Two members of Islamic Jihad were arrested by Palestinian police in Jenin on Thursday in connection to Wednesday's bombing in Jerusalem. According to a statement released by Islamic Jihad, "Palestinian security forces broke into the home of Jihad official Khaled Jaradat and arrested him. Other forces arrested organization official Tarek Kaadan near his home."
On Wednesday, the Palestinian Authority condemned the Jerusalem explosion that killed a woman and wounded dozens of people, while Hamas and Islamic Jihad welcomed it as a “natural response to Israeli crimes.”
A British woman was the only victim killed in a bomb blast near a Jerusalem bus station yesterday. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman said: “We can confirm a British National was killed in the bus bomb in Jerusalem on 23 March. We are providing consular assistance."
The Briton died in an ambulance on her way to hospital. It is not clear whether the woman was a tourist or lived in Israel. The bomb was the first in more than six years.
Two kilos of explosives were positioned close to the central bus station in Jerusalem, according to reports. The bomb is thought to have been packed with metal causing shrapnel injuries to people as they queued for buses. Two buses had stopped to pick up passengers at the time of the explosion. The 174 bus was particularly badly hit.
Following the attack, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said that Israel would act "aggressively, responsibly and wisely" in wake of a recent upsurge in violence.
Israeli jets staged three air strikes over Gaza overnight but there were no casualties, Palestinian sources said early this morning. Two of the raids targeted the city of Gaza while another was aimed at a tunnel near the Egyptian frontier at Rafah, they said.
An Israeli defence spokeswoman confirmed the sorties, saying: "The air force targeted two tunnels at the south of the Gaza Strip and a terrorist target in Gaza."
A family slaughtered in Israel â€“ doesn't the BBC care?
Louise Bagshawe MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire in the Telegraph. HT Brian of London
Who is Tamar Fogel? The chances are that you will have no idea. She is a 12-year-old girl who arrived home late on Friday, March 11, to discover her family had been slaughtered. Her parents had been stabbed to death; the throat of her 11-year-old brother, Yoav, had been slit. Her four-year-old brother, Elad, whose throat had also been cut, was still alive, with a faint pulse, but medics were unable to save him. Tamar's sister, Hadas, three months old, had also been killed. Her head had been sawn off. Hugh reported it here.
I found out about the barbaric attack not on BBC news, but via Twitter on Monday. I followed a link there to a piece by Mark Steyn entitled "Dead Jews is no news'. Horrified, I went to the BBC website to find out more. There I discovered only two stories: one a cursory description of the incident in Itamar, a West Bank settlement, and another focusing on Israel's decision to build more settlements, which mentioned the killings in passing.
As the mother of three children, one the same age as little Elad, who had lain bleeding to death, I was stunned at the BBC's seeming lack of care. All the most heart-wrenching details were omitted. The second story, suggesting that the construction announcement was an act of antagonism following the massacre, also omitted key facts and failed to mention the subsequent celebrations in Gaza, and the statement by a Hamas spokesman that "five dead Israelis is not enough to punish anybody".
There were more details elsewhere on the net: the pain and hurt, for example, of the British Jewish community at the BBC's apparent indifference to the fate of the Fogels. The more I read, the more the BBC's broadcast silence amazed me. What if a settler had entered a Palestinian home and sawn off a baby's head? Might we have heard about it then? On Twitter, I attacked the UK media in general, and the BBC in particular. I considered filing a complaint.
The next morning, the BBC's public affairs team emailed me a response that amounted to a shrug. The story "featured prominently on our website", they said. It was important to report on the settlements to put the murder in context, they said.
It was only when I tweeted about their continued indifference that the BBC replied (to a series of questions). Then they informed me that the Fogel story had not featured on television at all. Not even News 24. It was on Radio Four in the morning, but pulled from subsequent broadcasts. The coverage of Japan and Libya, they said, drowned it out. Would I like to make a complaint?
Do you know, I think I would. The BBC has long been accused of anti-Israeli bias. It even commissioned the Balen report into bias in its Middle Eastern coverage, and then went to court to prevent its findings being publicised.
Both I and another member (of the select committee on culture, media and sport, while at the confirmation hearing of Lord Patten of Barnes as chairman of the BBC Trust) asked (him) about bias against Israel. Lord Patten denied any existed. What would he do if shown an example of it? He would ultimately take it to the BBC Trust, he said.
The day after Lord Patten uttered those words, the Fogel children were butchered to almost complete silence from the BBC.
I have asked the corporation to let me know why, if the story was "prominent on the website", it was not deemed of sufficient merit to broadcast on television, and barely on radio. I have asked them to explain the inaccuracies and omissions in the reporting. And I have asked them what non-Japan, non-Libya stories made it to air, in preference. Twenty-four hours later, I have yet to receive a reply.
Yes, I will be filing a complaint – about a story I never heard. I hope Daily Telegraph readers will join me.
I'm interested to read that Louise Bagshawe is MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire. She will be well acquainted with Philip Hollobone who is MP for nearby Kettering.
In Syria, 32 Civilians Killed By Regime, Some Chanting Against The Government's Support For Hezbollah And Iran
At least 25 Syrian protesters killed, hospital says
By Suleiman al-Khalidi
DERAA, Syria (Reuters) - The main hospital in the southern Syrian city of Deraa has received the bodies of at least 25 protesters who were killed in a confrontation with security forces, a hospital official said on Thursday.
Security forces opened fire on hundreds of youths at the northern entrance to Deraa on Wednesday afternoon, according to witnesses, in a dramatic escalation of nearly a week of protests in which at least 32 civilians have been killed since Friday.
"We received them at 5 p.m. yesterday (11 a.m. ET)). They all had bullet wounds," the official, who declined to be named, told Reuters.
On Thursday Syrian soldiers wielding AK-47s roamed the streets of the southern city. Secret police and special police units wearing all black have been more visible in Deraa since the protests erupted last Friday.
The army has so far taken a secondary role -- mostly manning checkpoints -- in confronting demonstrations that erupted last week in Syria's agricultural heartland, demanding political freedoms and an end to corruption.
Witnesses said hundreds of soldiers patrolled Deraa's main streets as heavy rain fell, with scores manning intersections to prevent public gatherings. Travelers on a main highway near Deraa said they saw convoys of trucks carrying up to 2,000 soldiers heading to Deraa on Wednesday night.
Syria's Baathist rulers [more accurately: Alawite rulers] have a history of crushing opposition violently in their 48 years in power.
In 1982, President Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, sent troops to the conservative religious city of Hama to crush the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, killing thousands. [note how Reuters refuses to say "tens of thousands"]
Syria's Alawite rulers run a country which is majority Sunni. [Reuters does not explain who the Alawites are]Protesters in Deraa, a mainly Sunni city, have shouted slogans against the government's alliance with Shi'ite Iran, breaking a taboo on criticizing Syrian foreign policy.
Parents whose sons were missing in Deraa after they came under attack from security forces on Wednesday were trying to find out what happened to them, residents said.
"People are still hysterical. They do not know whether their sons are dead or alive. No one yet knows how many people are dead. There could be scores," one resident said.
"I counted six bodies near the 26th of October Square at 3:30 p.m. yesterday," said one Deraa resident who declined to be named for fear of being traced and arrested.
There were unconfirmed reports that dozens more bodies were taken to Tafas hospital outside the city, they added.
VOCAL ANTI-IRANIAN SENTIMENT
Deraa, on the Jordanian border, has long been a stronghold of the Baath Party, which recruits cadres from the region. But in recent days it has become a focus of unprecedented protests against President Assad.
Assad, a close ally of Iran, key player in neighboring Lebanon and supporter of militant groups opposed to Israel, has dismissed rising demands for reform in Syria, a country of 20 million people run by the Baath Party since a 1963 coup.
In a separate attack just after midnight in the early hours of Wednesday, security forces fired at protesters in the vicinity of the Omari mosque in Deraa's old quarter, residents said.
Two people killed in that attack, a man and a woman called Ibtissam Masalmeh, were buried in Deraa on Wednesday. Thousands marched in the funeral chanting calls for freedom, and -- for the first time since protests broke out on Friday -- slogans against Iran and Lebanon's armed Shi'ite movement Hezbollah.
"Honourable Syrians don't rely on Iran or Hezbollah," they chanted..
YouTube footage showed what was purported to be the street in front of the mosque before the attack, with sound of gunfire audible and a person inside the mosque grounds yelling: "Brother don't shoot. This country is big enough for me and you."
The United Nations, France and the United States condemned the violence. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for a "transparent investigation" into the killings and for those responsible to be held accountable.
France, which occupied Syria from 1925 to 1946[France did not so much "occupy" Syria as create the modern state of Syria out of what had been Ottoman vilayets, for France was the Mandatary for Lebanon-Syria], urged the ruling elite to open up to dialogue and democratic change.
An official Syrian statement said "outside parties" were spreading lies about the situation in Deraa and blamed "armed gangs" for the violence.
The Baath Party has banned opposition and enforced emergency laws since 1963. But the wave of Arab unrest which has toppled leaders in Tunisia and Egypt presents Assad with the biggest challenge to his rule since he succeeded his father Hafez al-Assad, who ruled Syria for 30 years until his death in 2000.
This book, which was featured on the front page of The New York Times Book Review, comes recommended by some famous Big Thinkers. It is written by well-regarded professors (one of them the chairman of the Harvard philosophy department). This made me rub my eyes with astonishment as I read the book itself, so inept and shallow is it. The authors set about to solve the problems of a modern secular culture. The greatest problem, as they see it, is a certain anxiety of choosing. In the Middle Ages, everyone shared the same frame of values. One could offend against that frame by sinning, but the sins were clear, their place in the overall scheme of things ratified by consensus. Now that we do not share such a frame of reference, each person must forge his or her own view of the universe in order to make choices that accord with it. But few people have the will or ability to think the universe through from scratch.
So how can one make intelligent choices? Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Dorrance Kelly call modern nihilism “the idea that there is no reason to prefer any answer to any other.” They propose what they think is a wise and accepting superficiality. By not trying to get to the bottom of things, one can get glimpses of the sacred from the surface of what they call “whoosh” moments—from the presence of charismatic persons to the shared excitement of a sports event. This last elation is sacred and unifying:
There is no essential difference, really, in how it feels to rise as one in joy to sing the praises of the Lord, or to rise as one in joy to sing the praises of the Hail Mary pass, the Immaculate Reception, the Angels, the Saints, the Friars, or the Demon Deacons.
(The Demon Deacons, for those as ill-informed as I was, are the Wake Forest football team.)
One gets swept into an experience of the sacred by these whooshes. Perhaps they impress the Big Thinkers by the elitist choices of the charismatic people who inspire Dreyfus and Kelly—Rudolf Nureyev, for instance: “Nureyev’s charisma was palpable; he stood taller, smelt better, walked prouder, and simply outshone all the others around him.” Would they say the same about the whoosh some people get from Snooki, or Lady Gaga, or Justin Bieber? Do they all smell better?
Another thing that may impress the Big Thinkers is that the authors get their glimpses of the sacred from “reading the Western classics.” The two classics they begin with are by David Foster Wallace, “the greatest writer of his generation; perhaps the greatest mind altogether,” and Elizabeth Gilbert, whose Eat, Pray, Love proved its cultural importance by ruling over best-seller lists forever. I know that people often find cultural indicators in what people buy. That is why Big Thinking hovered in the past over Colin Wilson’s The Outsider, Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, Richard Bach’s Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Charles Reich’s The Greening of America, or Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. But Dreyfus and Kelly stretch this approach when they praise Gilbert’s openness to surface whooshiness, her sacred impulsiveness. Gilbert “writes well only when the god of writing shines upon her, only by the grace of the attendant spirit—the genius—who comes to tell her what to write.” They think she is even more receptive to “shining moments” than Wallace.
But they praise Wallace for uniting the two main sources of whoosh, celebrity and sports, in his ecstasy over the tennis-playing of Roger Federer. They admire his “claim that watching Federer play is like having a religious experience: it focuses a new understanding of human beings and their pursuits,” yielding a “new understanding of the sacred.” They admit that Wallace is not an entirely safe guide (despite all his whooshes he hanged himself at age forty-six). It is hard for modern people to respond spontaneously to whooshes because our culture unfortunately invented “inwardness,” the search for deeper meanings under the surface—a development they blame on Augustine of Hippo...
Wills goes on the expose the authors' misreading of Homer. This, remember, is a book featured on the New York Times Book Review's front page. How much further can we fall?
The jargon-mongers face stiff competition these days, but they have stepped up to the plate, given 110 per cent of their best selves and delivered. And what a bunch of deliverables. Lucy Kellaway for the BBC:
At this time every year I hand out prizes to companies and individuals who have shown the greatest flair in butchering the English language or in talking through their hats during the previous 12 months.
Every year I observe that the quality of the jargon has been the best yet, but in 2010 it was so outstandingly good it has shifted every paradigm in the book.
Indeed, it has even shifted the book itself. Thus my first award in the 2010 Management Guff Awards is a new category for Daft New Names for Common Nouns, which goes to... the vice-president of Amazon Kindle, Ian Freed, who gets a silver medal for renaming books "reading containers".
Another new award is for the Best Combination of Weasel Words. The overused "deliver" and "window" - which are only acceptable when referring to something that can be transported in a van or to something you can see through - are combined by Royal Dutch Shell which said it "in a delivery window for new growth". It was a statement that was surely gagging for a gong.
In 2010 there was a stack of new euphemisms for firing people, the best of which came from a US bank that spoke airily of "bank-initiated departures".
But I have decided to subvert the award and give it to HB Fuller, the UK coatings company, for the announcement: "We invested in several key talent additions." To use jargon for firings is wrong but understandable. To use it for hirings makes no sense at all.
One of the main pillars of jargon has always been metaphor, both sporting and mixed. Last month, a young man with an MBA said to me: "We should just hang round the hoop." I wasn't sure what he meant - I was sure he deserved the prize.
The mixed metaphor award goes to an equally outstanding entry. The UK Corporate Governance Code contains a heroic quadruple mixed metaphor: "A turning point in attacking the fungus of 'boiler-plate'," which is perhaps the most arresting thing in the whole document.
The fungus of jargon, meanwhile, starts with the little things - like the preposition "up". When I read in a recent report from Ernst & Young the phrase "the up-skilling of the workforce", I considered up-chucking my lunch - but decided instead to give the entry two awards.
Not only does it win the prize for Most Annoying Use of "up", it also wins the Nerb Award, handed out for nouns pretending to be verbs. The gerund "skilling" introduces us to the new and unneeded verb: to skill.
Finally, the Global Guff Award, given to purveyors of nonsense struggling in a tongue that is not their mothers'. This prize goes to the People's Republic of China, which has taken a great leap forward in guff. In a yellow box at the bottom of its new Five Year Plan, it declares: "Facing the future we are standing at a new historic starting point."
This is just the sort of meaningless drivel that will make this new economic power fit right in with the business supremos of the Anglo-Saxon world.
From up-selling in Uppsala to de-skilling in the Catskills, the world is becoming more and more global. Diarize some face-time with a life coach before you slip out of the world-class loop.
By Carl Prine Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 11:13 am
Posted in Quotables
I’m not saying that Diane Sawyer gave perhaps the most supine interview in the history of the craft. Typically, reporters reserve that honor for GEN Petraeus.
In fact, I think that she grilled HRC medium well.
The problem: Clinton wasn’t going to talk about this war as an adult would to other adults who are sending their loved ones into harm’s way.
Instead, the U.S. Secretary of State stuck to bland talking points, obfuscating any rudimentary understanding of reality, and then prattled pointlessly about the few facts she was willing to concede — there is day of the week known as “Saturday” and NATO remains headquartered in Brussels.
Why not fax over to Hillary some Madlibs and have her fill in the blanks?
Diane Sawyer: We should invade ______ because _______.
Hillary: Libya, freedom and we’re moving in the right direction.
QUESTION: Thank you again, Madam Secretary, and we hear repeatedly it will be days, not weeks, before the U.S. turns over the lead; it will be one week on Saturday. Will it happen by Saturday?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it will be days. Whether it’s by Saturday or not depends upon the evaluation made by our military commanders along with our allies and partners. But the President was very clear that the United States had unique capabilities that we would bring to bear in the enforcement of the UN Security Council resolution, and that is exactly what we’re doing.
REALITY: Clinton bravely named a day of the week, then brushed it aside. She said POTUS was “very clear” about “unique capabilities” the US would bring to the war, without actually saying what those capabilities were beyond crashing an F-15 into a village. Which is to say, the president wasn’t very clear, which is why he had to defend his decision in (of all places!) El Salvador and we still don’t really understand the full role of the US or who, eventually, will lead the jumbled alliance doing the fighting.
QUESTION: So it might go into next week?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think we’re making real progress, so I think that it will be days, and the days, I hope, will be sooner instead of later.
REALITY: Tough follow-up! Easily deflected with the meaningless “real progress,” the hope-is-a-plan timeline of “days,” which are in the middle of the Venn diagram of “sooner” colliding with “later.”
QUESTION: Sounds as if you don’t think it will be next week. You might even think this weekend?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think it’s moving well. From our assessment – and we do a call every day to check in, plus during the day getting updates – the work that the United States and our allies have been doing to take out the air defense systems; to clear the field to enable a no-fly zone to be effectively implemented; to help level the playing field, because there have also been strikes on some of the other assets that the Qadhafi forces have, will enable the United States to do what we said we would do, which is to fulfill this initial phase and then to transition to the no-fly zone and the work that will be led by our partners.
REALITY: Well, at least State calls everyday. I wonder if they reverse charges to put it on AFRICOM’s bill. Maybe AFRICOM has a party line in Stuttgart with European Command. She begins by mentioning the worthless (NFZ) to concentrate on what’s really going on (“strikes on some of the other assets that the Qadhafi forces have”). But why not just say, “We’re going to use attrition and we don’t know when his forces will be degraded to the point that we can coerce the conduct we want” and be done with it?
QUESTION: Will it be NATO?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That is still being worked out, I mean, because we do have a broad international participation. And as we speak in NATO headquarters in Brussels, they’re working on the planning for the no-fly zone, for the arms embargo because everyone believes that having NATO assets and coordinating mechanisms behind what we’re doing makes a lot of sense.
REALITY: Translated, that means “we have no clue who is going to lead this. Partly, it’s all about giving credit to some nation and its generals. Hey, I correctly identified where NATO is headquartered, so that should count for something. And when I say that ‘everyone believes having NATO assets and coordinating mechanisms,’ I mean everyone but Italy, Germany and Turkey, and probably a few other liaisons in Brussels.’”
QUESTION: So it might be something outside NATO but with NATO assets and coordination?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That is also being looked at, but NATO will be definitely involved, because we do have a lot of NATO members who are committed to this process, and they want to see command and control that is organized, but we also are integrating others from outside of NATO. But I’m very relaxed about it, Diane. I think it is – it’s proceeding, it’s moving forward in the right direction, and we will have what we need in the next few days.
REALITY: It’s good that you’re so “very relaxed about it.” As for the “next few days,” I thought you said we were transitioning in the next few days? Or weeks? Or “sooner” instead of “later” or blah blah blah. I wish everyone could be so relaxed about leadership during times of war. Apparently, the attacks on Libya are like my Roomba — flick a switch and it moves in the “right direction” even when none of the adults bothers to watch it.
QUESTION: Muammar Qadhafi – will this intervention be a success if he’s still in power?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we have to separate the two sides of the equation, if you will. The United Nations Security Council resolution was very broad but explicit about what was legally authorized by the international community. And we are a hundred percent committed to enforcing it and helping others enforce it. There is nothing in there about getting rid of anybody. It is about protecting civilians, providing humanitarian assistance, but also enabling nations to use whatever means necessary in order to bring that about. There are many aspects to what the international community is doing to put a lot of pressure on Qadhafi and those around him. So it does –
REALITY: How can the UNSCR be both overly broad AND explicit? You haven’t even defined what our foreign policy goals are, much less helping others to “enforce” them. What does “protecting civilians” mean? What level of force will be used to do so? Is putting a Hellfire in Gaddafi’s rump part of that mission of “protecting the people he’s trying to exterminate?” Humanitarian assistance to whom? The rebels? You know, the chaps who beat with knives and clubs impoverished African workers trying to escape Libya? Or all the dispossessed in the dictator’s Libya? You just said that the legal authorizations were “explicit” and then you trot out “whatever means necessary?” Well, obviously not everything is necessary. Would a multi-generational occupation of Tripoli be part of that, like it was in the Balkans? How are we prioritizing these uses of force? Does Afghanistan still come first?
QUESTION: Are you saying you’re confident the end result will be that he’s out, whether it’s under the NATO –
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, it’s – no, I don’t want to make any predictions because we’re taking this one step at time. I mean, I don’t want to jump beyond where we are right now. We are implementing the UN Security Council resolution. We are establishing the no-fly zone, which everybody was calling for, from the United States Senate to the Arab League – please do a no-fly zone, get UN Security Council support to do it. And that is what we are doing. Now obviously, if we want to see a stable, peaceful, hopefully someday democratic Libya, it is highly unlikely that can be accomplished if he stays in power as he is.
REALITY: Good gravy. Crash Davis gave the same advice to Nuke Laloosh — 1) We gotta play ‘em one day at a time.
2) I’m just happy to be here. Hope I can help the ballclub.
3) I just want to give it my best shot, and the good Lord willing, things will work out.
And if the Senate and the Arab League — that meaningless chatting circle of old grumps — were begging Hillary to “please do a no-fly zone,” then why not ask that very Senate to declare war on Libya? I mean, it’s a slam dunk, right? They were begging for you to bomb Libya!
QUESTION: But at this moment, he is pummeling Misrata, the rebels in Misrata. Are we going to go the extra step if air power alone – if prevention of air power alone is not enough, are we going the extra step? Are we going to let him go ahead?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the United States has been clear from the beginning – President Obama has stated numerous times we’re going to do what we said we would do. We’re not telling others what they can or cannot do, but we have a limited, discrete mission that we are going to fulfill. And that includes making sure that all of our partners, both European, Canadian, Arab, the Turks, everybody is involved in making sure that we meet the obligations of the Security Council.
REALITY: But we haven’t said what we would do! In fact, you just had the opportunity to say, and you blathered vague inanities! And what about all the “Arab” and “Turk” and “European” critics of US involvement in this? They’re now “making sure” that we’re doing what they want? Come on! Regardless, Misurata loves company…
OK, I’m agnostic about the latest version of El Dorado Canyon. I could make some cogent points about how the utility of force might be applied to Libya in order to prevent floods of refugees spilling into Europe and reeling neighbors Algeria and Egypt; that if Gaddafi turned uber-murderous we might been prodded to action anyway by the Genocide Convention to which we’re bound by treaty; and that without some dog in the fight we won’t have much control over the outcome.
But at the same time, our leaders — both military and civilian — owe this democracy a frank, adult conversation about what our goals in Libya realistically should be.
They need to describe how the operational arts can be linked to strategy to achieve them. And they probably should list some of the risks that we face going forward.
They could detail some of the people in Cyrenaica we’re now supporting (including former Gaddafi crony Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, his former justice minister and now putative boss of the National Transitional Council; Mohammed Busidra and other Islamists and sheiks and, for all we know, an increasing number of foreign fighters we formerly faced in Iraq and Afghanistan).
They might want to mention some of the loose tribal sediments upon which the insurgency rests, and how even in an increasingly globalizing world these shifting allegiances could matter in the conflict.
Adults in a democracy deserve that.
Or, as Crash Davis put it, “Relax. Alright, don’t try to strike everybody out. Strike outs are boring, besides that, they’re facist. Throw some ground balls — it’s more democratic. So relax, let’s have fun OK? It’s fun goddamnit!”
Toss us a few grounders, Hillary. Quit nibbling the corner of the strike zone. Let us put a couple of balls in play (no, impish wags, you’re not allowed to say that it’s a line her husband might have used).
Full disclosure: I’ve interviewed HRC and she was smart, articulate and knew a great deal about military strategy. I came away convinced that she is one of the finest minds of her generation, so if this blog entry seems harsh it’s coming from a place of sincere respect.
I just think that respect goes both ways. She had an opportunity to talk to the American people. And she didn’t.
The Investigative Project has translated a Libyan media article from September 2009 which details how the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) attempted to solicit money from Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.According to the IP report:
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), asked Muammar Gaddafi to underwrite CAIR’s efforts in the United States during a September 2009 audience with the Libyan dictator. According to an account of the meeting in a Libyan news website, Awad was joined by two other leading CAIR officials in praising Gaddafi’s leadership and asking him to help underwrite a program to distribute 1 million copies of the Quran to government officials and the general public in America and to help start up a new foundation Awad was trying to launch. The account was published in Arabic by Libyalive.net, and was translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Libyalive.net describes itself as “an independent Libyan electronic newspaper,” but the story about Gaddafi’s visit is attributed to the Jamahiriya News Agency, Libya’s official state news service. Awad’s pleas to Gaddafi’s generosity came after the Libyan leader left United Nations observers slack jawed at his rambling, 100-minute speech to the General Assembly. Now, after Gaddafi started killing his own people as he tries to fend off a popular uprising, Awad and CAIR have denounced him as a madman. They have organized rallies and news conferences demanding that violence against Libyan civilians by Gaddafi’s forces stop.
The IP report does not mention that the Libyan media report also identifies other US Muslim Brotherhood leaders present at the meeting with Gaddafi including Mahdi Bray from the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Johari Abdul Malik, spokesperson for the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Washington, DC.
Documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being part of the US. Brotherhood. A recent post discussed an interview with the Deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in which he confirms a relationship between his organization and CAIR. Investigative research posted on GMBDR had determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and CAIR and it leaders have a long history of defending almost all individuals accused of terrorism by the US. government, frequently calling such prosecutions a “war on Islam.”
In 2009, a US federal judge ruled “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) along with CAIR are part of the US Muslim Brotherhood.
The French blogs have reported on Alliot-Marie's departure without much emotion one way or the other, but the appointment of Juppé (photo below), and above all, his visit to Egypt last weekend (March 6) and his conciliatory remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood, have aroused the indignation of Riposte Laïque, Yves Daoudal, Joachim Véliocas, and Bernard Antony, to name a few.
First, some excerpts from Daoudal Hebdo #118, the weekly journal sent out by Yves Daoudal:
Alain Juppé, our Foreign Minister, went to Egypt. He met members of the "youth coalition of the revolution", notably the Muslim Brotherhood. Said Alain Juppé:
"The discussion allowed me to determine that the way this movement is sometimes presented warrants a deeper and more enlightened approach, in view of the fact that several of them shared with me their vision of a liberal Islam, respectful of democratic principles."
This is pitifully stupid. And criminally unconscionable. Moreover, Alain Juppé assured General Tantaoui, chief of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (CSFA) " of the confidence France had in the CSFA to lead the political transition process."
Daoudal explains that part of this "process" involves abolishing constitutional guarantees that protected Mubarak. He then points out that article 2 will not be changed:
Thus, article 2, that stipulates that sharia is the principal source of legislation, will not be touched. In addition, the great imam of Al Azhar, sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, had warned on February 16 against amending article 2, saying that any amendment to article 2 could "spread discord and curtail the freedoms and democratic processes in the country." Sic. There's another Muslim Juppé must be fond of: sharia is freedom and democracy.
Alain Juppé had nothing to say about the Copts. And yet at least a thousand of them demonstrated before the offices of State television. (…) And even more the next day and the day after that. They were there to protest the attack on the village of Soul by 4000 Muslims who burned the church and forced numerous Copts to flee. To protest the attitude of the army who at first refused to intervene, then who intervened once everything was over to impose a curfew on the 12,000 Copts of the city and to watch the Muslims destroy the last walls of the church and take possession of the site by organizing a "prayer meeting"… At the origin of this attack there is a love story between a Copt and a Muslim girl. The girl's father was killed by her cousin because he refused to kill his daughter to save the family's honor. The girl's brother then killed the cousin to avenge the death of their father. And the Muslims attributed responsibility for the two murders to the Copts…
Daoudal concludes his article with a summary of how, despite Tantaoui's promise to rebuild the church, the governor of Soul decreed that the church would have to be rebuilt elsewhere in order to leave the use of the land to the Muslims. This was the reason why the Copts demonstrated. Tuesday night, there were thousands demonstrating on the highway. The Muslims attacked. There were ten killed and more than a hundred wounded…
The photo below of Coptic Christians demonstrating is from UPI. The accompanying article by Arnaud de Borchgrave confirms that the situation in Egypt is worse now than under Mubarak.
Alain Juppé's obtuse naïveté (if it is naïveté and not voluntary debasement) did not escape Bernard Antony, a Catholic writer and watchdog for the security of Christians throughout the world:
Alain Juppé warmly congratulated himself on his very fruitful conversation in Cairo with Salafists and various other Muslim Brothers. He complimented them for being in all very respectable interlocutors, reflective and quite concerned with promoting democracy.
Did he think perhaps that Islamists look like savages, foaming at the mouth with a razor between their teeth?
He takes his place, alas! in a long line of Western politicians afflicted with a naïveté bordering on stupidity who, having met them, confided that they had finally found very worldly, very reflective and often seductive interlocutors in the persons of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and even those wise, impassible, and courteous ayatollahs of Iran.
Alain Juppé obviously did not inquire of his interlocutors if they intended to promote a democracy that had broken with the model of totalitarian theocracy established in 622 A.D. by the prophet Mohammed.
Disdaining the incessant burnings of churches and massacres of Christians, he did not take the trouble to find out what, according to these kindly Muslim brothers, would be the fate of non-Muslims living in Egyptian society.
But Alain Juppé no doubt does not know what dhimmitude is, nor what the consummate art of taqiyya consists of, namely, double meanings and dissimulation, that is taught in Islam as a virtue in the service of the higher interests of the Umma of Islam.
Joachim Véliocas, writing at Islamisation, reminds us of the generous helping hand offered by Juppé, in his capacity as mayor of Bordeaux, to the Muslim association that sought funding and real estate for a mosque. This might be an opportune moment to point out that Véliocas has written a book, available at Amazon in French, exposing those mayors of France who have openly or covertly facilitated the building of mosques by granting long-term leases to the Muslims. Entitled The mayors that court Islamism it looks at each city where funds, privileges and favors have been provided to Muslims for mosques designated as "cultural centers", usually at taxpayers' expense. The publisher is Tatamis who also published La Mosquée de Notre-Dame.The introduction posted at Amazon begins:
Alain Juppé claims to have "excellent relations" with the "principle leaders" of the Muslim community of Bordeaux. Tareq Oubrou, future imam of the Great Bordeaux Mosque, nonetheless praises the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement that fights for the restoration of the Caliphate and for the reunion in Bordeaux of the Muslims of Istanbul, since borders are "a disdainful heresy." (…)
At his website Véliocas denounces Juppé's reluctance to debate the problem of Islam:
Very much in the limelight for the past several weeks for having rushed to the defense of Muslims who are "stigmatized", Alain Juppé has made a number of statements on the idea, launched by Nicolas Sarkozy, of a debate on Islam. He began by saying that we "had to be very skeptical of the idea" of a debate. Hence, not very skeptical about Islamization itself. The journal Marianne reexamines his wild arguments on religion in public spaces, namely, that he authorizes many Catholic processions in the streets of his city, implying that the Muslims praying in the street should be judged by the same principles. In Le Figaro, he asked that the debate be "controlled" so as not to offend, urging, notably, not to "stigmatize" Islam.
As far as the mosque itself is concerned, on January 9 on France 2 Television, Juppé declared:
"We are in permanent contact with the promoters of the project - the Association of Muslims of the Gironde (note: closely affiliated with the UOIF which is in turn connected to the Muslim Brotherhood) and with imam Tareq Oubrou and we hope that the plans will move forward and I will do everything to make land available (…) "
Note: Land has already been purchased by the municipality for the giant mosque.
As for Riposte Laïque, Christine Tasin has posted a take-no-prisoners article denouncing the minister as a traitor and a disgrace to his country. Unfortunately, despite her realistic assessment of Islam, she speaks as a leftist when she evokes French identity. Some excerpts:
The man who has become, horror of horrors, our Foreign Minister, has justified, once again, the title of Islamo-Collaborator (...)
In truth, we already knew that the king of compromise with Islam had granted a piece of land with a long term lease to the Muslim association of Gironde to construct a gigantic Islamic complex presided over by Tareq Oubrou, the man who gladly acknowledges that Muslims can, temporarily, so long as they are a minority, respect the laws of the Republic, but once they are numerous enough, they must apply sharia law everywhere.
We already knew that the king of compromise with Islam was opposed to the law banning the burka because of "possible stigmatization of Islam", and had proclaimed that Islam was compatible with the Republic because "France must be welcoming and respectful of differences."
The misdeeds of Sire Juppé continue: in the midst of the Egyptian revolution, when the fanatic Qardawi preached before hundreds of thousands of Muslims at Place al-Tahrir, the minister (I can't bring myself to say "our minister") held talks with those who are among the most intransigent Muslims and dared tell us that we were wrong about them…
We're wrong about them, Mr. Minister? (…)
She lists the 50 measures established by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood to be implemented once Islam takes over a country, measures which would turn France, or any country conquered by Islam, into a closed world, a world ruled by sharia.
Sire Juppé is a collaborator ready to sell for a mouthful everything that makes life in France pleasurable: equality, co-ed institutions, freedom of expression, of mores, of religion, art, the primacy of man's law over divine law…
Mr. Juppé is our shame and we will not forgive this government for having given him such iniquitous power (…) If there were a real Left, secular and republican, in France, it would demand his immediate resignation, for grave complicity with fascism!
Note: I would like to remind her that there is a real Left in France and that it is largely responsible for the importation of Islam. How ironic, that the Left demanded and got the resignation of Alliot-Marie for befriending Ben Ali, a lesser evil, and yet says nothing about the much greater evil of the Muslim Brotherhood.
We hope that a Nuremberg will judge all the Islamo-Collaborators, and when that day comes, Juppé will have a seat waiting for him!
The cartoon below showing the minister licking the slippers of Tareq Oubrou is not exactly subtle. A contented Oubrou says: "I really like this new minister."
“Disproportionate force” is the accusation invariably hurled at Israel when she does anything beyond lie down in response to Arab attack. In Dec. 2008, for example, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in an effort to reduce Hamas rocket fire coming in from the Gaza Strip – 1,750 rockets and 1,528 mortar bombs were hurled at Israel that year alone. Less than a year passed before the UN Human Rights Council Commission on Gaza led by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone accused Israel of “a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”
But if Israel is guilty of anything it’s of disproportionate restraint.
We see this most recently in the government’s feeble reaction to the Fogel family murders, in which a mother, a father and their three children were stabbed to death. The youngest, a 3-month-old baby girl, had her throat slit to the point of decapitation. It appears that the terrorists, who are still at large, fled to a nearby Arab village.
“They murder. We build,” was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remark to 12-year-old Tamar Fogel, the eldest daughter, who discovered the slaughter after returning home from an evening out with her youth group.
The prime minister was referring to the government’s decision, in light of the attack, to approve the building of some 400 new apartments in places like Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel, Kiryat Sefer and Gush Etzion.
Notably absent from the list was Itamar, the town where the murders actually took place. Itamar has been the site of many Arab terror attacks – 15 Jews were murdered at the height of the post-Oslo “peace”. It especially behooves Israel’s government to build in Itamar as it bears some guilt for the attack, having failed to provide adequate defense for the community.
According to Arutz Sheva, “the IDF refused to fund essential security equipment around the Itamar fence because the government’s legal department claimed that the fence was illegal…. The army also refused to help fund technological upgrading and installation of advanced capabilities for the surveillance camera … The upgrading would have made it possible, through the use of thermal sensitive devices, to differentiate between an animal touching the fence and someone going over it.”
Those who have followed news of the murders may recall that a guard on the night of the grisly crime was alerted by a fence alarm at the point where the terrorists infiltrated. Inspecting the area, he saw that the fence hadn’t been cut (the terrorists had jumped over), so he assumed an animal had triggered the alarm and did not pursue the incident further.
The ‘they murder, we build’ approach has not gone over well with the residents of Judea and Samaria. “It was an insult, Yesha Council officials said this week,” according to a Ynetnews.com op-ed. “Linking construction to this murder is simply insulting. It felt like the PM was offering us a deal: Here, you deserve 500 housing units for this murder. And even that figure quickly turned into 400 homes. And then we discovered that some 200 of those are apartments already approved a month ago and earmarked for young haredi couples in Beitar Ilit.”
The Netanyahu government says that it will also pursue the murderers. It may very well catch them. But unless the perpetrators are killed while being taken, they will end up doing time in an Israeli prison, perhaps eventually to be released in return for the bodies of some Israeli soldiers, as happened in the case of Sami Kuntar, who in 1979 shot dead 28-year-old Danny Haran and then killed his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, by smashing her skull with a rifle butt. No one would have believed that such a monster would have been released but he was set free in 2008 to be feted by Lebanon, Syria and Iran. In an interview, he remarked, “God willing, I will get the chance to kill more Israelis.”
Another group of terrorists who will probably enjoy relatively cushy confinement courtesy of the Israeli taxpayer are the Hamas terrorists who carried out an attack in September, killing four residents of Beit Haggai, a Jewish town near Hebron. The Arabs ambushed the four when they stopped their car at an intersection, shot them and then pulled their bodies from the vehicle and shot them again at point-blank range. One of the murdered was a woman nine months pregnant.
Just as with the murders in Itamar, the Israeli authorities share some of the guilt. As Arutz Sheva reported back in September, “The Victims of Arab Terror organization said it had begun initial steps into suing the Government of Israel for ‘having taking away the gun of Yitzchak Imas [one of the four killed at Beit Haggai], which might have been able to save his life and that of the other victims.”
Successive Israeli governments have pursued an upside down policy, failing to defend its citizens, even depriving them of the means to defend themselves, while at the same time releasing terrorists who’ve committed the most heinous crimes. This suicidal approach is reminiscent of the policy pursued by the Jewish Agency during the years of the 1936 Arab Revolt in the Mandate period.
After a very brief period of hesitation the Agency decided on a policy called havlaga (self-restraint). This did not mean passivity. The Haganah was active, maintaining a twenty-four-hour protective guard on institutions in the towns, and a constant lookout in the agricultural settlements, and ready at any moment to repel attackers. But havlaga forbade carrying the war back to the attackers. They drove the enemy off (if he attacked in mass) but they did not pursue him; they did not liquidate his bases, nor counterattack. …
Dr. Chaim Weizmann in his memoirs, published twelve years later, wrote: “Violence paid political dividends to the Arabs while Jewish havlaga was expected to be its own reward. It did not even win official recognition."
Even as late as 1947, with a full-scale Arab invasion imminent, the Haganah found it difficult to shed pre-conceived notions. As Katz wrote:
Accidents and bad luck, even inefficiency in execution, are understandable, even inevitable. What was disturbing throughout those weeks was the strangely unreal political aspects of all Haganah activity. They persisted in describing these reprisals as “punitive operations” – an empty phrase which emphasized their failure to recognize the fact that they were waging a war of life and death. But the Jewish Agency’s official policy was still “moderation and non-provocation." …
The Agency’s subservience to the British remained unchanged, although the latter were openly exerting themselves to arm the Arabs and to disarm the Jews. A number of police armories in Arab centers were “taken over” by the Arabs. Again and again British police patrols met Haganah units and demanded the surrender of their arms. Haganah soldiers, acting on standing orders, meekly complied.
Why did the Jewish Agency leadership adopt such a policy? Katz offers that:
They saw their pioneering efforts as the foundation on which Jewish political existence could be built. But with their gaze turned inward, they were not capable of making a realistic assessment of the forces ranged against Zionism. Confronted by a clear-sighted, purposeful antagonist determined to set bounds to Jewish regeneration, they did not even identify the antagonist, let alone pause to recognize his motives.
Moreover these settlers were under the spell of the illusion of British sympathy with Zionism, and persuaded themselves that this interest in Zionism was a moral one. They believed that their social revolution had endeared itself to the British people, and that the virtues they personified (if only they could be sufficiently publicized) would cement British friendship.
It’s unlikely Netanyahu is motivated by similar illusions regarding Obama’s friendship. What Netanyahu shares with the “elite” of the Jewish Agency is the folly of his approach. With murder to the left of him and murder to the right of him, he intends to propose a new peace initiative. This plan will include more concessions to the PA. His motive may be that he wishes to head off, in the words of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a “diplomatic tsunami” whereby the international community will recognize a Palestinian State, but as others in the cabinet say, such an approach is “delusional”.
Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon points out that even so-called moderates like PA head Mahmud Abbas want Israel wiped off the map. It has been documented ad infinitum how the PA incites violence, indoctrinates children and celebrates the murder of Jews.The PA says one thing in English and another in Arabic. In the case of the Beit Haggai attack, the PA captured the terrorists responsible only to release them a few months later. When Sami Kuntar was released, the PA made him an honorary citizen.
What is remarkable about the PA's reaction to the Fogel family murders is that it condemned them at all. In the end, the PA's official media made up for this uncharacteristic condemnation when in the next breath it held Israel ultimately responsible and suggested, according to MEMRI, “that the attack could have been perpetrated by an Israeli settler.”
The Jewish Agency chose subservience to resistance. Netanyahu does the same. But it was resistance (led by the Irgun and Lehi) that finally drove the British from Palestine. It is resistance – not pre-emptive surrender – that offers Israel its only chance to extricate itself from the hangman's noose.
Brian of London here. This is a long post, but if you read to the end you will find a simple explanation for what happened in Itamar but it doesn’t mention “settlers” and it doesn’t blame the victims.
The other night I tried to participate in a bloggers phone interview organised by the excellent IDF Spokesperson’s office for English speaking bloggers. The call was with a member of the paramedic ambulance team (who are actually an IDF unit because of the area they work in) who were the first people (other than the 12 year old daughter of the family and the two other surviving children) into the Fogel home after the terrorist massacre in Itamar.
Question: How difficult was it for you after seeing that carnage committed by a terrorist then treat Palestinians. I realize that you’re a professional, but the next time you have to treat a Palestinian…
Answer: I tell you the next time I have to treat a Palestinian, was the day after that, and you know who I got to treat? One of the people they captured for committing the terrorist attacks. He was arrested for being a part of the plan or something like that.
When he was in custody he had an attack of chronic bronchitis, he suffers from chronic bronchitis, and he had a massive attack with a shortness of breath, and this is something that is potentially deadly, people die from that. The only thing that I did was to be as professional as I can be, you don’t think of what he did, or what he could do in the future, you need to be 100% focused, because unless you can do that, you’re in the wrong business. I treated him as best as I could and he survived this massive attack of bronchitis.
First point: shortly after the attack the Ma’aan “news agency” threw out an absolute lie that the brutal butchering of this family may have been carried out by a disgruntled Thai worker who hadn’t been paid. They “reported” that Israeli security forces were rounding up Thai and other foreign workers in Itamar. This is an outrageous lie: there are verifiably no Thai workers in Itamar, the Fogel’s owed no money and, most obviously of all, Thai people (except for those in the Muslim south of Thailand who have been waging an incessant Jihad for years) do not de-humanise themselves to the point where they can butcher sleeping babies. While not directly reporting this as fact, the UK’s Daily Mail unconscionably printed this lie by publishing a letter putting the theory forward. They should be ashamed of themselves.
ï»¿Edi’s interview above just puts the nail into this outrageous attempt to deflect blame by the PA’s official mouth piece.
But the second point is, of course, this man treating someone like this medically instead of beating him to a bloody pulp as the world expects the brutal, occupying forces of the IDF to be doing all over Israel. That’s just not what we do here in Israel.
Israeli troops have launched a manhunt after five members of a Jewish settler family were killed in the West Bank.
Don’t think the rest of the BBC article provides any more detail because it doesn’t. It just goes on to say that settlements are illegal (they’re not) and imply (as usual) that the three little children slashed to death and left to bleed out on the floor of their home had it coming. Other’s have made more extensive critics of the disgusting way this was reported, Honest Reporting has much more.
Which brings me to a ray of light shining out of the UK’s Telegraph and coming from an MP in the UK, Louise Bagshawe, who was shocked to discover the details of the what happened in Itamar on Twitter, because the BBC deemed them to unimportant to waste with space on their web site, let alone their precious (very precious) tax payer funded world wide air waves. She writes:
I found out about the barbaric attack not on BBC news, but via Twitter on Monday. I followed a link there to a piece by Mark Steyn entitled “Dead Jews is no news’. Horrified, I went to the BBC website to find out more. There I discovered only two stories: one a cursory description of the incident in Itamar, a West Bank settlement, and another focusing on Israel’s decision to build more settlements, which mentioned the killings in passing.
I’m sending a warmly heartfelt thank you to the Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Corby and East Northamptonshire, Lousie Bagshawe for having the courage to speak up on this. The BBC is out of control and if it thinks that there is any “context” for the brutal murder of sleeping children they are deliberately hiding the nature of the moral enemy that wants to kill MY CHILDREN and all the other Jews in Israel too.
I’m going to add something that hammers home this point. It’s an article by the Dr. Mordachai Kedar from Bar Ilan University. This is part of a longer article by Dr Kedar, who you may remember for his amazing appearance on Al Jazeera a few years back eviscerating a presenter by asking for the exact number of times Jerusalem is mention in the Koran by name – none and also in print.
I’m not going to comment on this because you’ll be able to work it out for yourselves. Remember, though, this man speaks perfect Arabic and is a well respected academic studying the middle east and particularly Arab societies. Here is what he wrote:
What is common to Daniel Perl, Nick Berg, the Jews of Hebron in 1929 and the Fogel family? They were butchered. They were not simply stabbed to death, but were killed by an act designed to decapitate them or to cause fatal bleeding by severing their carotid artery. Another common denominator: all were slaughtered by Moslems. An endless list of Moslem girls and women can be added to them, those who were similarly slaughtered by their brothers, fathers or other relatives for “violating the family honor”. A question that arises automatically is where does this Moslem tendency to this kind of slaughter come from?
The answer is simple: Slaughter is a routine, widespread practice among many Moslem families. Many children see how their fathers slaughter sheep when celebrating an important event, and the whole family is present at the sacrificial slaughter during Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, when the slaughter is part of the holiday ritual.
In modern societies, the slaughter of animals for meat consumption takes place in slaughterhouses, far from the eyes of the public and children, who generally get their meat free of blood and hair and ready for cooking or eating. This sterile arrangement spares the public the sight of the slaughter, the blood and the accompanying cries. In the West, many of those who witnessed animal slaughter become vegetarian.
In many Islamic societies, slaughter generally occurs at home, in front of the children, and is part of the routine of life. They are immunized against the sight of slaughter, are not moved by the blood dripping from the animal’s neck and are not frightened by its snorts and struggles. In many cases, the children hold the legs of the lamb in order to immobilize it during slaughter; they sense very well its frantic reactions as the knife so painfully slices through its neck. The presence and participation of the children in the act of slaughter immunizes them emotionally against its influence; when they are older they perform the custom of sacrifice withtheir own hands and knives, and in front of their own children.
The emotional immunity to the act of slaughter allows a Moslem to utilize it whenever he feels he must employ radical methods to rid himself of someone. The slaughter of sheep during the Festival of Sacrifice is accompanied by the recitation of “In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful”, and the butchering of girls who do not behave properly is conducted as a kind of execution ceremony. The slaughterer feels that he is doing something important and worthy, acting in a way to which he is inured sinceearly childhood.
In western societies, slaughter seems barbaric, while members of Moslem societies view it as proper and commendable when carried out within the proper context. Therefore, slaughtering a Jew, a Christian or anyone seen as an enemy is not considered unusual in traditional Islamic societies.This is what professional jargon calls a “cultural difference”.
The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel.
Yesterday’s bus bombing in Jerusalem was the first such terror attack on Israel in over four years. A middle age woman was killed and more than 39 others were injured. Watch this Jerusalem Postvideo. The attack on Bus 74, en route from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, appeared to be triggered by a remote cell phone, the explosives secreted in a bag left at the bus stop. Witnesses noted a vehicle leaving the scene.
A Zionist friend in Europe in a Skype call about this latest terrorist bombing attack noted a separate Hamas action: Grad rockets fired from Gaza that hit a residential area in Beersheba triggering an IDF attack that took out a Hamas firing unit in Northern Gaza. More than 50 Kassel rockets have been fired from Gaza in 2011 to date. A barrage of 50 mortars fired from Gaza triggered IAF attacks on Hamas facilities. Earlier there had been the ritualistic Jihad slaughter of the Fogel Family in Itamar in Samaria, the perpetrators of these heinous murders have yet to be disclosed by Israeli security service authorities. Then there were reports of concerns by Israelis of a possible ‘dirty bomb’ attack by Iran using its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas
Those developments prompted a Christian Zionist media analyst question: “Are we witnessing a Third Intifada?”
He had reason for concern given a ticket he holds to fly to Israel in June. I also expressed concern during the phone call with the Christian Zionist as my son and his family were flying there this summer for a post bat mitzvah trip for my third oldest granddaughter. In my discussion with both individuals I noted the huge inventory of tens of thousands of rockets and short range missiles in caches held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, supplied by Iran and Syria. The IDF has been begun deploying the Iron Dome system in the northern part of the Jewish state as a technological defense against a possible ‘tsunami’ attack by Hezbollah that could threaten highly populous central Israel.
Were these events coordinated and who might be involved in planning and conducting them? Given the turmoil among Israel’s ‘neighbors’ – Lebanon under virtual Hezbollah domination; Syria with an apparent Sunni versus Alawite sectarian rebellion; Jordan with protests from Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Islamic action front; Egypt’s rising Muslim Brotherhood extremists gaining prominence with the recent overthrow of former President Mubarak; Fatah’s Al Aqsa brigade and Hamas on both the West Bank and in Gaza – anything was possible.
In my conversation with Van Zile, I noted the presence of what has been called ‘Hamas inside Israel” – the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement whose fiery Jihadist leader, Sheik Ra'ad Salah has periodically been put under protective detention by Shin Bet- Israel’s domestic security service. Salah was arrested last month on suspicion of committing arson in a forest fire in southern Israel. Salah and the Northern branch do not recognize the State of Israel.
For a true Intifada – a broad based uprising by Palestinians on the West Bank, there would have to be a trumped up triggering event, like the September 2000 visit by former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount and organization by the PLO-Fatah under the late Yassir Arafat. Currently, Jihadist elements among the Palestinians could have been aroused by the daily views of popular sectarian uprisings shown on al Jazeera and al Arabiya satellite TV channels. But there would have to be purposeful organization of such an effort by the PLO-Fatah leadership. Hamas, without question, given its Charter seeking destruction of a Jewish Israel has clearly demonstrated by its actions against Southern Israel what is on its agenda.
Perhaps the trigger for these Hamas actions was the Israeli naval interception and seizure of weaponry, anti-ship missiles and mortars from the container cargo of “The Victoria”. That cargo was transshipped by Iran via the Suez Canal to the Syrian port of Latakia. Watch this IDF You Tube video.
Israel, surrounded as it is by these threats, cannot and will let down its guard. Nor can it expect to get much assistance from the ‘special relationship’ with the US under the leadership of President Obama who has evinced weak, some would say incompetent leadership, in the handling of the current ‘no-fly zone’ actions against Libyan strongman, Mummar Gaddafi . The US involvement in an international ‘humanitarian’ mission without a clear objective and mission appears to be floundering and possibly supporting Jihadist elements among an inchoate opposition leadership in the oil rich North African state.
More and more it appears that Israel stands alone in Middle East hegemonic conflict pitting Shia Mahdist Iran against Wahhabist Sunni Saudi Arabia. A Saudi Kingdom fearful of the rising sectarian uprising pitting Shia against Sunnis in Bahrain, the eastern oil-rich province on the Saudi Kingdom and along its southern border with the Shia Houthi rebellion in Northern Yemen. Should the Ali Abdullah Saleh government in Sana fall this week, we may witness the rise of Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula and the splintering of Yemen along Northern and Southern political fault lines. Given statements by our State Department in response to reporters’ questions, we have no clue as to the deluge that will follow should Yemen dissolve.
Israel with its military might, advanced technology and its energy ace in the hole, the offshore Leviathan natural gas field with over 23 trillion cubic feet of reserves, may be the only strong horse in the troubled Middle East to defend against possible Intifadas originating from the Palestinian territories, or attacks by Iran’s proxies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas . The American people as evidenced in recent Gallup polls support the Jewish State of Israel. However, Israelis have good reason to be skeptical of any support from an Obama White House that has displayed incompetence in important matters of international security affairs. As Israelis say in Hebrew, they have “En Brera” – one option, to defend themselves without reliance on outside help.
Its Friday In The Middle East, AndThat Means Friday Prayers, Khutbas, And So Much More.
The chaos and confusion, the violence and the counter-violence, the Day Of Rage, the "with our blood with our soul we sacrifice ourselves for you" chanting, the thousands of arms thrust upwards in unison, the yelling, the screaming, the hysterical fury reaching a crescendo, the police, the army, the secret police, the stones, the batons, the knives, the tear gas, the guns, the tanks, the helicopters, the planes, , the lying on the radio and television, the shelling of the hospitals, the taking away of the wounded never to be seen again, the everything -- oh, pull up a chair and just watch, Beloved Infidel, and thank god, for two different reasons, that you live elsewhere because you see, in the Middle East, it's Friday.
Back then, she was writing a sugary puff piece on the Muslim female Slave Rag.
This time, she's taking up the hatchet against all those evil, money-grubbing 'far-right' Islamophobes who supposedly cause Jihad by being mean and nasty to the poor little Muslims - and her primary target is prominent apostate from Islam, now Christian, UK Anglican Canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, who will be visiting Australia in early April to continue instructing and warning interested Aussies on the dangers of Islam and Islamisation.
Rachel's poisonous little piece was published in both the Melbourne 'Age' and in the 'Sydney Morning Herald' on 23 March
'Why would anyone join an extremist Muslim fringe group (milady, methinks thou dost protest too much - thou hast been in Yemen, after all - CM) that hates democracy and wants to impose a myopic interpretation of Islamic law on everyone?
'What could possibly attract an educated young man living in a free society to join a movement that glorifies suicide bombers?
You have lived in Yemen and 'studied Arabic' there, milady. If you don't know the answer to that question - the jihad doctrine of Islam as taught in all canonical Islamic texts and all their authoritative interpretations past and present - then you are as thick as two bricks. But I suspect you know jolly well. You're just pretending you don't. - CM.
'These are questions that worry all sorts, from German chancellors to Camden locals (holding a grudge, are we? I remember, it was the well-informed Christian and other non-Muslim residents of Camden, in western Sydney, who successfully stymied a proposal to build a large islamic school - CM), and drive an industry of Islamophobia.
'Whether it's US blogger Daniel Pipes musing that President Barack Obama might be murdered by Islamists for being an apostate, Infidel author Ayaan Hiri Ali describing Muslim women's clothing as gradations of "mental slavery" (note that Rachel Woodlock does not mention that Ayaan is an apostate from Islam...the fact that Ayaan left Islam obviously sticks in Ms Muslim Woodlock's craw - CM), or outspoken Christian spokesman Patrick Sookhdeo (note that Ms Woodlock does not accord Canon Dr Sookhdeo either his ecclesiastical or his academic titles, and that she also carefully neglects to mention that he - like Ayaan - is an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity as a young adult at university - CM) questioning moderate Muslim leaders' calls for peace and co-existence as Islamically-prescribed deception (ah yes, Ms Woodlock, but some of us know the special Islamic meanings of 'peace' and 'co-existence', 'peace' being only attained when Muslims rule the entire world and 'coexistence' being that state of affairs in which all non-Muslims cower beneath the Muslim boot as near-slave dhimmis - CM), they foster the worry that where Muslims live, violence and even terrorism follow.
Only a 'worry'? I'd say it has been the bitter, lived experience of Londoners, New Yorkers, and citizens of Madrid, Moscow, and many other localities. Furthermore, I seem to recall a certain Sir Winston Churchill referring to Islam as 'the religion of blood and war'. Neither Ayaan, nor Sookhdeo, nor Pipes had even been born when he wrote those words. And John Quincy Adams oddly enough received much the same impression, oh, more than 200 years ago. - CM.
'Understandable, given the Islamophobia industry makes its coin generating fear of Islam and Muslims'.
The fear is generated by experiencing or witnessing acts of Muslim violence against non-Muslims. Milady, I felt fear when I read the Quran and felt the hate toward non-Muslims that steams off its pages like heat off bitumen in high summer. I felt fear when I came downstairs on the morning of 11th September 2001 and heard that Muslims had slammed two planes full of people into the tallest buildings in New York City, and another one into the Pentagon; I was not surprised to discover that it was Muslims who had done it, because I had read - not Ayaan, or Pipes, or Sookhdeo, none of whom I had even heard of back then - but, the Quran. - CM.
'It is Sookhdeo's Christian charity, the Barnabas Fund, that is spear-heading (note her choice of military imagery - CM) a new campaign to boycott halal meat in Australia.
Not a 'boycott'. The Barnabas Fund, in Australia as in the UK, is merely calling for clear labelling of all halal food (much of which is unlabelled at present) and opposing the concomitant push to impose halal as the norm or default. Barnabas is defending the customer's right to choose - CM.
'"Say no to the Islamification of our food", the website urges, and a petition has found its way into various Australian churches warning that the availability of halal food in big supermarkets 'may be interpreted as an assertion of Islamic supremacy".
Which it is, because at least some of these supermarkets have not told their customers that all non-pork meat they sell is halal...thus forcing all their customers to share the food choice of a tiny minority of the Australian population, and giving Muslim halal butchers a monopoly whilst squeezing non-Muslim butchers out of a large slice of the market. - CM.
'Sookhdeo, who is on a visit to lecture concerned Australians on such topics as "the Islamisation of society", argues that the problem is with Islam itself.
'In his 2007 book Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam, Sookhdeo warns that "non-violent Islam is like a cone balanced on its point; it cannot exist in that state indefinitely but is bound to fall, i.e. to give rise to violent elements".
Well. At least she names the book. I wonder how many people will now go out and read it? I hope, a lot. If they do, they will find a thorough examination of the core Islamic texts, showing that their overall tenor is toward violence - CM.
'For Sookhdeo and his alarmist confederates, original Islam is inherently violent and any alternative reading by peaceable Muslims is either ignorance or dissimulation.
'His call for Islamic reform as a way to rehabilitate Muslims is disingenuous, for how can any such reformer escape the sinister accusation they are merely engaged in what Sookhdeo describes as taqiyya - a last-resort permission to hide one's religious identity in the face of persecution.
Taqiyya is a lot more than that, milady, as I am quite sure you know. Dr Raymond Ibrahim has an excellent discussion of the subject of taqiyya, and of deception more generally as practised and taught within Islam, here.
"How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War: Defeating Jihadist Terrorism', Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2010.
Now, back to Ms Muslim Woodlock, busily defending and making excuses for Islam. - CM.
'There is no escape from this circular reasoning in which Muslims are urged to prove their loyalty to the nation-state, and upon presenting themselves as loyal are then accused of hiding their disloyalty.
Well, once we Infidels find out about the extent to which malevolent deception is practised, and has been practised, by Muslims, upon non-Muslims, it does become difficult for us to trust anything a Muslim says. - CM.
'It is precisely the futility some Muslims experience when faced with such fearmongering (no, with rationalfact-based suspicion - CM) that contributes to what social psychologists tell us is a sense of "blocked progress".
'That is, while most Muslims can buttress themselves against prejudice, seeking support through various sources of well-being, a minority will seek maladapted solutions.
'Some turn to gangs and criminality; a small number will join militant religious groups that provide them with a sense of connection and identity.
And it's all the nasty infidels' fault...CM.
'As researchers in Britain, France and Australia have noted, "home-grown" members of militant groups (observe that she carefully avoids the 'J' word - CM) do not generally possess a high degree of religiosity and knowledge of Islam before their radicalisation.
So radicalisation - in other words, Going Jihad - follows from increasing religiosity and knowledge of Islam? How curious. - CM.
'Put another way, it is not religious Muslims we have to worry about (?? but you just said that disaffected slack Muslims 'radicalise' after they become more religious...CM), it is when ordinary Muslims feel trapped in limbo: they belong neither to their parents' devout traditional cultures, nor to their Western host nations, which sends the message: Muslims don't belong.
Again, it appears to be all the fault of the host nations. Nothing in Islam itself that teaches or inclines Muslims to separate themselves from their 'host nations'? How about that traditional Muslim division of the whole world into dar al harb vs dar al Islam? Not going to tell us about that, are you, eh, Ms Muslim Woodlock? - CM.
'This explains, in part, why such groups have been able to recruit Western-born and educated young men to their ranks.
'It is not poverty that spurs their attraction to fanatical counter-culture groups (to the Fast Jihad - CM) but their sense (rightly or wrongly) that the broader society specifically targets and blocks them from achieving normal goals.
More victim talk. And what are 'normal goals' for a Muslim, Ms Woodlock? - CM.
'The good news is that we can cut the oxygen that fuels the flames of their fanaticism by actively countering anti-Muslim paranoia.
If the Infidels stop being scared of and noticing Jihad, and talking about it, the Jihad will stop?? Pull the other leg, Ms Woodlock, it has bells on. - CM.
'It has been argued that fundamentalist religious groups lose their ability to competitively peddle their wares in societies in which there is religious freedom and the state ensures social services are provided to all - this means facilitating the settlement and integration of Islam and Muslims in Australian society.
In other words: allow the Muslims to invade and settle in large and larger numbers, allow them to dominate, pay them lots of money, and you mightn't get Jihad terror attacks. - CM.
'It is precisely because Islam is not inherently violent (you're lying, milady, you're lying to protect Islam- CM) as is demonstrated by the productive and peaceful lives that the vast majority of Australia's 340 000 Muslims pursue (hmmm - I think inhabitants of Australian suburbs constantly disturbed by the internecine warfare of the likes of the Chaouks and Haddaras, might beg to differ; and in any case, all this apparent peacefulness might mean is that, being as yet massively outnumbered by the surrounding Infidels, most Aussie Muslims are in Slow Jihad, or Mecca, mode, following the advice of the likes of Taqi Osmani who told Muslims in the UK to feign peace while preparing for Jihad, since it is sometimes necessary to live like a sheep in order to live, in future, like a lion, CM),
'That permitting them to build and maintain the infrastructure of their communities - mosques, schools and businesses - alongside other religious and secular groups, will provide protection against violent extremism.
Let us build our mosques and madrasas wherever and whenever we want.. or else? Threat noted, Ms Woodlock. - CM.
'It is not that we should look to Europe in fear and anticipation, but that Europe should look to Australia's model of proud commitment to multiculturalism and diversity".
Don't look at what Muslims are doing in Europe! Whatever you do, don't look at what Muslims are up to in the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy...!! And, of course, never, never look at what they are doing to non-Muslims in every country where Muslims rule...- CM.
'Rachel Woodlock is a researcher and doctoral candidate at Monash University's Centre for Islam and the Modern World'.
And she is a Muslim. That, she does not reveal in the article, nor does the newspaper say.
There were Comments to the article. Lots of them. The majority seemed well-informed - there were two giving an intelligent defence of Dr Sookhdeo and of the Barnabas Fund - and not in the least inclined to buy her nonsense. I will offer a sampling, to give you the flavour.
The very first comment inquired, laconically - "Rachel, have you talked to Abu B Bashir [inciter of the Bali Bombings - CM] in Indonesia about it?"
Another commenter - "Rachel, other ethnic groups in societies face exclusion and discrimination yet don't go around blowing up trains and killing innocents. For example, you don't see Christian minorities in middle eastern countries murdering civilians despite the fact Christians face far more oppression from Muslims in arab countries than muslims do from non-muslims in western countries.
"Let's not also forget Muslim immigrants to western countries continually show intolerance to the culture and values of their adopted countries e.g. asking for Sharia law, referring to women as uncovered meat, etc. Obviously not all Muslims have these views but in regards to intolerance Muslims are no better than any other group and are in fact probably worse.
'It is easy to blame others for your own failings. And to make excuses for your own failings by blaming others. The problem lies at home within the Muslim community and culture not outside it." - Andrew, Melbourne.
Tim, of Sydney, remarked - "Ah yes, it's all our fault when the Islamics blow up bars in bali, buildings in new york and churches around the globe, not their religion...Look to Europe, you say, what, look at the violent Muslim slums in Paris? look at the white flight seen in Sweden from certain cities with growing Muslim populations? look at the Islamic terrorism in Russia???"
'Seen enough', of Melbourne, told her - "Tell that to all the Christians currently being murdered by their Muslim neighbours! They [Muslims, he means - CM] even kill their own if they're not of the same sect."...
Sam, of Melbourne, inquired sarcastically, "So when Muslims bomb coptic Christians in Egypt is that due to western racism and discrimination as well?"
James, who sounds as though he has inside information, said, "Rachel, suggest you spend some time talking to teachers who work in the south west/ inner west schools [of Sydney - CM] with Muslim males to validate this alleged alienation.
"You'll soon discover many of them are spoilt, over-indulged, rude, aggressive and violent because their culture and parental upbringing teaches them no discipline or respect for values or behaviours outside Islam..".
And from the very end of the comments thread, two thundering broadsides from persons of middle-eastern and African non-Muslim extraction. The comments are now closed; I suspect that the moderators at the Age and SMH may have been somewhat taken aback by 'audience reaction' and shut things down in a hurry to prevent more home truths from being shared.
Anon, of Melbourne, asked, "To the Muslim apologists, have any of you lived in a country where the population is majority Muslim? No? Thought so. My mother fled from Lebanon during the Civil War, which Muslims waged against Christians in order to take over what once was a thriving country, now forever scarred. My father escaped from Sudan, leaving everything behind because he was under constant threat of being killed purely because he was Christian.'
"Too many people, all over the world, who have lived in countries where the majority of the population are Muslim, have dealt with the horrors and remember their freedoms and rights being stolen".
And 'Copt 26' offered a history lesson, "It seems that the writer of this article lacks basic knowledge of Islam and the jihad which is a must for every Muslim. She is simply blaming the west for 'moderate' Muslims turning radical.
"Have you studied Islamic history? Islam invaded all the middle east back in the seventh century. One country after another was conquered by the sword of Islam. Christians and Jews were given three option 1. convert OR 2. pay the Jizya (hefty tax) OR be killed. Was there western influence back then??? !!!! Islam refuses to coexist with others. Any non-Muslim is an infidel and will go to hell fire as the guy on 60 minutes said. they think that all non-Muslims are misguided and infidels.
"Who are they to judge others...?...Why have Christians in the middle east like in Egypt and iraq [been] persecuted for centuries under Islamic rule till this day? Has the west got anything to do with that? NOOO.
"It's quite simple - Islam sees itself as supreme to everything and everybody else. Islam is not just a religion but a political ideology of dominance and ruling. It's in Islam's teachings that the whole world should be Muslim. They even believe that prophets like abraham, moses and even JESUS himself were MUSLIMS!!!!
"it's not the West nor Israel or any conspiracy theories that make 'moderate' Muslims radical but the fact that they obey their teachings without any rational thinking. What kind of GOD would tell his followers to kill others for only one reasons that's [that] they are not Muslims. Islam prohibits Muslims from questioning their beliefs cause if they did Islam would simply crumble".
Post scriptum: I am informed that Dr Sookhdeo wrote to the Fairfax press, which runs both papers, requesting right of reply to Ms Woodlock's article, and that he has - so far - been refused. - CM.