Blog Archives

A Satire That Hits Home

Hats off to American Thinker for this delicious albeit dead accurate bit of satire. Read it and then share it please – email it to five people you know and ask them to do the same!

June 18, 2010

Israel breathes; world condemnation instantaneous

Andrew Pessin

-Satire-

Israel breathed this morning. There was a quick intake of air, and then a gentle exhalation.


World condemnation was instantaneous.


P.A. President Abbas decried the Israeli attempt to commandeer the Middle East air supply, and demanded a prompt return to the 1967 air distribution which Palestinian leaders had previously violently rejected.


Iranian President Ahmadinejad interrupted his weekly call for the destruction of Israel in order to blast the Zionist entity for its blatant oxygen grab and call for its immediate destruction.


Egyptian newspapers detailed the malicious Mossad plot to exhale germs into the air and then spread the poisoned air via high-tech windmills directly into the lungs of Muslim children.
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal announced that in response to the Israeli aggression, Hamas would not let the Red Cross visit captured soldier Gilad Schalit. When it was pointed out that they hadn’t allowed such visits in the four years prior to Israel’s action, he snorted, “And now you see why!”


Turkey announced it would be withdrawing its ambassador, only to retract that announcement in slight embarrassment when it realized it had already withdrawn him last week, in response to some other Israeli outrage it could no longer quite recall.

The United Nations General Assembly, after meeting for an all-night emergency session, called for another all-night emergency session. And the Security Council demanded an immediate impartial investigation, only to backtrack when it was informed that all its available staff were already tied up in ongoing impartial investigations of other Israeli actions.


Indeed, outrage at Israel’s action was heard around the globe. People everywhere exclaimed that Israel’s aggression was against international law, and then asked for a copy of the newspaper so they could see just what it was, in fact, that Israel had done this time.

Others, more intellectually-inclined, asked for some links on “international law,” curious to find out, at last, just what was this special code which apparently all non-Israelis had secretly agreed upon. And, of course, there were numerous calls for Israel’s leaders to be brought up on charges of ‘war crimes’.


Loudest of these were from regimes as diverse as China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea, which took time off from their busy schedules oppressing Tibetans, Darfur civilians, women and all religious minorities, and their own citizens respectively to make their pronouncements.

In fact, Israel’s action this time was so offensive that Muslim extremists actually paused from their work installing massive explosives in each others’ mosques in order to condemn Israel’s attacks on Muslim civilians.


The criticisms could even be heard within Israel itself. “How can Israel call itself a democracy,” Haaretz asked in an editorial, “while allowing its Jewish citizens to consume 75% of the air?”

Arab-Israeli MKs signed a petition demanding that the Israeli constitution, guaranteeing their right to sit in the Knesset despite their repeated calls for Israel’s destruction, should be dissolved, preferably in favor of something more totalitarian. “On this day I am ashamed to be a Jew,” proclaimed one prominent left-wing leader, a man who had repeatedly urged all peoples to be proud of their ethnic and religious identities, except for Jews.

Israel initially attempted to respond to these criticisms, but quickly realized that speaking would require it once again to inhale and thus draw upon itself further global ire.


And so, Israel stopped breathing altogether.

This action, clearly aimed to destroy the regional economy and destabilize the entire Middle East, triggered instantaneous worldwide condemnation.

Finally, A Voice Of Sanity

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.

Facebook Group Boasts Of Attacking British Jews

Sadly, this news story didn’t even surprise me.

Via Totally Jewish:

Police have launched an urgent investigation into a horrific Facebook group that gave graphic details of anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated by its members against Ilford’s Jewish community.

The group, created by a student at Loxford School of Science and Technology, attracted more than 500 members in two weeks following its launch last month and featured teenagers boasting about engaging in anti-Semitic behaviour.

It featured messages from youths using language rife with spelling errors,
profanities and teenage colloquialisms.

One girl wrote: “Jews are the ones that killed prophets in the past. Dirty filthy scum-bags. No wonder they have the curse of Allah upon them. Burn Jew burn.”

Another stated: “OMG! ii Saw a Jew Todaii ii Swearr downn Weariingg Dahh Hatt He Lookedd At Me Liike Man Knowsz Me [sic].”

She went on to describe screaming obscenities at the man and rudely telling him to go away.

In a further disturbing post, a girl bragged about aggressively confronting
a Jewish woman in Argos after she was “looking at me“. She wrote: “Looool i Had a Fight Wif 1 Urgh in Argos [sic].”

The Jewish News was informed about the group, created by a student at
Loxford School, by a private investigator in Australia. It has since been
removed from the popular social networking site.

The group was described by a Community Security Trust (CST) official as “one of the most shocking things I have ever seen”.

A spokeswoman from Redbridge Council, speaking on behalf of Loxford School, said the school was contacted about the group and then immediately reported it to Facebook and the police.

The spokeswoman said: “The student concerned has been dealt with and the school has taken disciplinary action. There is an ongoing police investigation so we are unable to comment further.”

Ilford police confirmed it had “received an allegation regarding anti-Semitic material being published on a social networking website”.

A spokeswoman told the Jewish News that the police are investigating and inquiries continue.

Several comments on the vile Facebook site included references to Islam and the Quran as justification for targeting Jews.

One female youth wrote: “We hate Jews for the sake of Allah as he has told us to do in the Quran.”

The group page included offensive jokes invoking pejorative stereotypes about Jews and money as well as an anti-Semitic cartoon. There was also a link to a YouTube video entitled “Kill All Christians and Jews”.

In addition several members expressed anti-Israeli sentiment. There was a photograph of graffiti saying “Jihad 4 Israel”.

Mike Gardner, director of communications at the CST, said he was left
“utterly chilled” by the casual way that the youths displayed their
anti-Semitism.

He said: “It shows how new media is now facilitating the most shocking
anti-Semitism among groups of youngsters, as if hatred and violence and
gross ignorance were all just a part of their normal lives.

“Anybody who wants to understand how anti-Semitism can be transmitted today should study this online group closely, but they will need a strong stomach
to do so.”

The CST, which is due to release its latest findings on anti-Semitism in the
UK this week, has previously reported 609 incidents in the first six months
of 2009, more than in any other entire year.
A report released by the
Jewish Agency last month revealed that there were more anti-Semitic
incidents in Europe in 2009 than in any year since the Holocaust.

Mike Gapes, the local MP for Ilford South, urged the authorities to take
“very strong action”. Gapes told the Jewish News: “I am deeply concerned.
Incitement to hatred is a crime and we must stand very firm and take action
against anyone who incited racial or religious hatred. Anti-Semitism has to
be opposed.”

Lee Scott MP for Ilford North also denounced the site, saying: “It is
shocking and I condemn it.”

A Facebook spokeswoman said that the group was removed because it breached the company’s policies. She said: “We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss issues and express their views, while respecting the rights and feelings of others.” She added that users should report groups that they feel violate Facebook’s rules.

Spencer Lewis, the headteacher of local Jewish high school King Solomon
said: “We have had no problems at all with Loxford that I am aware of and we have a very good relationship with the school.”

Why is anyone even surprised by this? The BBC and Guardian feed Brits a relentless diet of anti Israel nonsense. Our elected politicians meet with Hamas members.  Israeli officials at present cannot even visit Britain without one Islamic group or another organising arrest warrants, under the specious guise of ‘universal jurisdiction’. (more on this later).

So why is anyone remotely surprised when British teenagers act on the messages they receive from the British media and British government…?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if things don’t improve for British Jews, I predict that in ten years, hardly any of us will remain. Like our fellow Jews in France, we will sadly and reluctantly be forced to leave.

I hope and pray that I am wrong.


The Geert Wilders Travesty

 

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. “

A Strange Rumour

A somewhat strange rumour has appeared on certain internet forums where religion is the main topic.  *Some* Muslims have started claiming that Mohammed, their prophet, appears in the Jewish Tanakh…!

This is nonsense, of course. The Tanakh was written long, long, long before Islam even existed. And just as Jews constantly find ourselves breaking it to Christians that No, Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh, it seems that now we’ll have to break similar news to our Muslim friends.

Because the fact remains, however much some people try to twist the original Hebrew, neither Jesus nor Mohammed appear anywhere in the Tanakh.

For anyone out there who wants to refute the specific claims being made by some Muslims, here is a response given by a Chabad Rabbi who has very modestly declined to be named.

His answer appeared originally in an online forum, and I haven’t changed it, as I think it does a great job of addressing this absurd rumour re Mohammed and the Jewish texts:

” Mohammed has never claimed any connection to Torah. Now you want to claim he was prophesised in there?

First of all, Deutoronomy 18:18-19 is not even a prophet speaking. G-d is talking to Moses about false prophets. G-d says that he will only put his words in a true  prophet’s mouth.

You ask: ‘Then why does it say “from among their brethren”? doesn’t this refer to Ishmael or Jesus?’

NO. certainly not Ishmael (and therefore Mohammed). Jews are called ‘brothers’ and ‘brethren’ all over the Torah. Aside from being the brother to Isaac, Ishmael and Ishmaelites are NEVER called ‘brother’ or ‘brethren’ in the Torah.

So what does it mean?

According to the Mikraos Gedolos, it means that it must be from ‘among your brothers’, i.e. in Israel.

One sign of a false prophet will be if he prophesizes outside of Israel (which ironically, Mohammed did). With this in mind, we can now understand why Jonah tried to ‘run away from G-d.’

He was trying to run away from prophecy, since he knew he couldn’t prophesize outside of Israel. This is also why he was so surprised to prophesize and hear from G-d outside of Israel – he was an exception to the rule.

You ask: What about ‘like unto thee’ in the verse?

Mikraos gedolos explains that this means that the prophet must be a Jew, just like Moses was.

Again, this is not a prophecy. No other prophecies are spoken near it, and it’s G-d speaking, not Moses or any other prophet.

Oddly enough, while you claim this is a prophecy, both Christiany and Islam conveniently ignore the rest of the Torah.

Isaiah 29:12 – it’s  a far reach to try and say it refers to Mohammed. Because he used the same words as are said in Isaiah? I didn’t understand the attempt. Does this mean that because I say the ‘Shema’ prayer every day, and it’s word for word from the Torah, I’m also a prophet?

As for the Song of Solomon, I’m sorry, but this is illogical as it would mean the adjective is changed into a proper noun and the word is actually changed from machmadim to ‘muhammad’. This would make no sense and render the verse incoherent.


*With many thanks to my Chabad contact for providing this information!

From Mecca To Jerusalem: Muslims & Their Feelings

                                                                                                                         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:

 

apartheidhighwaymecca2

and

apartheidhighwaymecca

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.

 

Aharonovitch’s spokesman Tal Harel said:

 

 

 

“The intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency.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: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’.

 

 Hussein said:

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.”

 

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 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!

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muslims Behaving Badly

Isn’t it astonishing that the same people who ranted and raved and marched over Israel’s response to years of terrorism from Gaza, remain silent over the atrocities in Saudi Arabia?

Imagine that the following item involved Israel. I’m sure we can all imagine the furore that would follow. No doubt Annie Lennox would appear on our screens, and the Guardian would spash the story across the front page. Oh, and the BBC would be sure to wade in as well.

But precisely because this travesty is set to occur in a nation other than Israel, the aforementioned parties are, well, distinctly disinterested. Never mind that barbarism like this happens in Islamic nations on a regular basis.

Muslims behaving badly isn’t news, you see .

Via The Australian:

HUMAN rights watchdog Amnesty International has called on Saudi Arabia to stay a sentence of 40 lashes handed down against a 75-year-old woman for breaching the kingdom’s sex segregation rules.

“The minister of the interior (Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz) is reported to have ordered the immediate detention and flogging of a 75-year-old woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, along with two Saudi Arabian men known only as Fahad and Hadyan,” the London-based watchdog said.

“The Saudi Arabian authorities must not carry out the imminent flogging and imprisonment of an elderly woman and two younger men.”

Amnesty said all avenues of appeal had been exhausted in Saudi courts against the trio’s March conviction for being in the company of members of the opposite sex who were not close relatives.

“It is abhorrent that an elderly woman is at risk of 40 lashes,” said the deputy director of the watchdog’s Middle East and North Africa Program, Philip Luther.
“We urge the authorities to prevent the imprisonment and flogging of Khamisa, Fahad and Hadyan.”

Sawadi and Fahad were sentenced to 40 lashes and four months’ imprisonment, and Hadyan to 60 lashes and six months’ imprisonment, Amnesty said.

Sawadi also faces deportation to her native Syria on completion of her prison term.

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict version of Islamic sharia law and imposes corporal punishment for a wide variety of offences.

Bangladeshi Journalist Charged With ‘Insulting’ Islam – Because He Suggested Peace With Israel

A Bangladeshi journalist and peace activist is being punished for refusing to condemn Israel. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was charged with sedition, treason and insulting Islam in 2003.


Choudhury, 44, has worked hard to oppose Islamic extremism through his articles, in particular those for the Weekly Blitz which he started in 2003. He has also called for interfaith dialogue and for normalizing relations between Muslim countries and Israel.


Yet this week will see Choudhary back in court, charged with ‘insulting Islam’.  It is possible he will be sentenced to death for this ‘sedition’.


In a letter which was made public at the weekend, Choudhary says:


“According to my lawyers in Bangladesh, the government is determined to conclude the trial as soon as possible.No one knows what will be the verdict. But, of course, seeing the past track record, we cannot hold any hope for a good result because the court is not applying its judicial mind, but trying to appease the Islamists.”


Choudhary has already suffered violence for his views. In 2006, his newspaper offices were bombed, after he publicly expressed sympathy for the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam.

And in October of that year, he was attacked in his office by a mob that included prominent members of the then-ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which historically has aligned itself with Islamist parties in the country.


In March 2007,  US House Resolution 64 referred to Choudhury and protested his ongoing  “harassment and intimidation” as well as his incarceration in 2004 for 17 months without legal recourse, during which he was placed in solitary confinement and “suffered harsh interrogation techniques and received no treatment for a debilitating case of glaucoma.”


The House resolution called for the Bangladeshi government to “immediately drop all pending charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury… and take steps to protect Mr. Choudhury.”

“Islamophobia”

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.

John Bolton Talks Straight About Iran – And Need For Israeli Strike

This just in from (IsraelNN.com):

 

U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies have left an Israeli attack on Iran the only option in preventing the Muslim country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton wrote in The Washington Post today.

 

In an article headlined “Time for an Israeli Strike?” Bolton answered his own question by stating: “Israel’s decision of whether to use military force against Tehran’s nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever… Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities.”

 

A long-time supporter of Israel and a harsh critic of the U.N., Bolton claimed that the Iranian nuclear threat “was never in doubt“ during the American presidential campaign, but is even more certain following the apparent failure of the resistance movement in Iran.

 

Bolton also wrote:

 

“With no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.”

 

He chastised the Obama administration for strategic and tactical flaws by continuing its effort to negotiate with Iran. Bolton declared that American officials think Iran will be more anxious than ever to be “accepted” following the alleged rigged victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last month’s election.

 

    “Tehran isn’t going to negotiate in good faith,” Bolton maintained. “It hasn’t for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won’t start now… Second, given Iran’s nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.”

Bolton expressed fears that President Obama’s “Plan B”  would allow Iran to proceed with its nuclear program for peaceful purposes while publicly stating it has no military objectives.

 

“Obama would define such an outcome as ‘success,’ even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now,” the former ambassador continued.

 

“Anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran’s June 12 election.” – John Bolton

 

Bolton wrote that negotiations with Iran would place Israel in “an even more dangerous trap.”

 

Bolton concluded:

“Failure to stage a pre-emptive attack on Iran means that the world must be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.”

Sharia Courts In Britain – Ruling Against British Law?

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…?

Iran

iran1 

 

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:

English:

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.

 

iranevil

 

Israel’s Stark Choices

 

I wish I could disagree with the following article; I wish the conclusions reached by the author were wrong.  Alas, I fear he’s spot on in this candid appraisal of the unpalatable options now confronting Israel.

And for those people who keep insisting that Jews are ‘over reacting’ when we express alarm about Israel, I’d just like to remind you: when the Jews first tried to reveal what had been happening in the concentration camps, what were many of them told? ‘Stop whining’.

So excuse us if we ignore those who dismiss  the threats facing Israel.

This superb piece is from the Sultan Knish blog- do check it out, you’ll find some great articles there.

 

Ending Arab Terrorism for Good and the Awful Question of the Moment

 

 

In 1775 the American colonies had an awful question facing them. So do we today. So do we always. The awful question does not go away merely because it remains ignored, unasked or dismissed as impractical. The awful question is not rooted in philosophy or wishful thinking. It requires facing reality and making a choice.

 

The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country…and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

 

 The goal of Zionism was to create a Jewish state in the land of Israel, the ancestral home of the Jewish people, from which we were repeatedly forcibly expelled and to which we repeatedly struggled and sacrificed to return to. The Palestinian Mandate of the League of Nations under British authority where a Jewish homeland was supposed to be created consisted of 43,000 square miles bordering Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

 

A vast territory. Of that 43,000 square miles, 32,500 square miles (more than 75 percent) were used by the British to create Jordan ruled by the Hashemite kings transferred over from Saudi Arabia, which was given to the house of Saud. In 1931 the British attempted to limit Jewish immigration in violation of the Mandate and were thwarted by the League of Nations.

 

 In 1939 the League of Nations was gone and as the Nazis began their Final Solution of Jewish question the British succeeded in blocking escape to Israel. Millions of Jews died in the Holocaust who could have lived because the British diverted ships they took from America under the Lend-Lease act to block fleeing Jews.

 

Their blood is on the Empire’s hands. The British incited Arab riots against Jews, as Lawrence of Arabia had previously incited Arab revolts against the Turks. One such attack wiped out the Jewish community in Hevron. The British did nothing against to prevent the attacks but disarmed and suppressed the Jewish settlers at every turn. In Jerusalem they handed over two Jewish fighters outright to an Arab mob which tore them apart on the spot.

 

By the time the Jews of Europe were under the German knife, it had long since become clear that England had no intention of honoring the mandate. That England did not want a Jewish state. They wanted to dismantle Israel into Arab colonies ruled by their appointed kings such as the Kingdom of Jordan or the American backed House of Saud. They wanted colonies they would control and they were willing to see and even collaborate in the deaths of millions of Jews to bring it about.

 

When Israel was founded in 1948 it was after a prolonged armed campaign against British authority and over British objections on a mere 5000 square miles of land out of a territory nearly ten times that amount. After the 1967 war Israel liberated an additional mere 2500 square miles of territory it had been entitled to in the first place. And the world has never stopped demanding that Israel turn over that land to a terrorist regime that has used it to launch attacks on Israel and murder Jews.

 

The United States and Europe do this not merely out of Anti-Semitism, though that is undoubtedly a factor particularly in Europe. They do this because they believe it will pacify the Arabs. This is the refrain and has been the refrain in columns, in publications, by politicians and diplomats all in one voice proclaiming that the extremism, the terrorism and the hostility towards America and Europe would die down if Israel didn’t exist.

 

Never mind the absurdity of this belief, it is premised on a colonialist vision of the world in which the Arabs can be pacified by feeding them a little Israel.

 

 It has never worked and it will never work. But that too doesn’t matter. What does matter is this, independence. A final end to colonialism. While the British flag went down in Israel long ago, other flags have always risen in its place. The French flag, the American, even the Russian. Israel and most of the world’s Jews believe that Israel needs a friend, a big brother, a protector to survive. They forget that the true protector is in heaven and that the big countries we ally with become nothing more than crutches that break under us.

 

Colonialism will not end and independence will not be achieved until the psychological cycle of dependency is finally broken.

 

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?

Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

 

 The illusion Patrick Henry was referring to was the continued delusional belief that there was a way out of the situation besides Independence. The colonists faced a Britain determined to stamp out traces of rebelliousness by remaking the colonies in an image closer to the Mother Country with a state Anglican Church, tightly centralized controls and heavy taxation. They had the choice to submit or to resist.

 

 The illusion Israel faces today is the belief that it can satisfy the demands of the world and still survive. That there is some way out that will satisfy the Palestinian Arabs with enough land and thus satisfy the world and still live on in security.

 

There is no such way. There never was. The Arab desire from the beginning has been the destruction of the land of Israel and the creation of Arab states on that land to redeem their honor. There has never been a different agenda on the table. They are willing to fight for that and die for it and if things go on as they are now, they will succeed.

 

There will not be an Israel, there will be only millions more dead Jews and a stream of refugees seeking shelter around the world. Some will continue to label this paranoid or far fetched but what is happening now are the early stages of that very process, the anhiliation of Israel and the majority of the Jewish people who now reside there.

 

They may point to Israel’s technological and military superiority but like any strategic tool, they only matter when the nation’s leaders are prepared to use them. When you bomb empty buildings and airports, it may work as a bluff once or twice, but when you keep doing it, it becomes obvious that you’re bluffing. The enemy’s response to your bluff will then be to call your bluff by escalating further.

 

When Israel responded to an attack on its territory and the kidnapping of one of its soldiers with a hollow show of force while secretly negotiating for his release, they sent the go-ahead signal to Hizbullah to follow suit resulting in fighting on two fronts. Israel has no credibility left when it comes to the use of force. Sending in military forces into Gaza and bombing empty buildings may look impressive for the cameras but to the enemy it looks like a show and it turns Israel into a paper tiger, as Bill Clinton turned America into a paper tiger.  9/11 swiftly followed.

 

Yet even this show of force was condemned by the world as excessive and outrageous. In fact any military or defensive act by Israel is typically condemned by the world. Not because Israel is an agressor, but because there are 21 Arab countries and only one tiny Israel in the middle east sitting on a few thousand square miles of land. Because there are one billion Muslims in the world who all agree that Israel must go and the world thinks the destruction of Israel is a small price to pay for appeasing them, just as the world thought the destruction of Czechoslovakia was a small price to pay for appeasing Hitler.

 

As the Arabs increase their demands, the world follows suit. If Israel retreats from the West Banks, the Arabs will demand the Galilee and soon the Negev. Then they will demand Haifa and any part of Israel with a sizable Arab population. At no point will the world say enough is enough.

 

 As far as the Arabs and the world is concerned Jews in Israel are all settlers and the rights of the Arabs always trump those of the Jews. There is no point in railing against this or arguing right and wrong with the world. The world does not care. It never has.

 

When 300,000 Jews were murdered by the Nazis the New York Times put it on the back page.

When an Arab terrorist is assassinated by Israel it makes the front page complete with condemnations.

 

We can protest, threaten boycotts and argue till we’re blue in the face. This is how it’s always been. This is how it always is. Justice only comes to those willing to fight for it. It is rarely given out of righteousness, it is most often established as a boundary by force.

 

The awful question of the moment is whether Israel really wants to survive and is willing to do what it takes. The first step is a declaration of independence. Independence from the world’s demands, from the road map and Cslo, from American and European pressure and money. There will be consequences of course but there are consequences already. Boycotts by Churches and Universities are being planned and implemented regardless of what Israel does. They will spread regardless of what Israel does.

 

Israel will not survive by the favor of the world but by taking its fate into its own hands.

 

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past…And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication?

 

What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated…

 

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt…In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

 

Peace has been tried. Co-existence has been tried. Every effort has been made to appease the Arabs and the world short of steps that would outright annhiliate Israel. Cold peace treaties were signed with the Arabs and kept only after it was clear to the Arab side that further conflict was futile.

 

No such ray of light has penetrated the Palestinian Arabs or the Shiite terrorists in Lebanon or the Iranian government. We are approaching a conflict, whether we want one or not. The only choice is whether we will strike a decisive blow first as we did in 1967 and achieve victory or whether we will allow our friends and allies to ties our hands as they did in 1973 resulting in a near-defeat and a near-anhiliation.

 

Oslo began the road to this war. It will no longer be a war against outside enemies but against internal ones as well. If Israel is to survive, a Palestinian state cannot exist within or near its borders. Nor can there be any sizable numbers of Arabs within Israel driven by a hostile intent towards the country. Oslo and Madrid can only be treated as experiments that failed. All 1967 territories must be annexed to Israel. All Arabs inside them have a choice of taking on Israeli citizenship and swearing allegiance or leaving.

 

The same choice has to be offered to Arabs in Israel as well. The world that cares so deeply about the Palestinian Arabs, while not caring in the least when Sudanese Arabs killed millions of Africans, will now have the chance to take those very same Palestinian Arabs in, welcoming them to London, Paris, Dublin and Brussels. England which after all had imported large numbers of Arabs in the 19th century to begin with as part of their colonial program should justly bear the largest share of the burden.

 

I’m not under any illusion that these nations will cooperate with such a program, but the world is a big place and Israel is a very small one. Too small to house millions of sworn enemies bent on its destruction. This will result in collective global outrage even though half the UN has done similar things with far less cause.

 

Just ask Turkey to return Cyprus, England to return Gibraltar or America to return Hawaii. You’ll be met with derisive laughter. That laughter should be the exact response to any further proposals for a Palestinian state. Countries have regularly drawn and redrawn their borders and expelled foreign populations. In fact Kuwait and Iraq expelled their own Palestinians after the two Iraqi wars. Israel should be no different.

 

Of course everyone shudders to contemplate what will come next after such a step. But what horror will happen?

*The world will condemn us?  The world already condemns us. All the time.

* Everyone will hate Israel?  Pretty much everyone hates us already.

* There will be a worldwide boycott? Unlikely. There will be smaller scale boycotts but those are happening anyway. The Arabs boycott Israel already. The Europeans are along the road to doing so. America isn’t likely to boycott Israel no matter what and the reality is Israel does millions of dollars worth of business even with the Arab countries despite the boycott.

 * Tourism will stop? Tourism will slow down but the appeal of Israel for most Christians will remain unchanged. They don’t come for Israel’s foreign policy but for the sights of the Bible.

 

Terrorism has done a lot more to retard Israel’s tourism than its foreign policy. Arab terrorism has been a wound in Israel’s side for a long time. Removing it for good will be bloody and painful but it will secure Israel’s future and bring domestic security and an era of real peace. Our enemies will no longer be inside our borders but outside them. As it is we have been fiddling with the bandage for decades and the pain has been tremendous and the damage to the nation, economically, diplomatically, militarily and in every other sense has far outweighed what removing it in one moment would have cost.

 

And the time is approaching now when we will no longer have the ability to remove it and by then it will be too late to do anything but flee or die. We have delayed too long, deluded ourselves for even longer. There is no multilateral or unilateral solution that will bring peace. Only removing the hostile population can do that. The Arabs inside and outside Israel have had their chance to live in peace with us. Those who have made their choice, have made it. Now it’s time to make ours.

 

 “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year?… Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

 

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations…The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!…

 

The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!” Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

The Dhimmi In The White House

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.

 

Iran’s ‘Peaceful’ Nuclear Project

Mad Mahoud AhmadinejIhad has insisted for months that his nuclear programme is a ‘peaceful’ one. Much of the world has chosen to swallow this fiction, with Israel being the lone dissenter.

Now Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting point in yesterday’s Sunday Express:

Referring to a recent Hezbollah rally in Lebanon that he attended, Hitchens notes:

In a large hall that featured the official attendance of a delegation from the Iranian embassy, the most luridly displayed poster of the pro-Iranian party was a nuclear mushroom cloud! Underneath this telling symbol was a caption warning the ‘zionists’ of what lay in store.

We sometimes forget that Iran still officially denies any intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet Ahmadinejaad recently hailed an an Iranian missile launch as a counterpart to Iran’s success with nuclear centrifuges and Hezbollah has certainly formed the idea that Iranian reactors may have non-peaceful applications.

This means that the vicious manipulation by which the mullahs control Iran can no longer be considered an ‘internal affair’. Fascism at home sooner or later means fascism abroad.  Face it now or fight it later. Meanwhile, give it its right name.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers