Category Archives: Dhimmis
Is it any wonder that so many people dislike Israel, when they are bombarded with false information about the Jewish state?
The story below, courtesy of Honest Reporting Canada, is a prime example of the strange…let’s call it carelessness which seems to permeate so much of the new coverage about Israel.
More often than not, the errors and lies are allowed to stand – below is a rare instance of one such ‘mistake’ being corrected:
CBC National Corrects Gaza Infant Mortality Rate Error
June 16, 2010
By: Mike Fegelman, Executive Director
Dear HonestReporting Canada Subscriber,
Did CBC falsely imply that Israel was responsible for the death of Gaza babies?
Respected Mideast professor and director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) asked this very question regarding a June 1 CBC National report which saw Chief Correspondent, Peter Mansbridge, erroneously refer to the Gaza Strip as having “an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world.”
Writing on his blog “Rubin Reports,” Professor Rubin expounded on this misstatement:
“Here’s an example of the insanity and profound anti-Israel bias currently gripping mass media.
On June 1, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) anchorman Peter Mansbridge stated that the Gaza Strip “has one of the world’s highest infant mortality rates” The obvious implication: it is Israel’s fault because of its sanctions.
In fact, the Gaza Strip has a lower infant mortality rate than Turkey, which has been a modern republic with full independence for about 80 years, and Iran, which enjoys the “benefits” of the kind of Islamist government which Hamas and the current Turkish government applaud.
According to the CIA World Factbook, regarded as a definitive source, the Infant Mortality Rate in the Gaza Strip is 17.71 deaths per 1000 births, about the same as Mexico and below that of Brazil, Romania, and many other countries. In neighboring Egypt, the number is 26.2, in Turkey, 24.8, and Iran, 34.7.
The kind of coverage given to living standards in the Gaza Strip seems an example of what sometimes seems a principle of Western journalism: Third World suffering is only of interest if it can be blamed on the West. Third World suffering is the world’s lead news story only if it can be blamed on Israel.”
HonestReporting Canada (HRC) communicated our concerns to senior editors at the CBC requesting that a review be conducted and that an on-air correction be issued promptly to remedy this error.
In a written response that was sent to HRC by the CBC, a senior editor said that the mistake was more than just problematic: “In an effort to give viewers a clearer picture of the Gaza Strip, the introduction to the report that night from Washington included statistics about Gaza’s area, population, unemployment and infant mortality rates. However, in one instance, we inadvertently included inaccurate information. In fact – and as Mr. Rubin pointed out – according to the CIA World Factbook, a highly regarded source for such information, Gaza is about half way in a ranking of over 200 countries or regions, (109 out of 224) with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 per thousand live births, a little over four times Israel’s. We regret the error. The Friday night (June 11) editions of The National included an on-air note offering viewers correct information.”
Ms. Hiscox stated the following: “Earlier this month we reported the Gaza Strip has an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world, but according to the CIA World Factbook, Gaza ranks 109 out of 224 regions in the world, with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 deaths per thousand live births.”
While we appreciate and commend the fact that the CBC was quick to investigate this matter and to take the appropriate action in correcting this mistake, with that said, there was no indication given about how this error had occurred and how it had gotten past the trained eyes of the CBC’s most veteran editors. Many questions still remain unanswered such as: What was the source of this original erroneous information? It certainly wasn’t the CIA World Factbook, was it Amnesty International’s (AI) error, as this CBC report attributed various statistics as being derived from AI?
Was this just gross incompetence or intentional subterfuge? And finally, since when did the Palestinians achieve statehood? Why is it that this CBC report included a graphic which referred to the West Bank and Gaza as “Palestine” instead of the Palestinian territories?
We trust that this intervention will serve as a teachable moment for the CBC’s reporters and editors who are keenly aware that their Mideast reporting is being vigilantly watched and scrutinized.
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: email@example.com and to Apple’s Steve Jobbs through filling out the customer feedback form by clicking here.
Let’s be crystal clear on this: what happened was not a conflict between ‘innocent aid workers’ and Israeli soldiers. It was between armed, violent, gagging-to-fight Hamas supporters and the Israeli army.
Here, posted by the always vigilant Elder Of Ziyon, is footage of one of these ‘aid workers’ STABBING an Israeli:
David Miliband must have enjoyed himself today. For finally, Britain’s Foreign Secretary got to announce an arms embargo on Israel. Never mind that Britain itself sent soldiers thundering into two foreign countries. The embargo might only have been declared today, but ever since Israel retaliated against Hamas at the end of last year, Britain has been waiting eagerly for this day to arrive.
Indeed, during Operation Cast Lead, nowhere was condemnation of Israel louder than in Britain. It’s a matter of public record that Muslims across the country bombarded their MPs with demands for Britain to sever all ties with the Jewish nation. Three British politicians, including Louise Ellman, received death threats purely because they had the guts to remind both parliament and the media that Israel had endured eight years of terrorism before finally responding.
The British media, led by the Guardian, threw out journalistic ethics entirely, dispensed with context, and swapped fact for fiction as they repeatedly ignored Hamas terrorism against Israeli civilians.
Forget the obscene suicide bombings that Hamas had routinely unleashed on Israel. Forget the roll call of women, children and babies who had died at the hands of Hamas operatives. Forget the fact that when Israel left Gaza, it did so because this departure was deemed – by the international community – to be a necessary condition for DEcreased terrorism.
Forget all that. Nobody gave a damn. Israel had gone into Gaza to get rid of Hamas terrorists and that was all the media and the government cared about. What – Jews, defending themselves? How dare they.
During this period I attended a meeting at the House of Commons, organised in fact by a Christian group whose members were distraught at the way Israel was being demonised. There, we were told by a small number of politicians, that the atmosphere in parliament was ‘poisonous’. An out and out hate-fest was going on, and the few souls who spoke up for Israel were being shouted down and ‘bullied’ on a daily basis.
And so, here we are some months later, and finally the British government has done what it was longing to. In other words, punished Israel, publicly, for fighting its own War On Terror. Britain has revoked five export licenses, in what it calls in Brit-speak, a ‘gesture’.
I’m making a gesture right now, as it happens. It involves the middle finger of my right hand and I’m sure you can imagine to whom I’m directing it.
Because let’s face it, Britain’s hypocrisy here is staggering. How many civilians have died because of British troops, in Afghanistan and Iraq? Only yesterday, reports surfaced of British soldiers’ sadism in these countries. And yet here sits the holier-than-thou British government, judging Israel for trying to protect her own citizens?
Writing about the British government’s arms embargo against Israel, because of Gaza, Melanie Phillips notes:
It says Israel’s actions were “disproportionate.” What is it talking about? The actual evidence showed that the proportion of civilians killed in Gaza was very small – far smaller than might have been expected given the tactics Hamas was using of embedding itself within the population.The claims of large numbers of civilians and children killed were fabricated by Hamas and recycled by the Israel-bashers of the UN and media. Far from being “disproportionate,” Cast Lead was a carefully targeted operation which, given the circumstances, was astonishingly successful in its aim of confining its attack to terrorist operatives.The false flag of “disproportionality” is hoisted only by those who find it “disproportionate” that Israel should ever defend itself against the Palestinians by military means at all. Israelis are expected instead passively to die under rocket and bomb attack – or perhaps live in shelters for ever. That’s proportionate.
Islamophobia’ – Well, isn’t this word a wonderful little weapon for Islamists the world over?
Whoever thought of it must be laughing all the way to the Mosque. Go on. Try it. Next time you’re in any social situation, with any group of people, try challenging the violent ideology at the heart of Islam.
Chances are, faster than you can say ‘fatwah’ someone will give you a reproachful look and state: ‘You’re the one with the problem. You’re Islamophobic‘.
It shuts down all debate and leaves many decent folk feeling like racists – even when they’re not. So let’s just deconstruct the word ‘Islamophobia’ shall we?
Phobia = an extreme, irrational fear that interferes with everyday life. It is a psychological, clinical term, and this is the correct definition. We all know what a phobia looks like; most of us have seen grown adults collapse into quivering wrecks at the mere sight of a spider/wasp/snake. Above all, a phobia sufferer will go to great lengths to avoid the object of fear.
Now I don’t know about you, but I’m not aware of a single soul who is huddled at home, frozen with fear, refusing to leave their house because of the existence of Islam… Nor have I seen a single person jerking to a halt in the middle of a street, shrieking in terror ‘There’s a Muslim! There’s a Muslim! Save me! Save me! Aaaaghhhh!’ before sprinting across the road and into oncoming traffic, just to avoid said member of Islam.
Indeed, often the very people accused of ‘Islamophobia’ are those who are extremely interested in Islam! They talk about it, read about it, blog about it, and study it – in a bid to better understand it. Hardly ‘phobic’ behaviour, is it…?
So let’s be blunt. The term ‘Islamophobia’ is meaningless. It’s foolish. In short – it’s nothing more than a linguistic sham. Because nobody has an ‘irrational fear’ of Islam.
What many of us do have is a rational fear of what Muslim terrorists do in the name of Islam. We also fear the hatred that Islam inculcates in many of its followers. And who the hell can blame us?
If people with red hair continually sauntered onto buses and trains, into restaurants and schools the world over, with bombs strapped around their waists, before cheerfully blowing both themselves and any living soul around them into tiny bits, then I submit that many of us would develop a rational fear of red heads!
But ‘islamophobia’? Oh, purleease. It’s just a device used by *some* Muslims – and the PC-at-all-costs, liberal brigade – to shut down vital debate. And if we let them get away with it? Then shame on US.
While we’re on the topic, let’s just clarify what does and does not constitute ‘racism’: I could, if I wanted, criticise and challenge and yes, condemn Islam all day long – and it would not be ‘racism’. Islam is a faith and an ideology. And no ideology is exempt from scrutiny. Nor does anyone have the right to stop me from assessing an ideology – not as long as I live in a democratic society.
But, if I then begin making unfair, negative, nasty generalisations about ‘all muslims’ then this would be racism. See the difference?
Critiquing and challenging and condemning an ideology = not ‘racism’!
Condemning any group of people purely on the basis OF their religion = racism
Or to state it even more simply: ‘All Muslims are terrorists’ = racism
Clearly there are millions of peaceful Muslims.
‘Most terrorists are Muslim’ = not racism
Most terrorism is Islamic terrorism.
So just as I am free to condemn the beliefs of, say, the vile British National Party(BNP), or Scientologists, or the KKK, without anyone branding me a ‘racist’, so too am I free to condemn Islam.
Words have objective meanings. It’s time we remembered that, and worked to wipe out this lunacy which even now, is pushing for Islam to be legally ‘protected’ from criticism. So next time anyone tries to insist you are an ‘islamophobe’, shut them down. Fast.
American Arab journalist Joseph Farah is one of the few commentators who talks straight about what Obama is trying to do to Israel. Here he makes it clear what Obama is really doing:
Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as “a more balanced approach to Middle East policy.”
Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.
It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.
Of course, that would never happen with “a more balanced approach to the Middle East.”
It’s the 1930s all over again. This time, it’s the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all. I know you haven’t heard it put like this before. I don’t really understand why.
There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world. Israel is being reduced to “Auschwitz borders.” Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip.
Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.
Again, I ask: Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn’t even tolerate the mere presence of Jews? Can anyone answer that question for me?
Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.
I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don’t understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.
Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea? Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?
Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims? Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?
That’s what we do when we forbid “settlement construction,” repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities. This is “balance”?
Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No.
Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No.
Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No.
Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.
Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well.
But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.
All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors.
Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely. But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.
I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends.
These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.
I say: “No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live.”
Original article at
Reed it and weep, people:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.
The court, in an order Monday, is leaving in place the ruling of a federal appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can’t be sued in American courts.
The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case. In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government’s court brief filed in early June was an “apparent effort to appease a sometime ally” just before President Barack Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.
At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible for acts of terrorism committed by others.
The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained property damage and other losses.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously upheld a federal judge’s ruling throwing out the lawsuits. The appeals court said the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S. residents.
In their appeal to the high court, both sides cited the report of the Sept. 11 Commission. The victims noted that the report said Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding. The Saudis’ court filing, however, pointed out that the commission “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”
The victims’ lawsuits claim that the defendants gave money to charities in order to funnel it to terrorist organizations that were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The appeal also stressed that federal appeals courts have reached conflicting decisions about when foreign governments and their officials can be sued.
The case is Federal Insurance Co. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 08-640.
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…?
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!
Obama’s moral equivalence is reaching new depths. You may recall that the US had invited Iranian diplomats to attend July 4th celebrations at American embassies. Many people assumed that these invites – absurd to start with – would be rescinded given Iran’s violent measures against protesters at present.
But no – the Dhimmi in the White House clearly wouldn’t dream of a public show of solidarity with the Iranian people! Instead:
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.
President Barack Obama’s administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
“There’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
“We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran,” Kelly said. “We tried many years of isolation, and we’re pursuing a different path now.”
And what a path it is!
Inviting Iranian diplomats to July 4th parties would be like the Allies inviting the Nazis to Thanksgiving lunch. Does Obama really think that a few fireworks and hotdogs are going to overcome Islamic hatred for all things democratic and Western…?
If so, he’s not just a dhimmi.
He’s a fool.
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?
If like me you had to reach for a bucket after reading the transcript of Obama’s Love Letter to Islam, then you’ll appreciate this. It originally appeared at the superb Townhall.Com.
Let’s All Accept Islam
by Bruce Bialosky
“Mr. Obama, your speech in Cairo encouraged me to reconsider my thoughts on how I view Islam as a religion in today’s society. I have really thought it over and decided to fully accept Islam … with just a few caveats.
First, they have to stop treating women as second class citizens. Don’t tell me those head covers are worn by choice. They are forced on them just like honor killings. It is sad the French have it right and we don’t on this issue. This is a country where we have worked for a hundred years to bring equality to women. Allowing any woman to be subservient is disgraceful. And come to think of it, tell your Secretary of State and Speaker of the House to stop covering their heads on visits. They are supposed to be beacons of the women’s movement. By covering their heads, they are not being respectful to their hosts– they are disgracing every woman who ever fought for equal rights.
Next, tell the Islamists to stop killing gays. Maybe gays are not totally accepted in this society, but we have made great progress in the last 50 years. We may not agree on gay marriage, but we certainly agree on equal rights for gays. We don’t allow them to be killed just for being gay.
How about the issue of freely elected democratic governments in the Muslim world? Not too many of those around, are there Mr. Obama? When the Islamic world stops being run like feudal societies given up by the rest of the world half a millennium ago, I think it would then be a grand time to accept the Muslims. I know it is sometimes politically expedient to deal with dictators. We even had to make a deal with a mass murderer named Stalin to try and fight another mass murderer named Hitler. But please explain to me why in today’s world, where the great majority of people live in democracies, that we need to make nice-nice with dictators. This country is all about not accepting autocracies, Mr. Obama.
Next, the Muslims should stop trying to tell us they really care about the Palestinians and that the trouble in the Middle East is because of their problems. The Arabs have done nothing — I repeat nothing — to help them for 60 years, and we all know that. The Palestinian problem did not start in 1967. It started in 1948 when the Arabs attacked Israel and got their butts kicked. These people willingly relocated out of the Israeli territory, and their Arabs friends did nothing to help them. So please be honest and stop lying to us because we both know it is a lie. Once you do that, we can all move forward.
Mr. Obama, we also want an apology for all those Christians and Jews kicked out of the Arab countries. While they have been really good on creating a lie about the Palestinians being kicked out of their land, they have done an excellent job of covering up all those people they kicked out. Well, they did not really kick them out. They offered them to convert or die. Moving was a much better option. If anyone wonders where all those Jews in Israel came from they should check it out. Not just Europe or Russia, but from all those neighboring Arab states where they were no longer welcome. That may answer why it is such a big deal that Jews are building settlements in the West Bank. It is not that they are Israelis – it is that they are Jews and if Israel gives back the West Bank, Jews and Christians will no longer be welcome.
Last, when Muslims start protesting the murders and indecencies performed in the name of Islam then I will accept them. We are told that the people who do these acts are a small minority of Muslims. So where are the protests, where are the books, where are the articles, where is the Islamic Pete Seeger? If Islam is really a religion of peace, then start showing it. We have been waiting for it and the memories I have are of Muslims out partying after the Twin Towers went down.
Mr. Obama, it is nice that you want us to accept Islam, but would you have asked us to accept Nazism or Communism with their mass murders and mistreatment of people? I suggest you remember we did not elect you to be Brown-Noser-in-Chief or Apologist-in-Chief; we elected you as Commander-in-Chief. I respectfully suggest you start acting like it because these apologies to mass murderers and intolerant sons-of-bitches are really getting tiresome
Just when I started to think that the BBC might have the balls to stand up to Islam, it transpires that the corporation is set to pay the Muslim Council Of Britain a whopping £30,000. Why? Because on Question Time, Former Daily Telegraph editor, Charles Moore, ‘slurred’ the Council.
And what was the terrible thing Moore said, precisely?
Answer: he stated that the MCB has failed to condemn attacks on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Moore’s remarks came during a debate about the Islamic protests which recently ruined a soldiers’ homecoming parade in Luton. The MCB then threatened the BBC with legal action.
Mr Moore blamed the MCB’s leadership for its apparent reluctance to condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers overseas. He went on to claim that the MCB thought it was a ‘good thing’ to kill troops.
When the MCB first threatened to pursue legal action, the BBC offered to make a public apology on the Question Time website. The MCB rejected this and is now demanding a live apology on air.
A BBC source said the move has angered Mr Moore, who was not consulted over the legal response to the complaint or even informed that an offer to settle had been made.
Question Time is recorded an hour before it is actually shown, precisely so that lawyers can check the content for possible problems. None of the legal advisors raised flags over Mr Moore’s comments.
Charles Moore said: ‘The Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation for all Muslim groups in this country, I’ve gone to them many times, and I said will you condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they won’t.
‘But there is a bigger, another step that they take, they say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing, to kill or kidnap British soldiers.’
The MCB rejected Mr Moore’s claims as a ‘total lie’. It then instructed libel lawyers Carter-Ruck, who wrote a formal letter of complaint.
The MCB is also involved in a separate row with M.P. Hazel Blears. This one is between MCB deputy secretary general Dr Daud Abdullah and Miss Blears, and centres on a document relating to the recent conflict in Gaza which was signed by Dr Abdullah.
In March, Miss Blears interpreted the document as justifying attacks on the Royal Navy and wrote to The Guardian to explain her concerns.
A solicitor’s letter was sent on behalf of Dr Daud Abdullah demanding she pay £75,000 by last month or face full legal proceedings. But she refused to do so and no further correspondence has been received.
The producers of BBC soap Eastenders are a gutsy lot. For if media reports are true, the show is set to do what the dhimmi British government won’t. Namely, treat Muslims like any other faith group – instead of pandering to Islamic sensibilities.
How are they set to do that, you may wonder. Quite simply: by portraying a Muslim man falling for and enjoying an affair with a Gay Infidel.
The Sun reports:
Dashing developer Syed Masood shocks his conservative family, when he falls for Albert Square’s only openly Gay resident, caterer Christian Clarke. The pair will be shown embracing in scenes expected to shock and offend conservative Muslims.
Homosexuality is forbidden by Islamic law and the Quran.
Syed – played by Marc Elliott, 29 – arrived in Walford in April, with his girlfriend Amira Shah (Preeya Kalidas).
But in the storyline to air next month, it is revealed Syed has been desperately trying to repress his true sexuality.
Viewers will see him struggle to reconcile his feelings for charmer Christian (John Partridge) with his religious beliefs. He also has to deal with the horrified reaction of his family.
The BBC1 soap’s executive producer Diederick Santer said the dramatic scenes are designed to appeal to 21st century Brits.
He said: “We’ve always tried to make EastEnders reflect modern life in multicultural Britain and we’ve always told social issue stories relevant to our diverse audience.
“To all intents and purposes, Syed’s a ‘good’ Muslim man – he doesn’t drink, smoke or engage in sex before marriage.
“But he struggles with his sexuality when he finds himself drawn to Christian and he believes this goes against his faith.”
The show risks alienating many of its Muslim viewers.
Er, ‘alienating‘? Slight understatement, me thinks...
A recent Gallop survey of 500 British Muslims failed to find any who believed homosexual acts were morally acceptable.
So the BBC is going to show a Nice Muslim Boy getting it on with a Gay Brit called Christian…
Does the BBC really have the balls?
And shall we start placing bets on how long it is before British Muslims start protesting/issuing Fatwas/threatening Jihad/burning flags etc…?
Buried on page thirty-nine of my newspaper, is a story about Iran. Oddly, many people seem to feel that anything involving Iran is ‘ just a middle eastern issue’ and nothing to do with us, safe and sound here in Britain.
They could not be more wrong. Iran’s declaration that it has successfully test fired the Sajjil-2, a missile capable of hitting Israel, and also USA bases in the region, has everything to do with us.
As does the spectre of an Iran with nuclear capability; something that is imminent if not already with us. For Ahmadinejad is not just, as the British media loves to call him, a ‘hardliner’.
Ahmadinejad is, bluntly put, a lunatic.
He’s also mismanaged the Iranian economy to such an extent that he may be defeated in the upcoming Iran elections on June 12.
Pray that he doesn’t get in. Pray hard.
Because remember, this is a man who has repeatedly vowed to ‘wipe the jewish state off the map’. This is a man who declared ‘there are no gays in Iran’ – presumably because any who dare creep out of the closet are immediately beheaded. And this is a man who has already organised a conference dedicated to the topic: ‘The World Without Israel’.
Ahmadinejad. Hitler. Different names: same aims.
A nuclear Iran will mean that the free world can be held hostage. Amadinejad subscribes to the notion that ‘death for Allah’ is the highest honour any Muslim can hope for. A nuclear Iran is effectively an entire nation of potential ‘Shahids’, or ‘martyrs’.’
Not exactly a cheery thought, that, is it…?
Meanwhile, Obama has made it painfully clear to Israel’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu, that there is no support for a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian nuclear sites. Israel is well and truly on her own.
Apparently convinced that it is possible to ‘negotiate’ with a madman, Obama is busy flapping his little olive branch at Mahmoud, amidst promises to deliver Israel on a silver platter ***if*** Mr Ahmadinejad would be kind enough to shelvehis nuclear aspirations.
Those of us that support Israel often point out that she is the sole democracy in the region. This is a key point that the West would do well to remember. Because what Israel confronts today, the West will confront further on down the line. Support for Israel is support for democracy.
And when Obama hands Israel over in his insane bid to ‘reason’ with the unreasonable, in the form of Iran, he’s not just endangering Israel. He’s sending out a clear message to Iran and to every Islamic theocracy and Islamic terrorist group out there: the infidels are ours for the taking.