These are all the Blogs posted on Friday, 27, 2012.
Friday, 27 July 2012
PA (Jew-Hating Genocidal Jihadists) Thank Dhimmi IOC For Refusing to Hold One Minute Silence to Honour 11 Israeli Jewish Athletes Murdered by PLO's Jew-Hating Genocidal Jihadists
The IOC should be ashamed of itself; it is being congratulated by the very same jihad outfit that authorised the murder of those 11 Israeli Jewish athletes in the first place. As reported by the 'Jerusalem Post''s indefatigable Khaled Abu Toameh.
'PA Thanks IOC For Refusing Munich Victims Memorial'.
'Olympic Committee rejects minute of silence at opening ceremony; PA Official: Palestinians [sic - Arab Muslims - CM] oppose Israeli attempt to exploit Games'.
"Israeli attempt to exploit games". Thus saith the Jew-hating Mohammedan. Let's all just forget about the fact that the PLO jihad terror raiders - the PLO being the direct forebear of the PA - broke the Olympic truce and desecrated the Games by murdering eleven Israeli Jewish Olympic athletes, right there in the Olympic Village in Munich, just forty years ago, eh? - CM
'The Palestinian Authority has thanked the international Olympic Committee for refusing to hold a minute of silence at Friday's opening ceremony in London to mark the 40th anniversary of the murder of 11 Israeli sportsmen at the 1972 Munich Games.
'Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian Football Federation, sent a letter to IOC chairman Jacques Rogge thanking him for his position, the PA's official news agency, Wafa, reported.
'Sports is a bridge for love, connection and relaying peace between peoples.
Says the man whose fellow Arab Muslims took hostage and murdered eleven Israeli Jewish athletes in the Olympic Village; and who most assuredly regards those murderous Muslims as 'heroes'. One wishes that as he penned those words, the earth could have split open and swallowed him. - CM
"It should not be a factor for separation and spreading racism between peoples", Rajoub, a former PA security commander, wrote in his letter.
'Spreading racism'. Says the Jew-hating genocidal Mohammedan whose accursed Quran says all manner of vileness about Jews. One must assume that by 'spreading racism' he means 'directing the attention of the world's non-Muslims to the unpleasant reality of Mohammedan Jew-hatred and Mohammedan kuffar-hatred and Mohammedan murderousness. - CM
'Wafa said that he sent the letter to the IOC chairman on Tuesday.
If this is true, and if Chairman Rogge did in fact receive such a letter, from such a sender, then the proper response to that letter - had Mr Rogge and the non-Muslim members of the IOC even a shred of moral courage remaining, and even one tiny particle of moral intelligence - should have been (1) to forward it to the circular file directly, and (2) to notify all participating nations and the Opening Ceremony organisers that the minute's silence would be happening after all, and that all teams would be advised to lower their flags to half-mast during the silence. - CM
'A senior PA official in Remallah confirmed that Rajoub had sent the letter and said that the Palestinians [sic: that is, the shock troops of the Arab/ Muslim jihad against the Jews - CM] were opposed to "Israel's attempts to exploit the Olympic Games for propaganda purposes".
'A senior [Israeli] government official responded to the Palestinian [that is, the 'Palestinian' Arab Muslim - CM] letter by saying that "if the leadership of the PA is not willing to dissassociate itself from its terrorist past, and is unwilling to see the Munich massacre as a brutal act of terrorism, then in Israeli eyes there will be big questions regarding their true commitment to peace and reconciliation".
Understatement of the year. - CM
'Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon condemned the PA for terming as "racist" a moment of silence for the Israeli victims.
"No, the murder of Israelis because they are Israelis [that is: the Muslim murder of Jews because they are Jews - CM] is racist, not the request to dignify and honor them", Ayalon wrote on Facebook. "On the other hand, Palestinian Authority media refer to Munich terrorists as 'stars' whose path should be followed".
"Now, more than ever, there needs to be a minute [of] silence, not just to honor the eleven slain Israeli athletes, but also to demonstrate opposition to those who laud murderers as heroes and call on others to follow suit".
Yes. A minute's silence to honor those eleven murdered Jews - Jews murdered by Mohammedans because they were Jews - would have functioned also to honor all non-Muslims who are targeted by murderous Jihad because they are not Muslims, because they do not intend ever to become Muslims, and because they do not intend to be dhimmis crushed beneath the boot of Muslim overlords; and because in some cases, like the Israelis, their homelands have actively fought back against Jihad. - CM
Muslim Turnspeak and Blame the Victim Tactics: Muslim Fifth-Columnist Hanin Zoabi, MK, Thinks Israel Brought the Burgas Attack Upon Themselves; While Islamic Iran (Who Probably Carried Out The Attack) Says The Israelis Did It to Themselves
These two pieces of typical Muslim madhattery are, of course, contradictory: Zoabi is pretending that Muslims carried out the Burgas attack in order to punish the Jews of Israel for daring to resist Jihad, whereas Iran is pretending that they (Iran) didn't do it at all, that no Muslims did it, that Israel did it to themselves. But since when did the Ummah ever try to be consistent in its lies and nonsense?
And so to Zoabi, Arab Muslim Fifth Columnist in the Knesset. But a little background, first, courtesy of wikipedia
which includes this fascinating tidbit - "she has voiced support for Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, saying, 'I need something to balance its [Israel's] power". Hatred could go no further: one must assume that this Sunni Arab Muslim, resident within Israel, contemplates with perfect equanimity or even with 'martyrdom'-ready eagerness the prospect of being vaporised in a Shiite Persian Muslim thermonuclear attack upon Israel.
So, what does Zoabi say about the murder of Jews in Burgas, Bulgaria? Boilerplate Mohammedan blame-the-victim: 'it's your fault, you provoked us!"
"Zoabi: Israeli policy to blame for Burgas attack'
'Balad MK says "even when civilians killed, occupying Israeli policy to blame"; slams Israeli efforts for memorial for slain athletes.
'MK Haneen Zoabi (Balad) said Thursday that Israeli policy was responsible for the terror attack targeting Israelis in Burgas last week.
No. Islamic Jew-hatred motivated the killer and those who sent him. - CM
"Israel is not a victim, and even when civilians are killed, the occupying Israeli policy is to blame", Channel 10 quoted Zoabi as saying.
One must remember that in Muslim eyes Allah owns the world and all non-Muslims are illegally occupying territory that rightfully belongs to Muslims...for more details on the Mohammedan sense of total entitlement to the lands, property and persons of all non-Muslim humans on earth, read Patrick Sookhdeo's 'Faith, Power and Territory". - CM
"If there was no occupation, no repression and no blockade, then this wouldn't have happened", she said during an interview at Haifa's Gordon College.
'Occupation' is code for 'Jewish state of Israel'. 'Repression' and 'blockade' are detested because they represent resistance to Jihad; the Jihad to destroy the Jewish state and to kill Jews or force them to resume the role of despised, exploited, cringing dhimmis that they endured for over a thousand years within all the lands invaded and then occupied by Muslims. And one should also remember that throughout the entire period between the rise of Islam and the rebirth of the Jewish state there were many, many occasions on which Muslim mobs howling Itbach al Yahood! raped, robbed and slaughtered defenceless Jews, for no other reason, at bottom, than that they were Jews. David Littmann's 'Exile in the Maghreb', Bat Yeor's 'The Dhimmi', Martin Gilbert's 'In Ishmael's House' and Andrew Bostom's 'The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism' are sufficient proof that Muslims hated Jews - as all the core Islamic texts instruct them to do - and delighted in killing them, long before ever the modern Jewish state came into existence. - CM
'According to Channel 2, Zoabi also came out against Israel's efforts to have the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics remembered with a moment of silence during the opening ceremonies of this year's London Olympics.
"Why don't they commemorate the Palestinians [sic: 'Palestinian' Arab Muslims' - CM] that Israel murdered", Channel 2 quoted Zoabi as saying. "If Israel would say that it recognizes the injustice it has done to Palestinians, then it would also be logical to ask the world to remember all the sides. But it is hypocritical to continue to bring up the victims of 40 years ago, while Israel wants to hide the victims of recent years."
And there have been no Israeli Jewish civilians - or Jews elsewhere: Miriam Monsonego comes immediately to mind - who have been murdered by Muslims in that intervening 40 years? Of course, to a Muslim, every Muslim murder of non-Muslims is just and justified, whereas if a non-Muslim defending himself, his family and his country against mass-murderous Jihad kills a Muslim, this is a monstrous affront to the proper order of things. For Muslims view non-Muslims as having no right of self-defence. So all the jihadis who have been killed by Israelis defending themselves against the various Muslim attacks upon Israel would be viewed by Ms Zoabi as poor little innocent lambs, or as shining heroes, 'martyrs', 'shaheeds', murdered by the wicked Infidels.
One must remember that in Islamspeak 'injustice' means 'contrary to the sharia-prescribed order', that is, 'contrary to the rule that Muslims must always and everywhere dominate over non-Muslims and be able to abuse and even kill them at will". Because Muslims do not rule in Israel, but must submit to the laws of a secular state wherein Muslims are not the majority, Ms Zoabi is resentful, and feels herself terribly hard done by. I do not find it in myself to shed a single tear for this creature who, hankering after the good old days when Muslim imperialists occupied eretz Israel and could abuse and kill Jews for fun, is currently compelled to watch a whole lot of uppity Jews walking around free in the sunlight...armed. - CM
'Last July the Knesset Ethics Committe punished Zoabi for participating in the Gaza Flotilla, forbidding her to take part in all Knesset discussions until the end of the summer session - a decision Zoabi called "the decision of an automatic right-wing racist majority".
She should count herself lucky that they didn't cancel her Israeli citizenship and then drop her over the fence into Gaza. Or, if they were feeling charitable, Lebanon. As for the predictable squawking of 'Racist'... This is coming from someone who subscribes to the Arab Imperial Religion, according to which non-Muslims are dirt and filth, and in which all non-Arab Muslims (especially black ones) are inferior to Arab Muslims.
Anyway, now to our second dose of mind-boggling Mohammedan madhattery, from Shiite Muslim Iran, which - being responsible for the murderous bombing in Burgas - now proceeds to brazenly lie and accuse the Israelis of having done it to themselves. As duly reported by Reuters and reproduced in the Jerusalem Post.
"Iran accuses Israel of plotting Bulgaria bus attack'.
'At UNSC [that is, United Nations Security Council - CM] debate on Middle East, Iran's UN envoy says Israel conducted terrorist bombing that killed 5 Israeli tourists.
'UNITED NATIONS - Iran's UN envoy accused Israel on Wednesday of plotting and carrying out a suicide bomb attack on a bus in Bulgaria a week ago in which five Israeli tourists were killed.
'A suicide bomber blew up the bus in a car park at Burgas airport, a popular gateway for tourists visiting Bulgaria's Black Sea coast, killing himself, the Israeli tourists, and the Bulgarian bus driver, and wounding more than 30 people.
'Israel has accused Iran and the Lebanese Islamist group Hezbollah of the bombing.
They wouldn't make such an accusation unless they had very good reasons for making it. - CM
'Iran has denied the accusations.
Of course they would. And now for the madhattery. - CM
"It's amazing that just a few minutes after the terrorist attack Israeli officials announced that Iran was behind it", Iran's UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee told a UN Security Council debate on the Middle East.
"We have never and will not engage in such a despicable attempt on...innocent people".
And there's the catch, the loophole, the let-out clause: 'innocent people'. 'Innocent'. For, in Islamspeak, only Muslims can be 'innocent'. All non-Muslims - especially Jewish non-Muslims - are guilty by definition; guilty of being najis kuffar, filthy kuffar who are refusing to submit to allah, to the ummah, to the sharia. And being guilty, they deserve to be punished, by death or by the humiliation, degradation and terror of dhimmitude. They can only escape that punishment by converting to Islam. - CM
"Such terrorist operation could only be planned and carried out by the same regime whose short history is full of state terrorism operations and assassinations aimed [at] implicating others for narrow political gains"
Projection. Un caso clinico. - CM
'Khazaee said, "I could provide...many examples showing that this regime killed its own citizens and innocent Jewish people during the last couple of decades".
More projection. As a description of Israel it's an excellent description of Islamic Iran, from 1979 onward (and also, for that matter, of Islamic Iran ever since the Arabs invaded it and forced it to turn Muslims). - CM
'Israel's UN Ambassador Haim Waxman said Iran's fingerprints were all over the bomb attack in Bulgaria, as well as dozens of other plots in recent months around the world.
"These comments are appalling, but not surprising from the same government that says the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy theory and denies the Holocaust", Waxman said in a statement.
'Some analysts believe Iran is trying to avenge the assassinations of several scientists involved in its controversial (that is, my dear Reuters, its intended-to-be-genocidal - CM) nuclear program that it blames on Israel and the United States.
One must remember the attack on the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires, years ago. Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, did that. What was that 'revenge' for? Muslims may claim this or that grievance du jour as a pretext for attacking non-Muslims, but all the justification they need is to be found in the ninth Surah of the Quran. - CM
'Israeli diplomats have been targeted in several countries in recent months by bombers who the Jewish state maintained had struck on behalf of Teheran.
O Reuters reporters, if you are going to refer to Israel as 'the Jewish state', how about you also refer to Iran as 'the Shiite Muslim state'? - CM
"The time has come for the world to put an end to this campaign of terror, once and for all," Waxman said.
To have any hope of achieving that, I am afraid, all or most free non-Muslim countries would have to recognise the Jihad for what it is (that is, the worldwide Sunni and Shiite Muslim campaign to impose Muslim dominance on the entire planet, and to impose and enforce upon all human beings the codified system of human rights abuses that is Sharia), identifying its source in the Islamic 'sacred' texts and schools of sharia 'law', and then meeting every manifestation of Jihad with resolute resistance up to and including, as required, the use of sudden and overwhelming force. - CM
Fight over Islam, money and power brings violence to Volga
Reuters - Not far from glitzy boulevards where an oil boom has sent up stadiums and high-rises overlooking the Volga River, women in headscarves wander through Islamic bookstores selling pamphlets on the institution of sharia in Russia.
Kazan, capital of Russia's mainly-Muslim Tatarstan region, has long had an image as a showcase of religious tolerance. But that reputation was shattered last week by car bomb and shooting attacks carried out only hours before the start of the holy (to Muslims) month of Ramadan.
On the wall outside the bookshop, a flyer in the local Tatar language calls Muslims to unite against the region's top religious leader, Mufti Ildus Faizov, who was wounded in the attacks which also killed his deputy. The attacks came against a background of anger among many Muslims who complain that the authorities in Tatarstan are restricting Islam in the name of fighting radicalism. It is a dispute that also involves a struggle for money and influence in the increasingly prosperous oil-producing region.
But booming Tatarstan - 2000 km (1,200 miles) away from the war zones - had largely avoided unrest until now. Moderate Muslims in Tatarstan blame the violence on the arrival of radical groups, such as followers of Sunni Islam's strict Salafi movement and the outlawed organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir which seeks an Islamic caliphate.
Last week's attack resembles strikes against moderate muftis in places like the Caucasus region of Dagestan next door to Chechnya. Kazan is now on increased alert for more attacks. Outside of mosques, police rifle through the belongings and bags of the faithful, who line up in front of metal detectors.
"Today Islam is growing strongly in Kazan... But there are different sects and movements that you simply cannot control," said Ramil Mingarayev, an imam at the al Marjani Mosque.
Russia's most wanted man, Chechen Islamist guerrilla leader Doku Umarov, called for an uprising among Russia's Muslims last year, mentioning Tatarstan by name. "I want to appeal to the Muslim brothers who live on Russian-occupied Muslim land... I call on you to destroy the enemies of Allah wherever you are. I call on you to destroy them where your hand reaches and to open fronts of jihad," he said in a video posted on insurgency-affiliated website Kavkaz Centre.
Beneath the 18th century al Marjani mosque a dark tunnel leads from the room for prayer to the Islamic school across the street. Five times a day the dozens of students make their way through the stone entrance, perform ablutions, pray and return.
For those who experience Russia's failing social welfare programmes and chronically corrupt court system and police force, stricter versions of Islam hold out the hope for a more just society. Zakhid Anovarov, a burly 20-year-old student with a thin black beard (said) "But it's not a just system, because it's a man-made system. If we were governed by shariah, then life would be better, more just," he said of the Islamic law code.
Muslims in Kazan say Faizov also launched a bid to take over leadership at the Kul Sharif Mosque, a visual symbol of the renaissance of Islam in Kazan. Completed in 2005, it sits on the site of a medieval mosque destroyed in the 16th century by Ivan the Terrible, who conquered the Kazan Khanate, a Tatar state ruled by descendents of Genghis Khan.
In his battle with radical Islam, perhaps none of Faizov's efforts were as divisive as his demand that imams of all mosques undergo a course in traditional Hanafi Islam, the movement traditionally associated with Tatarstan. In December, angry Muslims stormed the main mosque in the town of Almetevsk, 270 km (170 miles) and for hours refused to let local religious authorities enter. The confrontation was eventually defused by Faizov, but resentment still burns.
Near Almetevsk, in the village of Novoye Nadyrovo authorities removed the local imam, Ilnar Kharisov, from his post a few months ago. Friends say he was detained on Friday night, the day after the explosions in Kazan.
Kharisov, a young scholar who had studied abroad and taken the name Abdulmalik, (a new Arabic name is never a good sign) still has a religious following in the village and his sacking as imam split the community. Neighbours say a former communist functionary has been placed in charge of the village mosque. They speak darkly of Kharisov's arrest.
"They've taken all the good imams away and they've replaced them with clowns in their places, and they protect them there with police. People are very unhappy here," said a neighbour of Kharisov who gave his name only as Ramil
Churches should not be built in Islamic countries, say preachers
This decree is in the news again today following reports in Al Watan Daily, to which there is no permanent link, and taken up by The Arab Times
KUWAIT CITY, July 26: A group of Islamic preachers claimed that churches should not be built in Islamic countries particularly in the Arabian Peninsula following the issuance of an approval for constructing a church in Jleeb Al-Shuyoukh, reports Al-Watan Arabic daily.
Undersecretary of Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs Mutlaq Al-Qarawi stressed that the ministry is not responsible for issuing licenses for building churches, and only receives the applications for licenses, which they refer immediately to the Municipality for review.
Meanwhile, Sheikh Nazem Al-Misbah pointed out that the Fatwa and Legislation Department should be questioned for such issues, stressing that based on his knowledge about Islam, it is forbidden to build churches in the Arabian Peninsula.
Sheikh Sayed A-Rifae Al-Husseini expressed displeasure towards Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, and the Municipality for approving the construction of a new church in Jleeb Al-Shuyoukh, stressing that it is not permissible as per the Sharia.
He added that giving excuses such as it is a matter of human rights and international norms to build it, is not acceptable, as Islam comes first, and people should respect religion first before serving humanity or anything else.
The church in question is a Catholic church to serve the new parish dedicated to St Daniel Comboni. There are 350,000 Catholics in Kuwait; they are ministered to by the Apostolic Vicariate of North Arabia. There are three other parishes, Holy Family, St Theresa and my favourite Our Lady of Arabia. From the looks of the photographs on the AVONA website I think the congregation is mainly Indian.
Through the intercession of Our Lady of Arabia and all the Saints, may the Lord bless our new parish, our bishop, clergy, religious and faithful!
Barak Obama is TEAM Massacre. David Cameron is TEAM Oppression.
Torch of Paganism worshiping a god other than Allah!!!!
Boycott the Olympic games - stay Muslim
Butchers of Helmand Eager to Commit more Atrocities in London 2012
The very public failure of G4S's inability to provide sufficient security for the London 2012 Olympics, was all that was needed to bolster the games with Britain's finest war criminals. With 17,000 troops on guard around the country, and dozens of military zones across the city, it appears the government is preparing the country for the 'inevitable'.
So what is terrifying the government so much that it is willing to turn its own financial capital into a makeshift battlefield? Surely 10,000 G4S security staff should be enough?
The reality is that the British government are well aware of the presence of Muslims next to the showpiece Olympic site, that is set to take centre stage throughout the games. They are well aware that Muslims in the UK are in tune with their brutal policies and have a habit of exposing their oppression.
And so it has become a security nightmare for the hosts of what is probably to be the biggest event of the decade. On one hand they have the chance to wow global spectators with pomp and pageantry, but on the other hand the menace of London's explosive Muslim population, has become like a ticking time bomb.
So who best to deal with such a threat than the very men and women used to torment their brothers and sisters abroad? Because as the tournament edges closer and closer, the British armed forces and their masters in Downing street are well aware that the sudden militarisation of the capital was never about G4S. It was always about Londonistan.
Roll up roll up, all the fun of the fair - not. My opinion is that either Anjem won't leave home tonight, or he will be lifted before he even gets on the train at Ilford (20 mins to Stratford on a good day)
Syria is currently in the midst of a violent internal conflict that has evolved into a bloody civil war. This has resulted in the deaths of over 19,000 people and the destruction of an untold number of communities. This chaos has led to a deterioration in security that has enabled radical Islamists to begin establishing for themselves a haven within Syria. Syria is currently at a stage where power is still being contested. This stage in the Syrian conflict is crucial to the overall future of Syria and the well-being of its people. A conscious international effort must be created in order to ensure that radical Islamists do not seize control of the country. Doing so will lay the groundwork for the establishment of a peaceful, secular, and democratic Syrian federal republic. We must act immediately to seek regional and international support in order to not only replace the current Assad regime but to also eliminate the possibility of a rising Muslim Brotherhood led Islamist regime. An Islamist regime would work under a Sunni Arab nationalist agenda and towards an Islamic supremacist society.
The Islamists are aware of this critical stage in the Syrian conflict. Armed and financed by a Turkish, Saudi and Qatari alliance; Islamist groups are positioning themselves to assume power in the absence of Assad’s regime. The Syrian people have made themselves clear: they will no longer settle for a Syria ruled by Assad. However, we cannot stand idly by and allow Islamist radicals to force their fanatical regime upon the Syrian people either. Syria must establish a new federal system of governance to ensure that Kurds, Alawi, Christians, Druze and other minorities have their own self-governing civil polities. Such civil polities can give voice to the concerns of Syrian minorities who make up 40-50% of the Syrian population. This undoubtedly includes Syria’s ancient Jewish community whose very existence shall be in danger should the radical elements of the Syrian opposition be allowed to take power. As many as 30 Jewish families are still living in Damascus, the capital of Syria. A federal decentralized system of government within Syria will spread power amongst the people of Syria and thus remove the ability of any one group, such as the Islamists, to dominate the country.
The Jews are among numerous other minority groups within Syria that have maintained a historical presence within the country despite a Sunni Arab majority. The establishment of a federal Syria would come with the promise of greater security, protection, and cultural freedom for Syrian Jews, Kurds, Christians, Druze and other minorities. In a decentralized system of government where Syrian minorities share power, lies the ability to preserve the historic presence of these Syrians who are sometimes deprived of their ability to so much as speak their ancestral languages.
We are all aware of the Assad regimes dedicated alliance with Iran and their proxies in Lebanon – Hezbollah. This alliance has led to numerous state sponsored terrorist operations carried out against the State of Israel. This is but one of the many reasons Assad and his regime cannot be allowed to remain in power. The 15 month revolution in Syria was fomented by the Sunni Arab majority working to overthrow the existing secular Ba’athist regime that is led by a powerful Alawite minority. If the Islamist elements of the Sunni Arab opposition gain control of Syria, they would seek the destruction of Israel and would not hesitate in launching a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Syria’s minorities including the small Jewish community still present in the country.
We believe that this emerging threat to Syria can be averted by the creation of a federal state comprising a Kurdish federal region in the northeast and northwestern area; an Alawite federal region on the Mediterranean coast and adjacent mountains; a Sunni federal region in the South; and a possible merger of Druze areas with Israel. This proposed federal Syrian state would recognize Israel with secure and defendable borders through peace accords similar to Egypt and Jordan and the exchange of ambassadors. The proposed accords would establish a lasting peace, facilitate trade and develop political, security, and cultural ties between the two countries. This federal state would help to end decades of Iranian influence and hegemony and would help to further establish cooperative partnerships with both regional and international counter-terrorism efforts.
We the undersigned are seeking to establish contact with the Israeli government in order to conduct exploratory bi-lateral discussions that might be expanded into multilateral plenary meetings with permanent members of the UN Security Council lead by Russia. A Syrian delegation for such discussions would be composed of leading representatives of: the Union of Arab Syrian Clans and Tribes; the Syrian Arab Kurdistan National Assembly – Syria; the Kurdish Azadi, Yekiti, and Kurdish Democratic Party.
Sheikh Ali al-Obeidi
Chairman of the Union of Arab Syrian Clans and Tribes
President of the Kurdistan National Assembly - Syria
Is it Danny Dayan or Seth Mandel who is wrongheaded on Judea and Samaria?
The New York Times published a strongly worded Op-Ed this week by Danny Dayan, Chairman of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, under the title “Israel’s Settlers are here to stay”. Seth Mandel, in an article in Commentary Magazine, called his comments “wrongheaded”.
Mandel accused him of ignoring "both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people". Dayan has every right to ignore or even reject both. Mandel further complained that "two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel." I beg to differ for reasons set out below.
“First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution, even at a time when that proposal is clearly at a post-Oslo low point.”
If such a poll exists, the wrong question was asked. Last year, a Dahaf Institute poll commissioned by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs found that Seventy-seven percent of Israelis oppose returning to pre-1967 lines, the poll reads “with minor border adjustments”] even if it would lead to a peace agreement and declarations by Arab states of an end to their conflict with Israel.
The poll found that large majorities of 85 percent and 75%, respectively, recognized the importance of maintaining a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty within the framework of any final peace deal and opposed transferring the Temple Mount to Palestinian control even if the Western Wall were to remain in Israeli hands. If that weren’t enough, a recent poll in Israel found that 64% of Israelis support the continuation of the settlement enterprise. The parameters of the two-state solution doesn’t come close to offering the Israelis what they want or settle for.
“‘[T]he American left would like to frame the debate as consisting of two points of view–Dayan’s and J Street’s. Both are outside the mainstream consensus on this issue, and it is only up against Dayan’s arguments that the hard-left can appear reasonable. “
To the contrary, it is Dayan’s solution that is reasonable compared to J-Steet’s “Auschwitz borders”. Only Dayan’s solution will bring peace. As to the debate, bring it on.
“What about the Palestinians? Dayan doesn’t say Israel should give the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria voting rights. If he would, is he not concerned about the demographics at play? If he would not, is he suggesting that the Palestinians should be a permanently stateless people and that Israel would be permanently without clear national borders? He writes that Israeli security should be paramount, but the Judea and Samaria he envisions would be a long-term security nightmare for Israel."
Dayan didn’t offer citizenship nor did he reject it. The vast majority of Israelis who support annexation also support giving citizenship to qualified Arabs while at the same time offering them, in the alternative, a financial inducement to emigrate. Upon annexation of Judea and Samaria, (West Bank) Israel would have clear national borders, the Jordan to the Mediterranean, though the international community would not recognize them. It is only the present situation where Israel’s borders are undefined. As for the security nightmare, he is absolutely correct. Where is Mandel on this issue. He doesn’t say.
“Second, has he thought through the implications to U.S. foreign policy of his proposal? Specifically, he seems to want the U.S.–a principal external force on the peace process–to ignore its own dedication to the right of self-determination for the Palestinians. But that would mean weakening American devotion to the general principle of self-determination, which is a major driving force behind continued American support for Israel. Does Dayan, as a political figure in a country whose right to exist is constantly being questioned by a resurging global anti-Semitism, not just in the Arab states but all over Europe, really want to weaken American support for the idea of a right to self-determination?”
This argument is misleading. American support for self-determination is very selective. I don’t see America supporting such a right to the Kurds, the Basques, the Tibetans and so on and they are a real people, not an “invented people”. The Balfour Declaration, the legally binding decision at San Remo and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine all asserted the right of the Jews to not only self-determination in Palestine but to the reconstitution of their national homeland there. The Arabs were specifically denied such a right in Palestine but not in Jordan which was separated from it. Why doesn’t Mandel and the US government support their right of self-determination in Jordan which is, after-all, 80% Palestinian?
America also supports the rule of law which favours Israel by a country mile. To prefer the Palestinian "right" to self-determination on these lands to the Jewish historical, legal and moral claims is just ludicrous. They have no right to self-determination there.
“Additionally, Dayan writes that the return of the Palestinian refugees from around the Arab world to the Palestinian state would be a major security threat. But he also acknowledges that those Palestinian refugees are treated as second-class citizens in those countries and kept in squalor elsewhere (chiefly by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency). Should they stay that way? And isn’t a primary goal of Israeli national policy to convince the Palestinians to return to a Palestinian state, not Israel? Humanitarian concerns often clash with security concerns, but that doesn’t mean we ignore the humanitarian concerns altogether–it means we go back to the drawing board and get creative, not give up.”
Though Israel does support the Palestinian return to a Palestinian state, rather than to Israel, in principle, it doesn’t she supports their return to Palestine in reality. This support in no way can be described as “a primary goal of Israel national policy”. If only a million would return to Palestine, should it ever be created, war would result. Dayan knows this. Mandel and the international community couldn’t care less.
If America or the international community really cared about the condition of the Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, they would focus their attention on getting them resettled as they have done with tens of millions of refugees since the Second World War.
Dayan has gone back to the drawing board, Mandel and the west has not.
“And finally: Dayan claims removing the settlers would be impossible. Why? Today there are no settlers in Gaza. He’s also moving the goal posts; many of the settlements would remain in Israel as part of any final-status agreement. Israel’s critics often dishonestly ignore this when speaking in broad terms about The Settlers. Dayan is making the same mistake, and playing right into their hands.”
Though “many of the settlements would remain in Israel”, over 100,000 Jews would have to be forcibly removed. That may be acceptable to Mandel but it is not to Israel. Why doesn’t Mandel suggest moving the final border to include these settlers on the west of the border? Why not negotiate on the basis of Israel keeping 10% of the land? That would solve the settler problem. But the West, let alone the Palestinians, would not continence that. Even if you grant the Palestinians a right of self-determination, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it must be on 100% of the land. The land after all is Jewish land and not Palestinian land.
At least Mandel acknowledges:
“The fact is, Dayan is right that the current Palestinian leadership prefers the status quo, and are not making the effort needed to secure a deal. He’s also right that a Hamas takeover of all of the future state of Palestine would immediately nullify the peace deal, and anyone who thinks Hamas isn’t still dedicated to Israel’s destruction is not paying attention.”
“But it would be more constructive if Dayan made these critiques of Mideast policy as part of an effort to reform the current structure of the two-state solution in ways that might make it more workable, not less.”
Wrong suggestion. Why not abandon the pursuit of the two state solution altogether and work from a different paradigm. First resettle all the Arab refugees. Secondly, insist that all Palestinians in Jordan be fully enfranchised so that Jordan becomes the Palestinian state. Then invite all Palestinians to move there and get citizenship. Now that is a solution worth working toward.
Nothing infuriates like the truth, especially when it controverts a deeply-held prejudice such as that censorship is bad for great art and even incompatible with its production. Whenever, therefore, I adduce a certain truth that is obvious to the point of truism, namely that the majority of great art in human history has been produced in conditions of censorship, or at least of such severe self-inhibition because of social or political pressure that it amounts to censorship, I find that I am the object of fury, as if I were personally the Chief Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. Here is a truth that, even if it is true, ought never to be uttered: that ought, in fact, to be the object of self-censorship.
But that censorship ought to be re-instituted in the interest of great art follows from the evident truth cited above if, and only if, the following are also true: a) the production of great art is the highest human good to which all other goods should be subordinated; and b) that such censorship is a necessary condition of the production of great art. Yet, though neither is true, uttering the evident truth that most great art has been produced under conditions of censorship is almost always taken by interlocutors as a call for censorship.
We can all easily think of great art produced under political (not to say material) conditions that we find repellent and would not wish to reproduce if we could; and equally, we can all think, perhaps a little less easily, of great art produced under conditions of free expression.
Whether the realm of fact and value can ever be wholly separated is a matter for philosophers, though personally I think they can and ought to be; but in any case, I am often surprised by how often people fail even to make the slightest effort to do so, at least when they feel their most cherished beliefs are under attack.
I was once a participant in a radio discussion with an eminent critic – far more eminent than I – about the effect upon society in general, and on children in particular, of portrayals of violence on television and in films. I said that, as far as I understood the evidence, violent crime tended to increase ten years after television was introduced into societies that had it late by comparison with others; and that this suggested that violence on television did not affect those with a more-or-less formed social mentality, but a proportion of children (and a proportion only) who grew up with it, as a concomitant of their coming into adult consciousness, as it were.
No sooner were the words out of my mouth than the eminent critic said, ‘So you want censorship, do you?’
Of course, a proponent of censorship would not hesitate to make use of the evidence I adduced, but would hardly rest his case upon it. He might also say that scenes of violence are not expressions of opinion, but mere titillation, and that therefore to censor them is not to inhibit the free play of opinion which is the main utilitarian objection to censorship. But those who oppose censorship would reply that the distinction between propositional language and that intended only to arouse certain emotions (or scenes in dramas that have an intellectual point and those that have none) is one that is impossible to draw. Even when censorship is genuinely intended merely to limit violence or sexual licentiousness, there is a risk that in so doing, or by a process inelegantly called mission creep, it will end up suppressing opinion. A good (or bad) case in point was the banning of D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover on the grounds of its obscenity. It is indeed a crude and in several ways an unpleasant book, but that it was intended to express a philosophical point of view, however silly or unsatisfactory, and not merely to titillate, can hardly be doubted. It is not possible to disentangle the crudity of expression and the point of view expressed.
In my experience, at any rate, many opponents of censorship feel constrained to deny what they themselves believe, for fear of conceding too much. In the radio discussion referred to, the critic was dismissive, virtually a priori, of any conceivable evidence that television might be damaging to morals; but he then somewhat undermined his own position by admitting that he would not let his own children watch anything. Complete license was strictly for the children of the kind of people whom he would never meet.
Where great literature and censorship are concerned, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the two are not incompatible. Shakespeare wrote under restraints that we should now find intolerable, and he didn’t do so badly, I think it will be agreed. The example of Russian literature in the Nineteenth Century is also instructive: had Tsarist censorship not existed, it is unlikely that the great Russian writers who have seldom been equaled would have found the Aesopian means to examine so marvelously the human condition; they would have written tracts instead. One has only to read a few of Tolstoy’s essays to realize what a loss that would have been.
The Tsarist censorship of the epoch was inconsistent, capricious and incompetent, yet it seems to have stumbled upon precisely the degree of limitation and freedom propitious to the production of great literature. It no longer pretended to act upon Count Benckendorff’s totalitarian dictum that the point of view from which Russia must be written about was that its past was magnificent, its present superb and its future beyond imagination (the last, at least, was true). It decreed only what could not be said, not what must be said, and this was an important difference.
The world, then, or that part of it that likes to read, has much to thank the Tsarist censorship for. Whether Russia has much to thank it for is another question entirely: societies that produce great art and good societies are by no means coterminous.
As for us moderns, we have no such blindly enlightened censorship to guide us to prodigies of profundity. We have to rely on our own sense of limits and boundaries: and part of our problem is that many of us, at least, have no such sense.
Susan Stern of Jewish Federation 2011-2012 National
Campaign Chair of Jewish Federation of North America
with then Sen. Hillary Clinton at Western Wall in Jerusalem in 2005
Lori Lowenthal Marcus of Z Street writes in The Jewish Press of plans by the North American Jewish Federation to drop the term "Zionism" from its Global Planning Table, "Jewish Federations to Drop "Zionism" from their Global Plans". And we all thought that Jewish Federations were the focus of the American Jewish Community's coimmitment of the Jewish State of Israel. However, we have seen over the past few years evidence of distancing of Federations' from commitment to Israel. That was reflected in underwriting Olive Tree Initiative trips for college students at UC Irvine in California to mistakenly meet Hamas Representatives on the West Bank in Israel by an affiliate of the Jewish Federation of Orange County California. Or inclusion of left extremist Jewish fellow travelers of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions cause on Federation Israel Action Committees. Or showing Palestinian propaganda films at Federation sponsored Film Festivals. When we launched a pledge to oppose such activities, we got only one response from the Saratoga Manatee Federation in Florida. Marcus' column in The Jewish Press comes on the eve of the Tish B'Av - the ninth of the month of Av in the Jewish calendar. It is a fast day that commemorates many of the calamities that have befallen the Jewish people ranging across the millenia from the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem in 586 BCE and 70 CE to the fall of the Jewish Republic in 135 CE to the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 to the Holocaust. We read from the Book of Lamentations. In Psalm 137.5 we read: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning." Apparently, Federations have forgotten that Zionism was the underlying cause of their existence. Pity!
Here are excerpts from Marcus's sorrowful column:
In what has been described as "a closeted and cowardly move," the Jewish Federations of North America last week rejected the inclusion of the term "Zionism" in a major system-wide planning document.
The JFNA's Global Planning Table is the mechanism by which JFNA and Federation leadership come together to determine the allocation of dollars for new Federation initiatives outside of the United States. The Report issued by this collaborative is considered a building block of the allocations decision making process, and it was the call to include Zionism in the recent report that was rejected. The Global Planning Table page of the JFNA website does not include either the term Zionism or Israel.
Richard Wexler, former chair of the Chicago Federation and national chairman of the United Jewish Appeal in the late '90's, revealed yesterday, July 26, that JFNA's leaders have rejected the inclusion of the term "Zionism" in their Global Planning Table Work Group Report because the term "is too controversial."
In 2008 Wexler stepped down from his position as chairman of the United Israel Appeal, a subsidiary of what later became the JFNA. He also was one of the architects of the merger of United Jewish Communities, the umbrella group for the local Federations. Even while in a leadership position, however, Wexler was critical of the management culture, writing in his blog "UJ Thee and Me" that "criticism is not merely ignored, it is not tolerated."
Some fear the JFNA move will be seen as a watered-down acceptance of the notion that Zionism is to blame for the problems in the Middle East, or at the very least an effort to hold at arms length the idea that Jews are entitled to a national homeland.
"I am beyond disappointed and upset," Wexler told The Jewish Press, about the decision to hide from the idea of Zionism. He said, "that is at the heart of all we do."
[. . .]
Further evidence of this trend, according to Wexler, is a drift from the close connections the JFNA had with its actual overseas partners, the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, and the Jewish Agency for Israel.
Acknowledging that there might be better, more efficient ways for the Federations to encourage North American Jewry with Israel than through the Joint or JAFI, he was adamant that this latest decision -- the excision of the term Zionism from their planning documents -- was morally disastrous.
"What we cannot permit is an implicit denial of the centrality of Israel in our lives and a denial [of] the absolute responsibility we as Diaspora Jewish leaders have to engage more Jews here with Israel."
Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan before he left for the opening of the London Olympics issued a bellicose warning against the rising of an autonomous Kurdish region in Syria. The Wall Street Journal in an article published Friday lent the impression that Erdogan was determined to throttle an Syrian Kurdish autonomy by tying it to the presence of the outlawed PKK that the Assad regime had inserted in the Syrian Kurdish heartland over objections of Kurdish groups. In effect Erodgan was attempting to stifle the alternative of a secular Federated Syria as a post-Assad alternative to a Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist supremacist regime that could devolve into a prolonged period of sectarian violence.
ANTAKYA—Turkey warned that it might take action to stop groups it deemed "terrorists" from forming a Kurdish-run region in Syria, underscoring Ankara's growing concern that such Kurdish rule in Syria's north could provide sanctuary to militants.
"We will not allow a terrorist group to establish camps in northern Syria and threaten Turkey," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in Ankara on Thursday ahead of a trip to London. "If there is a step which needs to be taken against the terrorist group, we will definitely take this step."
Mr. Erdogan's warning followed a series of reports that some ethnic Kurds—both Syria-based fighters and a Syrian-Kurdish political party linked to separatists battling Turkey's government—had taken control of five cities along the Syrian-Turkish border.
Turkish media have in recent days carried images of Kurdish flags flying over buildings allegedly controlled by the Democratic Union Party of Syria, or PYD. Ankara says this group is affiliated with the Kurdistan Worker's Party, or PKK, which took up arms against Turkey in 1984.
[. . .]
Syria's Kurdish areas have sidestepped the worst of the violence that has plagued Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began 18 months ago. Many Syrian Kurds see a chance to achieve the freedoms and prosperity secured by their ethnic kin in northern Iraq next door.
Mr. Erdogan said Thursday that Turkey's military is closely monitoring developments inside Syria's Kurdish regions. He warned the PKK, which is fighting for greater autonomy and language rights in Turkey's southeast, that it should avoid any attempt at collaboration with the PYD. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu chaired an extraordinary meeting in Ankara on Wednesday with armed forces and intelligence chiefs to discuss the issue.
The PYD stresses that its only links to the PKK are "ideological."
But the group's assertion of control over towns near Turkey's border has led to squabbles with the other Kurdish groups in Syria. That includes the main Kurdish political group, the Kurdish National Council, and other Syrian rebel factions, which allege that their members have been intimidated and assassinated by PYD members.
The main opposition grouping in Syria, the Syrian National Council, is now led by a Kurd, Abdulbasset Sieda. He has reportedly characterized the PYD's growing influence in Syria's Kurdish region as a policy of the Assad government to split the opposition.
"The Syrian regime just handed this [Kurdish] region to the PKK and the PYD, and took a step aside," Mr. Sieda is reported to have said in an interview widely quoted by Turkish media outlets Wednesday. He couldn't immediately be reached for comment.