Muslims To Get Private Prison Cells

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.’

Gosh, here’s a novel idea: how about Muslim prisoners being told that they can just put up with the same conditions as non Muslim prisoners? If the prison facilities are not to their liking, they shouldn’t have broken the law to start with! 

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:

The halal meat being served there had been prepared on site but, after complaints, is now brought in by an authorised supplier at what is thought to be extra cost.

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?

 

 

Julie Burchill Set To Join The Tribe…?

Feisty British journalist Julie Burchill is apparently considering becoming a member of the Jewish family. A staunch Israel supporter, she has now become a Friend Of Brighton and Hove Progressive Synagogue.

Ms Burchill has been enjoying Shabbat services there for a month, and has also started studying Hebrew.

The writer, known for her acerbic wit, says: I first thought about converting when I was 25 . I will be 50 next month so it’s hardly a flash in the pan. At a time of rising and increasingly vicious antisemitism from both left and right, becoming Jewish especially appeals to me.

Added to the fact that I admire Israel so much, it does seem to make sense — assuming of course that the Jews will have me!

And she also added: ‘Jews rock!

Synagogue Chairperson Prue Baker says the congregation has welcomed Ms Burchill “…as we welcome all who share our approach to Judaism and wish to be associated with us. We are an inclusive community and have many Friends who may not be Jewish.”

Another congregant confided that “Julie has told several people that she’s enjoying the services. She’s amusing and fun to have around but she’s keeping a fairly low profile.”

Whether she convert or not, Julie Burchill is a wonderful ally to have; she is a forthright and perceptive observer and it’s great to know that she recognises Israel as being the only true democracy in the Middle East and a nation worthy of full support. So welcome to the tribe Julie, if you go for conversion – and if not, welcome as a good friend!

Saudi Sheik Sparks Political Row

Question: where does a terrorism supporting,  Islamic extremist preacher go when he needs medical treatment…?

Answer: Germany.

The New York Times brings us a story about a Saudi cleric who supports Osama Bin Laden and calls for the death of Jews and Christians. Germany kindly gave him police protection in April while he was treated in a hospital there.

The disclosure of Germany’s hospitality has sparked a massive row; German law defines these Islamic rantings as a hate crime.

Sheik Abdullah ibn al-Jebreen is one of the most influential clerics in Saudi Arabia and a devotee of Wahhabism, a strict form of Islam.

American and European counterterrorism officials warn that he has supported radical Islam and supported violence against Jews and Christians. Several of his followers are under surveillance by the German intelligence services.

His visit to Germany was first reported early this month by Spiegel Online, the Web site of the newsmagazine Der Spiegel, after an Iraqi exile read about it on the cleric’s Web site and filed a complaint against him.

Government officials confirmed details of the visit under questioning in Parliament on Wednesday. Some angry lawmakers demanded to know why he had even been granted entry.

“The man has called for the killing of Shiites, and this is definitely a crime in Germany, and he also praised Osama bin Laden,” said Omid Nouripour, a Green Party member of Parliament, adding, “This is a scandal.”

August Hanning, state secretary of the Interior Ministry, said by telephone that he had no warning of the visit and that the cleric had entered with a French visa. “The government had no idea about this,” he said.

Peter Altmaier, another state secretary of the Interior Ministry, told Parliament that government officials first heard about the cleric’s presence in Germany when the Saudi interior minister contacted the German Embassy in Riyadh on May 11 and asked that Mr. Jebreen receive police protection in a Berlin hospital where he was undergoing heart treatment.

The police stopped by the hospital several times to check on him. “We were in regular contact with the hospital and the Saudi Embassy,” said Martin Otter, a Berlin police spokesman.

Guido Steinberg, a terrorism expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said:  “Everything that you have heard about him is absolutely Wahhabi mainstream, that the Shiites are apostates and that people should go to Iraq and fight against occupiers.”

The Iraqi exile, Ali al-Sarray, whose lawyer filed the complaint to the German police in May, said Mr. Jebreen “is one of the brainwashers who is responsible for terrorism and the killing of innocent people.”



How nice of Germany to prove so accommodating to an advocate of terrorism and a hater of Jews. Funny how the Sheik somehow knew he’d have no problem receiving treatment in Germany, isn’t it…?

It’s Like Google, But Kosher

And the award for the cutest story of the week goes to the creation of Koogle – a kosher version of Google!

This search engine has been developed in Israel, for use by Orthodox Jews.

‘Koogle’ is a combination of ‘kugel”, which is a Jewish pudding, and of course Google, the search engine. The brain behind Koogle is Yossi Altman. Koogle filters out  religiously objectionable material, and has gained approval from Orthodox rabbis.

This is a kosher alternative for ultra-Orthodox Jews so that they may surf the Internet,  Yossi Altman told Reuters, Jerusalem.

The site was developed in part at the encouragement of rabbis who sought a solution to the needs of ultra-Orthodox Jews to browse the Web particularly for vital services,he added.

On the Jewish Shabbat – Friday sundown until Saturday sundown – Jews are not supposed to engage in any form of work of business activity. So if anyone tries to use Koogle during the Shabbat, it crashes automatically!

Koogle. You gotta love it!

Kugel is also pretty fab…

What All Sane People Would Like To Tell Obama:

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.

Enjoy!

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

List Of Top American Muslims Sent To Obama

The Denver Post enlightens the rest of us:

CHICAGO — In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with resumes of 45 of the nation’s most qualified — Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted — has been submitted to the White House.

The effort, driven by community leaders and others, including U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was bumped up two weeks because White House officials heard about the venture, said J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, who sifted through more than 300 names.

“It was mostly under the radar,” Williams said. “We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn’t know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community.”

I’m sure we’re all wondering the same thing. Namely – did Obama also get a list of the ‘top’ Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Atheists, and so on…?

The Murder And Torture Of Ilan Halimi: Update

Some of you may recall reading here about the torture and murder of French Jew Ilan Halimi, at the hands of a Muslim mob. The case went to trial but has apparently now been stopped; more on this very shortly. Meanwhile, check out the article below, by Pam Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog, written while the trial was ongoing.

The Halimi Cover-Up

by Pamela Geller

The abduction and murder in Paris of a young Jewish man by a gang of Muslim immigrants calling themselves the Barbarians shocked the whole of France in 2006. But now that the accused are on trial – silence.

A French judge has ordered the latest issue of the magazine Choc (“shock”) removed from the shelves. The cover showed a man with duct tape completely covering his head, except for a small opening around his nose. His nose is bloody. His hands are also bound with duct tape

It was a photo of Ilan Halimi, the 23-year-old Parisian Jew who was kidnapped and tortured for 24 days by the Barbarians. His captors took the picture and sent it to his family.

A lawyer for Halimi’s family had complained about the magazine, but ‘Choc’s editor-in-chief Paul Payan responded:

“Of course, we understand the anguish of the parents and, of course, we share their anguish…. But what’s so harrowing is not the publication of this photo. What’s harrowing is what it represents, what happened, the reality behind it.”

And it gets worse. The New York Times reported last week that “in the two and a half weeks since 27 people went on trial [in Paris] for the brutal 2006 kidnapping, torture and killing of a young Jewish man, little has filtered out about the proceedings.”

Worse still, the little that has emerged indicates that French government and law enforcement have done everything in their power to obscure the Islamic Jew-hatred that led these Muslims to commit this crime.

The corrupt media, aligned with the jihad forces, has long blacked out the truth about the homemade concentration camp and the inconceivable horrors that were suffered by this French Jew, chosen by Islam’s soldiers for unimaginable torture. They covered up the religious aspects of this depraved barbarity. Law enforcement did as well.

No one said anything about the Quran’s statement that the Jews are the Muslims’ worst enemies. No one referenced Muhammad’s words: “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'”

Never was there heard anything about the Islamic tradition that says: “When judgment day arrives, Allah will give every Muslim a Jew or Christian to kill, so that the Muslim will not enter into hell fire.”

Ilan’s uncle, Rafi Halimi, reported that “the gang phoned the family on several occasions and made them listen to the recitation of verses from the Quran, while Ilan’s tortured screams could be heard in the background.”

Three weeks of unimaginable torture. Three weeks. So many clues. So many guilty animals partaking in the continuing torture in their “homemade concentration camp.”

Twenty-three people participated in torturing Ilan. Another twenty were involved indirectly. The custodian of the building gave them the key to an apartment where they said they wanted to “keep someone.”

French journalist Guy Millière reported that “the screams must have been loud because the torture was especially atrocious: the thugs cut bits off the flesh of the young man, they cut his fingers and ears, they burned him with acid, and in the end poured flammable liquid on him and set him on fire.”

Horrible tortures. Horrible torturers. One of the torturers would go to work at a TV station every day and come back to partake in the torture. The girls who lured Halimi into the trap knew he had been kidnapped. They knew Youssef Fofana, the leader of the Barbarians, was extremely violent. They knew Ilan was still in his hands three weeks later.

All they had to do was make an anonymous phone call to the police. No one would have known. They did not do it. No neighbor thought to say to the police that something strange was going on in their building.

The police told the family not to say a word. The Jewish community was not warned when prior attempts to kidnap Jewish men had failed. The Jewish community was not warned before the successful attempt.

Even the one member of the gang who dropped out because he was shocked by their violence did not call the police.

When Ilan was found, the head of the fire department who was called to the scene, a man with decades of experience, almost fainted when he saw the victim.

The last thing Youssef Fofana did was slit Ilan’s throat, twice, and pour a flammable liquid on him to try to set him on fire. But this did not burn him to death, because Ilan walked for perhaps one hour, trying still to find a way to live.

It was another brutal Islamic slaughter of a defenseless Jew. To cover it up now is only to help ensure that it happens again.

I wanted to write something about this article by Pamela Geller but I’m on the verge of tears having read those details. I wish long life to Ilan Halimi’s family and I hope and pray that Ilan is in a far, far better place right now.

Jews don’t believe in hell but, if there does exist such a place, I hope that the bastards who killed Ilan Halimi will rot there for all eternity.

Relevant links:

Atlas Shrugs

Jew With A View: Muslim Mob On Trial For Torture And Murder Of Jewish Man Lured by Honeytrap

Egypt Bans Marriage To Israelis

Here is yet more proof – if any was needed! – that Islam is inherently anti semitic.  In Egypt, ostensibly on ‘peaceful’ terms with Israel, Islamic religious law has now been cited to ratify a ban on marrying Israelis. No doubt Egyptian Muslims are feeling empowered as a result of Obama’s wooing of Islam.

One Egyptian certainly is. Here, from the World Jewish Review:

Solicitor Nabih Al-Wahsh has managed to extract a ruling from Egypt’s Administrative Court — which rules in disputes between citizens and the state — that would force the Egyptian government to strip Egyptians married to Israelis of their Egyptian citizenship. The May 19 ruling was met with the cheers of millions in this populous Arab country.

After the verdict was read in the Cairo courtroom, Nabih al-Wahsh jumped for joy and received an avalanche of telephone calls from friends congratulating him on his latest legal victory.

“This is an historic ruling,” al-Wahsh said to reporters after the ruling. “Egyptians married to Israelis are dangerous to Egypt’s national security, acting in ways that contradict the constitution of their country and Islamic laws,” he said.

Calls flooded into TV talk shows discussing the verdict and readers posted comments on Web sites of newspapers that wrote about it.

Everyone appeared united in elation at the ruling, as well as in hatred of the Jewish state and everything that related to it.

Such sentiments among a large chunk of Egypt’s population of about 80 million underscores the wide chasm that distinguishes Egypt at the official level and the same country at the level of its public.

Although Egypt was the first country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, almost 30 years ago, its government and its people still walk two different paths.

Egyptian officials visit Israel, meet members of its cabinet and sign agreements secretly and openly with them, but the people on the street still view Israel as an “enemy,” “imperialist” in nature, and those Egyptians who travel and get married there are seen as “traitors.” These same critics have consistently attempted to abort every possibility of breaking the ice that has blocked the way between Cairo and Tel Aviv for decades now.

In this sense, it is true that Egypt is the “heart of the Arab world,” as President Barack Obama and his advisers like to call it.

Egyptian analysts say the court ruling asking the government to revoke the nationality of Egyptians married to Israelis should not affect peace between the Jewish state and the country that bore arms against Israel four times in the last 60 years.

Some estimates put the number of Egyptians living in Israel between 6,000 and 7,000, although al-Wahsh believes the number could be between 30,000 and 40,000.

The reason people leave Egypt for Israel is not a secret to the people in this country, even among decision-makers themselves. In addition to the fallout from the international economic downturn, which has weighed heavily on the Egyptian economy, Egypt has been suffering its own economic deterioration for years.

In this country, which features the oldest civilization in the Arab Middle East, more than 40 percent of the population lives beneath the poverty line, according to the World Bank.

The economic reform policies of Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party have failed to improve living conditions for the majority of the population and have even backfired at times, creating a new class of monopolistic businessmen who control the prices and availability of basic commodities.

Israel, by contrast, is a thriving multiethnic country that enjoys political pluralism and offers Egyptian job seekers a model totally different from in their own country, where jobs are rare, diversity is nonexistent and religious tolerance is scarce.

Part of the antipathy to Israel stems from what Egyptians see on their national TV and read in their newspapers every day.

A few weeks ago, TV anchor Mahmud Saad, in an on-air telephone interview, lashed out at Egypt’s Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni, who is seeking election to the top post of UNESCO, for inviting Daniel Barenboim, a conductor with Israeli origins and international acclaim, to lead an orchestra at the Egyptian Opera House.

“I hate Israel,” Saad, who hosts the popular talk show “al-Beit Beitak” (“Feel at Home”), shouted while speaking with the minister.

Days later, Egypt’s ex-mufti — a top religious leader who advises the country’s Muslim majority on religious matters — lampooned Arab countries that sign agreements with Israel in a veiled criticism of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Yet there was Obama last week, in Egypt, legitimising Islamic hatred of ‘infidels’ and actually claiming that Islam valued ‘racial equality’.

That man wouldn’t recognise integrity if it walked up and slapped him round the face.

Obama And The Whitewashing Of Islam

 

 Got a nice big bucket? If not, you’d better borrow one from a neighbour. Because trust me – you’re gonna need it after reading Obama’s Love Letter to the Muslim World. He attempted to whitewash Islam to such an extent that frankly, I’m amazed even the Muslim audience members were able to keep straight faces. America’s Prince Of Appeasement bowed low before them, and it was not a pretty sight.

 

Let’s  face it. Obama might as well be a Muslim. I  don’t care how much the man insists he’s a Christian. He speaks with a reverence for Islam and he calls the Quran ‘holy’. I don’t know many Christians that would do this. If Obama had spoken this way about Islam prior to the American elections, would he be sitting in the White House today? I’d wager the answer is a resounding NO.

But he did win, and now the Prince Of Appeasement clearly feels secure enough to express his reverence for Islam:

Obama: ‘Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.’

(really? with not one Islamic democracy? with the Quran clearly stating that non Muslims must be coverted by force or beheaded? with millions of Muslims dedicated to transforming the world into a global Caliphate? with Jews and Christians and all ‘infidels’ living as dhimmis in Muslim lands, century after century? ‘religious tolerance’ – really?)

 

Obama: ‘In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.’

(no? then G-d only help America. Because Islam’s made it clear, it is War)

 

Obama: ‘The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.’

(’holy’? Only if you’re a Muslim. How many Christians would even consider referring to the Quran as ‘holy’? Oh, and let’s not forget, that the above teaching is a JEWISH teaching that appeared IN Judaism thousands of years before Islam even existed.)

 

Obama: Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism…’

(correct, Islam is the TOTAL problem!)

 

‘Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.’

(Er, where? Not on  planet Earth!)

 

Obama specifically refers to both the Quran and the Christian bible as ‘holy’ – but manages to avoid referring to the Torah in the same way. Instead, he cites the Talmud.

Why is this? Why did Obama not quote from the Jewish holy text, the Torah? After all, it’s not like there’s any shortage of wise and compassionate teachings in the Torah! But no, instead Obama says:

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of G-d.”

And what about the millions of people who DON’T belong to one of the three Abrahamic faiths?

Obama’s Cairo love-fest with Islam will surely go down in history as a masterclass in sheer, unadulterated appeasement.   Oh, how the extremists must be crowing right now.

I can almost hear Mohammed laughing.

****************************************************************

Melanie Phillips has voiced some very pertinent points about Obama’s comments on Israel today in Cairo. Here is what she says:

 

Obama  revealed gross ignorance of the Jews’ unique claim to the land of Israel. He said that America’s unbreakable bond with Israel was based upon:

the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust…

The Jews’ attachment to their homeland does not derive from the Holocaust, nor their overall tragic history. It derives from Judaism itself, which is composed of the inseparable elements of the religion, the people and the land. Their unique claim upon the land rests upon the fact that the Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their nation, which it was for hundreds of years – centuries before the Arabs and Muslims came on the scene. As for antisemitism, he made no mention of the alliance between the Palestinians and the Nazis during the 1930s, and the fact that Nazi-style Jew-hatred continues to pour out of the Arab and Muslim world to this day.

Building upon this ignorance, he then adopted the Arab propaganda version of Israel’s history. He thus delivered a travesty of the facts:

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.

On the contrary, it is not undeniable because it is untrue. The Palestinians have been offered a homeland repeatedly – in 1936, 1947, 2000 and last year. They have repeatedly turned it down. The Arabs could have created it between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. They chose not to do so. They could have created it after 1967, when Israel offered the land to them in return for peace with Israel. They refused the offer. The Palestinians have suffered because they have tried for six decades to destroy the Jews’ homeland.

Obama: For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation.

The ‘pain of dislocation’ was caused by the fact that six decades ago they went to war against the newly recreated Israel to destroy it, and were subsequently deliberately kept in ‘refugee’ camps by the Arab world. What other aggressor in the world is described as suffering ‘the pain of dislocation’ caused by its own aggression — which has continued for sixty years without remission and shows no sign of ending?

Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.

There is one reason for that and one reason alone – the Palestinians have ensured that Israel has never lived in peace or security, because they have continued to attack it and murder its citizens. And Gaza? Doesn’t Obama realise the Israelis no longer occupy Gaza?  It is run by Hamas, which shows its commitment to the peace and security of its inhabitants by throwing them off the tops of tall buildings.

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

And what about the intolerable situation of Israel, forced to live in a state of siege for sixty years because of the unending aggression of the Palestinians and the wider Arab and Muslim world? The Palestinians could have lived in peace and prosperity alongside Israel at any time since 1948. If they were to end their attempt to destroy Israel and accept insteadthe right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state — that crucual qualification Obama omitted to mention – they could do so tomorrow. The only reason their position is intolerable is because they themselves have made it so. What other aggressor in the world has its situation described as ‘intolerable’?

Palestinians must abandon violence.

Good. But then:

Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.

‘Resistance’? ‘Resistance’ is a term of moral approval. ‘Resistance’ describes a fight against injustice. But the Palestinians have been engaged in an attempt to wipe out Israel. Obama sees this as ‘resistance’ – even though he says violence is wrong. And then this:

For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.

So Obama has equated genocidal terrorism by the Palestinians with the civil rights movement in America and the true resistance against apartheid in South Africa. Thus the moral bankruptcy of the relativist.

Next, he repeated that the settlements (all of them? just new ones?) undermined peace and so had to stop. But they don’t undermine peace. It is Arab rejectionism that prevents peace in the mMddle East, and the settlements are a palpable excuse. Yet Obama delivered no ultimatum of any kind to Iran, the real threat to peace in the region and the world; indeed, he repeated that Iran

should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

– an alarming indication that he might view as acceptable a formulation which might enable Iran to continue to make nuclear weapons under some kind of verbal and political camouflage.

For his egregious sanitising of Islam and its history, and his absurd claims about its contribution to western civilisation, read Robert Spencer here. But in this regard, one of Obama’s references in particular made me catch my breath. It was this:

The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

This is boilerplate misrepresentation by Islamists and their apologists. The fact is that it is Judaism which teaches this as a cardinal precept. The Talmud states:

Whoever destroys a single soul, he is guilty as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whoever preserves a single soul, it is as though he had preserved a whole world.

The Koran appropriated this precept – but altered it to mean something very different. Thus:

That was why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet many among them, even after that, did prodigious evil in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. (My emphasis)

In other words, this turns a Talmudic precept affirming the value of preserving human life into a prescription for violence and murder against Jews and ‘unbelievers’. Yet Obama passed it off as evidence of the pacific nature of Islam.

So in conclusion, yes, there was some positive stuff in this speech – but it was outweighed by the United States President’s shocking historical misrepresentations, gross ignorance, disgusting moral equivalence between aggressors and their victims, and disturbing sanitising of Islamist supremacism

 

 

******************************************************************

UPDATE:

Clearly I am not alone in surmising that Obama has lost the plot entirely.  His recent announcement that America ‘is one of the largest Muslim countries’ is raising both eyebrows and suspicions in all sane observers. Here’s Melanie Phillips again, in the Spectator, saying what many are thinking:

Having previously declared that America is ‘no longer a Christian nation’ – to be precise:

… At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers…

Obama has now announced, on the eve of his pilgrimage to make obeisance to the entire Islamic world, that the US can be seen as a Muslim country:

‘And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,’ Mr. Obama said.

Uh? Here are some statistics of the number and percentage of Muslims in various countries:

Indonesia: 207,105,000 (88.2%);

Pakistan: 167,430,801 (95%);

India: 156,254,615 (13.4%);

Turkey: 70,800,000 (99%);

Egypt: 70,530,237 (90%);

Nigeria: 64,385,994 (45%);

Iran: 64,089,571 (98%);

Algeria: 32,999,883 (99%);

Morocco: 32,300,410 (99%);

Afghanistan: 31,571,023 (99%)

Saudi Arabia: 26,417,599 (100%)

USA: 4,558,068 (1.5%)

Just what planet is this US President on?

Or is this not a statement but an aspiration?

Across the pond, Wesley Pruden in the Washington Post also picks up on this point, as well as rightly lambasting Obama for his pitiful love letter to Islam while in Cairo:

“Now it’s on to Normandy, to apologize to the Germans. It’s the least an American president can do after the way the Allied armies left so much of Europe in rubble. There’s a lot of groveling to do for what America accomplished in the Pacific, too.

This prospect should appeal to Barack Obama, who relishes the role of Apologizer-in-Chief. Apologizing for manifold sins against civilization is not always easy, but it’s simple enough: “Blame America First.” You just open a vein and let it flow. In Cairo, Mr. Obama opened an artery.

In an interview before the Cairo speech, he called the United States one of “the largest Muslim countries,” based on its Muslim population, and he later put the number of Muslims in America at 7 million, more than even most Islamic advocacy groups claim.

Mr. Obama described himself as “a Christian, but,” and offered a hymn to the Muslim roots he insisted during the late presidential campaign he didn’t have. He invoked his middle name, “Hussein,” as evidence that he was one of “them.” The Obama campaign insisted last year that anyone who uses the middle name was playing with racism.

The article notes also:

“But it was more fun to fish for applause by berating America and throwing rocks at Israel…. Israel, he said, must “live up to its obligations,” but he had hardly a word of rebuke for the long record of broken Palestinian promises. It was a remarkable insult to an absent ally, delivered to the applause of Israel’s sworn enemies.”

And the piece concluded:

“The great Cairo grovel accomplished nothing beyond the humiliation of the president and the embarrassment of his constituents, few of whom share his need to put America on its knees before its enemies. No president before him has ever shamed us so. We must never forget it.”

Jewish Fundamentalism?

 

An interesting post appeared on the Chabad  site this week; I thought some readers of this blog might enjoy it:

 

Jewish Fundamentalism?

By Rabbi Aron Moss

 

Question: I was wondering if there is such a person as a Jewish fundamentalist?  If so, what percent of Jews would or could be classified as Fundamentalist? And, what would their core beliefs be?

 

 

Answer: I’m not sure what your definition of fundamentalist is, but here’s mine: A fundamentalist is someone who believes that theirs is the only true path, and anyone who does not follow their ways is evil.

The fundamentalist sees only two options for the rest of humanity – join us or suffer the consequences. Other nations are there to either missionize or destroy, and any belief system that does not conform with theirs is to be eradicated.

A fundamentalist is not the same as an extremist. There are those who are passionate or even extreme about their own beliefs, whether a born-again Christian, devout Muslim, radical liberal or die-hard atheist. We can debate the pros and cons of each of these belief systems, but a strong conviction alone doesn’t make you a fundamentalist.

It is when you cannot accept that there may be another road to truth, that not everyone has to fit in to your own world view – that is when you have strayed into the realm of fundamentalism.

For this reason, Judaism can never tolerate fundamentalism. Quite simply, we don’t believe that Judaism is for everyone. Jewish thought is comfortable with the belief that there are many paths to G-d; Judaism is the path for Jews, and non-Jews can find Him in different ways.

They can live a moral and good life without keeping the laws or sharing the beliefs of Judaism. Anyone can join Judaism by converting, but this is not necessary – a non-Jew can be fulfilled, close to G-d, and earn a place in heaven without becoming Jewish.

I think it is this universalistic approach that has saved Judaism from the plague of fundamentalism. Don’t get me wrong – there are certainly Jewish extremists, ratbags, troublemakers and whackos. But I don’t know of any significant group of Jewish fundamentalists. Judaism poses a challenge to the fundamentalist: If you really love G-d so much, shouldn’t you also love all His children, who are created in His image?

 

Rabbi Aron Moss teaches Talmud, practical Judaism and Kabbalah in Sydney, Australia.

Obama Wooing Islam – By Promising To Hand Over Jerusalem

More on Obama’s apparent promises to deliver Israel to the Muslim world. Claims are now appearing that Obama has shown support for an end to Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

This just in, from World Net Daily

President Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.

“The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA,” said Nimer Hamad, Abbas’ senior political adviser.

Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest,” Hamad said.

Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND today that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “get in the way” of ‘normalizing’ U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.

Also in Cairo today, Abbas met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where the Palestinian leader briefed Egypt’s president on his recent trip to Washington, saying the U.S. was committed to bringing about an end to Israeli construction in the West Bank.

Hamad’s comments about Jerusalem today come as controversy abounded regarding the U.S. position on Israel’s capital city.

Last week, the State Department refuted a speech in which Netanyahu said Jerusalem never will be divided.

“Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” Netanyahu said at an event marking Jerusalem’s reunification. “Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided.”

In response, the State Department released a statement that Jerusalem “is a final status issue.”

“Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues,” the statement said.

Also last week, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed in a WND interview that the Obama administration told the PA that Jerusalem will never be united under Israeli sovereignty.

“Americans said an open Jerusalem – yes. But a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty – no,” Hatem Abdel Khader, the PA’s minister for Jerusalem affairs, said in comments to both WND and Israel’s Ynetnews website.

“(The Obama administration) has made clear that Jerusalem must be accessible to everyone – but not united under Israel’s rule,” Khader said.

Khader told WND, “The Americans are very present on the ground, and they are making pressure over Israeli authorities and even municipalities.”

“They are acting according to the concept that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. national security interests – and without Jerusalem there is no Palestinian state,” he said.

Khader’s claim the U.S. is helping the Palestinians gain a foothold in Jerusalem is accurate. In April, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinian homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.

The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem’s Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community’s Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.

Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures’ legal demolition.

But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.

“Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map,” she said. “It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem.”

The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.

WND learned that in the weeks since Clinton’s visit here, the U.S. mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel’s prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.

Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.

According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu’s administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain intact.

The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing – which has not yet been announced – to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.

Said one source in Netanyahu’s administration, “This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else’s property?”

While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.

The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.

The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem’s Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War.

The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

And so it begins. The slow but sure dismantling of the Jewish homeland. Note the false premise that has clearly been accepted by Obama: namely, that it is Israel which is ‘getting in the way’ of American-Arab and American-Muslim relations.

Just as Hitler convinced the German people that it was ‘only the jews’ that were preventing Germany from being great again, so now Obama is suggesting that it is ‘only Israel’ that is stopping America from having a good relationship with the Muslim world.

I mean, it’s not as though the Muslim world consists of barbaric theocracies that view America as ‘the great satan’ or anything like that, is it…?

If G-d forbid Israel vanished tomorrow, the Muslim world would still loathe America and all it stands for. Obama’s treachery would all have been for nothing. And the sole democracy in the Middle East, Israel, would have paid the ultimate price for appeasing the vile creed that is Islam, the ‘religion of peace’.

Answering The Apologists For Islam

Those who seek to justify Islamic terrorism, often do so by stating that both Judaism and Christianity also have violent histories. Islam, they insist, is being ‘unfairly’ singled out, even though the other Abrahamic faiths are also inherently violent.

The two favourite and increasingly weary examples offered are the slaying by the Hebrews of the Canaanites (Judaism) and the bloody crimes of the Crusades (Christianity).

And this tactic by apologists for Islamic terrorism often works. It helps shore up the pervasive yet false premise that Islam is ‘just like other religions’.  Or, to put it another way: it is not Islam that causes Islamic terrorism, but rather human nature.

One of the best responses I’ve read to this apologist tactic, comes courtesy of writer and expert on radical Islam, Raymond Ibrahim. Here is what he says on the issue of whether Judaism and Christianity also promote violence in the same manner as Islam (emphasis is mine):

Such questions reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and the immutable words of G-d. The fundamental error being that Jewish andChristian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theologywhich commands violence.

Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by G-d or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.

The Israelites’ violence is an interesting case in point. G-d clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of G-d’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Tanakh is just that—history. It happened; G-d commanded it.

But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Tanakh —commanded by G-d and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (9:5).

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e. Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued (9:29).

As with Tanakh  verses where G-d  commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, these Koranic verses also have a historical context. Allah (through Muhammad) first issued these commandments after the Arab tribes had finally unified under the banner of Islam and were preparing to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors.

But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Tanakh  these so-called “sword-verses” subsequently became fundamental to Islam’s relationship to both the “people of the book” (i.e. Christians and Jews) and the “pagans” (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc).

In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam’s scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all reached the consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world, until the former subsumes the latter. (It is widely held that the sword-verses alone have abrogated some 200 of the Koran’s more tolerant verses.)

Famous Muslim scholar and “father of modern history” Ibn Khaldun articulates the dichotomy between jihad and defensive warfare thus:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...
The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.

That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations]…

But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).

Even when juxtaposed to their Jewish and Christian counterparts, the Islamic sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday.

G-d commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did G-d  give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles.

On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5).
The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).

Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior—his “Sunna” or “example”—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21).

And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:

“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).

In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).

While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Tanakh  never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by G-d for their less than ideal behavior.

And regarding the Crusades, Raymond Ibrahim points out:
In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called “Christian” Crusades, despite them—man is truly predisposed to violence and intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?

Read more of Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent articles here

Obama – Selling Out Israel

Both Jews and non Jews alike are expressing alarm over Obama’s willingness to sacrifice Israel in order to placate the Arab world.

Atlas Shrugs has been monitoring this situation closely; here is a recent post which spells out precisely what is going on:

Obama committed to Expelling Jews from Jewish Homeland

The increasingly creepy President’s latest act of anti-semitism. From Israel Today:

‘Obama committed to ejecting Jews from Judea-Samaria,’ says Abbas

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday told reporters in Cairo that he is convinced that US President Barack Obama is firmly committed to finally ejecting the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Abbas spoke to the press after briefing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to the White House late last week, during which Obama apparently agreed with his guest that existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria must not even be allowed to experience “natural growth.”

“When the American administration talks about Israel’s duty to stop the settlements – including natural growth – it is a very important step,” noted Abbas.

Following their meeting last Thursday, Obama said that he also told Abbas to make a bit more of an effort to halt what he described as isolated and sporadic anti-Jewish incitement in Palestinian schools, mosques and media. Documentation by Israeli and international watchdog groups shows that the incitement is far from isolated or sporadic.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials cited by Ha’aretz decried the Obama Administration’s stiff demands that no more houses be built for Jews beyond the pre-1967 borders.

They noted that under former President George W. Bush, Israel reached understandings that the natural growth of existing towns would not subject to Israel’s commitments to halt settlement activity (commitments many Israelis see as null and void anyway since the Palestinians have failed to honor their reciprocal obligations).

But one official said those understandings are now “worth nothing,” and that the US is taking an unfair position by completely siding with Palestinian demands that go far beyond the original peace agreements.

Other officials attributed Obama’s hard line positions against Israel to his efforts to reconcile with the Arab and Muslim worlds, which will be the focus of a much anticipated speech he will give in Cairo this Thursday.

Israel to U.S.: ‘Stop favoring Palestinians’

UPDATE: The Lid compares Obama to Pharaoh: “This week the President of the United States declared that the Jews living in the West Bank cannot have children, and if they do those kids cannot live with their parents. Oh, that’s not what he said, but the result is the same. What he said is that there cannot be natural growth in the West Bank settlements:”

‘Obama’s decrees are like Pharaoh’s’

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

“The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river,” Science Minister and Habayit Hayehudi head Daniel Herschkowitz said Sunday, referring to US President Barack Obama’s demand to freeze all settlement activity, even that ensuing from natural growth.

Speaking ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting, mathematician Herschkowitz furthered his point with a simple equation. “If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them – to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively,” he affirmed.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai said, “The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don’t want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we’re facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they’re demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand.”

Information and Diaspora Minister Yuli Edelstein chose a positive perspective on the dispute threatening an Israeli-American rift.

“The recent days prove what luck we have that it is [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu’s government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem,” he said. “Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.”

“We aren’t headed for a confrontation with the White House, but rather for understandings, and Netanyahu’s visit there proved it. President Obama is a friend of Israel, and I’m sure we can resolve the disagreements,” Edelstein added.

Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog of the Labor party stressed the importance in preventing a head-on collision with Obama.

“The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s upcoming trip to Washington proves it,” Herzog said.

Are We About To See A Muslim Fatwa Against The BBC…?

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…?

Islamic Terrorists Target Moroccan Jews

Moroccan Muslims are a tad excited.  Having seen their co religionists in Yemen finally force out the tiny Jewish community there, they seek to accomplish the same thing in Morocco:

From Agence France-Presse, May 21:

RABAT (AFP) — A group of  Islamists recently arrested in Morocco planned to attack Jewish interests in the country, a court source said Thursday, citing the charges against them.

The suspects, alleged to be members of a cell that was part of the radical Islamist movement Salafia Jihadia, were also preparing attacks against Moroccan security services, the source said.

The cell — Jamaat Al Mourabitine Al Jodod, or New Fighters Group — allegedly began operating in March 2008 in southern Morocco and sought to recruit militants from Koranic schools with the intention of infiltrating political parties.

Authorities announced their arrest on May 12 and they face charges including forming a criminal gang with the aim of carrying out “terrorist” acts. They are being held in jail.

“Police dismantled the cell as part of a regular operation in the battle against terrorism,” the court source said.

Jews have been living in Morocco since the time of Antiquity. Prior to WWII, the Jewish population of Morocco reached 225,000.

But life in Morocco was not without its problems. In 1943 a series of  pogroms occurred. And in June 1948,  forty-four Jews were murdered during riots in Oujda and Djerada.  Also in that year,  an unofficial economic boycott was instigated against Moroccan Jews.

In 1965, Moroccan writer Said Ghallab had this to say about the feelings of his fellow Muslims towards Jews:

The worst insult that a Moroccan could possibly offer was to treat someone as a Jew.

My childhood friends have remained anti-Jewish. They hide their virulent anti-Semitism by contending that the State of Israel was the creature of Western ‘imperialism’

A whole Hitlerite myth is being cultivated among the populace. The massacres of the Jews by Hitler are exalted ecstatically. It is even credited that Hitler is not dead, but alive and well, and his arrival is awaited to deliver the Arabs from Israel.

And this is hardly surprising. For the Quran is replete with anti semitism. Mohammed may have started off by wooing Jews in a bid to convert them to his new faith, but the second they declined, his ‘love’ turned to hate and Islamic anti semitism was born.

Author Andrew Bostom (The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism) presents  an enormous amount of documentary evidence testifying to the humiliations Jews experienced at the hands of Muslims.

Bostom also points out  that the extremist, Jihadist description of Jews as “apes and pigs,” in accord with the Qur’an, has historical precedent.

Indeed, Muhammad himself used it before ordering that every adult male of the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, be killed, calling the Jews “you brothers of monkeys.”

And Zaynu’d-Din Ali b Said, praised the anti-Jewish riots and massacres in Baghdad in 1291 (which spread widely in the region), saying, “These apish Jews are done away and destroyed.”

Bostom also references another slaughter:

Referring to the Jews as “brothers of apes,” who repeatedly blasphemed the prophet Muhammad, and whose overall conduct reflected their hatred of Muslims, the Moroccan cleric al-Maghili (d. 1505) fomented, and then personally led, a Muslim pogrom (in ~1490) against the Jews of the southern Moroccan oasis of Touat, plundering and killing Jews en masse, and destroying their synagogue in neighboring Tamantit. Al-Maghili’s virulent Islamic antisemitism was perhaps captured best in a line from a verse diatribe he composed: “Love of the Prophet requires hatred of the Jews.”

“Love of the Prophet requires hatred of the Jews.”