Category Archives: Creeping Sharia
At a time when the most egregious lies about Israel are being devoured eagerly by most of the world, here is a voice of reason. Former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, writing in The Times this week, said:
If Israel goes down, we all go down
By José María Aznar
For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.
In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship.
In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.
In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN.
Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.
Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.
Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.
Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.
For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.
The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.
The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East.
Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.
Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down.
To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.
The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith.
To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.
This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.
It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.
What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.
Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.
José María Aznar was prime minister of Spain between 1996 and 2004.
Even given that we live in an insane world, the following story beggars belief. Apparently Yahoo! and Apple have decided that they get to decide the fate of Jerusalem.
Yep. Never mind that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority long before Islam even existed.
Never mind that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel both legally, and morally.
Never mind that when Jordan controlled Jerusalem, it turned holy Jewish sites into horse stables.
Never mind any of that. Apparently Yahoo! and Apple feel that they - not international law, not the Israeli government, and certainly not Jews – get to determine what is part of the Jewish capital of the Jewish nation, and what is not.
Read it and weep, folks:
YAHOO! AND APPLE DIVIDE JERUSALEM ON IPHONE
by Hana Levi Julian
Internet giant Yahoo! and the Apple computer firm have apparently decided to pre-empt those pesky Israel-Palestinian Authority negotiations and divide the holy city of Jerusalem on their own.
Yahoo! — which runs the weather software application for the slick Apple iPhone — last month removed Israel’s capital city from its list of international locations from which to view weather conditions.
Instead, one must now choose between East Jerusalem or West Jerusalem in order to figure out what the weather is going to be in the city.
The latitude and longitude coordinates for both locations are exactly the same, as is the temperature and other weather details.
On the Yahoo! weather page, which is linked to The Weather Channel, one is offered two Middle East options when requesting weather information for Jerusalem – Jerusalem, Yerushalayim (IL), Jerusalem, and Palestinian Occupied Territories > West Bank, Jerusalem (PS).
Clearly Yahoo! and Apple executives have decided to recognize the Palestinian State long before direct negotiations have even been contemplated by the parties themselves, let alone conducted to determine actual borders.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, expressed his disappointment with the fact that “Jerusalem, which has been united for 43 years, has been divided by the computer giant and the popular search engine.”
Oren sent a letter of protest to both Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz and Apple CEO Steve Jobbs. He added that he and the rest of the Israel Embassy staff use the iPhone.
Readers may write to both to protest as well at the following emails: to Yahoo!’s Carol Bartz, care of: firstname.lastname@example.org and to Apple’s Steve Jobbs through filling out the customer feedback form by clicking here.
As I write this, the British media is falling over itself to condemn Israel anew. Yesterday a boat bearing terrorists attempted to reach Israeli shores; Israel managed to reach them first and opened fire. As would the defence forces of any sane, democratic nation on our planet.
Of course, the BBC and the Daily Mail, among others, are horrified at this event – what, Jews, defending themselves against terrorism? Whatever next?!
The Mail suggests that this latest terror threat doesn’t actually exist, while the BBC persists in referring to the Islamic militants on board the flotilla as ‘aid workers’.
The British media should be anti terrorism – and as a result should have the decency to at least put forward Israeli responses. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that Brits themselves were being slaughtered by the same terrorists who this week are so cheerfully running rings about both Israel and the court of world opinion.
Here is Melanie Phillips – do note the edits at the end of her article, both of which are significant.
Peace convoy’? This was an Islamist terror ambush
As the international community rushes to condemn Israel for the violence on board one of the ships in the Gaza flotilla, which left a reported 10 people dead and dozens injured, it is now obvious that the real purpose of this ‘armada of hate’ was not merely the further delegitimisation of Israel but something far worse.
Gaza’s markets are full of produce, thousands of tons of supplies are travelling into Gaza every week through the Israeli-controlled border crossings, and there is no starvation or humanitarian crisis.
It was always obvious that the flotilla was not the humanitarian exercise it was said to be. Here is footage of the IDF offering to dock the Marmara — the main flotilla ship — at Ashdod and transfer its supplies and being told ‘Negative, negative, our destination is Gaza’.
And now we can see that the real purpose of this invasion — backed by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), a radical Islamic organization outlawed by Israel in 2008 for allegedly serving as a major component in Hamas’s global fund-raising machine — was to incite a violent uprising in the Middle East and across the Islamic world. As I write, reports are coming in of Arab rioting in Jerusalem.
The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya.
According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.
And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation.
Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.
This is what the Jerusalem Post reported earlier today about what happened last night:
According to the IDF, the international activists ‘prepared a lynch’ for the soldiers who boarded the ships at about 2 a.m. Monday morning after calling on them to stop, or follow them to the Ashdod Port several hours earlier.
… Upon boarding the ships, the soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes. The soldiers used non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd. The activists, according to an IDF report, succeeded in stealing two handguns from soldiers and opened fire, leading to an escalation in violence.
Also in the Jerusalem Post, David Horowitz wrote:
Benayahu said soldiers, who had been dispatched to block the flotilla because of fears that it was carrying weaponry and other highly dangerous cargo into the Hamas-controlled Strip, were attacked with knives and bars and sharpened metal implements.
Benayahu said two pistols that had been fired were subsequently found aboard the one ship, the Marmara, on which the violence erupted. And, most dramatically, he said that one IDF soldier had his weapon snatched away by one of the ‘peace activists’ on board, that this weapon was then turned against the IDF soldiers, who came under fire, and that they had no choice but to shoot back in self-defense.
… What seems urgent now is to make publicly available footage that shows exactly what did unfold. In early afternoon, video footage screened on Israel’s Channel 2 appeared to show one of those aboard the Marmara stabbing an IDF soldier. Any such footage should have been made available hours earlier. Critically, if footage showing a soldier’s weapon being snatched and turned on the IDF troops exists, it should be broadcast, and the sooner the better.
Some of this footage is now available on the web but much of it is hard to follow: as ever, the Israelis have been far too slow in making the most telling images and information available in comprehensible form (including in English rather than in Hebrew, for heaven’s sake!).
This clip appears to show masked and armed flotilla activists beating Israeli soldiers (although here is the BBC report accompanying that footage, in which the voiceover appears to be claiming, perversely, that the people in masks were Israeli soldiers. That said, the report on Radio Four’s World at One was fair and balanced).
This clip shows an Israeli soldier being stabbed. This IDF clip and this one show attacks on the commandoes including throwing one off the deck, attacking others with a metal pole and a firebomb and an attempted kidnap of another.
It is also becoming clearer as the day wears on that, far from storming the boats in order to attack those on board, the Israelis were hopelessly ill-prepared for the violence they encountered. Israel’s Channel 10 and IDF radio have reported that the Israeli naval commandos were equipped with paint ball rifles to ensure minimum casualties among the flotilla terrorists, with their hand guns to be used only as a last resort.
The terrorists tried connecting the steel cables from the overhead helicopters to the boat’s antenna, in order to cause the helicopters to crash. Only when the terrorists beat the soldiers with iron rods, stabbed them with knives and tried to lynch them did the soldiers respond. The Israeli commandoes were pushed down stairs, thrown overboard, and shot at.
Here is a report by an Israel army radio reporter on board:
‘The activists had many things ready for an attack on the soldiers,’ Lev-Rom said, ‘including, for instance, a box of 20-30 slingshots with metal balls; these can kill. There were also all sorts of knives and many similar things. These are what they call “cold” weapons, as opposed to live fire. It was quite clear that a lynch had been prepared.’
Lev-Rom said, however, that it appears the army, ‘even though it prepared for many different scenarios, was not ready for this one. The army seems not to have known what type of people were there and what type of weapons they had. It was hard for Israel to conceive that the ship, sponsored by the country of Turkey, would have such weapons. Israel was prepared to deal with anarchists, and instead had to deal with terrorists – that’s the feeling here.’
Here** is an even more vivid account showing how unprepared the Israeli soldiers were:
Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.
However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.
One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other ‘don’t shoot, don’t shoot,’ even though they sustained numerous blows.
The Navy commandoes were prepared to mostly encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, rather than trained street fighters. The soldiers were told they were to verbally convince activists who offer resistance to give up, and only then use paintballs. They were permitted to use their handguns only under extreme circumstances.
The planned rush towards the vessel’s bridge became impossible, even when a second chopper was brought in with another crew of soldiers. ‘Throw stun grenades,’ shouted Flotilla 13’s commander who monitored the operation. The Navy chief was not too far, on board a speedboat belonging to Flotilla 13, along with forces who attempted to climb into the back of the ship.
The forces hurled stun grenades, yet the rioters on the top deck, whose number swelled up to 30 by that time, kept on beating up about 30 commandoes who kept gliding their way one by one from the helicopter. At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness.
Only after this injury did Flotilla 13 troops ask for permission to use live fire. The commander approved it: You can go ahead and fire. The soldiers pulled out their handguns and started shooting at the rioters’ legs, a move that ultimately neutralized them. Meanwhile, the rioters started to fire back at the commandoes.
It is becoming ever more clear that Islamist terror attacks like this are fiendishly staged theatrical events in which the western media – and beyond them, western governments — play an absolutely essential role in the drama.
If those media and governments refused to swallow the lies and instead called operations like this and the players behind it for what they actually are, such terrorist operations would not happen. The Islamist strategy of war against Israel is carefully calibrated to deploy the most effective weapon in its armoury in the cause of jihadi violence – the western media.
Right on cue, western governments accordingly deliver their own script in condemning the victims of terror for defending themselves. And so, courtesy of the west’s fifth columnists, yet another nail is driven into the west’s own coffin.
Let’s see whether this time the western elites show any signs of waking from their lethal trance.
Update: I am told that the Jewish Chronicle website was taken down earlier (now restored) by a massive denial of service, apparently to shut down its balanced coverage of the Ashdod flotilla incident. The JC’s teccies, and the server hosts, say this hasn’t been caused by just one or tw908o people — it’s clearly now co-ordinated and growing.
**Update 2: The journalist who wrote this account, Ron Ben-Yishai, cannot be accused of being an Israel government stooge: it was Ben-Yishai who in 1982 was first into the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila in Beirut and blew the whistle on the massacre there that had been perpetrated by the Phalangists while Ariel Sharon looked the other way.
So, it’s finally started. The trial in which Dutch MP Geert Wilders stands accused of, well, criticising Islam. Of course, it’s being worded differently. Wilders is charged with ‘inciting hatred and discrimination toward Islam.’ If he’s found ‘guilty’, he could very well end up in prison.
Meanwhile, those extremist Muslims who constantly express hatred of all things non Islamic are at liberty to preach hatred and the Joys Of Jihad across Europe, including in the Netherlands where Wilders is now fighting to remain a free man.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: all religions are ideologies. They are thus open to critique and yes, condemnation. As long as those who wish to follow said religions are not prohibited from doing so, nor attacked for doing so, there is nothing wrong with openly criticising any faith.
Here are Wilders’ opening remarks:
” Mister Speaker, judges of the court, I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.
Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.
I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.
I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.
I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people.
I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom. Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment.
Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few?
The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country. Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear: It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom.
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.
In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court. This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true?
If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam.
I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial. “
Is freedom of speech absolute? Here’s a candid answer: not for readers of my blog. I’ve been pondering ‘freedom of speech’ because I stand accused of ‘blocking opinions differing from your own’. My accuser? A regular poster on Jew With A View that I’ve now had to, reluctantly, bar from posting full stop. Nor do I claim to be ‘right’ in all I say. Indeed, if I make factual errors, I hope someone will correct me and I am most grateful when they do! Hell, I’m appreciative when anyone takes the time to post a comment, and I hope regulars especially, know this Let’s call the person I’ve banned Reader X. He knows who he is. He’s posted many long comments on this blog and that was fine, though I passionately disagree with him. But as he seems a reasonably decent soul, and as he’s taken the trouble to express his views, I’ve welcomed his thoughts. But here’s the thing. Everyone has the right to their own opinions. But nobody has the right to their own facts. That’s where a line exists, and it can’t be crossed if one still wants any form of rational discourse. The discrepancy between these two was illustrated vividly back in 2007 when Oxford University decided to allow known Holocaust Denier David Irving, and his fellow weasel BNP head Nick Griffin, to speak at the Union debate. The move was publicly condemned by Jewish and Muslim students alike, along with anti facism activists and numerous politicians – several of whom cancelled membership of the Oxford Union as a result. But Oxford Union was unrepentant. These two racist twits had, it declared, the right to ‘freedom of speech’. If Irving and Griffin wish to go around peddling their mad and subjective belief that six million Jews did not perish, that is their right to do so – within the confines of their homes and in hushed conversations with their fellow neo Nazis. But once they start publicly twisting and misrepresenting objective facts in their bid to deny history, then no. A thousand times, no. They don’t have any unconditional, inalienable ‘right’ to do that. Nor did Oxford Union have any ‘duty’ to help them. I have the right to declare a disbelief in gravity. Does Oxford Union have any obligation to provide a platform for me to unveil my copious notes and ideas in ‘support’ of this idea…? No, of course not – and nor would Oxford dream of doing so! Yet when it suits, countless individuals and institutions play the ‘freedom of speech’ card in order to promote all manner of absurd, irrational and sometimes dangerous beliefs. Which brings us to Reader X. He has repeatedly stated: ‘I insist that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation’. Nor do I accept that Reader X has any ‘right’ to use my blog to condone bigotry. Last week I posted a story about how a top Obama aide cheerfully shared a platform with a man who then claimed that Hurricane Katrina was G-d’s ‘punishment’ towards Gay people, and that Jews are seeking to ‘control the world’. Most sane people recognise this bigotry towards Gays and Jews for what it is: appalling. Likewise, they understand that it is not OK for a top Obama aide to share a platform with and thus legitimise someone expressing such spite. But what did Reader X think? ‘It’s good that Obama is prepared to talk to lots of people.’ Er, right… In particular, Reader X has condemned my apparent unwillingness to allow dissenting opinions on Israel. So let’s clarify. If someone wants to criticise Israeli policies, they are free to do so. If someone wants to post condemnation of specific decisions made by Israel or particular Israeli politicians, they are free to do this too. If their posts are based on facts and – this is key – an accurate understanding of the situation. But when someone makes it clear that they don’t even know the term ‘palestinian’ always referred to Palestinian Jews, and when they then try and ‘prove’ their case by anecdotal evidence, and when all they do is regurgitate weary old Arab propaganda that has been disproven time and again – then no, I don’t have any obligation to publish this person’s misconceptions. And finally, Reader X, I reserve the right to reject your blatant hypocrisy. For example, you have often stated that you trust the UN. Thus if the UN condemns Israel for something, it is ‘good enough‘ for you – note, I’m using your own words here. Yet at the same time, you ignore that the UN also stated in a resolution that Hezbollah should have disarmed. But you don’t care what the UN says about this. Indeed, only recently you tried to submit a post claiming that Hezbollah has nothing to do with terrorism! Finally, and most egregiously, Reader X, you showed how little value you attache to Jewish life, any Jewish life, by your response to the recent update on murdered and tortured French Jew Ilan Halimi. Responding to this post, what did you say? You spoke of Palestinians in prison in Israel – and did not say a single word about the way that this young French man was abducted, tortured, set alight and killed by French Muslims. Muslims who admitted to being obsessed with killing Jews and who actually phoned the victim’s parents and quoted to them from the Quran. Now of course, you’re not obliged to respond to the Ilan Halimi post at all. But to submit a response to it that totally ignores his death? That is in poor taste and again, just reveals your hypocrisy. You care so much for Palestinian Arabs – yet don’t give a damn when Jewish blood is spilled. And if at any time you decide to adopt a fairer approach, then you are most welcome to post here again. But, until and unless that time arrives, you’ll have to take your right to condone terrorism and bigotry and exercise it on other blogs - ’cause you ‘aint doing it on this one!
I make no apologies for this stance. Only one person has total free speech in this particular arena – and that’s me!
Is freedom of speech absolute?
Here’s a candid answer: not for readers of my blog.
I’ve been pondering ‘freedom of speech’ because I stand accused of ‘blocking opinions differing from your own’. My accuser? A regular poster on Jew With A View that I’ve now had to, reluctantly, bar from posting full stop.
Nor do I claim to be ‘right’ in all I say. Indeed, if I make factual errors, I hope someone will correct me and I am most grateful when they do! Hell, I’m appreciative when anyone takes the time to post a comment, and I hope regulars especially, know this
Let’s call the person I’ve banned Reader X. He knows who he is. He’s posted many long comments on this blog and that was fine, though I passionately disagree with him. But as he seems a reasonably decent soul, and as he’s taken the trouble to express his views, I’ve welcomed his thoughts.
But here’s the thing. Everyone has the right to their own opinions. But nobody has the right to their own facts. That’s where a line exists, and it can’t be crossed if one still wants any form of rational discourse.
The discrepancy between these two was illustrated vividly back in 2007 when Oxford University decided to allow known Holocaust Denier David Irving, and his fellow weasel BNP head Nick Griffin, to speak at the Union debate.
The move was publicly condemned by Jewish and Muslim students alike, along with anti facism activists and numerous politicians – several of whom cancelled membership of the Oxford Union as a result.
But Oxford Union was unrepentant. These two racist twits had, it declared, the right to ‘freedom of speech’.
If Irving and Griffin wish to go around peddling their mad and subjective belief that six million Jews did not perish, that is their right to do so – within the confines of their homes and in hushed conversations with their fellow neo Nazis.
But once they start publicly twisting and misrepresenting objective facts in their bid to deny history, then no. A thousand times, no. They don’t have any unconditional, inalienable ‘right’ to do that. Nor did Oxford Union have any ‘duty’ to help them.
I have the right to declare a disbelief in gravity. Does Oxford Union have any obligation to provide a platform for me to unveil my copious notes and ideas in ‘support’ of this idea…?
No, of course not – and nor would Oxford dream of doing so! Yet when it suits, countless individuals and institutions play the ‘freedom of speech’ card in order to promote all manner of absurd, irrational and sometimes dangerous beliefs.
Which brings us to Reader X. He has repeatedly stated: ‘I insist that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation’.
Nor do I accept that Reader X has any ‘right’ to use my blog to condone bigotry.
Last week I posted a story about how a top Obama aide cheerfully shared a platform with a man who then claimed that Hurricane Katrina was G-d’s ‘punishment’ towards Gay people, and that Jews are seeking to ‘control the world’.
Most sane people recognise this bigotry towards Gays and Jews for what it is: appalling. Likewise, they understand that it is not OK for a top Obama aide to share a platform with and thus legitimise someone expressing such spite.
But what did Reader X think? ‘It’s good that Obama is prepared to talk to lots of people.’
In particular, Reader X has condemned my apparent unwillingness to allow dissenting opinions on Israel. So let’s clarify.
If someone wants to criticise Israeli policies, they are free to do so. If someone wants to post condemnation of specific decisions made by Israel or particular Israeli politicians, they are free to do this too. If their posts are based on facts and – this is key – an accurate understanding of the situation.
But when someone makes it clear that they don’t even know the term ‘palestinian’ always referred to Palestinian Jews, and when they then try and ‘prove’ their case by anecdotal evidence, and when all they do is regurgitate weary old Arab propaganda that has been disproven time and again – then no, I don’t have any obligation to publish this person’s misconceptions.
And finally, Reader X, I reserve the right to reject your blatant hypocrisy. For example, you have often stated that you trust the UN. Thus if the UN condemns Israel for something, it is ‘good enough‘ for you – note, I’m using your own words here.
Yet at the same time, you ignore that the UN also stated in a resolution that Hezbollah should have disarmed. But you don’t care what the UN says about this. Indeed, only recently you tried to submit a post claiming that Hezbollah has nothing to do with terrorism!
Finally, and most egregiously, Reader X, you showed how little value you attache to Jewish life, any Jewish life, by your response to the recent update on murdered and tortured French Jew Ilan Halimi.
Responding to this post, what did you say? You spoke of Palestinians in prison in Israel – and did not say a single word about the way that this young French man was abducted, tortured, set alight and killed by French Muslims. Muslims who admitted to being obsessed with killing Jews and who actually phoned the victim’s parents and quoted to them from the Quran.
Now of course, you’re not obliged to respond to the Ilan Halimi post at all. But to submit a response to it that totally ignores his death? That is in poor taste and again, just reveals your hypocrisy. You care so much for Palestinian Arabs – yet don’t give a damn when Jewish blood is spilled.
And if at any time you decide to adopt a fairer approach, then you are most welcome to post here again.
But, until and unless that time arrives, you’ll have to take your right to condone terrorism and bigotry and exercise it on other blogs - ’cause you ‘aint doing it on this one!
.(hat tip Elder Of Ziyon)
When Reuters decided it needed a picture of Palestinian children behind prison bars, what did it do? It used this photograph:
And the caption reads: Palestinian children stand at a gate to the Rafah border crossing in the southern Gaza Strip during a protest against the Israeli blockade July 13, 2009.
So what’s the problem with it…?
The superb Elder Of Ziyon blog explains:
But which bars to choose? Well, obviously, the most photogenic ones. I know – the Egyptians have some nice blue ones! Let’s go there, to the big gate that stops us from going to Egypt and stops Egyptian goods from being imported to Gaza – and tell the world that we are protesting the Israeli blockade!
This is not an isolated example. Rather, it is typical of the inaccuracy and yes, downright deception which characterises reporting on Israel. If pressed, no doubt Reuters will feign surprise and claim ignorance over the fact that their report blames Israel for something Egypt is doing. Who do they think they are kidding?
This is not just bad journalism.
This is immoral.
My, how easily the world condones the notion of this new, racist Palestinian state as championed by Obama.
The plan supported by his administration will lead to a new Palestinian Arab nation – in which Jews and maybe also Christians are banned from living.
At the same time, of course, Israel is being told she must kick out Jews in Judea and Samaria, to make way for this new, ‘Judenfrei’ Palestinian Arab state.
The world either doesn’t care, or doesn’t recall, that 80% of what was Palestine is already taken up by Jordan – which is already Judenfrei, as no Jews are permitted to live there.
Has anyone, ever, read any pieces in the international press condemning Jordan for this racism…?
I know I haven’t.
Thus while the world yells in rage the second Israel lifts a finger to respond to Palestinian terrorism, Israel is held to a far higher standard than either Jordan, or any Muslim country, or the new Palestinian state which is being carved out of Israel by the Arabs and Obama.
In other words, land is being taken from Jews, to form part of a Palestinian Arab, Judenfrei state.
And the world nods and smiles and mutters ‘about time’ as it sits back and watches this happen.
So when a few of my regular readers and even blogger friends chastise me for claiming that Obama is less than fair to Israel, well, they can chastise all they want.
What – am I as a Jew now meant to praise an American leader who seeks to turn the only middle eastern democracy into the size of a postage stamp?
Am I expected to cheer the idea of a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel that will serve as a base for yet more terrorism?
The world is, again, either forgetting or ignoring what happened when Israel left Gaza. Israel gave the Palestinian Arabs what they were demanding – and what happened? Increased terrorism.
A new Palestinian Arab state beside Israel will just be Gaza redux. So excuse me if I’m not throwing a party and cracking open the champagne at the prospect.
And just to illustrate how Palestinian Arabs truly feel on these issues, here’s a fascinating glimpse into their hopes for this new state, courtesy of Arutz Sheva:
A survey conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development among 1,200 Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, found that many felt Jerusalem should not be shared with Jews and Christians.
When asked to what extent they agreed with a statement made by Barack Obama that Jerusalem should be “a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims,” less than 17% said they agree, while 20 percent said they “somewhat agree.” More than 42 percent said they disagree with the statement, while 17 percent “somewhat disagree.”
More than 45 percent of those surveyed disagreed with a second statement of Obama’s in which the president called on the Arab world to reject violence and killing as a means of struggle.
Twenty-two percent did not give an answer, while the remainder said they “agree” or “somewhat agree” with the statement.
Roughly 300,000 Jews reside in Judea and Samaria, and approximately 250,000 more live in Jerusalem neighborhoods now being demanded by the Palestinian Authority.
The PA demands that any future Arab state in Judea and Samaria be rid of the current Jewish minority.
Jews are currently allowed full access only to the latter site, while the Tomb of the Patriarchs is split into Jewish and Muslim sections, and Jews are allowed to visit Joseph’s Tomb only intermittently.
I think we can all envisage the rage and the threats 0f violence if Muslims were not allowed total access to their holy sites! Yet many of them would ideally ban Jews and Christians from Jerusalem. Talk about rank hypocrisy.
Jerusalem was holy to Jews and Christians before Islam even existed.
So to those who complain when Jews dare to use words like ‘Judenfrei’ and ‘Judenrein’ in connection with Obama’s plans for a new Palestinian Arab state, I say: tough.
It’s the ugly policy that you should be protesting – not the accurate words Jews use to describe it.
The excellent Elder Of Ziyon blog offers this information about Jordan’s bans on both Jews and Israelis:
In 1933, a number of prominent Arabs in Transjordan asked Great Britain to allow Jews to settle there, to help its ailing economy, and Zionists were enthusiastic about the idea. But since the British saw the riots that were happening in Palestine at the time they didn’t want to worry about more problems of that type, so they created a law banning Jews from living there.
This policy was ratified — after the emirate became a kingdom — by Jordan’s law no. 6, sect. 3, on April 3, 1954, and reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, on April 1, 1963.
It states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan unless he is a Jew. King Hussein made peace with Israel in 1994, but the Judenrein legislation remains valid today.
So, yes, Jordan really has a law banning Jews – not Zionists, but Jews – from becoming citizens. And the original source of this law was none other than Great Britain.
Here’s the law: (h/t british18)
The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:
(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;
(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;
(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;
(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;
(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;
(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.
But what if a Jew wants to become a naturalized citizen? Well…
Any Arab who has resided continuously in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for not less than 15 years may acquire Jordanian nationality, by decision of the Council of Ministers taken on a proposal by the Minister of Internal Affairs, if he renounces his nationality of origin and the law of his country permits him to do so..
‘Judenfrei‘ and ‘Judenrein’
Nazi terms used to designate an area free of Jewish presence. The words bear slightly different connotations; while Judenfrei merely refers to “freeing” an area of all of its Jewish citizens, Judenrein (literally “clean of Jews”) demands that any trace of Jewish blood be removed as an impurity.
Some of the locations declared Judenfrei
Establishments, villages, cities, and regions were declared Judenfrei after they were ethnically cleansed of Jews.
- Gelnhausen, Germany – reported Judenfrei on November 1, 1938 by propaganda newspaper Kinzigwacht after its synagogue was closed and remaining local Jews forced to leave the town.
- German-occupied Luxembourg – reported Judenfrei by the press on October 17, 1941.
- German-occupied Estonia – December, 1941 . Reported as Judenfrei at Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942
- German-occupied Belgrade, Serbia – August, 1942
- Vienna – reported Judenfrei by Alois Brunner on October 9, 1942
- Berlin, Germany – July 16, 1943
Check out also ‘Jordan’s Identity Crisis’ over at Elder Of Ziyon:
Ah yes – yet another example of Muslim ‘respect’ for their Christian neighbours. This is a disturbing account of how two young Christian boys have been beheaded in Somalia – for refusing to rat out a Church leader. And now apparently those ‘peaceful’ Muslims are searching for the boys’ father, to deliver the same fate.
The boys’ father, Musa Mohammed Yusuf, lead an underground Church in Yonday village, Somalia. He had been taught about the Christian faith by Salat Mberwa.
Then, in February, terrorists from the Islamic group al Shabaab arrived in Yonday, made for Yusuf’s home, and interrogated him about his friendship with Mberwa. Mberwa is a leader of a small Somali Christian fellowship. Meetings are held at his house.
Yusuf told his interrogators that he knew nothing of Mberwa and had no connection with him. The Islamic extremists left but threatened to return the next day.
“Immediately when they left, I decided to flee my house for Kismayo, for I knew for sure they were determined to come back,” Yusuf said.
At noon the next day, as his wife was making lunch for their children in Yonday, the al Shabaab militants showed up. Batula Ali Arbow, Yusuf’s wife, recalled that their youngest son, Innocent, told the group that their father had left the house the previous day.
The Islamic extremists ordered her to stop what she was doing and took hold of three of her sons – 11 year-old Abdi Rahaman Musa Yusuf, 12 -year-old Hussein Musa Yusuf and Abdulahi Musa Yusuf, aged 7.
Several neighbors beseeched the militants not to harm the three boys, tragically to no avail.
“I watched my three boys dragged away helplessly as my youngest boy was crying. I knew they were going to be slaughtered. Just after some few minutes I heard a wailing cry from Abdulahi running towards the house. I could not hold my breath. I only woke up with all my clothes wet. I knew I had fainted due to the shock.”
The following day, Arbow buried the bodies of her two sons.
In Kismayo, Yusuf received the news that two of his sons had been killed and that the Islamic militants were looking for him, and he fled on foot for Mberwa’s home. It took him a month and three days to reach him, and the Christian fellowship there raised travel funds for him to reach a refugee camp in Kenya.
Later that month his family met up with him at the refugee camp.When the family fled Somalia, they were forced to leave their 80-year-old grandmother behind and her whereabouts are unknown. Since arriving at the Kenyan refugee camp, the family still has no shelter, though fellow Christians are erecting one for them. Yusuf’s family lives each day without shoes, a mattress or shelter.
But Arbow said she has no wish to return.
“I do not want to go back to Somalia – I don’t want to see the graves of my children,” she said amid sobs.
Meanwhile, Western intelligence agencies say that al Shabaab is merely a proxy for Al Queda. Christians in Somalia are suffering terribly and those in refugee camps are desperate.
“We have nowhere to run to,” Mberwa told Compass. “The al Shabaab are on our heads, while our Muslim brothers are also discriminating against us. Indeed even here in the refugee camp we are not safe. We need a safe haven elsewhere.”
Al-Shabaab has been waging a bloody war against the fragile government of Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. In a show of power in the capital city of Mogadishu, last week Islamic insurgents sentenced four young men each to amputation of a hand and a foot as punishment for robbery.
After mosques announced when the amputations would take place, the extremists carried them out by machete in front of about 300 people on Thursday (June 25) at a military camp. It was the first such double amputation in Mogadishu by the Islamists, who follow strict Sharia Law (Islamic law) in the parts of south Somalia that they control.
Al Shabaab militants are battling Ahmed’s government for control of Mogadishu while fighting government-allied, moderate Islamist militia in the provinces. In the last 18 years of violence in Somalia, a two-and-a-half year Islamist insurgency has killed more than 18,000 civilians, uprooted 1 million people, allowed piracy to flourish offshore, and spread security fears round the region.
Hmmm…. odd. Where is the outcry from the international media, denouncing these Muslims terrorists as ‘Nazis’…? Oops! Silly me! That’s reserved for Israelis seeking to defend their civilians against Islamic terrorist group Hamas.
And when you read about the atrocities in Somalia, and elsewhere, that result from Sharia Law, remember: this is the religious system that Barack Obama praised and paid tribute to in Cairo. Clearly Obama doesn’t intend to ‘meddle’ on behalf of Christians in Somalia. No, he’s far too busy ordering Israelis not to have any more children if they live in Judea and Samaria.
And this upsetting tale from Somalia is not an isolated atrocity. Christians in Muslim countries around the world are suffering and are in need of support and help.
All of which begs the question: why isn’t Obama – himself a Christian – doing more to help his co-religionists…? Why is he instead busy sending increased aid to Muslim countries and banging his head against a brick wall in his continued bid to make Iran his New Best Friend…?
Original story at Compass Direct News
(hat tip EMET NEWS )
So now we’re told by George Mitchell, Middle East envoy to Obama, that America will be ‘closely monitoring’ Israeli birth statistics… So much for Obama ‘not meddling’ in what other nations do.
Mitchell has apparently suggested that Jewish births in Judea and Samaria would be violations of Obama’s prohibition on ‘natural growth’. Let’s translate, shall we? If any Jewish parents dare to have more Jewish children in Judea and Samaria, Obama will be angry.
Since when is it acceptable for America to mandate how many children parents living in a sovereign nation can have…?
And why isn’t Obama cracking down on the truly illegal Palestinian Arab settlements in east Jerusalem…? You know – the ones built on land purchased fairly and owned legally by Israelis…?
I think the obscenely unfair nature of Obama’s stance on Israel is best summed up thus:
“Something must be wrong with a man who is far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran“ — Bert Perlutsky.
Eighty-five Sharia Courts are issuing private rulings that contradict British law, claims a new report. Independent think tank Civitas has issued this warning with regard to the Muslim courts that rule on things including child custody, polygamy and marriage.
Given that under Islamic laws, women have few rights, there is rising concern about these Sharia Courts. They meet behind closed doors and apparently don’t maintain any form of records.
Sharia courts have existed in Britain since 2007, primarily in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. The courts’ rulings are legally binding under the 1996 Arbitration Act, on condition that both parties are happy touse them, and as long as their decisions do not contradict British law.
But the Arbitration Act specifically excludes rulings on divorce and child-care cases. Now Civitas notes that many Sharia courts are exceeding the original mandate.
“Some of these courts are advising illegal actions,” said the report’s author, Denis MacEoin, a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic studies. “And others transgress human rights standards.”
Last year, the House Of Lords ruled in one case that Sharia law ‘is wholly incompatible’ with human rights legislation.
In this case, British law prevented the deportation of a woman whose child would have been removed and placed with an abusive father under sharia law in Lebanon.
As he could not gain access to the actual Sharia courts, MacEoin has had to examine online fatwas ( religious decrees) issued by websites run by British mosques. He says:
Among the rulings … we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.
Here are some examples: A Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman’s children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man.
Also, polygamous marriage ( two to four wives) is considered legal … a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce … sharia law must override the judgments of British courts …
…taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law … a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia …
a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden … a woman may not retain custody of her child after 7 (for a boy) or 9 (for a girl) …
fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty ….”
Neil Addison, an expert on the law as it applies to religion, says:
“About two thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal. A woman in this type of marriage would have to submit to sharia law for a divorce proceeding. But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”
Some people argue that Sharia courts are the same as the Jewish Rabbinical courts, the Beth Din.
But Addison begs to differ:
“The beth din acknowledge that ‘the law of the land is the law,’ and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law.”
Several newspapers have carried stories of how, for instance, Sharia courts have arranged for fees of up to ten thousand pounds to go to youths attacked by Muslims, to avoid any legal action on the part of the victim.
Now, I ask you: can you imagine the reaction if either Jews, or Christians or indeed any other religious group behaved in this manner?
Christians would be lambasted in the media if they ever sought to buy victims’ silence. Similarly, we all can envisage the slurs that would fly if the Jewish Rabbinical courts went around bribing people to avoid the courts!
But when it is the Muslim community doing it, well, that’s just fine, apparently.
It seems to me – and indeed to most sane people, I’m guessing – that the issue is a clear one. If a person – of any faith – wishes to live in Britain, they must abide by British law. It’s not complicated. It really isn’t.
Thus Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab or the burkha – in Muslim countries.
And if Muslim families wish to buy the silence of victims of their relatives’ aggression, then again – fine, in Muslim countries.
But here, in Britain, we already have an albeit flawed legal system and all people should be equal under the law. After all, isn’t this premise at the heart of democracy…?
Here is the latest from Iran, from Muslims Against Sharia:
I’m NiteOwl AKA Josh Shahryar – twitter.com/iran_translator on twitter – and I’ve been immersed in tweets from Iran for the past several hours. I have tried to be extremely careful in choosing my tweet sources. What I have compiled below is what I can confirm through my reliable twitter sources. Remember, this is all from tweets. No news media outlets have been used. (All my work is released under Creative Commons (CC). You can freely use it and repost it wherever you’d like to. Just provide a link to the original source at the bottom.)
These are the important happenings that I can positively confirm from Friday, June 26 in Iran.
1. No large rallies or prsotests were held today. There were unconfirmed reports of small gatherings in isolated areas of the city, but for the most part, Tehran didn’t seem to witness the same as it has been for the past two weeks. Sources indicated that it was in no way a sign of giving up, but rather a brief interval in more protests that are to come. They added that currently, the Sea of Green is organizing and regrouping as well as coming up with new ways to defy the authorities and also know of the fate of their leaders in order to progress.
2. At 1 PM, however, a large number of people in Tehran took to roofs and released green balloons to show solidarity with the Sea of Green and to commemorate protesters who’ve died so far.
(Link showing the balloons:
3. Khamenei was supposed to lead Friday prayers in Tehran and give a speech; however, he was a no show. Ayatollah Sayyid Ahmad Khatami a hard-line cleric and a member of the Assembly of Experts who has strong ties with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad lead the prayers in his stead. He claimed that the protesters were acting against Allah, branded them ‘rioters’ and called for their suppression through any means possible. He also added that the government will not bend against pressure and that Neda was killed by protesters. This is backtrack from the government’s earlier statements that Neda had been ordered to be killed by a BBC correspondent.
4. Reports indicate that the reason why Khamenei did not attend the prayers was Ayatollah Montazeri’s statements yesterday that denounced the government’s suppression of the protesters’ ‘legitimate demands’. This, according to sources, creates a divide between the powerful clergy which has pressured Khamenei just enough to stop him from giving out another speech of the caliber he gave last week. 4. Whether Montazeri’s current stance will develop into something of a bigger boost to protesters remains to be seen.
5. (For those who don’t know, Montazeri was Khomeini’s designated successor until just a few months before Khomeini’s death; he openly criticized the Islamic regime and was sidelined in favor of Khamenei. He still wields enough considerable support among the more moderate clergy and is popular among liberal Muslims in Iran.)
6. Meanwhile, on the government’s official English News channel, Press TV, George Galloway, a British MP representing the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow, spent several hours denouncing the protests, Israel and Zionism. He called upon the world to accept Ahmadinejad’s re-election and called on the protesters to go home and accept the will of the people. He did not indicate which people he meant when he made that statement.
7. A reliable source indicated that Khomeini’s family has thrown its lot behind the protesters. Although they denied calling out for a protest tomorrow, they indicated that they were with the protesters and claimed to be supporting the protesters lawful demands and don’t consider Ahmadinejad’s government legitimate anymore. This, coupled with Montazeri’s statements and Larijani’s lethargy, is a strong indication that the clergy are divided in what to do with the protesters and that there is a considerable level of public support now for the protesters among the religious elite.
8. The spokesperson of the Guardian Council announced today that a commission had been formed to recount 10% of the ballots cast with representatives of the candidates present. The commission includes Ali Akbar Velayati, Hadad Adel, Eftekhar Jahromi, Aboutorabi Fard, Dari Najafabadi and Hossein Rahimian. He also gave candidates 24 hours to appoint representatives that would join the commission in the recount.
9. As reported before, the government is heavily charging people for the return of their dead family members’ bodies who were killed during the protests. Families are being charged thousands of dollars and are also required to sign a waiver that states they won’t sue the police and that Mousavi is the reason behind the death of their loved ones. More people were arrested today including Mohammad Mostafaie, who is a prominent lawyer and important reformist.
10. . The Iranian Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden was attacked today by angry Swedish-Iranians after a peaceful protest. It has been reported that as the protesters neared the gate, one of the guards tried to force the protesters away which enraged them and they tried to take over the Embassy. The police were forced to call for back up to control the protesters. There was also a report of a molotov bomb thrown by pro-Sea of Green protesters at the Iranian Embassy in Bern, Switzerland. It caused little damage to one of the walls.
11. The government is continuously attacking and arresting Iranians who are using twitter to get the message out to the world. Several of our sources have so far been arrested or have stopped using twitter altogether, yet the remainder have pledged to continue until the last minute. Amidst the somber mood, some emotional moments can also be seen. One Iranian tweeted: “I would rather our Iranian youth were tweeting about Michael Jackson than having 2 face this death & horror. Lets set them free to do so.”
(There is simply too much on the tweets about where Mousavi is at this point. According to last reports, he was being sternly watched by the government and his movement is restricted, but it’s an ever evolving situation.)
Read this if you want to help or get help!
The government in Iran is still increasing internet filtering and throttling in an attempt to silence their people. Anonymous info shows that many in Iran are looking for proxy and Tor information in Tehran and all around the country. Please donate your bandwidth to help bring down the Iran Curtain. Here are links on how to help and get help on this:
Farsi: Tor: ?????? Tor
Images and vids and instructions on how to send them to us:
P.S. Please post this around and tweet and retweet.
Helpers with expertise in the field of medecine, translation and such:
“Medici Cu Internet is a collaboration between piratbyran.org, HackersWithoutBorders and werebuild.eu trying to organize contacts with medical expertise online since there are problems in Iran with hospitals being monitored by the government. Join the IRC-channel at #mci-ir – WebIRC – AnonNet or send an email to us at embassy [at] piratbyran.org for more info. Medical experts, Farsi-translators and people who know the medical situation in iran are welcome to join and collaboratively set up an index with common injuries and their best treatments.”
YouTube – IRAN RIGGED ELECTIONS: Green balloons were used as a form of protest all over Iran 6/26/2009 ) At night, the people again took to the roofs and chanted “Allah o Akbar” and “Death to the Dictator”. They also burned candles and held vigils. There was confirmation of the death of one protester who was fired upon by security forces as he chanted from his rooftop. Reports of vigils also came from Mashhad.Tor and the Iranian Election – Bring down the Iran Curtain | Ian’s Brain
People Outside Iran: This is as clear and concise as I can be. I have not included ANYTHING that I have sensed to be remotely fishy, but humans always err.
People Inside Iran: Don’t believe a WORD of what I am telling you. Do what you think is best, keeping everything in mind. I know LITTLE of what you know so make your decisions based on your OWN judgment.
Next time someone tries to hoodwink you into believing that Islam ‘respects all faiths’, ask them about Mecca and Medina. Specifically, ask them why the two holiest Muslim cities are off limits to all non Muslims.
Yep, that’s right. Mecca and Medina are no go areas unless you’re a Quran-brandishing member of the ‘religion of peace’. And there are no exceptions, no apologies and certainly no concern over whether this might be a tad hypocritical.
In fact, just to make it clear to any naughty infidels who may try and sneak into Mecca, the Saudi authorities have put up these helpful signs:
Now let’s compare what happens in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. This is the holiest Jewish city. And where the second temple once stood, there now remains a solitary wall; the Kotel, or ‘Wailing Wall’, where Jews come to pray. Non Jews are also welcome there, and perfectly at liberty to visit the Kotel and pray there, should they desire.
And then there is the Al Aqsa Mosque - slapbang where the Jewish temple used to stand.
From what you read in the international media, you’d never know that Israel - being democratic to a fault - has given control of this vital area to the Muslims. So even as Muslims across the globe support, sponsor and carry out terrorism against the Jewish state, it is the Muslim Waqf, part of the Palestinian Authority, which has jurisdiction over the Temple Mount area.
And what happens when any non Muslim dares to go there…?
Ask Israeli cabinet Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch. Today he paid a visit to the Temple Mount. Result? Total hysteria and threats of violence from Palestinian Muslims. Aharonovitch spent a mere ninety minutes in the area, and was there purely to check police deployments in this volatile area of Jerusalem.
“The intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency,” Aharonovitch’s spokesman Tal Harel said. And he added: “We went everywhere. We were accompanied by the Waqf, who were fully aware of our presence, and this was planned in coordination with them well ahead of the visit.”
Nine years ago, of course, a similar visit by Ariel Sharon triggered a bloody and protracted ‘intifada’ by the Palestinians. I mean, just think about it: a Jewish Israeli has the sheer chutzpah to visit a holy Jewish area in Israel, the Jewish homeland! Whatever next?!
And these are far from being isolated events. Back in 2005, on Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day), a small Jewish group ascended the Temple Mount only to be attacked by a mob of Palestinian Muslims, who emerged from the Al Aqsa Mosque. The police had to be called, so intense was the violence directed at the Jews.
But Jerusalem was a holy place for Jews before Islam even existed, I hear the historians among you cry indignantly!
Yet here is the Palestinian-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, insisting that today’s visit by Israeli Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch was not coordinated in advance and, wait for it:
“He does not have the right to visit al-Aqsa because it is an Islamic site and not a Jewish site, and it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims. It is an assault on an Islamic place,” Hussein said.
And there, in that one line, you have it. The sheer hypocrisy of the demands made by Muslims in non Muslim nations. Let’s read it again, just to marvel at the utter arrogance involved:
‘…it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims…’
Ah yes, Muslim feelings…
The same Muslim feelings that are ‘provoked’ by cartoons and teddy bears and piggy banks and democracy and Geert Wilders and books about Mohammed and freedom for women and alcohol and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Atheists and Gays and every single thing on the planet that does not comply with Islam!
It is these Muslim feelings that Barack Obama, the great Dhimmi in the White House, is busy bending over backwards to appease.
It is these Muslim feelings that got Dutch Politician Geert Wilders banned from Britain and also have him living in fear, under 24/7 police guard.
It is these Muslim feelings that ensure women throughout the Islamic world have about the same rights as a house plant; none, in other words.
It is these Muslim feelings that enable Muslim men in Saudi Arabia to rape women with impunity; women who are then publicly flogged and imprisoned as ‘punishment’.
It is these Muslim feelings that ensured the novel ‘The Jewel Of Medina’ was dropped by two publishers, after angry Muslims threatened the first one, and then firebombed the London home of the second who took it on.
It is Muslim feelings that result in Muslim terrorists stealing the lives of innocent civilians in Israel on a regular basis.
It is Muslim feelings that in 2005 brought horror to the heart of London and left corpses buried underground on burning tube trains.
It is Muslim feelings that brought down the Twin Towers in New York and that have caused another 13,459 deaths since.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn about Muslim sensibilities any more, given that in order to keep Muslims happy, the rest of us have to sacrifice every value we hold dear.
I recommend that next time the followers of Islam start burning flags, rioting, issuing fatwas, and banging on about their feelings, we tell them where to shove’em!
Looks like here in the UK, even the prisons have turned dhimmi.
Muslim prisoners have been complaining at having to share cells. Result? Why, private cells for them of course! After all, we can’t have Muslims being unhappy now, can we?
The prison in question is Birmingham’s Winson Green Jail. Muslim prisoners have been complaining at having to pray and eat near non Muslims. What – mix with the infidels? Whatever were the prison authorities thinking of??!
This does, in fact, seem to be something of a first for Britain. Never before have inmates been segregated according to faith. From now on, Muslim prisoners here will either share cells with their fellow Muslims, or they will be given private cells.
Amazing, isn’t it? Here we are in a country where we’re told, almost daily, that our prisons are overcrowded and that this is why rapists, paedophiles and burglars are merrily skipping out of court with fines and community service orders.
Yet when Muslims demand private cells – hey presto! More space becomes available! I guess the moral of this story is: what Muslims want, Muslims get.
One can’t help surmising as to how this is going down with the other 13,800 non Muslim prisoners…
‘So far around 15 Muslim inmates have been accommodated either by being moved to a cell with another Muslim or put on their own,’ said a prison source. ‘They initially asked for their own wing but this was turned down.’
But with dhimmi Judges, what can you expect? In June 2006, a High Court judge, Mr Justice Keith, called for a new concept of ‘institutional religious intolerance’ to combat prejudice against Muslim inmates.
Apparently, the menu at this particular prison is also not up to scratch:
One prison officer said: ‘
This has caused resentment because it is felt the Muslim inmates are getting special treatment.’
About ten per cent of the 80,000-strong jail population in England and Wales is Muslim. Shall we start taking bets on how long it is until:
a) other Muslims prisoners in other jails also demand, and get, private cells?
b) a Muslim wing is created in one or more British prisons?
For years, the world has turned a deaf ear to Israel’s concerns about Iran. The Jewish nation has been urging the international community to take this issue seriously for a long time. But the reaction was one of indifference.
Now, the head of the UN’s own nuclear watchdog, has stated that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. UN sanctions against Iran have – quelle surprise! – failed. Iran remains determined to complete this project.
Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency has told the BBC:
“It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons. They want to send a message to their neighbors, to the rest of the world, ‘Don’t mess with us.’“
At present, Iran is in chaos. Resident lunatic and incumbent president, Ahmadinejad, is trying to remain in power by silencing protestors. He stands accused of rigging last week’s elections. His rival, so-called ‘moderate’ Mir Hossein Mousavi, has called for the election to be annulled and held a second time.
Hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters have been protesting across the country, and have clashed with Basij militia forces loyal to Ahmadinejad. Reports suggest that numerous protesters have been injured and that at least twelve have been shot dead.
Local sources insist the numbers are far higher.
But let’s face it: no matter which of these two ends up in power, Iran’s nuclear ambition will not change.
And even the Great Dhimmi himself, Barack Obama, has noted that Iran will remain a threat no matter who is the acting president:
“It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” he said.
Obama added that “either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and has been pursuing nuclear weapons.”
Israeli researcher Brandon Friedman in an interview with Israel National News, said: “ The election of Iran’s president was not relevant to the issue of the nuclear threat to Israel.“
And he pointed out: “Iranian foreign policy is under the control of Khameni. The question Israel should be asking is, what is the danger level of the office of the Supreme Leader with respect to Israel, as opposed to the presidency. I think foreign affairs begin and end with the Supreme Leader, so that’s the question we should be asking ourselves.
The primary difference for Israel, as well as the rest of the world has to do with perception and the face that Iran will be presenting to the world. Clearly Israel has a good idea what sort of face Ahmadinejad presents to the world. With Mousavi it is harder to know what sort of face he would have presented if he had won.“
Friedman agreed with an assessment by Israeli international Mossad intelligence agency head Meir Dagan that the unrest was likely to end shortly, but said that he, too, had been taken aback at the upheaval in Iran.