I have read in books he has written) He believes that many people died, but the goal was not genocide, rather, it was protecting the Turks from the Armenians who were fifth columnists. He also claims that it was not planned on the state level, but rather was initiated on the individual level, i.e., individual Turks took it upon themselves to engage in a sort of mob mentality of killing Armenians - but no genocide was planned. Anyway, his statements have been since proven false. It has since been uncovered that Hitler actually thought of of the gas chambers at Aushwitz from the model of the more primative gas chambers during the Armenian genocide. Recent documents have been unearthed which show the actual planning that went on at the state level to engage in a Final Solution of Armenians. Now, it is true that Armenians as a people were trying to form their own state and had been fighting against the Turks. However, none of that can ever justify what was done during the Armenian genocide of 1914-15. The fact that Turkey continues to deny the simple facts of history is simply revolting. The US has acknowledged its crimes against Native Americans, and against African Americans. It is what makes us a more moral and better country than Turkey. Only by acknowledging and learning from the past can you ever hope to not repeat it.

Here are documents concerning the Armenian genocide. Another document.

I happen to find Lewis's statements abhorrent, and blaming the victim. Lewis is a good source for some things, but not everything. He also was and remains an absurd proponent for the Oslo 'peace' process, and is a denialist for the extensive amounts of historical Islamic antisemitism. He has written whole books which deny the very well documented historic Islamic antisemitism, and as such, I look at him as someone who cannot fully be trusted in his writings. He is good as a source up to a limited point only. The fact that Bernard Lewis denies the Armenian genocide is not evidence that it is acceptable for others to do so.

He is a denialist of historical Islamic antisemitism and the Armenian genocide. Please look at his works with a rather jaundiced eye, as I do.

One note to add: I believe Bernard Lewis is sadly a far better historian than the vast majority of 'Middle Eastern studies scholars.' This fact alone should send shudders down the spines of anyone who fancies majoring in 'Middle Eastern Studies' at a major university.

Future vision: what the Arab Israeli leadership is calling for in Israel

2009-02-05T16:14:00.007-05:00

FYI, this is an old article (from 2007), but within it is information which is vital to understanding the dynamic between Jews and Arabs within Israel. The mainstream leadership of Arab Israelis have united around a "Future Vision" document which does the following:

Ellimination of the Jewish character of Israel
Ellimination of the Law of return
Ellimination of the Magen David as Israel's national symbol
Making Israel an officially bi-national state
An apparent call for right of return for Palestinians (end of the Law of return for Jews, but implementation of 'right of return' for Palestinians)

More equal distribution of government aid and benefits (this is a tricky subject; aid is not distributed equally in part because Arab Israelis do not serve in the IDF, nor do they vote in the same percentages Jews vote; much of the aid is distributed based upon voting numbers as well as status as an IDF veteran)

The "Future Vision" document calls the creation of Israel a "Nakba" (catastrophe in Arabic) Ending any Jewish control over the Arab schools - teaching Arab Israelis a "Nakba education" (please note that already Arab Israelis learn a "nakba education")

Here are more articles discussing the 'future vision,' which came out around the time I first was in Israel...

IHT

Haaretz

The document itself

Please note a few background facts. Firstly, as you may or may not be aware, there are 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference. This means 57 states in the world define themselves as explicitly Muslim in character. There are numerous states which also explicitly call themselves Christian in character. In neighboring Jordan, Jews are not allowed citizenship, nor can they own land. In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not even allowed to enter the city of Mecca, nor can non-Muslims get citizenship or even be allowed to openly practice their religion. Furthermore, any Palestinian state would most likely be defined as Islamic in character.

As far as the Law of Return goes; it is important to note that the Arab Israeli document does not mention the more than 750,000 Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries after 1948, without compensation, and for the mere crime of being Jewish. It is also important to note that while the Arab Israeli document calls for the end of the Jewish Law of Return, it calls for an explicitly Arab return to Israel, thereby reducing Jews in the one state they are a majority to a minority within Israel. This document also fails to note the fact that the 'Palestinian' refugees exist because they declared war upon the nascent state of Israel in 1948; there would be no refugee problem if there was no war which was declared upon Israel.

Thus far, no major Arab Israeli leader I am aware of has disavowed the "Future Vision" document. In fact, it appears that, though the document itself may not have been read by Arab Israelis, the concepts within them are certainly widely accepted.

In my opinion, it is harmful for Arab Israelis to learn a different history than Jewish Israelis, and have a separate education system. This means they become a separate people, and a state-within-a-state. It is problematic enough that Arab Israelis are exempt from the IDF and rarely serve in National Service. What the "Future Vision" document is calling for is essentially a "two state solution," wherein there is a 'Palestine' in the West Bank, and an Israel-of-Arab-character-possibly-to-be-renamed-an-Arab-name to the West. So really two Arab states.

Food for thought when considering what should be done re: the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Defining RIGHT and WRONG.

2009-02-02T15:14:00.007-05:00

I was reading over old posts, and I came upon a gem of a comment I wrote back in 2006. I still adhere to this ideology, and so I thought I would post it for you kind C4A folks: This was written back in 2006 in response to someone who claimed "nonviolence is always possible," and that "sin is only a religious concept."

You said again and again that 'nonviolence is always possible.'
Please point to a single case of nonviolent peaceful resistence against the Nazis by the Jews that resulted in the saving of Jewish life.
Obviously, I am aware that many Jews simply fled Nazi Germany and were able to live because of this. I also know that, prior to Nazi Germany starting the Holocaust, some Jews were saved out of Germany. That is not my question.
I want to know of a single case of Jews saving Jews in the middle of the Holocaust that was done in a nonviolent manner. One single case.
You flat out said on multiple occasions that 'nonviolence is always possible' and 'killing leads to more death.'
So point to one single case of this. You would certainly have half a leg to stand on if you could point to a single case of this.
The concept of sin has been linked to religion, but also is linked to secular humanism. I am referring to crimes against humanity, and NOT against God. Many secular humanists absolutely believe in morality and right and wrong.
The fact that you lump together what Israel is doing to the 'Palestinians' and what was done to the Jews during the Holocaust is the essence of BOTH moral absolutism AND moral relativism.
All killing is wrong, according to you. This is moral absolutism.
Hence, according to your very words: I don't see violence as being any more acceptable because it wasn't indiscriminate.
That means that aiming for Bin Laden is the same as aiming for a crowd.
Both involves killing. And killing is always wrong.
Your extreme stance on killing results in presenting equivalencies between very different scenarios.
Correct me if I am wrong, but according to you, there are two choices: die or fight back. Those are the only two choices if one wants to be ethically sound. Should someone fight back, they are no longer ethically sound to you, as killing is always wrong, regardless of why it is going on.
I already presented the most extreme examples of gunmen going into your home and hoping to annhiliate your family, and you still said that killing would be wrong EVEN THEN.
I realize you are being consistent, and certainly I cannot criticize you for that! I also realize you do not give Jews a double standard that you would not apply to yourself. What you are saying does not stem from antisemitism - I see that very clearly.
What I don't get if why you insist on these logical extremes. The 'choice' between killing and being slaughtered oneself is hardly a choice at all. If what you are saying is that you are hoping to avoid a slaughter, then isn't a slaughter going to happen if Israel does not and accepts 'Palestinians' coming in and massacring Jews? And is it ethical of a nation to allow the mass slaughter of its citizens because it refuses to fight back? What is the point of nationhood if NOT to get some measure of protection against the world?
You also said the following: In case you haven't read it enough times, my view is that genocides are always wrong because they entail the killing of innocent people. I don't make exceptions for those who wish to kill Jews any more than I make exceptions for those who wish to kill those of any other particular ethnicity or nation.
This assumes that Israeli Jews are actually trying to genocide 'Palestinians' when they fight back. This is absolutely untrue. The Israelis have the firepower such that if they wanted to, they could kill every 'Palestinian' in a matter of days. Yet they do not do this. Why? Because they take the time to only kill those who are terrorists and take great pains to avoid civilian death. This is never 100% - but the intent is not to kill civilians. As I said, this is equivalent to a robber coming into your home, shooting at you, and when you shoot back, you kill a civilian. The legal responsibility for that death is on the robber. Same applies here.
Where is there an intent to genocide? If there was such an intent, the 'Palestinians' would have ceased to exist long ago. I already showed you a link to an extensive archive of 'Palestinian textbooks' and media, showing a clear intent to wipe Israelis off the face of the earth. We know the 'Palestinians' are attempting a genocide (not all are, but at least the leadership is). This is definitively proven. If they had the firepower, they would kill every Israeli today. What do you point to when you claim that Israelis are genociding the 'Palestinians'? What shred of evidence can you even claims supports this?
The bottom line is that your claims of Israelis genociding the 'Palestinians' are as spurious as your claims of Israel being an apartheid state.

My words were as important then as they are now. My only quibble would be that I now do believe it is extraordinarily difficult to define 'sin' and 'right' and 'wrong' without religion. Unless there is a fixed star to define what is good and what is bad, I do fear moral relativism. This moral relativism can also occur with religion, and it is ultimately one of the greatest enemies of our times. It is why I have been studying Judaism now for about two years, and continue to study it weekly.

Why am I reposting this? Because of comments that have been posted on C4A in response to a post I wrote a year and a half ago concerning my night at the theater to see 'Masked' the play. The responses are not substantive, but center upon some idea that I do not believe in 'peace.' (Of course their version of 'peace' is ultimately the 'peaceful' destruction of Israel; they claim to love Jews, but they only appear to love the Jews of the Holocaust who walked peacefully to the gallows.)

I believe that these commentators believe what they believe because they fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and fail to comprehend that you have to stand up for your rights. There is also a dynamic similar to the battered wife syndrome which I already commented upon in my original 'Masked' post. But I believe, in addition to the battered wife syndrome concept, these commentators simply fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. That is why I am posting the comment I wrote about 2 1/2 years ago.

Jews such as the ones who replied to that post will often be seen pouring over books on Yiddish and think this is an example of their 'love' of Jewry. This makes perfect sense to me. Such Jews believe in the weak and ghetto Jew as epitimized by the Jews of Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. And so "J-Street" Jews and their ilk will profess a love of Yiddish culture...only it really is a love of Jews of the Holocaust, who [mostly] walked meakly to the gallows.

This is not real love, it is ultimately hatred, despite the protestations to the contrary often witnessed by such leftist Jews. This is the sort of 'love' that the Neturei Karta engage in. They too claim to truly 'love' Jews - as long as they are the meek Jews of the Holocaust.

I was not diplomatic in my original post on the topic (and could have phrased things better), but I do stand by the sentiment I expressed concerning my encounter at 'Masked' the play.

Explaining BBC "neutrality".

2009-01-31T03:21:00.014-05:00

It is no consequence that the BBC is often lauded as the best news source on the globe. It is the BBC's organizational structure which derives so much respect for the station all over the world, portraying the BBC as a publicly funded network, independent of the government.

The BBC is funded by the tax payer through TV licensing and Foreign Office funds. According to Wikipedia, "The licence fee represents approximately 75% of the BBC's income with most of the rest coming from the sale of its programming overseas and other business allied to broadcasting such as publishing."

The BBC has to justify receiving public funding, and showing (or pretending to show) neutrality its a primary way of doing so. Failing to do so jeopardizes their justification for charging the British public a TV licensing fee. If BBC bias is brought to widespread public attention, they would face extreme difficulty in procuring continued funds from the public. This is why the BBC spent £200,000 of Tax Payers money to quash independent reports of anti-Israel bias.

This is elaborated by BBC Watch's home page statement:

...the BBC consistently fails to adhere to its legal obligations to produce impartial and accurate reporting. Our systematic, objective and rigorous research points to the firm conclusion that the BBC frequently displays marked and consistent pro-Palestinian bias...

If the BBC were to provide a pro-Hamas charity with free advertising space, it would run the risk of being too anti-Israel to justify its public funding. Furthermore, as a result of not allowing this advertisement, the BBC is enjoying being publicly lambasted by pro-Hamas activists all over the country. Such complaints act as a counterweight against reports showing its consistent anti-Israel bias, and are therefore awarding the BBC with an illusion of neutrality and help justify its continued use of public funds.

On another note...

Israel is still being attacked by Hamas - but the world is silent. The message: Israel can be attacked, but must not fight back.

What is to come unless things change - Malmo, Sweden

2009-01-29T16:57:00.002-05:00

On Israelly Cool's website, I can across a rather disturbing video of what happened in Malmo, Sweden on January 25, 2009. It was on this day that a peaceful demonstration of support for Israel was interrupted by a violence mob of Arabs who threw rotten eggs, glass bottles, rocks, and even rockets/fireworks at the peaceful lovers of Zion. The peaceful supporters of Israel had a permit to demonstrate, and the violent rocket throwing Arabs did not have such a permit. In response, the police dispersed the entire crowd, including the peaceful and permit-carrying supporters of Israel, shutting down the demonstration. The heckler's veto won, and silenced the force of good in this world. There was of course no condemnation of what happened, and silence in the world media. Likely many in the media believe the peaceful Jews "had it coming" by "daring" to simply show support for the one state in the Middle East which believes in human rights. Or maybe they had it coming by "daring" to be Jews at all. Please see the video yourself to see what hysterical moral relativism and postmodern ideas disbelieving a "right" and a "wrong" exist will ultimately result in. This is where America is heading unless things change.

In response to those who believe the BBC is being 'unfair' in refusing to air a video calling for aid to Hamas...

2009-01-26T14:17:00.007-05:00

The BBC recently announced it will not air a commercial asking for aid money to be sent to Hamas. In response - as you can imagine, shoes were thrown at the BBC, and all sorts of claims of 'human rights violations' were screamed about.

The BBC is a cesspool of anti-Israel sentiment, yet it happened to do one right thing in refusing to air a call for funding Hamas. That's about the only thing to say. This action does not mean the BBC suddenly has become a pro-Israel institution.

The reality is that the "appeal for aid" was an appeal to fund Hamas, and nothing less. The BBC, for once, decided it has principles (I know, shocking!) and does not want to air an ad requesting funds to go to a jihadist terror organization.

Anyone who thinks this is a "human rights violation" or that the BBC is being unfair should ask themselves why exactly appeals for aid to Hamas should be aired on the BBC. I will ask a follow up: should the BBC air appeals to aid for Al Queda? At what point do they have even a minimal responsibility to protect the public? Or should the BBC air every terrorist propoganda video on earth, and/or every video on earth calling for aid to terror organizations?

Given the history of the BBC's craven capitulation to jihad, I expect they will cave on this soon, and air a commercial asking for aid to be sent to Hamas. I find the whole thing pathetic, that people have the shocking gall to believe this renders the BBC somehow biased in favor of Israel. The reality is that this means is that the BBC has at least a tiny vestige of principles left, but nothing more. It should be a given that it is wrong to air an appeal to aid a jihadist terror organization.

As an aside, here is a link to an article which discusses money from a UK Islamic 'aid' society going to Hamas.

UPDATE: This is a must read article which details exactly why the BBC is right - for once - in its refusal to air the disgusting "appeal to aid" for Hamas.

Here is an excerpt:

Who adjudicates on which victims to support via such charitable aid - and according to whose political morality? Why did the BBC not launch an appeal for the victims of collateral damage during Nato's bombing of Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign? And had it done so, would it have given money to ethnic Serbs as well as to Kosovars and Bosnian Muslims, all of whom were “cleansed” during the Balkan wars of that decade? What about the victims of insurgencies and counter- insurgencies in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya or Georgia? Or Israeli victims of the next Hamas suicide attack? Indeed, what about the Palestinian victims of Hamas's hideous human rights abuses, still so shamefully under-reported by the British media as a whole?

And who are these supposedly impartial charities who are attacking Mr Thompson's (albeit belated) attempt to uphold the Corporation's traditional standards? While groups such as the British Red Cross and Christian Aid are generally impartial in other areas of the world, that cannot be said to apply to their role in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, where they regularly view the conflict through a deeply partisan lens.

In the months prior to the decision by Hamas to end the six-month ceasefire and resume rocket attacks, these charities issued a flood of one- sided denunciations aimed at Israel. Their campaign repeated tendentious and often highly inaccurate terms such as “collective punishment” and “violation of international law”. On March 6, 2008, CARE International, Cafod, Christian Aid and Oxfam (among others) published a widely quoted report under the headline “The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion”. The authors did not bother to hide their political bias against Israel, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric and including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law”.

Read it all.

Ceasefire Hopes

2009-01-17T21:32:00.004-05:00

Hamas supporters are in celebration that Israel has announced a cease-fire as Hamas continues to fire at Israeli civilian centers. Is everything that simple, or is the Israeli government using a card up its sleeve?

Consider the protests around the world defending Hamas and demanding a ceasefire. Their voices have been so loud. Imagine how impotent their voices will become if and when Hamas continues to fire at Israeli civilians after Israel announces a unilateral cease fire.

If Hamas continues to attack Israeli civilians, how long will Israelis allow that to happen before they demand military actions to resume? If the Israeli government is wise, this ceasefire will give Hamas two options.

Continue to attack Israelis, and invite reprisals.
Stop attacking Israel. (This may be the best solution to prevent Fatah taking power.)

Time will tell.

What are your thoughts?

A brief history of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs

2009-01-14T12:07:00.002-05:00

This post has been inspired by a column I read on Gay Conservative Liberal's website. He believed there must be a reason Israel is hated, because it is hated so much! This is what I replied to him in a comment...

You are far off the mark in this one. Think of it this way. Six million Jews died in the Holocaust. According to you, there "must have been a reason." You fail to realize some people hate just because they are taught to hate from birth. That is the only reason, and the reason why we have an intractable problem with regards to the Israeli Arab conflict.A longer time frame of the conflict can be found on the Myths and Facts website.

To give you a long story short: there have been pogroms and attacks against Jews for thousands of years. But specifically, these attacks increased during the 20th century, under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the Holocaust, Israel was offered a state, as were the Palestinians, by the UN. The Palestinians, under the Mufti (who was an architect for Hitler's Final Solution), rejected the partition plan. This plan was to have an Israel on land which was majority Jewish due to immigration before and after the Holcaust.

Instead of accepting this state, the Palestinians (a people which did not exist at the time, and are not a seperate ethnicity from Jordanians any more than New Yorkers or New Jerseyians are seperate ethnicities) waged war upon Israel, and attempted a genocide after the Holocaust...and lost. Prior to the Israeli Arab conflict, 'refugees' were not defined as people who are part of a group that attempted a genocide and then lost.

Since 1948 (the founding of the state), the Palestinians and Arabs in general have refused to accept any state of Israel on any land at all. Instead, there has been constant terror attacks against Israel.

In 1967, there was an attempted annihilation of Israel, which was defeated in the Six Day War. This is how Israel won the Sinai, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. In response, Israel attempted to give this land - won in a defensive war - back. All they wanted was peace and recognition. Instead, in Khartoum, they got the famous "three Nos" - no peace, no recognition, no negotiations. source Since then, the jihad has not ceased. The 'two state solution' was proposed first in Oslo, only to find out that Arafat did not truly intend two states - he wanted jihad. (Abbas has not proven different) And Hamas is even further radical.The past eight years have witnessed eight years of rockets against Israel, and nary a response. Finally Israel is defending itself, and doing so in the most pinpointed way possible.

I say this war is not only justified, but necessary. If Israel does not go after Hamas in Gaza, and fails to defend the South of Israel, they lose all right to call themselves a state. The primary duty of a state is to defend its citizens.

To sum up, if you want to know the root of this conflict, read about the history of jihad. That is what this conflict is about.

As an aside, for gay reasons to support Israel, I highly suggest you read the attached link, which discusses why it is the gay thing to do to support Israel!

My reply to those who do not believe Hamas uses human shields

2009-01-13T10:28:00.002-05:00

Somehow the fact that 'Palestinians' use human shields does not sink in for everyone. So I will supply yet more links:

Video 1: video evidence of Hamas using human shields

Video 2: Hamas TV officially calls on children to be human shields

Link 3: Human Rights Watch (an organization extremely biased against Israel) nonetheless wrote of the extensive use of human shields, including human shields who voluntarily try to become 'shahids,' aka, martyrs.

link right here

Link 4: Hamas themselves discuss the use of human shields

To those who still doubt the use of human shields, I believe I have presented irrefutable proof they in fact do exist. To claim that Israel should give up and commit suicide, rather than fight against jihadists simply because they use human shields, contravenes every norm of international law. It is a biased and offensive double standard against Israel that you do not have against any other nation on earth.

I will go on. Israel uses missile technology which has the capability of changing the missile paths to avoid hitting civilians. a link right here

The IDF does everything it can - far and above what every other nation on earth does - to avoid hitting civilians. There is, as I have said, literally nothing more they can do.

The blood of every single 'civilian' in Gaza is on Hamas's hands. Caleb, if your friend actually cared for the well being of his fellow travellers, he would be anti-Hamas. But he does not care about their well being. He just cares about demonizing Israel.

There have been violent demonstrations against Jews in major cities around the world. It has gotten so bad, that now synagogues are being fire bombed and vandalized. I can assure you there was no equivalent against Muslims after 9/11 - a crime that actually was Islamically perpetrated. I have seen - with my own two eyes - open calls for the mass murder of Jews. In Golders Green, roving gangs attacked Jewish stores. In Chicago, synagogues were defaced with swastikas. On Long Island, a Jewish wedding was interrupted with calls for jihad. In France, by Strasbourg, a synagogue was firebombed. In Antwerp, roving gangs terrorized the Jewish neighborhood. In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (more Holocaust survivors per capita than anywhere else on earth, outside Israel), there was a call for Jews to be sent to the ovens and for Israel to be nuked.

It has gotten so bad that in NYC, there now is self defense training for Jews, and the start up of a CST-equivalent (CST is a volunteer security service for Jews in the UK). Many people appear to not care or recognize these attacks, but I am deeply troubled. I have had the displeasure of personally seeing a Hamas rally and calls for the annihilation of Israel. This rally went violent. I went to a rally for Israel, and it was all about how Israel wants peace.

To claim a moral equivalence between the two is ludicrous and offensive and strips morality of all meaning.

Getting things straight.

2009-01-12T17:27:00.007-05:00

I recently wrote a response to Lisa Goldman, which I present here for the record and for your consideration.

Let me correct a glaring mistake in this article.

Doing [half a] job and not eliminating Hamas, will strengthen the extremists. Therefore if we go with the advice advocated in this article, we would end up strengthening Hamas.

Doing a full job and eliminating Hamas, will eliminate the extremists ability to act - and therefore weaken them operationally. Anyone who doesn’t think that eliminating the operational capacity of an openly genocidal terrorist network is a positive thing needs to check themselves into a ward.

The article demands “an immediate and permanent ceasefire”, but if we have an immediate ceasefire it will not be permanent. Hamas has no interest in ceasing in its goals of annihilating Israel. Any declared ceasefire will only be bound to Israel. Advocating this immediate ceasefire is simply an attempt to limit Israel’s ability to act against Hamas and will enable Hamas to grow in strength. Furthermore, calling for an immediate ceasefire at this point shows complete hypocracy. Where was this call while Hamas was repeatedly firing at Israeli civilians? It was nowhere.

I also want to mark out the elephant: this article equates Israeli and Palestinian deaths - not noting the fact that Hamas instigated this round of fighting by attacking Israeli civilians, not noting the fact that Hamas is an opnely genocidal terrorist network, and not noting that Israel may have made history in its efforts to avoid civilian casualties through its warning of population centers of attack through leafleting and the phone (despite the fact this alerts Hamas to Israeli targets), and its utilization of precision attacks that reduce collateral damage as much as humanly possible.

I look at loss of life as a terrible thing, however I understand quite clearly that responsibility for lost life on all sides rests with Hamas as demonstrated by their refusal to distinguish their forces from any non-combatants, their refusal to renounce their [founding] exterminationist charter, and their constant attacks which coincide with their exterminationist agenda… for starters.

Lisa Goldman, by advocating that Israel stop military efforts in Gaza you are leading Israel towards being a failed state - for what is a nation that is unable to defend its own people?

Ps. Where is the letter addressed to Hamas?

Answer: "Of course there is no letter addressed to Hamas because we are hypocrites."

Red, naturally, beat me to the punch though.

Here is her response to the same article.

This letter shows a deep lack of understanding of the conflict, as well as international law. Lisa, you need to do more research before espousing this belief *which harms Am Yisrael.* I know for a fact that you already have had a negative influence upon Sandmonkey.

Now, let’s get to the facts. Firstly, Hamas refuses any offer of a ‘ceasefire.’ Secondly, should Hamas accept a UN-imposed ‘ceasefire,’ they would ironically not be bound by it according to international law. I am an attorney, but any common sense person would realize that the UN can only ‘bind’ (to the extent they bind!) MEMBER STATES. Hamas is not a member state! As such, a ‘ceasefire’ would only mean what it has meant since the dawn of the conflict: we cease, they fire.

Lisa, you appear to believe in ‘negotiations.’ I recently went to a Hamas rally (counter-demonstrated) where genocidal chants were said. Do you not know the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, wherein ‘negotiations’ have only led to hudnas with the Palestinians - i.e., reloading. Why do you want to impose such a horror upon the people of Sderot and Southern Israel? Honestly, what are you thinking? Are you even thinking?

Finally, I realize the people of Gaza are suffering. Yet it is a self-induced trauma. The Palestinians receive more aid per capita than anyone else on earth. Yet they continue to suffer because Hamas squanders this aid on guns and bombs. There are hundreds of tunnels between Gaza, Israel, and Egypt. Yet these tunnels are not used for food smuggling, but rather solely weapons smuggling. This shows the priorities of Hamas. Furthermore, as you must know, 100% of all deaths in Gaza are Hamas’s fault. They started this war and are firing from civilian locations and using women and children as human shields. Moreover, there even have been cases of women and children running to be ’shahids.’

Israel has every right to defend itself, and yet you, as an Israeli, are waging a public relations campaign against your very country in this hour of need. Shonda, is all I can say.

In short, short, your support for this letter, as well as your previous article, deeply disappoint me. They show me that you are not the interesting and informative writer I thought you were. I used to be a big fan, and now I am not. With the past two columns, I see you are part of the problem.

Since I am not going to bother checking any responses at Lisa's blog, feel free to respond here.

Objectively, worse than the Nazis.

2009-01-07T16:29:00.005-05:00

No, I am not just throwing around the word Nazi for effect - lets look at this objectively.

While the NSDAP (Nazi Party) did not make the extermination of worldwide Jewry a founding principle, Hamas has. Hamas is an organisation that openly declares its intention to wipe out the Jewish people all over the world, and they made this intention clear in their founding charter.

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Read the full charter. Read more about Hamas.

This founding decoration is objectively worse than the Nazis founding documents. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, and have ties to Iran - a nation which is also open in its genocidal hatred.

Despite this fact, I am sitting here watching the news coverage on Israel and the Arabs, astounded at how low our media can be in its coverage, presenting Hamas (and the Palestinians who elected Hamas) as victims.

Perhaps I should not be surprised. Hamas may be an openly genocidal, but so are Hezbollah. The mass media did so much to support Hezbollah during 2006, they went past the point of manipulating the news to outright fabrication. Why should I be surprised at the double-standard when we see Ahmadinejad of Iran being invited to present an "Alternative Christmas Message" to the Queen this year?

We can see the hypocracy of people through their double-standards. Notice that there have been no global outcry while Israeli families are being terrorised from barrages of rocket attacks aimed at their towns, cities, schools, hospitals and kindergartens, for years. Notice that right now, there is no talk demanding Sri Lanka halt its operation on the Tamil Tigers, yet Israel is told to stop firing so Hamas can rebuild. These hypocritical double-standards are regularly applied to the Jewish nation.

As far as I am concerned, the way Israel is treated reeks of anti-Semitism. If it makes it any better, I suspect the vast majority of those equating Israel to Hamas, or those calling for Israel to stop defending itself are simply "useful idiots", sheep for the policy makers.

The conflict in Gaza in a nutshell

2009-01-07T14:27:00.008-05:00

During the present war between Israel and Hamas, there has been a great deal of misinformation. As such, Culture for All aims to bring you as many FACTS in an easy to understand format as is possible. As such, I thought you, dear readers, would appreciate the following:

1) FACT: Israel did not break the 'ceasefire', rather, there never was a working 'ceasefire.' In November, Israel sent a few missiles to simply go after rocket launchpads in Gaza. Israel did this because Hamas and Islamic jihad were launching rockets, ceaselessly, at Sderot and Southern Israel (over 10,000 since 2001).

2) FACT: Israel operated with both hands tied behind its back for eight years on end, letting about 10,000 rockets get lobbed at Sderot (and making life intolerable for the citizens of Sderot). The country failed in its duty to protect its citizens, and this fact alone made me cynical about the leadership of the Israel. It is the absolute duty and obligation of any country to defend its citizens, which, for eight years Israel was not doing. NOT ONLY did Israel fail to defend the citizens of Sderot for EIGHT YEARS, it was called a 'warmonger' when it took only small steps to eradicate the rocket attacks! Moreover, Israel left Gaza, including leaving greenhouses for the Gaza 'Palestinians' to use to set up an actual economy, and these greenhouses were destroyed in order to use these greenhouses as rocket launch sites. Let me repeat this, just so you have a deeper understanding of exactly how far Israel went to appease 'Palestinians' in the name of 'peace': The IDF went to Gush Katif (the Jewish-run 'settlement' in Gaza) and forced out about 7,500 Jews out of Gaza, all in the name of 'peace.' In response, there was a threefold increase in rockets towards Sderot. Here is a great timeline - well documented - of rockets and statistics from 2005 ('disengagement') to the present day.

3) FACT: Hamas operates its rocket launch sites next to 'civilian' areas on purpose, hoping to maximize their own 'civilian' (and I use the term 'civilian' loosely) casualties, for the world press. By doing this, and by using human meat shields against Israel, it has the blood of all those 'civilians' who have died in Gaza on its hands. Now, you might ask why I use the term 'civilian' loosely. That is because Israel, in my opinion counter-tactically, flies leaflets over areas it intends to bomb, asking 'civilians' to leave. In response, Gaza 'civilians' have actually run to the very bomb targets, hoping they will either prevent the IDF from attacking a military target, or will die as martyrs. As such, these 'civilians' often are not 'civilians' as you and I define the term. A Soldier's Mother writes more of this right here.

Israel goes out of its way to kill as few 'civilians' as they can, even to the point of decreasing their military effectiveness. What army in the world informs their target where they are going in advance? No army but Israel! And yet Israel still gets blamed as killing all these 'civilians'? That only shows the bias of the world press and world governments.

Without exception, the death of every single 'civilian' in Gaza is the fault of Hamas. There would not be a war if Hamas did not send over 10,000 rockets into Southern Israel, with the intent of killing as many ACTUAL Israeli civilians - women and children - as possible. Then, when Israel dares to fight back - after EIGHT YEARS (and making Gaza Jew free in the process) Gaza 'civilians' are used as human shields. As such, every single death - both Israeli and 'Palestinian,' is the fault of Hamas.

4) FACT: There is a distinction between killing and murder. Not all killing is murder, and this has to be understood. Killing someone in self defense is not murder. Killing a baby in cold blood is in fact murder. As such, given every single 'Palestinian' killed by the IDF in Gaza was killed in self defense, none of these deaths were murder. Every single Israeli killed was killed in cold blood - THAT is murder. Moreover, Hamas just murdered 35 'collaborators' (i.e., Fatah members) in Gaza. THAT is murder.

5) FACT: The majority of Gaza 'Palestinians' support jihad against Israel. I am speaking of a majority of these 'Palestinians,' according to public opinion polls, as well as the blatant actions of 'Palestinians.' As a recent example, at least 300,000 Gazan 'Palestinians' recently showed up for a "Death to Israel, Death to America" hate rally in Gaza City. A 'Palestinian' dressed up as Gilad Shalit, the IDF soldier being held prisoner in Gaza, and 300,000 'Palestinians' in the crowd laughed and jeered. That shows a sick and diseased society. The fact that the society is sick and diseased means that you will see such sickness as 'Palestinian' 'civilians' running to be bombed by the IDF, you will see Pallywood productions of fake deaths, you will see bombs/rockets/missiles being launched from schools, you will see children recruited as homicide bombers, and you will see schools/mosques/media besieged by the worst form of hate education.

If you would like to see true 'peace' in the region, the only way for this to happen is for Israel to take over Gaza, throw out Hamas, take over the schools, and send an army of teachers, teaching non-hate education. This will not happen, as Israel has made it clear that this is not the goal of the IDF. As such, the most I am hoping for is for Hamas to be crippled substantially enough that they will not be sending thousands of rockets a year into Sderot, claiming they are abiding by a 'ceasefire.' This is all that I can sadly hope for. 'Peace' is utterly impossible unles the hate education is dismantled, and Israel refuses to do that, as it would require an extreme amount of casualties for it to occur. The 'two state solution' will not accomplish 'peace,' and is dead in practical terms. Meanwhile, the world (specifically, the UN and the 'quartet') continue to fund hate education and villify Israel. Those who think they are being 'generous' and 'open-minded' and think 'both sides are wrong,' do not realize that sometimes there is a right and a wrong.

This is the world we live in. In this world, there is absolute truth and right and wrong, whether people want to acknowledge this or not. When I go to 'pro-Palestinian' demonstrations, I see open calls for the murder of Jews and Israelis. That is wrong. Supporting Israel against the jihadist onslaught is right.

Rally in NYC today by the Israeli Consulate

2009-01-06T16:03:00.004-05:00

Below is a link to pictures that I took at the rally for Israel by the Israeli Consulate. This rally, not a counter-protest but an affirmative rally, occurred today in NYC during my lunch hour. It was so crowded, it was very hard to take pictures. At least 3,000 came out to brave the cold. Am Yisrael Chai!

http://picasaweb.google.com/redtulips/RallyByIsraeliConsulateAllProIsraelPeople

There was no significant counter-protest to this, just some random Neturei Karta 'Jews.' It was so wonderful to see the Jewish people united behind a common cause, and speaking out about what is right. This pro-Israel rally, whereby the speakers spoke of how the Palestinians themselves are victims of Hamas, contrasts with what was seen a week ago, with open terror support. Every speaker I heard said how war was not desired, but was simply necessary for self defense. Moreover, none of the other rallies I attended had this level of attendance. I am so proud to be a Jew, a New Yorker, and someone who loves and appreciates humanity itself. The message was so clear: Israel wants peace and security. These are basic needs. Rest assured; the truth WILL win out in the end. And I will continue going to rallies and doing what I can to bring out the truth amidst so many lies.

Last night's pro-terror and anti-terror rallies

2008-12-31T13:25:00.002-05:00

Last night there was a protest against Israel that essentially was little more than a rally openly in favor of Hamas. Thankfully, Stand With Us was on the case and there was an anti-terror rally across the street. Here is a link to pictures I took on my friend Irina's camera of both rallies. You will note open terror support, including "We support the resistance in Gaza." The Neturei Karta were also out in full regalia. I told them they are a "chillul hashem," aka, a desecration of G-d's name. I nearly got into an altercation with Hamas supporters, who were out and proud of their open Hamas support. I have to repeat: this was not simply a rally against Israel's right to self defense. Rather, these Hamas supporters were openly shouting Hamas and Hizballah slogans and holding up signs in support of terrorism. I thanked every police officer I saw, and told them I loved the NYPD and valued their good work. I added that I hoped they were profiling these terrorists. In the subway home, a group of at least four Hamas members hopped on the subway car, and it quickly got ugly. They shouted at me and we nearly came to blows.

Through it all, I realized: I am so lucky to be Jewish and American. Our side is right and their side is wrong. It cannot be any more simple than that. Anyone seeing the screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth monstrosity that is the Hamas support of the anti-Israel crowd cannot possibly say those cretins are civilized human beings deserving of respect. We are right, they are wrong, and it feels good to walk tall and proud as a Jew, as an American, and as a lover of humanity itself. I am optimistic for the future, as this degeneracy cannot and will not win out.

We cannot continue to 'apologize' for being members of humanity. It does a disservice to humanity itself. We need to stop 'engaging' with these Islamonazi thugs who mean to wipe us off the map. These are barely literate buffoons who seek to destroy us. 'Dialogue' will hardly stop this hatred. The only thing that will stop it is pride in country, religion, and ourselves. Am Yisrael Chai and G-d Bless America! Have a healthy and Happy New Year (Gregorian calendar), knowing that we WILL indeed win!

Here again is the link to pictures:

http://picasaweb.google.com/sicat222/StandWithUsRally?feat=email#

Why do bad things happen to good people?

2008-12-09T14:37:00.001-05:00

I was thinking about someone who in my opinion overreacted to a minor comment I told her. The details of it all are not important, except to say that I realized that her overreaction was triggered by the fact that she clearly never had to deal with real pain in her life, as something so minor appeared to set her off on a train wreck.

Anyway, after all that mishegas, I had a moment of perfect clarity. I realized that I am lucky that I had pain in my life. I never realized it as clearly as I do today. I went through a turbulent childhood and young adulthood, and I had more than my fair share of pain, humiliation, and distress as I was growing up. And as a child and young adult, I never understood exactly why it was that I had to endure all that I endured. It seemed like I was simply being randomly punished. But I now realize how lucky I was to have gone through what I went through. I realized that I have grown as a person and a human being as a result of my childhood mishegas. As a result, I am a stable and mature young adult, and I know I would never react in such an erratic and overwrought fashion, as my friend reacted.

Because of my former life experiences, I am the person that I am today. Yes, I suffered at the time that everything happened. But in truth, I would not take back any of my mistakes and past heartache even if I could. Because it all made me a better and stronger person. I wish that I could have learned and grew and become stronger without having had pain in the past, but I do not think I really could have, in practical terms.

There is the expression, "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger." And it is simply true. Only those who have undergone pain in their lives have the strength of character to not fear pain in the future. Only those who have themselves endured the worst forms of gossip and humiliation frankly grow stronger and tougher and realize that, no matter what someone says about a person, ultimately, it does not matter, and as long as you believe in yourself, the opinions of others are wholly irrelevant.

The pain I had in my past gives me the strength to tackle whatever life throws at me. On an even simple level, after I broke my wrist and had it in a cast, I was less afraid of needles and pain, and now I donate blood regularly (when I have enough iron to do so!). I am lucky that I had an antisemitic ex-friend in law school who runs one of the top antisemitic websites on the internet, because that caused me to examine Judaism and Israel, and rethink my entire life perspective and ideology. It brought me to a Jewish community which I find so extremely meaningful.

And so I know that ultimately, I am lucky I had a bumpy past, the details of which are beyond the point of this post. If everything was smooth sailing, I would never have understood how to deal with even a minor wind.

Maybe this is just a small reason why bad things happen to good people, so to speak. When good people deal these bad things, it makes them better people.

The Oxford Chabad

2008-12-01T15:33:00.003-05:00

This past weekend was spent in Oxford, England. I was there to visit a friend, and I decided to go to Shabbat services at the Oxford Chabad House. This past weekend also was a weekened where we learned the horrible fate of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg, of blessed memory. But for me, what I witnessed in Oxford was a chilling revelation.

The Chabad House Shabbat dinner started out pleasantly enough. Rabbi Eli Brakman runs a very warm and inviting place, where Jew and nonJew alike feels welcomed to their Shabbat meal. The Rabbi spoke eloquently about the Holtzbergs, who he knew personally, as he studied with them at the 770 yeshiva on Crown Heights, Brooklyn. I enjoyed meeting an interesting assortment of individuals who attended the Shabbat services at Oxford, mostly affiliated with the famed university. But then, the speakers spoke. The topic was Obama and his effect upon the Middle East. The first speaker was a leftist, who apparently wanted Obama to press for 'peace,' whatever that means, for Israel. The second speaker was a Palestinian, who compared Israel to Nazi Germany, and then spoke of the horrors of his two day detention in a West Bank prison, and how he made an Israeli guard break down in tears when he compared the situation to Nazi Germany. He also spoke of the need for Israel to be forced to accept 'peace.' He said he is dismayed that Obama will be too pro-Israel. The third speaker was half Jewish, half Palestinian, and again compared Israel to Nazi Germany, claiming that when a little Palestinian girl wets her bed due to Israeli aggression, it is comparable to the hell his Jewish family has endured in pogroms and Nazi camps. The fourth speaker was Jewish and spoke about the need for Obama to push for a regional peace, but was not optimistic about the chances for such a peace.

None of the speakers were actually experts on Israel, 'Palestine' (a state which does not exist), or the Middle East. They rather were Americans, pushed to speak for reasons I cannot understand.

In short, at the Chabad in Oxford, on the very night that the Holtzbergs were murdered, Israel was compared to Nazi Germany.

You can be sure I was there with a strongly worded comment or five. I spoke of the failure of Camp David, and how it is proof that 'peace' is completely impossible at this stage, and not only is it impossible, but forcing Israel to commit suicide against its will does nothing but encourage more violence. In response, of course, I was told I am a 'fanatic' 'who does not believe in peace.' In short, there was absolutely no substantive response in the slightest given.

I found it interesting that afterwards, when I spoke with the organizer of this event, the explanation given was that somehow all the speakers were zionists, and it was a positive event, in comparison to the usual events at Oxford. I was told that when Shimon Peres (a man who famously stated we need to 'close our eyes for peace,' and who is a leftist and believes in ethnically cleansing Jews from our homeland in Judea and Samaria) came to speak at Oxford, there were riots. There in short is no academic freedom at Oxford. Frankly, if I was not in town and did not complain at the Chabad house, there would be little to no opposition to the extremist positions taken. And yet I was told these were the most pro-Israel speakers to speak in a long time! I was told that true Zionist speakers will not or cannot come to Oxford!

It is very sad, the state of the world we live in. I frankly track the shonda (yiddish for 'shame') which took place at the Chabad house to the Mumbai attacks. If we are afraid to defend ourselves, if we cannot speak out against injustice, then those who seek malice in this world will exploit this. Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing." And he was right.

Why is it that at the #1 most 'elite' university in the world, pro-Israel speakers are afraid of literally being physically attacked? What sort of a world do we live in where we are not even allowed the dignity of our own narrative?

Assume, for an instance, that it is completely impossible to know who is right, either the Palestinians, or Israelis and Jews. Assume, for an instance, that 'no one narrative is better than another.' (this is completely a fallacious assumption, as there is such a thing as absolute truth, but we are assuming this for a moment)

Even under that assumption, why must we surrender our narrative to the Palestinians? Why must we give up even our own dignity? In response to blood libels, why must we apologize? This does nothing other than legitimize the blood libels! The Palestinian position has not changed even a millimeter in sixty years; if anything, it has gotten even more extremist. Yet we now live in a world of 'post-zionism,' where we have to 'understand' an enemy which wishes to destroy us.

Why do we have to 'understand' the enemy at all? There is little to no effort being made to 'understand' Jews and Zionism. The Zionist position is completely absent on campus, replaced, as it were, with the delusion of a 'two state solution,' which is little more than Auschwitz borders. Why is it that Alan Dershowitz, certainly no 'right winger,' is put on a pedestal and given a speaking tour, simply because he does not demonize the Jew?

Where is Jewish pride? Where is Jewish dignity? Why must even my own Zionist narrative be stolen from me?

We see there are people out there who seek to annihilate us not because we think one way or another. But rather, simply because we exist. Why have we given up the will to fight? Why do we even humor our enemy, and give them a forum to speak, yet we refuse to even listen to an Aryeh Eldad or Effie Eitam?

Where is our will to survive? Can it ever come back? When will a real Zionist be able to speak at Oxford without fear of physical violence? Will it literally take the moshiach coming?

Why do we so vividly and constantly have to cry about our brothers and sisters being murdered for being Jewish, and we say "never again," yet we fail to do anything substantive about this all?

What will it take for things to change?

Face My Expression

2008-10-30T16:19:00.006-04:00

I value my freedom of expression, and I believe that everyone has the same right as I. One can hardly fathom a more fundamental instrument of one's free expression than one's face. Your face is your expression. It shows your reactions and your emotions: your happiness, your distaste, your pleasure, your comfort, your pain.

Your face is the strongest symbol of who you are. When I think of my loved ones, I conjure an image of their face. I love their face, as it is uniquely their own. It is my window into communicating with them, and they with me. I may not remember everyone’s name, but in the old cliché, "I never forget a face."

I can scarcely imagine a life where my face and its expressions were eliminated from my public expression. Indeed, I can scarcely imagine a life where I cannot stand up and freely speak my mind as myself – smiles, tears, scars and all. Yet, I must force myself to do so, because so many in our global community face (no pun intended) this very limitation. It is an uncomfortable scenario that I must create in my imagination, but to fail to do so is to fail to do my utmost to understand their experience. Yes, this article is about the Islamic veil, most specifically the niquab.

With this veiling, one still has the eyes, the "window to the soul", visible. Now even that has come under attack. Perhaps it has been for some time, and I simply am now becoming fully aware. I have certainly noticed that burqas have netting over the eyes, all but completely obscuring the eyes from view.

I must state up-front that is useless to discuss the veiling of the face as a personal choice in areas where personal choice simply isn’t an option. In far too many cases (and I would argue the majority of the cases), free choice is not involved. Social pressure, being ostracized, family/spousal demands, even the persistent threat of violence renders the choice not to veil outside of reality. In many places it is legally compulsory and enforced by religious police and vigilantes. If one does not have the freedom to say “no”, one also lacks the freedom to say “yes”. The choice has been made for you. For this reason, it is useless to speculate on choice. The very legal requirements for this demonstrate that there are many who would exercise the choice not to veil, necessitating legislation to compel women to veil against their will.

One is hard-pressed to conceive of a greater oppression than half of the species having their faces and voices barred from public life. One is hard-pressed to conceive of a greater invalidation of a person than to tell her that her face and expression aren't welcome in public life. By its very nature, this is the compulsory exclusion and silencing of half of our species from public life.

It is also a dangerous exclusion that is detrimental to society as a whole, including men. One wonders how men can learn respect women as full human beings with rights when women are perpetually faceless and shrouded. One wonders how men can learn acceptable and non-acceptable interaction with unrelated women when they are barred from such interactions, and, when such interactions do occur, cannot see the reaction of the women. One wonders how men can possibly respect women’s sexual boundaries in this way, or value their opinions and right to say “no”, when their society doesn’t value women's expression and right of choice.

It is for this reason that, sadly, this practice will have the opposite effect than the purpose/goal stated by the Saudi cleric. Rape and sexual assault is grounded in belief and justification for imposing your will on another against the other’s will. The inoculation against this behavior is a respect for a person’s right to choose and say no. This is just not possible in a society where women’s right to make their own choices isn’t respected.

While I will always respect a woman’s right to choose to veil herself, I find myself morally obligated to stand up and push for her ability to freely make that choice without fear of repercussions. Anything less isn’t choice, it is coercion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7651231.stm

Israel agrees to free convicted and unrepentant child murderer in exchange for Regev/Goldwasser/Arad's dead bodies

2008-06-30T17:38:00.002-04:00

This is the most sickening thing I have read in a long time. Israel agreed yesterday to free Samir Kuntar and at least a dozen others in exchange for the dead bodies of Regev/Goldwasser/Arad. I have to ask; why should a terror group who kidnaps a Jew/Israeli keep said person alive? There is no incentive at this point, given the trade. Kuntar was convicted for having infiltrated Israel, murdering a police officer, and then invading a home, taking a father and son captive, murdering the father in front of the son (so this was the last image the four year old saw), and then beat the four year old's head against a rock with a rifle butt. While this happened, the mother of the boy was holding her little daughter to herself in a closet, hiding from Kuntar and his gunmen, and smothered the daughter to death accidentally.

This is one of the most cold blooded and vicious murders in Israel's history. Kuntar has publicly said he has no regrets, and wants to kill more Jews. And Israel is willing to free this monster in exchange for dead bodies. This is utterly shocking. Hizballah says this shows their strength. I say that this says the officials in the Israeli government value the credo of 'no soldier left behind' even when such a credo threatens the safety and security of Jews around the world. Given Israel exists in part to protect Jews around the world, this cuts to the very heart of the values of the nation.

This will only cause terrorists to be emboldened, and try to kidnap more Jews/Israelis wherever they can. They know they will be able to extract a high price for the kidnappings, whether the person in question is dead or alive.

This is a sad day.

On Short-Term Haitus

2008-06-03T01:57:00.002-04:00

Lots of work combined with lack of sleep is going to result in a short-term hiatus... wish me luck for this afteroon! Be back soon. :)

Todays Starred Stories

2008-06-01T14:44:00.011-04:00

Here are today's starred stories, organised by topic:

Creeping Dhimmitude

The Telegraph

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

Intolerance / Hate Culture

Elder of Ziyon, IsraelMatzav, Israel National News, Yourish

The Algerian government has arranged for 14 Iraqi children to receive surgery in Algeria so that they would not have to go to Israel as previously planned. The children’s mothers expressed relief, with one saying the “nightmare” of seeking help in Israel had been removed.

The children were going to receive medical care with help from the Israeli group Save a Child’s Heart, which provides free heart surgery in Israel to children in need from several countries around the world. Members of the Christian group Brothers Together (Shevet Achim), which works with Save a Child’s Heart and has offices in Iraq, expressed concern that Algerian doctors may not be adequately prepared to deal with some of the children’s complicated medical conditions.

JPost

Kuwaiti MPs stage walk out in protest of bareheaded female Cabinet members

Iran and Hezbollah

Smooth Stone, Soundbites, Solomonia, Israel Matzav, YNet, Yourish

Because We Value Life and They Value Death... Israel Receives Body Parts in Exchange for Spy.

Israel made a 'gesture' to Hezbollah today by 'deporting' convicted Hezbollah spy Nassim Nisr to Lebanon after six years in an Israeli jail.

In return (or maybe not in return) Hezbollah returned 'body parts' of Israeli soldiers that it had been holding since the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006.

As far as that wider exchange goes, Israelis overwhelmingly support trading the murderer Kuntar for Goldwasser and Regev - but only if Goldwasser and Regev are alive. If they are not alive, most Israelis oppose the trade. So far, Hezbollah has refused to say which it is.

Beirut Spring

5 points summing up Iranian tactics in the Middle East...

Principle No. 1: Always seek “control without responsibility.” In Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, Iran & Friends have veto power over the politics, without being held fully responsible for the electricity. America’s allies, by contrast, tend to have “responsibility without control.”

Principle No. 5: Cast yourself as the “resistance” to Israel and America, so any opposition to you is equal to support for Israel and America and so no matter how badly you are defeated the mere fact that you “resisted” means you didn’t really lose.

IRNA

Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Mohammad-Reza Baqeri in a meeting with his Japanese counterpart on Saturday agreed to expand mutual cooperation.

History

BokerTov

The tomb of the Prophet Ezekiel in Kifl, south of Baghdad, used to be a pilgrimage site for Jews. It is one of few traces that remain of a once-vibrant Jewish community in Iraq. A pogrom in 1941 and other traumas led to a sharp decline in the Jewish population.

Weapons Manufacturing / Smuggling

Israel Matzav

Egyptian police disclosed today that they discovered a massive weapons cache inside a mountain in the Sinai desert.

They can figure out how to smuggle anti-aircraft missiles and hand grenades into Gaza, but not sugar and flour. Some 'blockade.'

"There's no doubt that the appearance of these weapons represents a very significant change," said Yoram Schweitzer, director of the Program on Terrorism and Low Intensity Conflict at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.

"Air force helicopters fly low over Gaza, and if they are downed the significance of that would be enormous. The air force has to make preparations, and take these weapons into account," Schweitzer said.

IMRA

Ten members of a family from the Abu Sha'ban clan were injured, including 4 women and 3 children, when an explosive device detonated inside their house.

Obama & Hillary... Combined?

2008-06-01T14:22:00.004-04:00

I haven't heard much discussion about the recent news that Obama and Hillary may join forces...

Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

I am not supportive of the Democratic candidacy this year, however I think that this move could give the Democrats a great advantage over the Republicans.

What do you think this could mean for the presidential race between the Democrats and Republicans?

- Written by Steven

Contact Us

2008-05-28T18:12:00.002-04:00

Earlier today somebody used our search engine to look for the word "contact". I am guessing that they were looking for contact information for our blog and it's authors.

Our contact details can be found by clicking on the link at the top titled About Culture for All.

Muslim of the Day

2008-05-24T21:10:00.013-04:00

Abdurrahman Wahid

Tip of the hat to Bruce at MidEast Soundbites, and to Ron Kampeas at the San Francisco Sentinel for his original report (duplicated below):

[...] Best known as the president who shifted Indonesia to democracy from 1999 to 2001, Wahid [...] was forced out due to a combination of financial scandals and hard-liners who opposed his attempts to liberalize restrictions on political groups and the country’s Chinese minority.

Wahid also has gained prominence for his insistence on introducing the world’s most populous Muslim nations to certain truths about the Jews.

As an opposition leader, he broke new ground by visiting Israel in 1994. The apex of this effort, conducted jointly with the LibForAll Foundation, a group that promotes moderate Islam, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was the Holocaust conference last year in Bali, Indonesia.

At the conference, which was attended by survivors and Jewish and Muslim clergy, Wahid called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “liar” for denying the Holocaust.

Wahid, 67, continues to promote his message with LibForAll, founded in 2003 by C. Holland Taylor, a scholar of Southeast Asia and a telecommunications magnate. Wahid, who says he plans to run for president again in 2009, brings to the venture his prestige as the scion of a family of Javanese Islamic scholars.

Earlier this month he attended a Wiesenthal Center tribute dinner in his honor and then traveled to Israel to participate in Israeli President Shimon Peres’ conference celebrating Israel’s 60th anniversary, “Facing Tomorrow.”

This Jewish component is just part of Wahid’s larger effort to promote an ideology of moderate Islam. He wants to demonstrate that the radical factions are not pre-eminent and to promote a faith that preaches equality for women and tolerance of non-believers.

Taylor says the strategy is to reach political, religious and cultural leaders — even pop stars — and through them to “trickle down” the message of Wahid’s moderate Islam.

“We work with top leaders,” Taylor said. “These individuals are able to drip their message down to a grass-roots levels.”

LibForAll recruits respected, moderate Muslim leaders in Indonesia to endorse and write tracts repudiating the radical brand of Islam promoted by Saudi-funded advocates of Wahhabi Islam.

The organization also is disseminating a 30-lesson video curriculum called “What is Islam” [not released yet -Steven] that advances a pluralistic vision of the faith throughout thousands of Islamic boarding schools in Indonesia.

One of the project’s highest-profile coups was getting rock star Ahmad Dani, whose group, Dewa, has been likened to U2, on board with the program. Dani has recorded a single taking on Laskar Jihad, Indonesia’s radical Islamist terrorist group. The song is called Laskar Cinta — “Warriors for Love.” [Listen here -Steven]

Taylor says plans are under way to translate the videos and tracts into Arabic and other languages.

“We feel that Indonesia has the cultural capital to be a leader in the struggle,” he said.

This strategy might make headway in countries where moderate Islam has roots — Malaysia, Turkey and some East African nations — but Taylor does not have a clear plan of action for how this strategy is supposed to work in places such as Saudi Arabia, which has few Islamic moderates.

Wahid says moderate Islam stands a greater chance of triumphing over Islamic radicalism once Western leaders stop trying to accommodate Islamic extremists. Saudi Arabia, in particular, remains the primary funding source for the global spread of fundamentalist Islam.

That is worthy of being repeated:

Moderate Islam stands a greater chance of triumphing over Islamic radicalism once Western leaders stop trying to accommodate Islamic extremists.

“Don’t give any kind of recognition to the fundamentalist view of Islam,” Wahid said. “The Saudis have a double-pronged thing: the first is to give assistance to fundamentalists, on the other side to show the ‘humanist’ side of Islam. These things cannot be reconciled.”

The President's Dissonant Speech

2008-05-22T09:20:00.004-04:00

Author unaccredited

There were several main goals of President Bush's recent address to the Knesset in Jerusalem: to reinforce the perception that the government of America is a staunch friend of Israel; to shore up the expulsion regime of the American elite's client regime headed by Ehud Olmert; to soften up the hearts and heads of Israeli Jews to accept more 'painful sacrifices' for 'peace'; to distract attention from America's arming and training of Fatah and to draw a facile distinction between Iran, Fatah and Hamas…

Islam, as the past two administrations have taught us "is a religion of peace" thus we are duly prepped for the ascendancy of that menacing hollow man, made-in-a-lab, B.H. Obama.

Few politicians are born but many are made… the lust for power, to be a made-man or woman intertwines tightly with the purple tones of the twilight times.

VP Cheney flew to the Middle East a few weeks ago. In Israel he declared that America must never do anything to compromise Israel's security. Then he flew to Amman and demanded the speedy creation of a "Palestinian State" which would destroy whatever remains of Israel's security and drive a last big nail into the coffin of history. Cheney's a politician and speaketh readily with forked tongue…

May 14th was the sixtieth anniversary of David Ben Gurion's declaration of Israel's independence. Miracles of course do not happen in one day: they are the result of many choices and deeds as well as the holy life energies of the Creator ^[1] acting over large tracts of space and time. For one thing, the occupying British who greatly assisted the Final Solution (delegated to their continental cousins, the Germans) did not leave the Promised Land that day in May sixty years ago: it took them a few more months to finish arming their Arab troops for the Federation on which they're still working with many helpers ^[2]. But politicians are not only personae, they are 'party-animals' so President Bush and an impressive entourage visited Jerusalem where he delivered an address remarkable for its incongruence with American policy, its internal dissonance and its effects on American presidential politics.

Remember that neither this nor any other post-War President formulates foreign or economic policy: he announces or indicates its shape, however bizarre; he may have some input into its articulation. But he doesn't want to choke to death on popcorn or anything else…

He read some lines remarkable for their sense: "we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights [sic] resolutions against [Israel] than any other nation in the world" (with the United States being second as whipping boy for the "international community") ^[3]. But really, that is its purpose, shaped both by providence and the global oligarchy; condemning and dicing the Jews with attrition and dependency is the method and goal of "the Quartet" which is ALL the states in the world (the US, USSR, EU and UN). "In the end of days, all nations of the world will gather against Jerusalem…"

If Mr. Bush or his speech writers were serious about the UN, they, and previous administrations would have withdrawn decades ago and Israel with them. The dissonance shows that the oligarchs run American policy and intend no good to America or Israel.

The President denounced the Nazis and their assistants saying "they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people and they could not break the promise of God." He's right, and that's a miracle (see above); and it's almost a miracle that this is the same fellow that said he looked into the pope's eyes and saw god ^[4]. This is why we noted that Presidents do not formulate policy nor write their own speeches anymore; this is why we note the kinship of politicians to harlotry.

Near the end of his speech, Mr. Bush made a reference rarely made by the dominant faction in Israel: "over the past six decades [actually, it has taken centuries] the Jewish people have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light into the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." If only this were more true; if only the oligarchy that the West keeps in power in Israel wanted this to happen; if only Israel was a Constitutional Monarchy settled in its tribal territories from the Sea of Reeds to the Euphrates and from the Arabian wilderness to the Western Sea. Did someone forget to tell the speech writers that every time Ms. Rice descends upon Israel she demands that her sub-contractors remove checkpoints so that more Jews can be murdered and destroy more Jewish towns and synagogues; to destroy Israeli army bases or Jewish-owned land and to build cities for the fictional "Palestinians" in their place? That they join her bosses in declaring Jews "illegal" residents in the center of the Promised Land? And that as checkpoints to weed out Arab murderers are dismantled, checkpoints to inhibit Jews from traveling to their homes are erected as part of the ethnic cleansing plan.

No, no one forgot anything. This was a birthday speech made in Jerusalem for those who love the promise of the Promised Land. It was politics. If it was Riyadh or Moscow or Rome or Zagreb a very different speech would have been made with a different amount of attention paid. After all, the key policy goal of both Bush II administrations has been to create a fake state for a non-existent people to curtail fulfilment of the Promise and legacy the President invoked. He may even have noted the dissonance in his writers having him hallucinate about a peaceful Palestinian State sixty years hence, "in a new period of tolerance and integration," they're smoking dope.

Being only VP, Mr. Cheney can be far more succinct and honestly dissonant, hoisting the thesis and antithesis clearly and in close proximity to enhance our virtual reality, the lie made truth.

But the above is background for the turmoil, probably pre-scripted that the President's remarks stirred up Stateside. Mr. Bush's writers had him denounce "the false comfort of appeasement" and the belief "that we should negotiate with terrorists" which is exactly what American policy requires that Israel do, it's blared out and enforced almost daily; it also is the catechism of Team Blue. State might quibble: didn't Mr. Bush himself declare that Abu Mazen (now decked in three-piece suits and called Mahmoud Abbas) "is a man of courage" and a "moderate" (May 2005) rather than the good cop to Hamas' bad cop? Mr. Abbas a few weeks ago vaunted to the press in Transjordan about the good old days when he and his co-worker Mr. Arafat created the PLO from Fatah (into which it has again devolved for the one is just a transliterated acronym of the other) for the same old purpose of destroying the Jewish State whose miracle Mr. Bush had extolled.

In any case, Team Blue acted as if this "delusion" and "false comfort of appeasement" applied only to them; Mr. Obama particularly was appalled: appeasement is his middle name. His purpose is to dissolve America into a North American Union and generic and impoverished part of the world state. The distinguished Senator from Delaware, Joseph Biden commented that Mr. Bush's praise of Israel was "B******it" ^[5]. Oh how the "debate" raged between "liberal and conservative commentators" for whom guests are props for the delivery of the daily truth.

Of course Team Blue is appeasers and destroyers of sovereignty; so are the Carlisle Group and much of Team Red, especially its upper echelons. Indeed the relation between the teams (America's 'two' political parties) recalls Hardy's poem "the Convergence of the Twain" and Milton's description of the ambiguity of death "if shape it might be called that shadow seemed…" ^[6]; the teams' contrived argument exemplified my essays on convergence in the purple dusk: boundaries dissolve; integrity, identity and history fade. The foreign policy teams of each candidate could fit snugly into the Carter or first Bush administrations: shape seems shadow and shadow shape; "fair is foul and foul is fair, -- hover through the fog and filthy air." It's the time of the lie made truth and erasure of history, even while the past is given "mouth honor." Today, "nothing is but what is not" as virtual reality meets reality TV in a climate like the fog in Macbeth's disintegrating mind and Culturetainment invites us to waltz on the decks of the Titanic.

In Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad referred to Brussels as "a whited sepulcher." The same may be said of D.C. or Moscow, London or Rome as the new world disorder draws near, brandishing its dart… famine, plague, war and population reduction; despite the recent speech about the Nazis' failure, eugenic dogma has never been more entrenched in high places.

It is a time of trouble for Israel as the West destroys itself by attacking its root.

1. Rambam, Yesodei HaTorah, 2:7 and Ramban on Genesis 1, the words "Bara" and "Yetzirah."

2. Samuel Katz, Days of Fire (Israel 1966; NY Doubleday 1968) remains the best source in English on events in Israel during the 1940s. Planned by 1915 in the subsequently abrogated Sykes-Picot treaty, secretly advanced by David Lloyd George at Versailles and then openly by Churchill in 1921-2, by 1944 the British plan for an Arab Federation featured merging the Lebanon and "Syria" (states that had never yet existed) with Transjordan (ditto) and Israel in a block to be merged subsequently with the state of "Iraq" which the British at that point were still trying to get into place.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950373.html "In August 1944 the British government gave its representatives in the Middle East the go-ahead to implement 'the Fertile Crescent Plan.'" Call it the Assyrian Empire redux in which "Christian and Jewish minorities would enjoy [sic] autonomy." This plan is now called the Road Map and interlocks with other regional groupings served by the beer ad. Javier Solana and Tony Blair have been "crisis managing" in and around the Gaza Strip as George Tenet used to do.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950189.html You can't manage a crisis unless there's a crisis to manage. That's why Israel must be ruled by an oligarchy sub-contracted to the global oligarchs that deny Israel the fruits of victory, to fight for total victory or even fight a war at all, as was plain in July-August 2006. Into this Fertile Crescent, Arabia and the Gulf states fit like a big, fat oil-sloshed plug.
Just as the ancient Assyrians ruled their sprawling imperium by transferring populations and scrambling discreet peoples, so the new world omelet does the same via multiculturalism and 'free flow' of human resources across artificial borders.
The renewed press for Israel to surrender the Golan to Syria indicates the relentless Anglo-American push to achieve the Fertile Crescent Plan.

3. See www.eyeontheun.org for reports, inter alia, on the UN "human rights commission" which is dominated by the Arab League and other Islamic states, most of them created by Western empires with whom they continue to work hand-in-glove.

4. See note to EWTN in previous essay and note that the current pope is fast-tracking the beatification of Pius XII who couldn't bring himself to mention the massacre of Jews during WW II and even made speeches inflaming the deicide claim. See John Cornwell, Hitler's Pope (1999).

5. Our previous essay discussed "the coarsening of speech" and "the reversion of the beast folk" in the prescient and nasty self-fulfilling prophecy of H. G. Wells (the Island of Dr. Moreau) for he and his fellow oligarchic world-breakers have done all they can to make people revert to beasts, the better to treat them as such.

6. John Milton, Paradise Lost (1673), Book II. 666-70, "if shape it might be called that shape had none…" Milton's description of death describes post-modernism's institutionalized ambiguities and negation of integrity. So does the bizarre trans-gendered nature of Aphrodite, see Hesiod, Theogeny 160-210; contrast the Hellenist idea of the love goddess and love to Genesis 24. For Macbeth references see 1.1.4, 10-11; 1.3.39, 83-5, 130-42, 5.3.22-8, passim.

[visit www.israelendtimes.com & learn from our virtual encyclopedia. E.N. WW III: the War on the Jews (2007)

Photographs from the Negev

2008-05-18T19:17:00.002-04:00

Thanks David. :-)

Israel at 60 event at radio City Music Hall: Demonstration and Counter-Demonstration!

2008-05-08T11:08:00.007-04:00

Greetings! Sorry for not posting in ages! I have been very busy. Last night, I attended the Israel at 60 event at Radio City Music Hall. I was counter-demonstrating outside, and then I received a free ticket!

I was able to hear Matisyahu, he's amazing! The bands inside were amazingly talented, and I was able to hear Governor David Patterson speak. He was amazing! I am now a huge Gov. Patterson fan. :)

Anyway, below are pictures from the demonstration outside against Israel. As you can see, there was open support for terror, and the conflation of the Sean Bell case with the 'Palestinian' cause. I never knew Sean Bell was a 'Palestinian'! You learn new things every day! I told one of the people, a 70+ year old man, that he was associating with terror supporters (a clear fact), and he screamed, at the top of his lungs: "MURDERER! MURDERER! YOU MURDER LITTLE BABIES!" I was so shocked to see this level of hate in his eyes that I nervously laughed, and then walked away. The only surprise for me was the lack of the Neterei Karta presence.

Click here to see pictures of the 'demonstration'!

Samples:

Open terror support!

Then there was our counter-demonstration (yay Andy!). Click here to see some pictures. Am Yisrael Chai!

Samples:

It is clear who is flying American flags and who hopes to take down America.

UPDATE: Please read the Jewish Week for a summary of the concert last night. Rightly, Gov. Patterson was mentioned as an amazing speaker. He really did stand out.

Beware of the flying fish

2008-03-27T15:02:00.005-04:00

Can someone please send open meat Imam... they need him horribly, to show his cat features!!

Todays UN Shame Round-Up

2008-03-26T19:52:00.002-04:00

Land of milk and start ups

2008-03-25T12:15:00.004-04:00

While I am on an updating surge, I thought I would link an article about "Silicon Wadi," namely, the high tech industry in Israel. It is quite an interesting and informative read. Take a look!

The mindset of the typical Israeli entrepreneur has also helped shape the business. He (and it is usually a he, for there are even fewer female entrepreneurs than in Silicon Valley) is more of a nuts-and-bolts innovator than a clever marketer. Having grown up in a truly multicultural society, he is well equipped to deal with diversity, for instance in standards bodies. Being used to less generous funding, he knows how to improvise. Many Israelis also see their work as an act of patriotism, which explains how they can be both ultra-competitive, yet help each other out. And they are more interested in inventing things than in protecting them with patents. “It's like painting a good picture for others to see it,” says Zion Hadad, boss of Runcom, a pioneer of WiMax, an upstart wireless-broadband technology.

Read it all, for insight into the Israeli high tech industry!

Dor Chadash invites anti-Israel self hater to come speak

2008-03-25T10:58:00.010-04:00

Dor Chadash is a Zionist organization, whose goal is to facillitate Jewish American and Israeli friendship, dialogue and understanding. It is an abomination that this supposedly 'Zionist' organization would invite some to speak who said that Israel acts like Nazi Germany. This is some sort of a 'legitimate' viewpoint?

And so, it happened that last night I went to the launch of "Z-Mag" (a Zionist blog) with the American Jewish Committee, and I was able to speak with the organizers of the Avrum Burg event from Dor Chadash. These people literally have no idea what Avrum Burg really said and think that he has a "legitimate viewpoint" that "deserves to be aired" and "it is censorship" to deprive him of a viewpoint. I told them that his "viewpoint" is nothing short of libels and hysteria, and says that Israel is essentially the new Nazi Germany. I said that his perspective is no more "legitimate" than Ahmadinejad, and if Dor Chadash allows Avrum Burg to speak, they might as well allow Ahmadinejad to speak. (why not? Columbia did!) I further said that if you were going to have a self hating Israeli come to speak, there should be some counterpoint to his hysterical perspective. I was told there was going to be someone from the "Forward" as a moderator. I replied that the "Forward" is a leftwing newspaper and not an effective counterpoint. I said a true counterpoint would be a Nonie Darwish or a Khaled Abu Toameh - Arabs who are pro-Israel. She replied "Well, we found it really hard to schedule people, it's not easy to bring people in to speak!" I said "Well, then you should not have scheduled Avrum Burg, because it is NOT an effective counterpoint to simply have the audience respond to him. The ONLY TRULY efective counterpoint to his perspective is to have an academic who is an Arab refusnik counter his blood libels." She basically was left speechless. I think I got through to the organizer from Dor Chadash, and she understands it might have been a mistake to invite this anti-Israel blood libeller to speak at what is *supposed* to be a Zionist organization.

If you are in the NYC area on April 1, I heartily encourage you to attend the Avrum Burg event to ask the difficult questions that need to be asked.

[UPDATE: Please go here for a fuller interview with Avrum Burg, so you can understand exactly who this man is.]

Take action; support Congressman Lowey!

2008-03-12T16:03:00.005-04:00

(United States) Rep. Nita Lowey, Foreign Operations Chairperson, is demanding accountability from Abbas on statements he has made in Arabic in the Jordanian press. She spoke of taking away the $150 million in funding promised to the 'Palestinian Authority.' In addition to Abbas's Jordanian statements, the PA official newspaper put a picture of the terrorist who perpetrated the attack on Thursday in Jerusalem on the front page calling him a ‘holy martyr.’ As long as the endorsement of terrorism is still going on in the PA there will never be the possibility of peace. We must do all we can to hold them accountable.

We suggest that you call Rep. Nita Lowey thanking her for demanding accountability from Abbas and the PA for their statements, and that you call or email the White House demanding that they hold the PA accountable for their endorsement of terrorism.

Here is a suggested statement:

We call on the United States to hold PA Prime Minister Abbas and the official PA newspaper accountable to the 2008 Foreign Operations Bill for advocating or honoring terrorist activity. The PA newpaper called the perpetrator of last Thursday’s attack a ‘holy martyr’ and Mr. Abbas spoke with pride of violence he had waged in his past, suggested that terrorism could start anew in the future. Is this the PA that we want to be funding?

Representative Nita Lowey

Washington, D.C. Office

2329 Rayburn HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

202-225-6506

202-225-0546 (fax)

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

FAX: 202-456-2461

TTY/TDD

Comments: 202-456-6213

Visitors Office: 202-456-2121

E-Mail

Please send your comments to comments@whitehouse.gov.

Al-Queda Jaw dropper !!

2008-03-11T01:27:00.008-04:00

In yet another example of terrorists lacking loyalty to other terrorists, the Sunni Deobandi movement of Afghanistan (Aka "the Taliban") had turned towards Shi'ite Iran, dumping Bin-laden (Al-Queda) into the dustbin. This came days after Deobandis had denounced terrorism (but not Jihad) in the Indian city of Deoband.

I was wondering, is Ahmedinejad going to represent next the Generation of "Al - Afghani (who was an official 'freedom fighter' from the Indian war of independence, or 1857 sepoy mutiny)", whose influence had given a new face to Islamic Jihad by influencing figures such as "Al-Hajj Mohammed Amin al Husseini" or "Hassan al Banna" during the days of the Armenian Holocaust. The Jerusalem Post has a small article about how dogs are eating dogs (so to speak)...

Al-Qaida supporters on the Web have unleashed an unprecedented flood of criticism of Afghanistan's Taliban, once seen by extremists as the model of an Islamic state.

Now extremists accuse the Taliban of straying from the path of global jihad after its leader Mullah Omar issued a statement saying he seeks good relations with the world and even sympathizes with Shi'ite Iran.

In February, the Taliban announced it wanted to maintain good and "legitimate" relations with neighboring countries. Then, last week online militants were outraged when the movement expressed solidarity with Iran, condemning the latest round of sanctions imposed on Teheran by the UN Security Council over its nuclear enrichment.

The Shi'ite Islamic state of Iran is viewed as anathema by the Sunni militants of the al-Qaida and other extremist movements.

"This is the worst statement I have ever read ... the disaster of defending the (Iranian) regime is on par with the Crusaders in Afghanistan and Iraq," wrote poster Miskeen, whose name translates literally as "the wretched" and who is labeled as one of the more influential writers on an al-Qaida linked Web site.

It seems, Deobandis sense good the increasing frustration in global democratic citizens, and is once again trying to play "safe Jihad" between by pseudo-splitting Religious fanaticism and Political fanaticism.

Are they marking a new revival of the 1926 for survival of Jihad? In 1926, meetings between prominent Islamists had given a new shape to Jihad by giving birth to two dedicated movements for Western and Eastern spheres of Jihad, i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood ("Ikwan"), and Tablighi Jammat respectively. Both organizations had (and have) goals of purifying Islam from non-Islamic activities in an 'apolitical' way (but still involving themselves with many political activities); Deobandis have merely insulated themselves with a 'more accepted' form of political Fanaticism.

Dogs does eat Dogs, and Political Islam does means this in all senses!! That said, it would be great if Al-Queda can release an official statement about "Al-Queda Phobia" in Talibanis, or will they will castigate the Taliban as Islamophobic and zionist agents :)

Human butchers mass murder in Jerusalem yeshiva

2008-03-06T16:11:00.005-05:00

Just disgusting. Israeli Arab terrorists killed at least eight yeshiva boys today.

I have no words. This is an Israeli Arab group, supposedly 'so well integrated' into society,' who are doing the butchering, and in this case they purposely attacked a school - with teenage boys. The brutality and inhumanity is disgusting and beyond words.

What is most shocking is that somehow, despite the fact that this attack happened, 'peace talks' will go on, as if somehow there is a culture for 'peace,' or anything other than a desire for PIECES of Jews.

Tragic.

UPDATE:

If you have time, please say the following:

PSALM 130: A song of ascents. From the depths I called you Ado-nay. My Lord, hear my voice, may Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas. If you preserve iniquities, O' God, my Lord, who could survive? For with you is forgiveness, that you may be feared. I put confidence in Ado-nay, my soul put confidence, and I hoped for his word. I yearn for my Lord, among those longing for the dawn, those longing for the dawn. Let Israel hope for Ado-nay, for with Ado-nay is kindness, and with Him is abundant redemption. And He shall redeem Israel for all its iniquities.

PRAYER FOR THE ILL: He who blessed our forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'acov, Moshe, Aharon, David and Shlomo, may He bless and heal those injured today in the terrorist attack at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav. Because I (insert your name) will, without taking a vow, contribute charity on their behalf. In reward for this may the Holy One blessed be He be filled with compassion for them to restore their health, to heal them, to strengthen , to revivify them. And may He send them speedily a complete recovery from heaven among the other sick people of Israel, a recovery of the body, a recovery of the spirit, swiftly and soon and let us all respond Amen.

Overheard on the subway...

2008-03-04T10:34:00.004-05:00

I was on the subway this morning, when I overheard a very telling comment. It is the very picture of 'liberal fascism.'

I cannot believe the Republicans are even running a candidate in this election. They should be taken out and shot for how they have ruined this country.

That is an exact quote I overheard. This person think she is the height of morality and superiority, in comparison to ChimpyMcHalliburton.

Illiberal liberalism at its 'finest.'

The Peaceful Realisation of The Palestinian Right of Self-determination

2008-02-22T02:59:00.004-05:00

I found this link worth reading:

For nearly four decades, he expressed and symbolised in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Now that he is gone, both Israelis and Palestinians, and the friends of both peoples throughout the world, must make even greater efforts to bring about the peaceful realisation of the Palestinian right of self-determination.

It looks like sort of new Gandhi to me...

Whatever, world leaders thoughts are alredy registered. My own comments will be too harsh if i publish them. Yet I wanna know, what do you think?

Jerusalem Our Capital

2008-02-18T10:06:00.003-05:00

Via Carl in Jsrusalem:

In response to the murder of fifteen innocent civilians by a suicide bomber at Sbarro's Pizza in Jerusalem earlier that day, on August 9, 2001, Israeli security forces shut down Orient House (pictured at top left), a building just over the 'green line' in 'east' Jerusalem that the 'Palestinians' had made into a quasi government headquarters in violation of the Oslo Accords they had signed with the Rabin government in 1993 and 1995.

In August of this past year, 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen appointed former director of the Islamic Wakf Adnan Husseini as his 'adviser on Jerusalem affairs.' The Wakf is the organization that controls anything the Muslims call a holy site, and that currently controls the Temple Mount; the organization is responsible for multiple, daily violations of Israel's Antiquities Law on the Temple Mount. Husseini is also a cousin of the late Faisal Husseini, who held the position under Yasser Arafat. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post shortly after his appointment, Husseini placed a priority on reopening Orient House.

My only question is: Why isn't Israel making Jerusalem its true capital?

How Rachel Corrie Really Died

2008-02-17T14:40:00.003-05:00

Hat Tip: Carl in Jerusalem, How Rachel Corrie Really Died.

Please see the videos below, and Carl's commentry above.

[ Video Source ]

Also see: The Strange Case of Joseph Smith

Will Hillary Defeat Obama?

2008-02-15T12:21:00.004-05:00

BlackTigrrrr thinks so, and I feel the same way.

The people who hate her [Clinton] have maxed out. If anything, she might win over a small amount of them. Those who love her will fight to the death for her. People have gone to jail for this woman. They have died for her. They will do anything for her. That means anything.

Anything means destroying a man [Obama] who is an image, but largely undefined.

[ Full Article ]

“Progressive” Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

2008-02-15T11:30:00.002-05:00

A worthwile read:

How can there be something “new” about something as old as anti- Semitism? Hostility to Jews—because of their religious beliefs, their social or ethnic distinctiveness, or their imputed “racial” differences— has been around for a long time. But, as this erudite essay by Professor Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University demonstrates, hostility to Jews has morphed into hostility toward a Jewish state, and that hatred has acquired the ability to leap across national, linguistic, and religious boundaries.

[ Download, Mirror ]

Redesign

2008-02-14T18:29:00.000-05:00

[ Updated: 14th Feb ]

Hi all!

Any feedback/thoughts with regards to the template so far?

Here is the current off-my-head-to-do-list:

Themes
- So far I have not created any themes, just a print-view and 2 font sizes. I could, however, completely alter the appearance of the site. Do you have any colour schemes or theme ideas?
- I was told by someone that the website is hideous, and I need more colour!
Usability Issues
- Add "more posts" or "previous posts" to the bottom of main/archive.
- Fix the problem where post elements (such as videos) jump to the bottom of the column when they are too wide for the post area (IE Only).
- There are no defined accesskeys.
- I need to include a list of all the tags used in posts in the right-hand-column.
- Intense Debate has a few glitches every now and again which need to be fixed or taken into account. (Note: The Intense Debate staff absolutely rock! I have complete confidence that these things glitches will be fixed.)
- List how many comments have been posted prior to viewing the itempage.
- Date headers (for all but the first date).
Javascript
- Have some sort of warning to let people know when JS is disabled and that C4A would operate better with JS.

Thanks in advance for the feedback. Constructive criticism is always good - so please be brutally honest.

Steven

RSS Reader

2008-02-14T16:03:00.000-05:00

What is RSS?

ProBlogger answers:

RSS is a technology that is being used by millions of web users around the world to keep track of their favorite websites.

In the ‘old days’ of the web to keep track of updates on a website you had to ‘bookmark’ websites in your browser and manually return to them on a regular basis to see what had been added.

I am currently trying to maintain a public RSS Reader with collects updates from various sources all over the web. I have organised the public reader into 3 levels of priority as follows:

Level 3: Master Feed
This is where all the stories appear as soon as they arrive. Anything could appear here, even stories that I don't support. [Link]

Level 2: Selected Stories
When I am browsing the internet and I see a story I want to share, or if I read a story from the Master Feed that I want to share, I add it to this list. [Link]

Level 1: Starred
When I feel a story is a must-read, it will appear in the "Starred" list. [Link]

Meaningless Words

2008-02-14T15:55:00.008-05:00

How can anyone debate anything in this age when we don't even agree on the definitions of words?

What does it mean to want "Peace"?

What is "Terrorism"?

What is "Barbarism"?

What does it mean to be "Liberal"?

What qualifies as "Torture"?

What does "Palestinian" really mean?

How can we have conversations about so many issues when we often don't agree with the definition of simple words?

The Culture for All Dictonary

I want to regain control of the meaning behind the words I use.

From now on, when anyone has any doubt about a word that I have used, I am going to write a definition on Culture for All and label it with the "Definition" tag.

This dictionary is not authorative, but it will serve its purpose.

Global Warming

2008-02-14T13:26:00.004-05:00

I am no expert, however I can identify propaganda and find people who refute it.

I can also weigh up the options... to see what choices are avaliable to us.

Video 1: Propaganda

Video 2: Refutations

Video 3: Choices

Also take note that:

Alternative renewable energy will help reduce or eliminate our dependency on oil-exporting countries
Oil reserves are finite, so eventually we will be forced to use renewable energy no matter what.
Natural renewable energy will not pollute our environment.

Make your choice.

Wrong. Just Wrong!

2008-02-13T23:28:00.010-05:00

When I read the following story... I immediately looked towards the chocolate cake picture and felt cravings.

Mmmm. Chocolate cake!

But then I read the headline.

Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces

Two shop-owners were today fined for selling chocolate cake - which had been sprinkled with human faeces.

A horrified customer ate the foul-smelling gateaux but noticed that it didn't taste or smell "quite right" and handed the cake to public health scientists.

The analysts soon established that the sweet treat was covered in faeces and legal proceedings against the shop owners were started.

Shop owners Saeed Hasmi, 25, and Jan Yadgari, 23, were fined £1,500 for selling food unfit for human consumption.

This, is utterly revolting.

I know I don't need to explain that, but - saying it helps!

Yuck.

Yuck. Yuck. Yuck.

"Subsequent examination by the public analyst and national public health service laboratories confirmed the presence of faecal matter.

"There were bits of it all over the top of the cake.

"We cannot say for definite what kind of faecal matter it is, although it is very likely it was human. It would have to go through a DNA test for us to know for absolutely sure."

When I said I would have liked a strong Chocolate industry in my ideal society, this is not what I meant!

The case has taken 18 months to come to court and the pair have both left the Pizzeria.

Shams Mehrabi, who took over the Italiano Pizzeria in March, condemned the actions of the two men. He now has hygiene certificates on the wall and said: "I have the highest standards.

"This is a completely different business now. We have a lot of happy customers - we won't be selling chocolate cake."

Thank goodness, a happy ending!

The moral of the story: Be careful when you eat out!

[ Update: Beware of the Chocolate Conspiracy! ]

[ UPDATE (Red Tulips): I just wanted to inform you that not only is there a chocolate conspiracy...there is a VAST NETWORK of a chocolate conspiracy! Be afraid! There is a plot for worldwide chocolate domination! ]

[ POST-SCRIPT UPDATE: (Red Tulips): FYI, Steven actually prefers white chocolate to dark chocolate! White chocolate is not even really chocolate! Culture for All readers, I declare it is our duty as citizens of the world to show him the error of his ways. He has blasphemed the chocolate faith, dammit! Attica! Attica! ]

[ Update (Steven): Leave the dark side! Its tastes bitter! ;-) ]

Scalia Defends Ticking-Time-Bomb 'Torture'

2008-02-13T11:56:00.013-05:00

Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court recently echoed Alan Dershowitz's 'ticking time bomb' idea on torture. His words are below:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that aggressive interrogation could be appropriate to learn where a bomb was hidden shortly before it was set to explode or to discover the plans or whereabouts of a terrorist group.

"It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia told British Broadcasting Radio Corp.

Scalia said that determining when physical coercion could come into play was a difficult question. "How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be? I don't think these are easy questions at all, in either direction," he told the BBC's "Law in Action" program.

[ Source ]

I have had this discussion with many law colleagues of mine. I asked them the following...

Assume, for the sake of argument, that torture works. Let us just assume this - because in fact it has been proven to work in certain instances. If there is a ticking time bomb that could kill thousands of people, would you be willing to torture someone to find/diffuse the bomb? What if your sister, your mother, your niece, the love of your life...is under imminent threat to be raped/maimed/beheaded? Would you advocate a form of torture in order to save them?

My friend said no. He said that - literally even if a million people were to die - he still would not torture anyone. That is what he told me. I think that is not only absurd, it is unrighteous. Then, when pressed, he said that was because he really did not believe torture worked. But with his back against the wall, he said he would torture someone to save his family, to save humanity, BUT, he thinks that he should be punished afterwards for doing so.

So I ask this to the John McCains of the world, knowing that waterboarding was used to get vital information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...

Why is it righteous to let a million people die, just so...what? For what? For a 'principle'? What sort of principle? Why is it inherently evil to torture, for any reason whatsoever, even to save a life?

I will put it this way. We believe murder is wrong. But killing in self defense is not wrong. So why is "self defensive" torture - not for revenge, but rather to glean information to save lives, inherently wrong? And what is torture, exactly? Is waterboarding torture? You can recover from waterboarding. Wouldn't REAL torture mean harming someone to the point that they are harmed for life? (such as, to be graphic, hacking off limbs) Why is it so inherently true that waterboarding is torture?

I believe we have a duty to treat prisoners humanely. But why do we have a duty to treat prisoners who have information vital to saving lives SO HUMANELY, that it puts American lives at risk? Why? Under what theory, exactly?

As an aside, I wrote of this subject on Culture for All a while back, and I still agree with what I wrote back then.

[ UPDATE FOR CLARIFICATION ]

I just want to say that I do not think REAL torture is ever justified, but the CURRENT definition of torture DOES find justifications, in my opinion. (under the 'ticking time bomb aegis) I view REAL torture as inflicting permanent injury to a person. (the hacking off limbs scenario) I am simply not convinced that it EVER is necessary - from a security perspective, or getting information perspective - to engage in such barbaric tactics to save lives. And even if it were...where does the slippery slope end of the 'ends justifying the means'?

What is the Target?

2008-02-13T11:27:00.008-05:00

In the past few weeks I have argued that people must stop labeling Islam as evil, and to just focus on the issues at hand. This meant, I said, talking directly about Sharia and preventing its spread.

Clearly Sharia (and other Fascist Islamic Supremacist tools) are linked to Islam, however I believe that I can separate the two. Furthermore, I believe that by separating the foundations and constructs of Islam from the broad label "Islam" it will A) protect Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia on us and B) be more effective at combating the spread Islamism.

I will explain further by quoting from a couple of conversations I have had in the last week.

You [Aka. Me!] claim saying 'anti-Shariaization' is better than saying 'anti-Islamization'.

Why is it better?
Robert Spencer would probably say that you cannot be a devout Muslim and NOT want Sharia to rule over everyone.

If the foundations [Sharia law etc.] are the same as the building itself [Islam]... maybe there is no difference.

I replied as follows:

I may agree with Robert Spencer there - but I don't need to discuss Islam.

Specifically fighting Sharia law will affect Islam, but it will not harm any Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia law on our societies.

It's the difference between being against Judaism, or being against Halacha.

If someone was anti-Judaism you would be defensive.

If they were anti-Halacha, you could more easily shrug your shoulders.

I think we should fight Sharia on the specifics of what the law actually represents. Muslims can debate the theology themselves.

I believe this would be vastly more successful than the anti-Islam positions that most anti-Sharia groups are propagating.

On a previous occasion I also wrote:

I am sure most people in the UK who are not Muslim, would not take kindly to an organisation that suggests all Muslims are Islamists, unless they are afraid of leaving Islam. If I went around and said Islam is evil to the core and there are either Islamists and Muslims who want to leave Islam - I would look foolish. Muslims are everywhere here. I know Muslims who are not Islamists and don't wish to leave Islam... this simple bit of personal knowledge would be enough to completely discredit the entire anti-Sharia organisation... which is currently not doing buch more than creating climate of suspicion and fear of all Muslims.

Maybe not all these Muslims are "real" Muslims... I don't know - but even if they are not I don't really care. What I do know is that they think they are Muslim and their identities are linked to Islam... yet they are good decent people. Saying that Islam is evil doesn't get us anywhere. It is up to the theologians to discuss religious tenants - and up to the individuals to make up their own individual minds as to whether or not Islam is for them or not.

If we fight Sharia it will force Muslims to discuss Islam... but discussing Islam is their job, not ours.

I do not want to allow the establishment of a state within a state... it will not have positive ends. I think we should make efforts to fight Islamic supremisism, and that includes fighting against the establishment of Islamic law in our societies.

I am open to criticism... please share your views with me. Thanks.

Your Values

2008-02-13T11:05:00.003-05:00

I have been speaking to Red Tulips about what values are important for me in society. I came up with this basic list of values:

Secular law.
Freedom of expression.
Freedom of religion.
- *Any* religion - because religion is a personal matter, not state business.
- Religious practices that breach secular law will be deemed illegal.
- A state can have an official religion if it likes, so long as everyone has freedom of religion.
A representative and accountable government.
A strong chocolate industry. ;-)
Standing behind these values and not subscribing to cultural and/or moral relativism.

If you could create any society, what would its values?

Cute Zionist Octopus!

2008-02-13T10:14:00.006-05:00

Elder of Ziyon via Israellycool gave me a smile today with a very cute [and evil] "Zionist Octopus".

Here he is!

"We urge the Muslim and Arab nations to act decisively against the Zionist octopus that threatens the security of Arab and Muslim countries," Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said.

*Grins*

The dehumanizing antisemitic octopus imagry is not new, as evidenced by two famous examples below:

[ Source ]

Reuters Whitewash Sharia

2008-02-13T07:32:00.014-05:00

Reuters (who are published across the globe, including in countries like India) are again whitewashing the Islamofascists who are attempting to Hijack democratic society and establish a theocratic Global Islamic Caliphet. This time they have decided to whitewash Barbaric Sharia Law, an Islamic legal system. Untill now, Mohammedians have been blamed about "misinterpreting" literature from the "Religion of Peace" - now the blame is pushed towards non-Muslims. (Please see the video embedded at the bottom of this article.)

Sharia discussion was provoked after the suicidal comments of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who said that Britain should give space to Sharia law. His comments sparked off a global storm from people who want to defend their secular system from religious apartheid Sharia laws which reduce every non-Muslim to a 2nd class citizen.

Here are a few quotes from the Reuters desk:

British Muslims defending him [The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams] stressed most of the Islamic world also rejected the ultra-orthodox model that he clearly ruled out.

Just wait to get a introduction about the British Muslims Reuter's are talking about...

"There are 57 Muslim countries in the world and only two or three of them impose full sharia criminal law. Why on earth would we want to have that here?" asked Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain.

This is the same preacher from channel 4's 'Undercover Mosque' report, which was preaching Islamic supremacy from Green Lane. MPACUK can still be found defending his Fascist Islamic-supremisist speeches. ( Scroll down one-third of that page. )

Reuters further added:

There are also widely differing interpretations of Sharia, both within the four classical Sunni and one Shi'ite schools of jurisprudence and between traditional and modern thinkers.

And? Does it change the barbarity? Iran is Shia and Saudis are Sunni's... and the introduction of Sharia from both sides look extremely barbaric to me.

"In the Muslim world these days, 'Sharia' means a whole variety of different things," said John Voll, professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University in Washington.

Dr. John voll is right here... 'Sharia' can mean a whole variety of different things. It even includes laws which dictate how to go to the toilet.

Hudoud, the corporal and capital punishment outlined in the Koran, has not been applied there in modern times.

The frequently published news about corporal and capital punishment from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and so on... must all be hoaxes then.

Muslims cannot convert to other faiths and non-Muslims who convert to Islam are not supposed to leave it, but a court allowed this for 12 people in a landmark case last week.

No comment...

Apart from a few public lashings since Islamisation started in the 1980s, harsh physical punishments have not been imposed. Nobody has been executed under a law banning blasphemy against Islam, but some accused blasphemers have been killed by mobs.

OK, all those news with photos still available on The Religion of Peace.com are complete Hoaxes. Got it! Its a Hindu-Zionist conspiracy to rule the world!

In India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains and followers of other faiths can decide whether they want to be bound by secular personal law or their own religious code.

Looks like some Indian Muslims are living in some myth, that there only exist two law boards in India... i.e. Islamic Personal law board, and secular law board for other communities.

Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation and quite moderate in Islamic terms. Its western province of Aceh uses sharia law as part of a local autonomy deal granted by Jakarta and people have been caned for adultery, gambling and stealing.

Are they kidding me? What is moderate then?

Nigeria's northern states adopted a harsh sharia code in 2000, but punishments have been rare. A woman convicted of adultery, Amina Laval, was freed on appeal after her sentence of stoning to death caused an international uproar.

So nice of them, at least they follow international preassure. I think its "moderate" like the "moderate" Fatah of West Bank.

About a dozen other women convicted of adultery have also been freed on appeal.

So you want us to be begging to free the 'convicted' in London too?

This approach can accept secular laws as "sharia-compliant" if they reflect Islamic values. "Even simply by trying to respect Muslim ethics, one is already in the process of applying the sharia," Ramadan has written.

Beautiful advice from Reuters and British Muslims, but no thanks. We simply have to say: "NO SHARIA HERE".

Mr. Ramadan can be located in video embedded below, incase if you missed his discussion on BBC... Tariq Ramadan said that the people discussing their legitimate concerns about Sharia law were 'Islamophobic', and 'trying to use controversy to spread fear in British society'.

[ Video Source ]

The State Department, In a Nutshell

2008-02-12T12:55:00.001-05:00

I have trouble believing this story, its too crazy.

The USA will defend the PLO - an anti-American and anti-Israel Jew-Hating Nazi-based organisation against Americans who have been harmed by their bombs....

That can't be right.

Can it?

Palestinians Ask U.S. To Intervene in Suits Over Terrorist Attacks

The State Department is considering supporting the Palestinian Authority in its quest to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in judgements won by American victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel, according to Palestinian officials and defence lawyers involved in the cases.

There should be nothing to consider.

U.S. officials insist that no decision has been made regarding the complex litigation, which could force the Bush administration to choose between supporting compensation for victims of terrorism and bolstering the Palestinian government as the United States presses for a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Palestinians do not want co-existence with Israel, the so-called "peace" talks are a complete farce.

Testimony in Israeli courts has connected senior Palestinian leaders -- such as the late Yasser Arafat -- to specific terrorist attacks involved in the lawsuits. But Palestinian officials have argued that it makes no sense for the United States to be providing millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority while U.S. courts are threatening to bankrupt it.

No kidding, it makes absolutely no sense for the USA to be fighting a "war on Terror" while supporting terrorists.

In response to a plea for assistance from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 13 months ago sidestepped the issue, writing that "the United States is not party to these enforcement proceedings." But in December, a U.S. federal judge asked the government whether it would get involved, creating the current dilemma for the administration.

"There has been a rethinking in the State Department that I wholeheartedly welcome," said Afif Safieh, head of mission in Washington for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He said the lawsuits were "politically and ideologically motivated to drive the Palestinian Authority into bankruptcy."

It couldn't have anything to do with all those terrorist attacks against innocent men, women and children could it? No, of course not. Do you feel sorry for the Nazi-rooted terrorist organisation?

Victims, who will meet with top State and Justice Department officials tomorrow, said that a U.S. intervention with the courts would make a mockery of the administration's fight against terrorism.

No shit?

Leslye Knox, a 46-year-old mother of six children and widow of Aharon Ellis, a U.S. citizen who was killed in 2002 while singing at a bar mitzvah in Hadera, Israel...

Article Author: Glenn Kessler

[ Full Article ]

[UPDATE: (Red Tulips): Soccerdad, via Meryl Yourish wrote about this subject as well, and has extra details you will want to read about. Run, don't walk, to read his post!]

Dishonour Killings in the UK

2008-02-12T02:35:00.000-05:00

Via LGF: Police say 17,000 women are victims every year

Up to 17,000 women in Britain are being subjected to "honour" related violence, including murder, every year, according to police chiefs.

And official figures on forced marriages are the tip of the iceberg, says the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

It warns that the number of girls falling victim to forced marriages, kidnappings, sexual assaults, beatings and even murder by relatives intent on upholding the "honour" of their family is up to 35 times higher than official figures suggest.

The crisis, with children as young as 11 having been sent abroad to be married, has prompted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to call on British consular staff in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan to take more action to identify and help British citizens believed to be the victims of forced marriages in recent years.

The Home Office is drawing up an action plan to tackle honour-based violence which "aims to improve the response of police and other agencies" and "ensure that victims are encouraged to come forward with the knowledge that they will receive the help and support they need". And a Civil Protection Bill coming into effect later this year will give courts greater guidance on dealing with forced marriages.

[ Full Article ]

Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage from the British Muslim community?

Question of Legitimacy...

2008-02-12T00:11:00.001-05:00

Got it!

I was looking for this video for quite a time in order to answer Red Tulips questions, to explain why we in Eurasia are far more concerned about Sharia law than our American and Canadian counterparts. This Video speaks in itself.

[ Video Source ]

Hope you are not shocked! That is Deobandi Ideology, which is also seen in the majority of Indian Muslims. That interview was shot in the London BBC, not in Al-Jazerra Qatar!

PART 2:

[ Video Source ]

Opposing Sharia law

2008-02-11T13:50:00.003-05:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that "Sharia law is inevitable" in the UK, and claimed that it will "bring about social cohesion." Yeah, right. He is under fire from his statement, though some have stated that somehow it is 'Islamophobic' to be against Sharia law for Muslims in the UK, because the system would be voluntary, anyway. Ali Eteraz (who I have taken issue with in the past) wrote a very compelling entry on his blog, explaining exactly why Sharia would be so terrible for Muslims. (please note that he is a practicing Muslim who wrote this) The important part to note...

2 - Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.

Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).

Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).

Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).

Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).

Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.

In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.

A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.

This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.

The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that

It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.

Eteraz wrote much more, but one thing I take issue with is his moral equivalence - he states that the Beth Din in England somehow would be equivalent to the Sharia courts. Firstly, Jewish law is relatively well settled, after the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch. (at least compared to Sharia law) Yes, rabbis will publish responsa to situations as they come about - but this is nothing like the confusion of Sharia. Eteraz noted it as such...

5 - There is no standardized version of Islamic law

Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?

And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)

So that is difference one.

Difference two is what goes to the crux of the matter. Namely, there simply is a difference in Sharia law v. Halacha (Jewish Law). Please read Hugh Fitzgerland's explanation as such. Essentially, there is a difference in the way Jewish law is viewed - certainly not as supreme over the secular laws - and the way it is applied. Moreover, there is a difference in the goal; Jews do not hope to one day rule over England with Halacha.

It is for all these reasons and more that we have to be vigilant in our fight against Sharia law. We have to remind ourselves that Sharia is not just the 'Muslim equivalent' of Halacha. It is not. Unless and until Sharia is a) reformed; b) codified, it remains the law of the dark ages. Under the aegis of 'religious tolerance,' why are we okay with letting women be treated as second class citizens? Why? Why are feminists arguing this is actually a good thing? Did the feminist movement mean nothing? Why are so many liberals acting illiberally?

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens wrote a great essay explaining the very real dangers of Sharia right here. To sum it up: allowing Sharia will mean that honor killings will go unpunished to a much larger degree. And most importantly, it will lead to oppression of women. Feminists, where are you? *taps feets* I am waiting to hear from you!

Ch-Ch-changes!

2008-02-11T11:08:00.000-05:00

After last weekend, it appears that Barack Obama is leading in the polls. And I completely understand the reason why...he stands for CHANGE! And who would not want change, anyway? As Irina said to me in chat,

You want change? Go to the supermarket!

Anyway, people seem to like to get change. They like the feel of it jingling in their wallets. And Barack Obama stands for CHANGE more than any candidate ever did in the history of the world...so you should all vote for CHANGE!

As you can see, Obama really stands for CHANGE! The signs clearly state as such in the background!

And yet...I wonder...does Obama stand for change more than the other candidates in the 2008 elections? I fear...I have a difficult time deciding...who best stands for CHANGE??

Culture for All readers...I ask you...can you please help me figure out this difficult question...which of the candidates best stands for CHANGE? It is the decisive question which must be answered in this election!

UPDATE: Stephen Colbert (Note he spells his name with a 'ph' and not a 'v') and South Park also noticed the curious addiction certain politicians have to 'change' a few months back. Must see video!

One Mans Terrorist is Another Mans Freedom Fighter?

2008-02-11T02:43:00.000-05:00

I was sent a link to the following video recently. What are your thoughts in response to the arguments presented?

Red Colour

2008-02-10T11:00:00.000-05:00

[ Video Source ]

Israel Matzav, Badge

2008-02-09T03:51:00.000-05:00

I am creating a blog-badge for IsraelMatzav but I am not sure how to go about designing this one.

This is the first badge I have created so far.

[ Update: I will post future designs here. ]

IsraelMatzav's blog is a dedicated news commentary on all things relating to Israel. I don't think this badge that I made represents the blog... yet. So it needs improvement. Perhaps it would help if I actually knew what Matzav meant in English!

[ Update: It means Situation / Mess. ]

I know there is not much to say, but if you have any feedback or suggestions it would be appreciated. :)

[ Update: It is now in use. ]

Hope

2008-02-09T02:54:00.000-05:00

To the world: Speak up... because if you don't - who is going to speak for you?

To my friend: I am holding on to hope of humans as free independant human beings... its people I know who give me the strength to hope - including you. I may think you are wrong with some things, but that doesn't change the fact that your heart is in the right place, you are a good person, a friend, and you give me hope for the future.

[ Video Source ]

Healing Work

2008-02-08T17:00:00.000-05:00

I have been in need of positive news. Here is a story about a new School Principle in America, who is also a great unknowing ambassador for the Jewish people.

On his first visit, in October 2004, he found a police officer arresting a student and calling for backup to handle the swelling crowd. Students roamed the hallways with abandon; in one class of 30, only 5 students had bothered to show up. “It was chaos,” Mr. Waronker recalled. “I was like, this can’t be real.”

Teachers, parents and students at the school, which is mostly Hispanic and black, were equally taken aback by the sight of their new leader: A member of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Hasidic Judaism with a beard, a black hat and a velvet yarmulke.

“The talk was, ‘You’re not going to believe who’s running the show,’ ” said Lisa DeBonis, now an assistant principal.

At a time when the Bloomberg administration has put principals at the center of its efforts to overhaul schools, making the search for great school leaders more pressing than ever, the tale of Mr. Waronker shows that sometimes, the most unlikely of candidates can produce surprising results.

Despite warnings from some in the school system that Mr. Waronker was a cultural mismatch for a predominantly minority school, he has outlasted his predecessors, and test scores have risen enough to earn J.H.S. 22 an A on its new school report card. The school, once on the city’s list of the 12 most dangerous, has since been removed.

Attendance among the 670 students is above 93 percent, and some of the offerings seem positively elite, like a new French dual-language program, one of only three in the city.

[ Full Article ]

To read the full New York Times article you must have an account. For your convenience, here are some login names you can use, provided by Bug Me Not.

The Problem With All Racism, Ethnocentrism, Religious Intolerance, Etc

2008-02-08T14:48:00.000-05:00

Racism, ethnocentrism, religious intolerance, and other forms of bigotry all share a common, significant problem no matter to whom or by whom they are applied. What is this problem? They all divide people and encourage treating people not with compassion as humans, but as groups.

Indeed, they cause a separation in the mind of "us" and "them". "They" are not the same as "us". "They" are less human, dehumanized. "They" are not "humans"; "they" are "'[insert label here]". This opens the door for suspending compassion towards our fellow humans. You aren't killing a child; you are killing a Jew/Muslim/Christian/other-“they”-category. You aren't depriving a human of rights, you are treating a woman like a woman. You aren't persecuting a person; oh no! you are ridding the world of another heretic/witch/etc.

This mindset leads to behaviors that we would otherwise describe as unthinkable and beyond consideration. We have the capacity to treat a member of a dehumanized group in ways we would never treat a human. Acceptance of this mindset leaves us open to indoctrination and manipulation by charismatic leaders who are unscrupulous in their pursuit of their agenda. Indeed, even politicians without spectacularly horrific agendas take advantage of these separations every day.

Humans often do unspeakable evils, and these evils need to be stopped. This doesn't mean we have to tolerate those whose actions harm others. This doesn’t mean we sit in understanding of the person and fail to address, counter, and stop the harm the person is causing. This doesn’t mean that we have to agree with every different viewpoint on this planet. It doesn’t mean we cannot recognize differences with each other.

It does mean, though, that instead of seeing people by their labels - “Jew”/“Muslim”/“American”/”Christian” – we begin to see them as humans who happen to have that corresponding trait. It means that we need to make an effort to recognize and view each person as an individual human with rights and value, and apply laws and standards equally to each. It means that we need to assess people based upon their actions and the content of their character, and not their membership in a labeled group.

What does this mean for me as an individual? This means that I don’t accept or excuse someone harming others just because that person says he/she is one of the “we” and the victim is one of the “they”. It means I denounce a person who acts in such a manner and claims to represent a group I can be identified with. It means that if someone harms me, I hold that person and any other involved individuals responsible for the injury, not all members of any group that the person can be identified with. It means that I cultivate friendships and connections with people on the basis of who they are, not how they can be stereotyped and labeled.

The History of Antisemitism

2008-02-08T12:00:00.001-05:00

I have posted on a message board for many years about the dual subjects of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and politics. (Yes, really.) On that message board, the subject of antisemitism came up, and the following things were claimed...

Jews were in some way responsible for antisemitism throughout history, via the laws of 'family purity,' and separation.
Antisemitism as such is not that big a deal today, in the modern world, and other forms of racism are bigger deals.
Antisemitism was not really a bigger deal throughout history than anything else.

So I wrote this in reply...

You are basing your responses on so much misinformation I do not even know where to begin.

I will begin with this. You begin with the premise that maybe maybe maybe Jews "did something" to instigate the Holocaust. No one is completely innocent, eh? So they "did something;" they enforce ritual purity and live separately and despise the "goyim," and so therefore, they brought on the antisemitism themselves.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Jews were forced to live in ghettos of Europe (and also the Mideast, via 'dhimmi' laws) for centuries. They had no CHOICE in the matter. They were literally forced to live separately, they were barred from owning land, and they were barred from most professions. (see link on Jews of Middle Ages) As a result, some Jews - a small minority of them - went into finance only because it was one of the only professions open to them. Thus begun the nonsensical lie about Jews controlling the banks. But I have more. Kings knew that Jews were an easy target, so they made them tax collectors. Therefore, when it came time to pay taxes, "don't blame me, BLAME THE JEW!" Then there is the Christian antisemitic liturgies; Jews blamed for killing Christ, and "replacement theology." I forgot to add that Jews have the religious ritual of washing hands; as a result, they were dying less during the Black Death; this was held as "proof" that Jews were "witches" and/or responsible for starting the Black Death.

So this is the background; Jews were forced to live separately and despised for their Jewishness. They were called witches at different times of history and there were pogroms and mass murders. Jews were forced to flee country after country; thus there was the canard of the "wandering Jew." Then, in the early 1800s, Napoleon set about a sort of "Sanhedrin" council, and sought to free the Jews from the ghetto walls. He asked Jews: "Are you French, or are you Jewish?" And Jews answered that they were French. This led to the dawn of Reform Judaism, which rejects much of Halacha (Jewish law) in favour of "fitting in." They rejected the very laws you 'claim' were a 'factor' of the Holocaust.

And the Jew who simply wanted to live their lives and fit in was the Jew of Germany in the 1930s. The German Jew was generally the Reform Jew. So the very basis of your argument is ignorant at best.

But I will go on.

Hitler then targeted the Jews as a RACE. It was not about the Jewish religion. Orthodox Jews and atheist Jews were sent to the gas chambers alike. Hitler based the definition of Jew on whether there was a single Jewish grandparent. Christopher Hitchens, as an example, would be considered a Jew. Under that definition. Hitler saw Jews as a race that was clouding the superior "Aryan" race, and wanted to first expel them...but where to? None of the other "Western" and "enlightened" countries of the world would have them. Where would they go? 'Palestine' was thought to be an option at the time, except it was not an option, because the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem - Haj Amin al Husseini (involved in the founding of the PLO) - was an ally of Hitler's. He wanted 'Palestine' to be Judenrein, rather than as a safe haven for Jews. And he was an architect, with Eichmann, of the "Final Solution".

"Antisemitism" is not a hatred of the Jewish religion. "Antisemitism" is a hatred of the Jewish people (genetically). The term itself was made up by a German 'scientist' to coin an ideology that he felt should be spread.

But then that is the Holocaust. What about present day?

Let's examine present day. Let's examine the fact that in England - YOUR HOME COUNTRY - synagogues across England are not safe. And so there is an organization called CST - Community Service Trust - set up to protect Jews in ENGLAND. (not Iran, not Lebanon, not Morocco - ENGLAND) Let's talk about the fact that Jews - today - 2008 - suffer more hate crimes per capita than any other group in England. Let's talk about the fact that the number of hate crimes against Jews is actually rising. Let's talk about Ilan Halimi - the French Jew who was brutally massacred by Moroccan Muslims a few years ago for the 'crime' of being Jewish. Let's talk about the synagogue and graveyard desecrations. About the fact that there is a whole community of French Jews in New York, Israel, and Miami Beach who are there because they are fleeing France. Because they do not feel safe in France - 'enlightened' France. And let's ask ourselves who is behind these hate crimes. It quite simply are the 'aggrieved' "Asians" you speak of. THEY are the ones who are behind these hate crimes. There is a new antisemitism in Europe. And it is Islamic antisemitism. They use the old Christian antisemitic images and themes and make them Islamic. Or maybe it is not 'new,' insofar as it builds upon an alliance that existed during Hitler's era; alliances such as between the Grand Mufti, the Ba'ath party, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hitler.

Then let's talk about a friend of mine - a Lebanese Jew - who is on Nasrallah's death list. His 'crime' is being Jewish. He saw his cousin tortured to death by Syrian agents in front of his very eyes. And he decided that he had to refurnish and protect the Jewish graveyard that was vandalized - because his cousin, his sister, his uncle - his whole family - were buried there. So he protected and refurnished the graveyard. That was his 'crime.' And for that he had to flee Lebanon for his very life. Then let's talk about the fact that Lebanese Jews live in hiding in Lebanon. They LOVE the Land of Cedars and only want to live and let live. But Nasrallah and his Final Solution goons want to literally kill every single Jew of Lebanon. For the 'crime' of being Jewish. He also wants to kill every Jew on earth.

This is the mentality of the enemy that Israel faces. Israel faces an enemy that seeks to drive it into the sea, and has tried, non-stop, since its very foundation. And yet despite that, Israel has been more restrained than any other nation on earth in the history of the world in fighting these threats to its very existence. But that is not good enough. Because somehow, there is one standard given to Israel in how it should respond to threats, and another standard given to the rest of the world. Israel is asked to lay down and commit suicide. Unless Israelis walk softly to the gallows, they are committing some sort of a 'genocide'. That ideology is a latent antisemitism.

Antisemitism in fact does exist, and it is not merely some cute thing of the past. Israel has a duty to its citizenry to defend itself. And those who know better who claim Israel is acting 'contrary to international law' in simply defending its borders against genocidal monsters who wish to kill every Jew are guilty of antissemitism. And that is why, in response to that ideology, I say two words.

Never again.

When Israel Cant Be Blamed

2008-02-07T15:06:00.000-05:00

Here is a must-read article from The Sudanese Thinker:

We need Israelis to step into Darfur, because when they do the Arab media will blast the spotlight on the nastiness taking place there… and they’ll blame it on the Jews.

We need a few Zionists to walk around the slums at the outskirts of Khartoum because when they do, people will finally discover and realize the amount of misery that exists there… and then in a fraction of a second, they’ll somehow blame it on the Jews.

At the Altar of Palestine, we sacrifice our issues. Mona Eltahawy isn’t alone in what she thinks because indeed, there can be no denying the obvious.

For decades, successive dictators in the Arab world have sacrificed their respective national concerns on the altar of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, telling us it must be resolved before any kind of progress can be made, whether it’s stopping terrorism, embracing democracy or ending poverty. Unsurprisingly, despite peace with Israel for the past 29 years, Egypt still suffers from all those problems.

[ Full Article ]

The Worlds Richest Arabs

2008-02-07T11:35:00.000-05:00

The amazing Sudanese Thinker recently posted an article listing The Worlds Richest Arabs.

Take a look at that article, but not just the article. The comments are good too. For example:

Interesting factoids:

The richest Israeli is a woman

The richest Arab (30 Billion) is richer than the richest Israeli (4 Billion)

Bin Laden is richer than the richest Israeli

Despite the fact that so many claim that Bin Laden fights the rich for the poor

And despite the fact that so many claim that the Jews have all the money and oppress the poor Arab world

But there are two different types of wealth. One is based on bringing new wealth into the world, like inventing a new gadget or creating products. The other is based on claiming what others could claim too if they had the power.

I put it to this forum that most rich Israelis made their money by creating wealth, by contributing to the world what did not exist before or by contributing capital to such enterprises.

And I put it to this forum that a number of the richest Arabs made their money from sitting on oil and related benefits, while contributing nothing to the world’s total wealth themselves.

- Andrew Brehm

I’m surprised that their brothers in Gaza and other Palestinians had to suffer so much considering what that wealth could have done to ease their suffering. [They] could have built power plants, factories, housing and maybe even a new greenhouse? And think of how nice those refugee camps could be. Shoot, they could even build an island or two (AK47 shaped perhaps?) for even more land to live on.

- Lynn

Funny, and true.

Zions Fire

2008-02-06T16:18:00.000-05:00

The Middle East: A History of Searching for Peace

Part 4: A Nation Reborn Through the Faithful Hand of G-d

Written by: Marvin J. Rosenthal
Published in Zion’s Fire Magazine in September/October, 1993

With the United Nations’ resolution of November, 1947, Israel became a “paper” nation. Legally, Palestine was partitioned. The nations of the world had given Israel back a piece of the land that G-d had promised to Abraham and his posterity when He said, “Walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee” (Gen. 13:17). To be sure, what the United Nations gave was small – less than a fourth of the size which the British proposed in the mandate of 1917 – smaller than the state of New Jersey. But it was something – a land, a home, a place – to which the wandering Jew could return, be welcomed, and lay his head. But, could what was given in theory be sustained in practice? In 1948, there were only 640,000 Jews in all of Israel. The surrounding Arab nations had a combined population of over 80 million, and they threatened to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. There were only six months to prepare for the inevitable attack. The nearly 100,000 British troops, who had kept a shaky, uneven, largely pro-Arab peace, would then leave.

Many world leaders were agreed. If Israel declared herself a nation, the numerically superior and far-better-equipped Arabs would attack, and Israel would be stillborn. General George Marshall, America’s Secretary of State, counseled his friend, David Ben-Gurion, to bide his time until a more favorable political climate could develop for declaring Israel’s nationhood. Ben-Gurion, later reflecting on the general’s advice, said:

...Marshall could not know what we knew – what we felt in our very bones: that this was our historic hour; if we did not live up to it, through fear or weakness of spirit, it might be generations or even centuries before our people were given another historic opportunity – if indeed we would be alive as a national group.

On the 14th of May, 1948, Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first Prime Minister, stood up in a hastily prepared movie theatre in Tel Aviv (because they did not possess Jerusalem), and declared Israel a nation among the nations of the world. On the 15th of May, the last of the British forces withdrew. The same day, six Arab nations – Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq – invaded Israel. They approached like a fistful of fingers that would close together and squeeze the life out of the infant state.

The invading armies had a carefully devised plan and a precise timetable. The Egyptians were to sweep up the coast from the south and then fork out. One force would take Jaffa-Tel Aviv along the Mediterranean Sea. The second force would join the Jordanian Arab legion and converge on Jerusalem. From the east, Iraqi troops would race westward across Palestine toward the Mediterranean to slice Israel in half. In the north, the Syrians and Lebanese would join forces to secure the Galilee and Haifa.

For the first month, battles raged up and down the land. The Jewish forces – initially without a tank, a fighter plane, or a field gun – suffered heavy casualties. The situation looked very grim. Through the efforts of the United Nations, a truce went into effect on June 11. It would only last until July 9. But, it gave Israel a month’s reprieve. It would prove to be all she needed.

[ Full Article ]

[ Video Source ]

The Real Gandhi

2008-02-06T15:47:00.000-05:00

FrontPageMag has an interesting article on the very well known Mahatma Gandhi:

When Hitler, whom Gandhi said was "not a bad man," was at the height of his power, Gandhi urged the Jews to commit collective suicide. As Richard Grenier noted in The Gandhi Nobody Knows, Gandhi later told biographer Louis Fischer, that the Jews died anyway didn't they? To be fair, he also told the English "Let them [the German National Socialist invaders] take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds." Gandhi's letter to Hitler began "Dear friend." Nothing came of it so perhaps it was poorly worded, like his grandson's January 7 screed. The Mahatma's stand on nonviolence, racism and colonialism was also rather shaky.

[ Full Article ]

That FrontPageMag article reminded me of a video I watched recently on YouTube.

I don't completely approve of the following video because it makes a couple of errors. For example, the video groups Iran and the Arab world together. While both the Arab world and Iran are often one unit in their animosity towards Israel, Iranians (Persians) are not Arab by definition.

Having said that, the video relays a powerful and relevent message.

While you watch it, note the following quote by Gandhi:

The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.

[ Update: The source / context of this quote ]

Super Tuesday Analysis

2008-02-05T10:16:00.000-05:00

So today is the big day...Super Tuesday. I already wrote my predictions for the election right here.

I shall confess something today: I am not voting! I am a registered Democrat, and frankly the choice between Hillary and Obama is so horrifying, I have exercised my right not to vote. Evidently in New York State, delegates are proportionately allocated, so Obama is a threat in NYS. The whole system is nonsensical. I believe that all states should allocate delegates proportionately, or no states. Doing it in the haphazard way we do things is so counterintuitive, it is crazy! Speaking of crazy, it makes no sense that somehow if you live in one state, you vote before another state and have a bigger say than someone else who is supposedly an 'equal citizen' in the same country. All this is an insult to the 'one man, one vote' formula that supposedly this nation claims to stand for. And do not get me started on electors!

But anyway.

One thing people do not realize is the impact of foreign policy advisers on presidents. And so with that in mind, here is a link to the foreign policy advisers of the remaining candidates.

THOUGHTS: It is horrifying to think of Robert Malley and Samantha Power (Obama's advisers) have positions of power. They are well known anti-Zionists. With that said, McCain's choice of advisers is also troubling, notably Brent Scowcroft, he of the Iraq Study Group. I know little of Romney's advisers, except for Dan Senor, who I know is very strong on Iran. With that said, McCain has taken strong foreign policy positions. See them here.

What will become of any of these when they are in office? I do not know. It is easy to fall into the State Department malaise. If a Republican is chosen as president, I most certainly hope they do not fall pray to the State Department vapors that evidently has lately taken ove Bush. And more than ever, I hope the person for the job has the will and knowhow to fight Global Jihad.

Only time will tell what will happen.

Appeasement and Lies

2008-02-04T11:03:00.000-05:00

Bill Maher is a TV personality that I used to practically worship in a former life. I say former life, because my opinions and outlook has radically changed in the past few years. Regardless, his latest shenanigans reach an all new low. Bill Maher intimated on his show that the US has troops in Jerusalem (or perhaps that the IDF = American troops?). This is such an obvious and provable lie...words fail me. In any case, Maher also says we should simply appease to the needs of the Islamists, because somehow this will make him safe. Total appeasement, this is the answer.

Watch the video yourself, if you have the stomach. It is not pretty. Is this the future of American discourse? I am troubled...

Video Source

"Youths" in London

2008-02-03T13:21:00.000-05:00

Source: Holocaust Day Marred by 'Racist' Stone-throwing by Mike Brooke at The East London Advertiser.

Hat Tip: Jewish Tourists Stoned in London from A Canadian Guy.

THE Holocaust Memorial Day marking the genocides of the 20th century was marred on Sunday when a gang of youths stoned Jewish tourists on a guided tour of London's East End.

A group of 96 visitors looking at sites of Jewish interest were attacked by youths hiding behind a fence in a back street in Whitechapel.

Two were struck by the missiles, an American woman just starting a new post at London's Metropolitan University and a Canadian lecturer.

The woman had blood pouring from her head and needed hospital treatment.

[ Full Article ]

Canadian Guy said it all:

Read [the] article full of references to "youths" and "community" and try to guess who the perpetrators are.

[ Full Commentary ]

A new quote...

2008-01-28T23:38:00.000-05:00

If I am not for myself, who will be [for me]? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'?
- Hillel the Elder

If I am not for myself, who am I? If I am only for myself, what am I?
- Red Tulips

The future of Iraq; what is the position of the American-backed Iraqi government?

2008-01-28T13:18:00.001-05:00

On November 27, 2007, I heard the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, Hamid Al-Bayati, speak at the infamous Columbia University.

That is a picture of Mr. Al-Bayati, taken from the event. (proof I was really there!)

While at this event, I took copious notes of all that was said so I could report it on C4A, and then I got lazy and did not do anything about this. So in any case, here is exactly what was said...

Mr. Al-Bayati first posited whether it is worth it for 162,000 American troops to be in Iraq. He responded that few Americans actually listen to Iraqis, and that negative news sells papers. He said that the Iraqi government has come a long way from where it was in 2004, but has a long way to go. He went on to note that life under Saddam was a prison. If you desserted the army, you would have your ear cut off, and the ear cutting would be shown on TV. He said Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, and 5,000 people died in one attack. (we know this - the Kurds) He said Saddam killed 6500 Kuwaitis and committed war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. He went on to say that Zarqawi was a terrorist who assassinated a US diplomat in Jordan with Saddam's backing, and attempted to assassinate Bush Senior in 1991. He stated that the UN cannot account for large numbers of WMD's, and in any case, Iraq now will never develop WMD's.

Mr. Al-Bayati was asked if he backed the war in 2003, and he said that he did not back the war back then, but he wanted Saddam to instead be tried for war crimes. In any case, while war might not have been necessary in 2003, it has happened and needs to now be supported for terror concerns and humanitarian concerns in Iraq. Since 2003, the Iraqi people are jubilant regarding the fall of Saddam. The new democracy in Iraq needs the support of the world, and he is frustrated over the US divide over the American presence in Iraq. It hurts troop morale. Al-Bayati stated that the American mission in Iraq is noble, and Iraq will be a model democracy to the rest of the world. In the Iraqi constitution, 25% of representatives are women, and 50% of diplomatic missions are staffed by women. He said that an example of progress in Iraq is the oil sharing legislation that passed.

When asked about the Sunni/Shia divide, Al-Bayati stated that the attacks are not really sectarian. Zarqawi sought to bring a sectarian war (attack on Shina shrines in 2006 - this caused attacks in return) He said "insurgent" is a misleading term, as Al Queda thought it best to fight Americans in Iraq. He said foreign fighters are the most brutal, and more than 50% of serious acts of terror come from "one Arab country in the region" (he obviously meant Saudi Arabia), fighting Americans. Al-Bayati said that Al Queda wants Iraq to be a safe haven for them, and there is some truth to Bush's statement "We fight them there, so we don't fight them here."

Al-Bayati stated that peace in Iraq is possible, but will take time. He also stated that the notion that the war in Iraq was fought purely for oil is disproved by the fact that Saddam exported more than 50% of Iraq's oil to the US. (RT: not sure about that one, but it was in my notes as having been said by Al-Bayati) He also said that in any case, oil is the lifeline of the world economy, and not a trifling matter.

When asked about the UN, Al-Bayati said the UN will play a larger role in Iraq, via Resolution 1770, which deals with humanitarian aid for displaced people.

Critically, Al-Bayati said that the Iraqi government believes in engaging Iran, rather than isolating it. It believes that Iran has a key role in helping with security, and he does not believe there is real evidence that Iran is interfering with internal Iraqi affairs. (!!!!)

When asked whether he considers American troops 'occupiers,' he said that it is the opposite, as there are still troops in Germany from WWII, and no one considers the US 'occupiers' of Germany.

Al-Bayati also stated that he is extremely bothered by the Arab lack of support for Iraq. He said they refuse to reconsider the debt Saddam owed to these nations, and now 5% of Iraqi revenues is going to pay for Saddam's invasion of Iraq. (this is an old story: see the Arab treatment of 'Palestinians') It should also be noted that Al-Bayati was castigated by a Columbia student for being too pro-American. (yes, really)

Critical areas he sees for the future are electricity and drinking water, but the education sector is strong in Iraq.

This is what Al-Bayati stated back in November, 2007. What does that mean today?

It means that the Iraqi government is relatively 'pro-Western' in some ways, but is 'anti-Western' in a most critical way of supporting Iran. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN think it is 'inconclusive' that Iran is supporting terrorists within Iraq. He thinks it best to 'engage' the Iranians. How exactly can the US claim to be gung ho against Iran getting nukes when they are supporting an Iraqi government that has this agenda? I am deeply troubled by this.

Then, today, I saw a post on Michael Totten's blog that was accompanied by the following photograph:

Please note the 'Palestinian' 'kaffiyeh' affixed to the neck of this 'soldier.' At first I was unable to tell if this was an undercover marine, since it did not look like an Iraqi, and I emailed Michael Totten as to the identity of that individual: was he American or Iraqi? Indeed, he was Iraqi. But what does that mean? I see it as a clear sign of Iraqi identification with the 'Palestinian' cause. Imagine, if you will, if the Iraqi police officers walked around with swastikas. It would be an outrage! But it is completely acceptable for them to walk around with kaffiyehs. Just as it is completely acceptable for the Iraqi government to 'engage' Iran. Who are we kidding? The US government has no coherent position on Iran, and I cannot imagine, at this point, the US government taking actual, serious action on Iran.

What do real Iraqis think of Israel and where will this country go? The Iraqi government, in their UN votes, are very clearly are supporting the broader Arab goals of demonizing Israel. At the same time, they are clearly not supporting terror in the way Saddam was.

Is this an improvement from Saddam? Was it worth going into Iraq? I honestly do not know. This is a very complicated situation with no easy answers. Is America doing anything to reverse antisemitism in Iraq? Is there antisemitism in Iraq to the extent it is found in other Arab states? Again, I really do not know answers to these questions, but when you hear the Iraqi ambassador to the UN speak about 'engaging' Iran, a nation whose president seeks to wipe Israel off the map... ...You really have to wonder.

In any case, Michael Totten did write a great article about the Kurds of Iraq. Their cause seems more clear cut and just; they are friends to Israel. (at least more than most other parties in the region) An unknown side fact: Kurds also are some of the last people in the world to speak Aramaic, along with Lebanese Jews. The Middle East is a complicated place with no easy answers. I do hope that, regardless, this report shed some light on more of what makes the Middle East so complicated.

The 2008 US Election

2008-01-16T12:37:00.000-05:00

I know this blog has really not discussed the US presidential election, so here goes nothing...

I predict that Hillary will win the election, which is something I predicted in the year 2000. (that she would win in 2008)

This means 24 years straight (at minimum) of presidents related to each other.

Ultimately, I think it will be Hillary v. either Romney or McCain. Anyway, I think Hillary will win, and then the country will be having that morning after hangover, wondering "what did we do??"

As far as the nominees go...there are many bad choices, but there are "bad" and "worse" choices.

The three worst choices - by far - are Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel.

Kucinich might literally be a traitor to the American nation, and under different times would be charged for treason under the Logan Act. He went to Syria and met with Assad privately, then went onto Syrian state TV, called Assad, a murderous tyrant who presides over a regime that tortured and killed a friend of mine's cousin - a 'man of peace,' and then proceeded to denounce Bush to America's (not just Bush's) enemies. On Syrian state TV. Disgusting. (see the video evidence of this here, if you have the stomach for it) The only saving grace of this man is he has a hot wife.

Mike Gravel worked with an ex-friend of mine (qrswave) who literally supports terrorism. She was a contributor to his campaign, until the fact that she was made him look bad. (see evidence here) Pathetic.

Ron Paul's solutions to the world's problems is to dig America's head in the sand and act as an isolationist. Oh yeah, and he is linked with Neonazis and 9/11 "Troothers." (LGF catalogues that all quite well)

So that's what I think. I predict Hillary will win, and while I do not support her, I guess she is not as bad as those three nutcases.

Regardless, this election is like a side show. I was just recently in Europe, and tried to explain the electoral college to PM and Steven, and they were shocked and flabbergasted.

Responding to someone who thinks Islam is evil at its core.

2008-01-16T12:17:00.000-05:00

To Tex (the person who said Islam is inherently evil)...

Sorry, but I know from experience that at best your approach is counterproductive. Those like Sudanese Thinker who believe in humanity will be on the defensive when they are told their religion is evil to the core.

As a practicing Jew, I can say that Judaism does NOT say Islam is evil to the core.

I have severe problems with Islam, most notably its notion that Muhammad was a "perfect man." This is extremely problematic, given he was a war general and married a nine year old. Also, Judaism explicitly denies the existence of "perfection" in humanity itself is not a Jewish idea. Moses himself was not perfect.

With that said - identifying what I see as critical problems in Islam - that does not mean Islam is warring at its core. There are verses from the Old Testemant that I could quote from which would lead some to think Judaism and Christianity are warring or evil at its core. But those verses are understood in the light of several millenia of interpretation, and are not seen as excuses for barbarism. In short, that is also possible for Islam. Except imams have decided to go with the opposite: taking the most warring/barbaric interpretation of the Koran/Hadith and spouting THAT as essential Islam.

This is what we must fight against. Making broad pronouncements of the "evil" of Islam accomplishes nothing.

And to contrast this, the approach of LGF Watch is also dangerous and bigoted. LGF Watch has decided that stating that Islamic suicide bombers are subhuman is itself an example of "Islamophobia," thus implying Islam = suicide bombing. It is wrong and it is offensive. They also go about libeling those who are fighting for humanity, such as Charles Johnson, thinking this "helps" Muslims.

It does not.

People like Sphinx are also a critical part of the problem. They love to blame the West, blame America, but hate to engage in the sort of introspection and self criticism that in fact fuels the statements that Tex make. Instead of wondering "Hey, gee, why do people like Tex hate Islam? Maybe it is because there are millions and millions of Muslims out there who give Islam a bad name?!"...instead of that...they say there is no problem in Islam, and anyone who says so are "Islamophobic."

And LGF Watch, which pretends to care about "humanity" only furthers attitudes of people like Tex, by giving "Sphinx" and the opinions of "Sphinx" a platform!

Meanwhile, when there is a rocket attack in Sderot, it's irrelevant to LGF Watch. When people die of suicide bombing - including Muslims who die - it is the West who is to blame.

This is a suicidal and anti-humanity position to take. Shame on LGF Watch.

Muslimophobia!

2008-01-14T11:07:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen, I have encountered truly disturbing Muslimophobia. It rankles the core of my being and shakes my insides. This Muslimophobia is at the hands of LGF Watch!

What did they do? There is a post on there that claims that Charles Johnson, the man behind Little Green Footballs, stated that Arabs/Muslims are "subhuman" through the the "subtext" of posts which explicitly say that Islamic terrorists are subhuman. This is my response to the shocking hatred of LGF Watch.

You claim there is "subtext" that Charles is saying all Muslims are subhuman, and yet the only context in which Charles uses the word "subhuman" refers to terrorists. Such a statement produces no subtext whatsoever, so you are LIBELLING Charles Johnson.

The alternative is that, in your minds, all Muslims are terrorists.

That means you are disgusting racists and Muslimophobes.

And I am deeply offended that you dare speak of such hate.

Indeed, I think that Culture for All should run a campaign decrying the rabid Muslimophobia of LGF Watch. We cannot let this hate continue!

UPDATE:

"MJ" replied to me with a nonsensical ramble, and I replied as such...

Claiming there is a "subtext of hate" or a "context of hate" is the most dishonest thing one can do. I can conjure up a "context" of anything!

Yet the 'proof' used for this alleged 'context' is that Charles called TERRORISTS subhuman!! Talk about nonsensical!

The implication is obvious. Calling terrorists subhuman - in your book - provides a 'context' for saying all Muslims are subhuman. This really might be the most ludicrous non-reasoning LGF Watch has ever been graced with posting. (that says something)

The only way one can come to such a conclusion is if you are libelling Charles Johnson from the start (and hence were using those the posts where Charles calls terrorists subhuman as only a pretext for libel), OR, if you honestly believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and hence claiming terrorists are subhuman says all Muslims are subhuman.

So in either case you are defamers or racists.

Retract this post and apologize, or defamers and racists you shall forever be known as.

Person to read

2008-01-13T15:18:00.000-05:00

Hey all,

I just thought I would give a shout out to someone who is worthy of a read: Tarek Heggy. This is an Egyptian intellectual who appears to actually believe in peace. Tell me what you think!

Cheers,

So much to say, so much to say!

2008-01-13T12:05:00.000-05:00

I have been terrible about updating this blog, I know!

Anyway, I have so many things that have happened in my life since I last updated, too many to count, really. These are things that C4A readers would find of interest, and I have been lax in updating...

To sum it up...

I went to a conference, organized by CAMERA, exploring Jewish antisemitism in the media. By that I mean Jewish sources which are explicitly anti-Israel, to the extreme of telling utter lies. How do you combat such lies, when a Jewish source is telling them? I took copious notes for no real reason, since I have no idea where I put the notes. One complaint I have about the conference is that they did not serve adequate food over the time period of the conference. All there were were muffins and cookies, over a whole day! But definitely it was memorable.
I went to another conference, organized by Eye on the UN, which explored the antisemitism of the UN. I saw Pamela from Atlas Shrugs from afar, and never spoke to her in person. (I was thinking how she supports Vlaams Belang) There were AMAZING speakers at this conference, including John Bolton and Senator Norm Coleman. But most importantly of all, there was Nonie Darwish. She gave a very impassioned speech about the plight of Muslim women in the Islamic world. She is doing amazing things. As far as the UN goes...there is a permanent majority of antisemitic nations, which are out to do Israel in. It's a sad tale. It's one we all know. The saddest part is that an international agency like the UN could do real good...but it has been totally delegitimized.
I heard Alan Dershowitz talk...twice. Let me say...he is excellent when he is attacking Israel's attackers. He was infuriating when he decribed Israel as "occupying" the West Bank, and the "human rights dilemma" of home demolitions. He is good friends with Shimon Peres, so what do you expect? I heard him say that Israel should abide by the Barack plan, or something close to it, because otherwise Israel will be an "occupying" power. It was very difficult to listen to. Mr. Dershowitz, please stick to what you are good at: debating Noam Chomsky and others! The sad thing is that because he is seen as "pro-Israel," he is considered a right wing nutcase. Truly sad state of affairs.
I heard the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN speak, at Columbia. Yes, that very Columbia, where Ahmadinejad spoke. Disgusting to set foot on those grounds, but I did anyway. The ambassador basically said that there is progress in Iraq, but it is not covered by the media. He said that the nation is 4 years old, and it takes time to really build a country out of scratch. With that said, he pointed to the oil sharing deals as proof of Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconsiliation, as well as the big turnout for voting. He spoke of how 25% of the Parliamentarians are women - as said in the constitution. He has a point - that is major. And he said that the US should not leave Iraq right now, until the nation is stable. It should be noted that there was a Columbia student who was upset with the ambassador...for being too pro-American!
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I went on the tour of Europe that I said I would. I traveled to six countries in ten days! I traveled to England, Germany, Switzerland, France, Poland, and Czech Republic. I have no idea how I had the gumption, and the energy, to do so much traveling. It should be noted that this was a C4A trip, as I went with fellow posters PM and Steven. I am so excited to have met these amazing people, and I consider them friends for life, truly. Words cannot even adequately sum up the trip, which was a trip of a lifetime. I saw Auschwitz, I saw a Jewish museum in Basel, Switzerland - home of the First Zionist Congress, and I had amazing conversations. I feel renewed and reinvigorated in my activities.

And so, with that all said...summing up my life as best as I could...I shall bid you adieu, for now.

Rather Sad Terry Pratchett News (He's not dead)

2007-12-12T14:18:00.001-05:00

He has announced that he is suffering from a rare form of early onset Alzheimer's.

Folks,

I would have liked to keep this one quiet for a little while, but because of upcoming conventions and of course the need to keep my publishers informed, it seems to me unfair to withhold the news. I have been diagnosed with a very rare form of early onset Alzheimer's, which lay behind this year's phantom "stroke".

Rest of statement.

He is one of my favourite authors, so this has come as a bit of a shock, but at least Terry Pratchett himself intends to carry on writing while he still can.

"Certain things have to happen before other things. Gods play games with the fates of men. But first they have to get all the pieces on the board, and look all over the place for the dice."

An extract from Soul Music by Terry Pratchett.

Quiz Time

2007-11-23T05:42:00.000-05:00

This fan club belongs to which celebrities.

Britney
Asha Bhosley
Katey Sagal
None of the above

When it comes to celebrities, dancing can't be neglected. In which city center do you think this Islamic dance is taking place.

London
Paris
Shanghai
None of the above

Where do you think, this weekly carbecue session had taken place this week?

Paris
Gaza
Kashmir
None of the above

Which place is it?

Kashmir
Gaza
London
None of the above

Ending with the classic picture, that fits everywhere for religion of Peace. Waiting for the caption.

All above photos were taken during last week kolkata celebration launched by "Indian (tiny and moderate) minority" for celebrating the spirit of taslima nasreen.

Andy Thomson Lecture

2007-10-24T16:03:00.001-04:00

Interesting thus far.

One Text for Burma

2007-10-05T04:09:00.000-04:00

Freedom for Burma

Radiohead Drops it's Stinkbomb on the Music Biz

2007-10-01T14:45:00.000-04:00

"Because in our dreams, it would be really nice to just let off this enormous stink bomb in the industry."

The new Radiohead album is being released next Monday. (It's called in rainbows).

The catch?

It's being released online only, and you decide how much you want to pay for it (plus a credit card handling fee). Or you can pre-order a disc-box set, which Radiohead are selling for £40 - about $80 (ships worldwide).

If this has any effect on the current models for selling music online, time will only tell.

And for those of you who don't want to go the online route, Radiohead are in talks with record labels (including EMI, Radiohead's old label) about releasing the album in the shops in 2008.

*Radiohead's site may take a while to load.

Letter to Columbia University's Provost and President

2007-09-24T10:40:00.001-04:00

Today is a sad day in the history of academia. Today is the day that the mass murdering tyrant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be speaking at Columbia University. To protest this, I decided to write a letter to the president of the university, as well as the provost. I doubt this will do anything, but at least I was able to let out my frustration SOMEWHERE. Please send emails to Provost Brinkley at ab65@columbia.edu and to President Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu to protest this abomination.

I am writing this email to express my extreme disappointment at the decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's campus. Ahmadinejad is a mad who has denied the Holocaust and even led a Holocaust denial conference. He speaks of wiping Israel off the map and funds terrorism around the world, including Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, famously said "If all the Jews around the world would gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just idle words, as the Iranian-backed Hizballah was behind the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Argentina. More than simply being an antisemite, Ahmadinejad famously calls America "the Great Satan," and just yesterday in Iran held a massive anti-American rally, with giant signs saying "Death to America." Again, these are not merely idle words, as Iran funds and trains the Mahdi army and Revolutionary Guard, who attack US forces in Iraq. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has publicly been seeking nuclear weapons to follow through with all his threats.

The evil of Ahmadinejad thus established, I have to question what could possibly be gained by having him speak on campus. What possible legitimate reason does such a man have to seek to wipe a nation off the map which has not been aggressive towards Iran? What possible legitimate reason is there for Holocaust denial? What possible legitimate reason is there for funding a terror organization, Hizballah, whose goal is an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon, and the destruction of worldwide Jewry? And as there is no possible justification for these actions (other than a desire for power and destruction), then how could Columbia invite such an evil man to speak on campus, thus legitimitizing Holocaust denial? What will Columbia's representative ask Ahmadinejad? "Why do you deny the Holocaust?" And what will he possibly say that could suffice a sufficient answer? "Why do you wish Israel's destruction and say Death to America?" What could Ahmadinejad answer that will be anything except legitimizing these concepts?

Merely inviting such an odious personality to campus implies that Ahmedinejad's evil is not evil, but rather is part of the post-modern morally relative world. After all, "Who are we to judge what is evil and what is not evil?" Merely inviting Ahmadinejad to campus implies there is no objective reality. It invites the thinking that maybe the Holocaust did not exist; perhaps there should be a 'debate' on this subject. (Of course, Ahmadinejad refuses to actually meet any survivors, nor tour Auschwitz.)

Finally, inviting a leader on campus who is so repressive against his own people, and regularly jails dissidents in his own country, flies in the face of the supposed atmosphere of "freedom of speech" that Columbia purportedly believes in. If Columbia really seeks to engage and legitimize all sides of the political spectrum, including tyrants and mass murderers, then at least Columbia should require that these tyrants and mass murderers do not jail and torture dissident voices within their own nation. Inviting Ahmedinejad to speak spits in the faces of the thousands of political prisoners within Iran, and the unknown numbers who were killed for the "crime" of being gay, a feminist, a modernist, or even raped. For a campus that claims to believe in freedom of speech, feminism, and civil rights, I do not see it putting its money where its mouth is.

If this administration had any respect for the thousands of victims, worldwide, of Iran's regime, they would immediately retract the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. If it fails to do so, it has abdicated its role as a model of higher learning.

More on The Roots of Jewish Self Hatred

2007-09-18T13:44:00.000-04:00

I have thought more about Jewish self hatred, and I feel that this sums up the roots of this problem best.

I started to read The Jewish State by Yoram Hazony, and I feel it misses most of the point of where the problem of "post-zionism" and Jewish self hatred stems from. I believe that the essence of the problem can be summed up by the way the Islamists describe Israel as little Satan.

Jewish self hatred is not limited to the Jews; Western self hate is at an all time high, and I hope to visit Eurodhimmiland this winter just to see the Louvre and large parts of Paris prior to it being taken over by Islamists. What does Western self-hate and Jewish Israeli self-hate have in common? Answer: they both derive from a hatred of capitalism and the American way.

Israel was formed upon a "Labour-Zionist" ideal, and I view this, i.e., its socialist roots, as the core of the problem. Every year that Israel moves away from these socialist roots, it has a greater and greater chance of success against its internal and external enemies.

Socialism is a form of nihilism, and it is directly inapposite to an idea of Judaism. True socialism cannot succeed as long as Jews remain Jewish. The USSR knew this, witness their extensive antisemitism. Karl Marx knew this, see On the Jewish Question.

And so Israel did perform genuine bad things against its religious populations early on in its statehood. I would argue this is the result of the nihilistic orientation of its Founders. The way the Mizrahi, for instance, were treated by the 'liberal' socialist Zionist elite is deplorable.

But this all is the result of an anti-Jewish attitude exhibited by the founders of Israel. This anti-Jewish attitude stems from socialism, which is also anti-Christian and anti-nationalistic. To the extent that the West has been gripped by suicidal tenancies, this is why. (NOTE: the founders were pro-Jewish ethnicity, but antagonistic towards the Jewish religion. Ben Gurion himself was an atheist.)

Israel's self hate did not materialize out of thin blue air. The self hatred in Israel is minimal in comparison to what is in Eurodhimmiland and the US, aka, "Big Satan," from whence the self-hating philosophy has its roots. This self hatred is even evident in India, whereby the communist parties seek total abdication of India's might to the Islamists. (Remember that communists and Islamists are aligned.)

The future of Israel and the West rests with the rejection of nihilism and the embrace of an alternative, non-suicidal philosophy. Judaism is one such alternative, but is by no means the only one.

The ROOT of Jewish self hate

2007-09-17T14:55:00.000-04:00

Carl in Jerusalem recently discussed the security fence in Israel, showing how in fact it is anti-security by its very nature. A commentator, Daniel, replied to this post basically saying how sick he was of liberal Jewry and their self loathing, placing the blame for Israel and the Jewish nation's cultural malaise on Reform/Conservative Judaism and a lack of Jewish pride. He stated that Jews did much during the Civil Rights movement for black people, but little to save Jews during the Holocaust. I wrote a response, and I think it is worth reading.

Daniel,

With all due respect, you have mischaracterized reform and conservative Judaism.

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

Now, as far as your argument about the Nazis; I have read about Rabbi Stephen Wise and the American Jewish community during WWII. Yes, there is more they could have done, in my opinion. But this all misses the broader problems in the world.

I believe that the problems Jews face are of more pressing significance than most ethnic/religious groups throughout the world. And so kapos and self hatred have a more immediate and disastrous effect on the Jewish nation than it does or would on most others. But self hatred is not limited to the Jews, and treason is not limited to the Jews.

Just look at Eurodhimmiland. It is a cesspool of self hate on a scale that I believe even outstrips Israel. Every opportunity is taken to bash the Judeo-christian Euro heritage. Even in the US, moveon.org had the gaul to call General Petreaus a traitor for simply saying the US is making progress in Iraq...and this ad was not condemned by a single Democratic candidate for president. Not one. Why is this?

I would argue the root of the self hatred is in communism, and in fact the free world only just barely won the Cold War; academia and the social elite of Eurodhimmiland and the US are littered with communists and socialists. And I view this, not Jewish self hatred as the root of the problem.

In short, I see Israel's problems as very related to its socialist roots. The further it gets from these socialist roots, the more it will have to grasp some alternative ideology. We cannot forget that socialism/communism is an antisemitic philosophy at its core. Karl Marx was not a Jew (his parents converted to Christianity and raised him non-Jewish), and he wrote the antisemitic paper, On the Jewish Question. There is a reason why the USSR was so hostile to Jews, and why communist nations around the world are so virulently hostile to Jews. Once you read On the Jewish Question, perhaps you will have a better understanding as to what I am talking about.

To sum this all up...to the extent that Jews might suffer particularly from self hate and self destructiveness, as opposed to Eurodhimmiland and the like, it is because of the large numbers of Jewish communists. The Jewish communists are not the recent immigrants from the former USSR, as most of those saw the destructiveness of communism and are now ardently anti-communist. No, the communists mostly are Red diaper babies whose parents and grandparents left the USSR and Eastern European and European states when communism was en vogue. Most of these Red diaper babies are assimilating, anyway. Witness the Adam Shapiro story. And thus, within the next few generations, I predict that the Jewish nation will only improve, if nothing else due to demographics of who is reproducing.

Daniel replied with the following:

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

I wish you were correct. I wish c&r's were becoming more observant, having large numbers of Jewish kids, visited Israel at a higher rate than xtians, and didn't intermarry. Yes, the local federation rags often profile a temple that added a few lines of hebrew. but this is like the MSM in the 70's profiling the successful black woman that was once on welfare.

The facts speak for themselves. r%c have intermarriga rates approaching 75% in some locales. 2007 National Survey of American Jews demonstrated how with each generation the non orthos have little concern for Israel and Judaism.

We can pretend that r& c are strongly committed , but for the vast majority are places for going twice a year and for treif bnai mitzvas.

Conservative "believes" in halacha, and you can probably find a minyan of shomer mitzva conservative jews, but I'd bet my left foot that less tah 1% of C's practice family purity and only5% would even know that they are supposed to.

100 years from know when historians write the history of American Jewry-at least of the wave that came at the beginning of the 20TH century- will be "they came , they prosperred , they intermarried, they ignored TWO HOLOCAUSTS, and they disappeared."

Nothing to be proud of.

p.s. notice that I intentionally excluded the refugees from hitler and stalin- They are the Maccabees of America

This brought the following reply by me:

Daniel:

I have to reiterate how you have the wrong perspective.

If the choice were between Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, you would have a point, and maybe I would agree with you. That is not the choice.

The choice of most Jews would be between Reform Judaism and nothing, or even converting out of Judaism. So the correct comparison that should be made is not between Reform/Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jewry. The correct comparison should be between Reform/Conservative and nothing/atheism.

Given those are the choices, (and I can say for the most part, that is the reality) the real question should be whether Reform/Conservative Judaism is better than nothing at all. And the answer to that question, in my mind, is a clear yes.

There are real benefits offered in Reform/Conservative shuls. Firstly, technically speaking, Conservative shuls believe in Halacha, however, the synagogues are integrated by gender, and most of the congregants do not follow Halacha in their daily lives. How is it a negative if Jews in that category are exposed to what is authetic Judaism when they go to shul, which they otherwise would not do?

Then there are Reform congregations, which do not follow Halacha and do not necessarily believe in Halacha. I would argue that the validity of these synagogues is on a case by case basis. Some are basically churches with a few Hebrew words uttered; I see little value in that and no point in holding on to Judaism if that is all that is left. Other synagogues offer much more.

Your analysis is very black and white, whereas the world of Reform/Conservative Judaism is anything but that.

Finally, you have not addressed the rest of what I said, which I believe to be the bottom line basis for the self hate. I do not see this as a particularly theological Jewish struggle, except to the extent that Judaism is and can be used as an alternative to the destructiveness of communist self hate. I have atheist Jewish friends who are the biggest Zionists around. They identify with capitalism and secular humanism, and even vote for the religious parties in Israel, as they are also capitalist and anti-communist.

The root of the self hate in Israel is the same root found in Eurodhimmiland, the US, and the rest of the West. It is communism, which we know is linked with Islamofascism. It is that root which must be expunged, not Reform and Conservative Judaism.

P.S.: I never said that Reform or Conservative Jews are as committed as Orthodox Jews, because they are not. However, most congregations are much more committed to Israel and the Jewish nation than the general population of the US or Eurodhimmiland. Moreover, if any kid of a secular Jew is to make teshuva, they would come from the Reform/Conservative pool, NOT the pool of kids with atheist parents.

In summation: the logical and constructive path to take is to encourage and support Orthodox Jewry, while not denigrating Reform/Conservative congregations unless they fail to support the Jewish nation. (such as in Lerner's case) For every Lerner synagogue, there are 20 Zionist congregations that might not be as ardent as Orthodox congregations, but are definitely not anti-zionist. (and that said, the Satmar are Orthodox and anti-Zionist)

So what should be done? Work with the Reform/Conservative shuls. Have Zionist speakers come and educate the members of these shuls, and get out the facts, which are on our side. Hope is not lost, and the vast majority of Reform/Conservative synagogues are not the enemy.

Thoughts?

Brown just keeps on swining those punches

2007-09-14T00:33:00.001-04:00

Yesterday he invited Thatcher to Number 10.

Election warfare methinks. David Cameron has gambled on the Blair way of doing things, and i think he's lost. Saatchi is in charge of Labours election advertising. Which is ironic really, considering the fact that Saatchi's advertising helped Thatcher gain power in 1979 with the "labour isn't working" being one that sticks in older peoples memories (i was but a twinkle in my fathers eye in 1979). The first advert for Labour is quite simple, it has a picture of Brown with the words "Just Gordon". I think people are sick of the Blair style of politics (which Cameron has been trying to emulate), so the simple appeal of Brown as a politician of old (boring bank manager type) may just win Labour the election.

I'm voting for my local MP, as he has done a very good job over the years (he got my first ever vote in a general election). Hopefully i will not have to run the gauntlet of Tatchell's supporters. Because when i vote, i head in and out as quickly as i can. Without making eye contact with Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour party workers. Who are always trying to drum up extra votes. I vote, then watch the election night news programmes as they try and number crunch the results into predicated a Parliament, which they revise constantly over night with the swingometer.

As for when the Election will be called ? If it's not called before November, then i guess Brown will call it sometime before the spring in 2008. I think Labour might get a slight increase on it's majority. As David Cameron has failed to use the chances to run down the Labour Government over things like the NHS and other issues that have cropped. Team Cameron is more like Team Tory: Opposition forever!

War and Peace

2007-09-07T11:21:00.000-04:00

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)

raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.

anti-Iraq war

Darfur Genocide awareness

counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.

Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.

Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.

This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.

One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.

Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.

Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.

Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.

Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.

Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.

In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.

Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.

They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

'Masked' the play

2007-09-05T10:09:00.000-04:00

Last night, I saw something that had me very deeply disturbed. I saw a play called 'Masked,' about three Palestinian brothers. This was written by Ami Dayan, Moshe Dayan's nephew. One of the brothers is a suspected 'collaborator' with Israel, one is an Arafish stooge, and one is young and impressionable - the question is where he will go in the future. The play ignored several key parts to the 'Palestinian' question, namely, Islam and jihad. The word 'jihad' was not mentioned once. Moreover, the suffering of the Israelis at the hands of these 'Palestinians' was not mentioned at all. I also saw the choice of the 'collaborater' brother as a false one. Given how leftist Barak basically left a number of the Southern Lebanese army to die after the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000...why would ANYONE want to risk their life to be a 'collaborator' if they get little to nothing in return?

But anyway, that was only half of my criticism. The brunt was aimed at one of the members of the panel discussion after the play, Elik Elhanan. He said that he lost his sister, and he blamed the death of his sister on the 'cycle of violence' caused by 'the occupation.'

I raised my hand and said "With all due respect, Mr. Elhanan, but there is no cycle of violence. Arafat was offered all that Israel could be willing to give in 2000, and he answered that with the Intifada."

In response, Elhanan said "Oh, but you don't know what was offered, have you seen maps?"

I said "Yes, I have. Dennis Ross wrote a book about this."

Then he incredibly said that you cannot trust Dennis Ross! Abram Epstein, an old and tired leftist Jew also on the panel, responded that his 'Palestinian' friends would say this was all about East Jerusalem. I responded "With all due respect, this was not about East Jerusalem. This was about the 'right of return,' which everyone knows is a ploy to destroy Israel. And moreover, when Israel does not return fire, they get MORE fire, not less. There is absolutely no cycle of violence."

Then some other audience members had a few other comments to make, and Epstein had the gaul to say that Hamas does not have to recognize Israel, as that would be like having the Native Americans recognize America. The most we could expect is they will renounce violence. I responded (shouting out in the audience), "Oh, you mean a hudna." He got very angry at that suggestion, and said "No, I mean long term peace." I laughed at him when he said that. It should be noted that Native Americans recognize America, and certainly have no terror campaign as the 'Palestinians' do.

Finally, it was down to closing comments. Blah, blah, blah. Then down to Elhanan. My friend sitting next to me whispered "Watch him say occupation!" Next thing you know, Elhanan, in his sinister way, said "Really, this is all about the occupation. My sister died due to the occupation. Little children on all sides have died due to the occupation. The occupation is the cause of all the troubles, and drives the 'Palestinians' to commit their terror!" (talk about soft bigotry of low expectations!) My friend and I laughed out loud, right in front of him, as he uttered such tripe.

What a travesty. Little old ladies thanked me afterwards, for stating FACTS in the midst of Jewish self hating LIES. It was disgusting to see such lies propagated to an audience who maybe does not know so much about the conflict, and now might buy into the garbage. Very sinister.

I would like to add that Elhanan stated that he and his cronies, 'Combatants for Peace,' go into 'Palestinian' areas and 'protect' the 'Palestinians' from Israeli bulldozers and IDF action. This is Rachel Corrie-esque. I hence view Elhanan, who organizes far leftist soldiers to not fight in the 'territories,' and 'protects' the 'Palestinians' from IDF action to be a traitor to Israel and the Jewish nation. I wanted to spit at him, I was so furious to see him. He should honestly be tried and convicted of treason, for the activities he has done.

What makes it the most tragic is that he lost his sister, killed by 'Palestinians.' Instead of blaming the right source, he and his family blamed ISRAEL! They blamed the victim! I sort of understand this mentality, as it is twofold. On the one hand, he must think that if people hate Jews so much, they have to have a reason! Many Jews turned to self hatred from this respect, during and after the Holocaust. On the other hand, it is much easier (and safer) to rail against Israel than it is to rail against the corrupt Jew-hating thugs which make up the 'Palestinian' leadership and media (indoctrinating all 'Palestinians' to hate) It gives him hope to rail against Israel, as Israel is a democracy, and responsive to his hate. In contradistinction, the 'Palestinians' would not stop their butchery of Israeli civilians due to Elhanan's action or inaction.

So sad. There was a British man on the panel, Glemore Trenear-Harvey, and as soon as I heard his British accent, I figured he would be a dhimmi. (due to recent British politics) While he most certainly was misguided, he actually was less misguided than the Jews on the panel!

If that does not sum up what is wrong with modern leftist Jews in a nutshell, what does?

UPDATE:

Carl in Jerusalem supplied information about Elhanan's mother. Evidently she was a speaker at a UN-sponsored conference of hate against Israel. With parents such as those, it is no wonder he came out as he did.

At last! The British decided to fight for their Christian roots...

2007-09-01T04:44:00.001-04:00

After removing Churchill from its educational books, and quiting British Council offices in Europe, Banning crosses in British Airways, Saying No to "War on Terror", and tagging everyone condemning Islamic Ideology as Islamophobe!... the British had finally decided to defend its Christian roots.

Hold on a second, If you are dreaming that they had started to speak against Jihad, or Islamic Imperial goals of Global caliphet, then you are absolutely wrong. Instead of fighting the real enemy, They had moved further to ban Infidel Activities like Yoga.

More in the world of Indian Muslims

2007-08-20T12:17:00.000-04:00

I wrote earlier of Taslima Nasreen, the ex-Muslim feminist (soon to be wife of PM ;-)), who faces an indictment in India for 'insulting Islam.' I also wrote of the violence against her in Hyderabad. Now it seems she has a 'fresh fatwa' against her life. She was given a month to leave Kolkhata, or she will be killed. This is how much the jihadis believe in freedom of speech.

And yet not all the news from India's Islamic community is bad. Witness a recent delegation of Indian imams to Israel, and what the leader had to say:

The time for violence has come to an end, and the era of peace and dialogue between Muslims and Jews has begun - that was the message delivered by Maulana Jameel Ahmed Ilyasi, secretary-general of the All-India Association of Imams and Mosques, during an interview with Ynetnews.

Ilaysi's organization represents half a million imams, who are the main religious leaders of India's 200 million Muslims.

In an extraordinary visit to Israel, organized by the American Jewish Committee's (AJC) India office, Ilaysi arrived as part of a delegation of Indian Muslim leaders and journalists.

Asked to address Hamas's call for jihad to destroy Israel, Ilaysi said, "I believe in peace and this is the message I take. I don't believe in anything that destroys another country."

The religious leader also said the time had come for Pakistan to establish official relations with Israel. "This is the right thing to do," he added.

These are honestly the words of peace, and I find them to be remarkable. I know PM thinks it is all bluster, but I have to disagree with him. The question, however, is whether this imam is long for the world, and how many Indian Muslims agree with him.

Perhaps Indian Muslims can lead the world as an example of what it truly means to show Islam can be a religion of peace?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

2007-08-20T11:07:00.000-04:00

I had the following exchange with a friend of mine who is a Zionist. I figured you would appreciate what I had to say.

My friend wrote me the following:

just to reiterate, i'm for the settlers and soldiers to be evacuated, and for soldiers' ability to go after terrorists and other threats. i'm also for israel to keep early warning stations as they see fit. i'm just not for this whole matrix of control over a hostile population....it won't convince them to change their ways, so it's unsustainable and pointless if israel can find just as effective means of self-defense. how don't care how it's viewed by them, they won't be able to penetrate israel and that'll be the best message to send.

This was my reply:

I understand why you believe in evacuating most of the West Bank, but to briefly outline why I do not believe it to be a fruitful platform...

Technically speaking, the 'hostile population' already is under the control over the thugs of the Palestinian Authority. In fact, times were best for this hostile population when Israelis were in control in the '80s, pre-Oslo.

To that end, the IDF is in there not to 'control' the hostile population, but rather to secure the Israeli population AGAINST the hostile population. Yes, road blocks can be crap, but we know when they were put in - after the Intifada. They were not, repeat, NOT, there pre-Intifada. As such, we have to evalualate them not from whether or not it is hurting Israeli psyche to be 'in control' over a hostile population, but rather, whether they are effective. If you look at the extreme drop in suicide bombings, then yes, they have been effective to at least some degree. I would be in favor of dropping anything ineffective, but ONLY if it is ineffective.

It is a human rights nightmare to just evacuate tens of thousands (if not many more) of Jews from the holiest part of Israel. There is not the infrastructure nor the sympathy to care for what will be homeless people. The settlers evacuated from Gaza have been reduced to living in trailers, the kids still, two years later, are not enrolled in schools.

If we were to evacuate the West Bank, then it is a guarantee that our holiest sites will be 100% destroyed. I am not so cool with our history and heritage being destroyed. We need only examine the example of Gaza, and the wholesale destruction of the ancient synagogues there.

As far as my understanding, the missile defense system will not be effective if the missiles come lobbed RIGHT over the wall, and they are certainly still at a test phase in general. The technology is not as effective as rooting out the terrorists in the way the IDF currently does.

WHY should Jews have to evacuate Jewish holy land (which they were slaughtered in in 1929, as you know), and Arabs are allowed to live in Israel? Honestly, if THAT is the philosophy of the JEWISH state - population exchange ONLY for Jews - then that rewards bad behavior. Rewarding bad behavior encourages bad behavior. And it makes me believe that if there is to be a population exchange, let's make it even - let's tell all Arab Israelis they have to declare they are a Zionist (and that their kids must join IDF), or they will be given money to leave. I do not believe it right or just to have a one-way population exchange.

Was the IDF set up to forcibly expel Jews from their homes? Having the IDF do such a thing undermines confidence in the IDF. There already is a concern about draft dodging, and such policies will only increase draft dodging.

None of this will change the opinion of the world, nor the Palestinians, nor the Arab Israelis, about Israel. If anything, it will make them more vigilant, rather than less. They will see that their actions lead to a reward. As such, if the goal is to curb the impulse to commit acts of terror, that is not achieved.

If the goal is to be more militarily effective, I do not believe that would be achieved, either. Let's examine: why are there no rockets being launched through the West Bank, but there are rockets being launched from Gaza? Answer: because of the vigilance of the IDF in rooting out the Islamist terrorists in the West Bank. THAT is the reason. You take away the IDF presence, and there will be, almost as a guarantee, an upsurge of terrorism and rockets being launched at Israel. The missile defense system is still in the test phase and cannot be relied upon and is no substitute for what the IDF does now. Meanwhile, the West Bank sits right on top of MAJOR POPULATON CENTERS of Israel! Thus, leaving the West Bank in the way you propose would expose the population centers, and make them less, and not more safe. And this is under the pretense of assuming that the IDF had to forcibly expel tens of thousands of Jews from their homes - and there is NO Jewish presence in the West Bank (save for the few settlement blocks).

Let's examine another scenario. Let's pretend that there is a Jewish presence in the West Bank. Let's pretend that the IDF leaves, and the Jews are told that they can stay, but they will be under the auspices of the corrupt, thug-like Palestinian Authority. These settlers will be armed, as they are now, and will certainly act to defend themselves and their homes. It will be like the Wild West. And a tenet of the IDF is to protect Jews in the world, wherever they may be. (most famously seen in the bravery during the Entebbe hijacking) So the IDF still has jurisdiction over these Jews and still would have a duty to defend them - only they will not be able to be as effective in doing so, having ceded power and control over to the Palestinian Authority. There would be massacres.

The bottom line is that Israel has only two logical paths it can follow if it seeks to avoid a human rights nightmare for its Jewish citizens. One is to remain constantly vigilant. Remember what Wendell Phillips said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." When I was in Israel, every soldier I saw, I cheered. I told them that I was grateful for their protecting my freedom. What they do is really amazing. We mustn't, and they musn't, buy into the propoganda that they are doing it "only" for the "ungrateful" settlers. We musn't, and they musn't, buy into the propoganda that they are "controlling a hostile native population." (these people are no more native than the Jews, if anything, they are less native, but that is another story) We cannot let THEM dictate the terms over how we see this, and we have to realize that if we remain eternally vigilant, there may be no peace in our lifetimes. We have to resolve ourselves that the only way towards peace is to do something that no one is willing to do, because it may break the very soul of the Jewish state. And that is to follow Kahane's advice and have a wholesale population transfer. This is the only longterm solution towards peace. If we are not willing to do it, as we are not (and as we shouldn't be, because I think it would break the soul of the Jewish state), then we have to acknowledge that peace is not possible with a foe whose goal is ultimately annhilation. Maybe a sizeable chunk of Palestinians can live in peaceful coexistence. Maybe. But not today, and not in three-five years.

If we are not going to follow Kahane's advice (I want to underline the fact that I do not believe we SHOULD follow Kahane's advice), then we have to look at how to dismantle the hate education system which produces programs such as "Farfour, the Hamas mouse," and "Nahoul the bee," teaching children the joys of shahid, martyrdom. We have to dismantle the hate education system which teaches children that Jews are subhuman. And if that is taught in Israel, certainly that too should be dismantled. The problem is not the people, it is the culture. There needs to be a wholesale change of culture, so that peaceful coexistence is possible. That cannot happen in our lifetimes, and we should resolve ourselves to that; maybe it can happen in the lifetimes of our children.

What do you all think about what I have to say?

Hyderabad police lodge case against Taslima Nasreen

2007-08-13T15:23:00.000-04:00

The following article details how Hyderabad police are lodging a complaint against Taslima Nasreen for 'hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims.' It should be recalled that she was the one who faced riots against her, and was personally beaten when she spoke in Hyderabad. Her personal safety was only assured after Hindu journalists formed a wall around the Muslim rioters, and allowed her to have a police escort out of the facility. She is a Bangladeshi ex-Muslim feminist who speaks out in favor of human rights, and for that was kicked out of Bangladesh. She is seeking refuge in India, and now it seems her country of refuge is making it quite difficult for her to live there.

You might wonder how this is all possible. The answer is that it is a crime to insult Muhammad in India. According to my understanding, it is also a crime to insult Krishna and Buddha, etc. Does anyone know how this law came about, and if there is an equality of enforcement of these blasphemy laws? As far as I see it, blasphemy should not be a crime, regardless of which religion is insulted, due to the far reaching free speech implications. But then again, I have grown to prize the First Amendment.

African dreams!

2007-08-09T20:34:00.000-04:00

Please read the following JPost article...seems that Africa, Egypt excluded, is more pro-Israel than Europe!

The article posits that perhaps the reason for this is the lack of Israeli anti-zionist infiltration into Africa. Ilan Pappe has not taught in Kenya. I believe that Africans take to heart the fact that "black African" and "slave" are used interchangeably in Arabic. I believe they takethe Sudanese genocide at the hands of its Arab government to heart. I think this has an impact. I also know Africans are religious...Euros are not. Maybe that too has an impact.

Thoughts?

My hero!

2007-08-09T13:13:00.000-04:00

It is very easy to be an armchair warrior. It is easy to protest from the safety of your home, to rant and rave online with fellow armchair warriors. It is hard to get in the trenches and do what is necessary to make a difference. To that extent, I have striven to be more than an armchair warrior; I am leading activities in the NYC area and I hope to actually make a difference. But what I have done is nothing. It is a drop in the bucket compared to Salah Choudhury, a "Muslim Zionist" journalist from Bangladesh who faces a possible death penalty for the "crime" of advocating for normalized relations with Israel. Please read what David Harris of AJC wrote about this courageous man.

Mr. Choudhury could have easily sought aslyum in the United States, during his week long reprieve he was granted by the Bangladeshi government. He could have sought personal safety. Instead, this man will travel back to Bangladesh and face trial, with his life on the line. Mr. Choudhury, a man I wrote about earlier, is seeking to empower the peace loving people of Bangladesh. And let me say this. With no exceptions, the Muslim Bangladeshis I have met have been kind, peace loving, and honestly moderate. None had a bad word to say about Israel. I actually lived in a building with two Bangladeshi Americans, and the only bad words they had to say were about Pakistan, and the way that Bangladeshis were treated like dirt by what was once their mother country.

And so I empathize with the Bangladeshi people, some of the poorest on earth, who are simply trying to find their way in this world, but have an authoritarian Islamist government backed by Saudi money that is preventing ordinary Bangladeshis from expressing their opinions and leading their lives as they see fit. And I fear for a new generation of Bangladeshis who, so impovershed, will be taught in Saudi-funded madrassas.

And so what does the US do in response to this crisis? It offers a $20 billion weapons deal to Saudi Arabia. What does Israel do in response to THAT? Olmert says, "No, America, give MORE!"

Knowing Choudhury's plight and how empowering the Saudis disempowers the moderate life-loving Bangladeshis, this puts the Saudi weapons deal in a whole new light. Not only is it a suicidally stupid move, it is a move which as a side-swipe also hurts the innocents around the world who are being victimized by those that the Saudis empower. It hurts the friends we have around the world, not just ourselves.

I would say Bush and Olmert should be ashamed of themselves, but at this point I do not believe Olmert has any shame left inside him.