Saturday, July 02, 2005

The Anglican Church Comes Out For
The Establishment of A Fascist Theocratic State


Martin Peretz, in the New Republic, questions why the Anglican Church is obsessed with Israel? From Roger Simon:


In any event, both of these armed doctrines [communism and fascism] tried hard to delude their followers with the lure of high ideals, some rooted in one or another version of the Christian ethic. But what vision of a good society do the ideologists of Palestine proffer to their boosters all over the world? Really nothing, except another miserable state like the others in the Arab Middle East. The new fellow-travelers lack even the feeble extenuations of the old ones.

Indeed, anyone who envisions a future Palestinian polity must wrestle with

the grim and ongoing realities of a stagnant class structure,

unproductive economic habits,

an uncurious and increasingly reactionary culture,

deeply cruel relationships between the sexes and toward gays,

no notion of an independent judiciary, and

a primitive religious mentality that gains prestige in society even as it emphasizes the promise of sexual rewards in paradise for martyrs--a crude myth that has served successfully as an incentive for suicide bombings not only in Israel but also in Iraq and throughout the Arab world.

And no real challenge to any of these backward actualities has arisen in all of the turmoil the movement has sown.

Which takes us back to the church deleriants for Palestine. What kindles the fire in their hearts for Palestine?

There is little or nothing in Palestinian society that would fill a progressive with enthusiasm. And these churches do not generally exult in the promise of yet one more nation-state. In fact, these churches are against the nation-state, especially the U.S. nation-state. (In Nottingham last week, the Anglicans demanded the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.)

And, even if you take to the harshest reading of Israeli behavior in their ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, dozens and dozens of other peoples in the world, some of whom have a much sounder claim to be a real nation than those for whom the official Anglicans and Presbyterians shed so many tears, suffer infinitely more deprivation and indignity than they do.

But tears are not shed for those people at Canterbury Cathedral in England or, for that matter, at Christ Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose rectors have for years been virtual street agitators against Israel.

So I come to an unavoidable conclusion. The obsession here is not positive, for one side, but rather negative, against the other side. The clerics and the lay leaders on this indefensible crusade are so fixated on Palestine because their obsession, which can be buttressed by various Christian sources and traditions, is really with the Jews.

A close look at this morbid passion makes one realize that its roots include an ancient hostility for the House of Israel, an ugly survival of a hoary intolerance into some of the allegedly enlightened precincts of modern Christendom.


From now on, I will frame the argument about the Middle East Conflict as reflected by the title of this post, and the way I did it in the post below entitled Hamas Reject The Mixing of the Sexes. That is, instead of discussing why the Jews deserve a state, I will ask why why anyone would support establishing a state for the Fascist Theocratic nightmare that is Palestinian society.

Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism
UK Division


I just added a new site to my blogroll called Christian Hate. Christian Aid is a blog started by British man "to challenge the UK development charity Christian Aid over what, in my view, is its biased campaigning on the issue of Israel and Palestine."

I hope he doesn't mind the imperious nature of the title of this post. I mean it with humor and affection. I am so happy to find someone out there working for this cause in the name of Christ. Add Christian Hate to the list of other Christian blogs which fight the good fight for our Jewish brothers in the faith; Mystery Achievement, Marlowe's Shade, and The Anchoress.

Here's an excerpt of a Christian Hate post critiquing a Christian Aid newsletter. Hat tip Melanie Phillips:


'Proportion again…

'Coverage of Israel and Palestine: the front cover; a half-page news item; a three-page feature on the “Child of Bethlehem” Christmas appeal; half of the letters page; a full-page advertisement for the Child of Bethlehem appeal on the back cover. Total six pages. Coverage of Sudan: one news item covering a third of a page. Coverage of Democratic Republic of the Congo: nil.

'Having dealt with the bare statistics, let us examine the Child of Bethlehem Christmas Appeal. The child is Jessica Safar, a seven-year-old Palestinian Christian living in Bethlehem. When she was four she was caught in a gunfight between Israeli soldiers and local youths, and hit by a piece of shrapnel which shattered her right eye. A shocking image of a doll with its eye gouged out brings home the violence she has suffered. Plainly this is a 'terrible tragedy, and it is good to learn that counsellors funded by Christian Aid have helped Jessica cope with her situation. However, I believe some hard questions can and should be asked about the uses to which this tragedy is being put.

'Consider the choices that have been made in designing the appeal: 1. To focus on the conflict in Israel and Palestine. 2. To focus on a Palestinian child who has suffered violence, directly or indirectly, from the Israeli state. 3. To focus on a Christian child living in Bethlehem. At each step I want simply to ask: Why?

'Why single out this conflict when others (several could be named in Africa alone) are having a far worse impact on children? Why ignore the Israeli children who have been murdered in this conflict? Why dwell at length on the misery that the separation barrier is causing for Palestinians without even mentioning the possibility that it is saving Israeli lives – children included? Mahmoud Abbas, elected with a huge majority as President of the Palestinian Authority, has said openly that the Intifada has been a disaster for the Palestinians. Why can’t Christian Aid bring itself to say so?

'Why this child? It’s pretty obvious which other “child of Bethlehem” readers are meant to identify Jessica with. One born in poverty under foreign occupation. One threatened with arbitrary state brutality. And now as then, the persecutors are Jewish. But there is one difference: the victim is no longer Jewish, but a Gentile Christian. What a Pandora’s box of associations with the dark corners of Christian history we open up when we make this conjunction of Jewish violence and a Christian child victim!

'In Matthew’s Gospel the Massacre of the Innocents on the orders of the Jewish king Herod (2:16-18) prefigures the Jewish crowd’s claiming of the “blood guilt” for the crucifixion of Christ: “His blood be on us and on our children!”(27:24). In both cases, of course, God’s intervention prevails over violent Jewish intent. A further parallel is that Gentiles acknowledge Christ where Jews reject him: the Magi at the Nativity (2:1-12) and the Roman centurion who declares “Truly this man was God’s Son!” at Christ’s death (27:54).

'So here we have arrived at the traditional basis of Christian anti-Semitism: the accusation that the Jews killed Christ. In the Middle Ages this developed into the “blood libel” – the belief that Jews ritually sacrificed Christian children in commemoration of the Crucifixion. This is a belief that lives on among some in the Middle East (including the Syrian defence minister).

'The playing down or outright denial of Jesus’ Jewishness forms part of the same syndrome. In old paintings of the Last Supper you will often see just one obviously Jewish face – that of Judas Iscariot. The logic was carried to its conclusion in 1930s Germany, when the so-called “German Christian” movement (Deutsche Christen) sought to reconcile Christianity and Nazism by claiming that Jesus was an Aryan.

'So am I accusing Christian Aid of anti-Semitism here? The answer is not so simple. They would undoubtedly protest that far from being anti-Semites they are impeccably anti-racist. And I don’t believe there is necessarily any anti-Semitism involved at a conscious level. But what I think is crucially demonstrated by this campaign is that for Christians anti-Semitism is not just one form of racism among many, but is something with deep roots in the collective historical unconscious of our faith. Looking for a hard-hitting symbol for a contemporary problem, Christian Aid draw on this poisonous heritage and “know not what they do”.'


Good job, my brother.

Hamas Rejects "The Mixing of the Sexes"


This might be a good thing, if it would ensure that they wouldn't breed.

I've got to say, one thing that's good about the Islamofascists is they give us ample and unceasing evidence of their stupidity. Here, in a post fromthe BBC, via Little Green Footballs, we find that Hamas is banning a summer music festival in the West Bank:


A Hamas-led town council in the West Bank has banned outdoor music and dance performances planned as part of a summertime Palestinian festival.

A Qalqilya council spokesman said it was partly to avoid damaging the grass. But he also said the council had been elected to protect the conservative values of the city, which included not approving of men and women mixing.

In May the militant Hamas won the West Bank town's elections, ousting the mainstream Fatah party.

Outdoor plays and concerts are being held across the West Bank this month as part of the Palestine International Festival.

"We were elected by a segment of people that wants us to preserve the conservative values of the city," council spokesman Mustafa Sabri told Reuters. "The prevailing values reject mixing of the sexes. The people of Qalqilya have praised our move."



So, there you have it. Hamas comes out against music concerts and the mixing of the sexes. Does that sound familiar? Does the word Taliban ring a bell?

One of the things that is so perplexing to me about the worlds insistence that the Palestinians need a state is that they have already shown us what kind of state they would establish. An Islamofascist Theocratic Death Cult.

Why would we want to add that to the mix? We already have the ambassadors of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan sitting in the UN, do we want more of their like wielding votes?

Friday, July 01, 2005

No, Thank You
I Don't Like Trains Very Much


In this article from Jewish World Review, Fiamma Nirenstein describes the bafflement and frustration she has felt at being rejected by liberal peers for her support of Israel over the years:


I soon noticed that I had lost the innocence of the good Jew, of the very special Jewish friend, their Jew: I was now connected with the Jews of the State of Israel, and slowly I was put out of the dodecaphonic, psychoanalytic, Bob Dylan, Woody Allen, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Philip Roth, Freud shtetl, the coterie that sanctified my Judaism in left wing eyes.

I have tried for a long time to bring back that sanctification, and they tried to give it back to me, because we desperately needed each other, the left and the Jews. But today's anti Semitism has overwhelmed any good intention.

Throughout the years, even people that, like me, who had signed petitions asking the IDF to withdraw from Lebanon, became an "unconscious fascist" as a reader of mine wrote me in a letter filled with insults. In one book it was simply written that I was "a passionate woman that fell in love with Israel, confusing Jerusalem with Florence."

A very famous Israeli writer told me on the phone a couple of months ago: "You really have become a right-winger." What? Right winger? Me? An old feminist human rights activist, even a communist when I was young? Only because I described the Arab-Israeli conflict as accurately as I could and because sometimes I identified with a country continuously attacked by terror, I became a right-winger?

In the contemporary world, the world of human rights, when you call a person a right-winger, this is the first step toward his or her delegitimization.


She then goes on to give a perfect illustration of how the New Anti-Semitism (which focuses on hatred of Israel) is connected to the old anti-Semitism which focused on Jews in general:


A famous Italian journalist, the former director of Corriere Della Sera, was named president of RAI, which is a very important job. RAI is an empire that shapes Italian public opinion and manages billions of dollars. The nominee's last name, Mieli, is Jewish.

Mieli is a widely appreciated journalist and historian who enjoys enormous and well deserved prestige. When he was appointed, the same night, the walls of RAI headquarters were filled with graffiti.

RAI means Radio Televisione Italiana - Italian Radio and Television. The graffiti authors wrote the word raus (get out!) over it. They drew a Star of David over the A of the word RAI, and transformed the acronym to "Radio Televisione Israeliana" - Israeli Radio and Television.

The phrase is a perfect cross-section of what we are talking about: Raus and the use of the star of David are the classic signs of traditional anti-Semitic contempt and hate, and the words Radio Televisione Israeliana, putting Israel in the center of the picture, is a clear indication of how Israel is the focus of the left winged anti-Semitic hate today.


The irrational level of hatred directed at Israel in liberal European circles has led Jews to a place where they are being to either reject Israel, or they will be rejected. Read the contents of this letter written by a group of professors at University of Bologna to their "Jewish friends":


"We have always considered the Jewish people an intelligent and sensitive one because they have been selected (that's right, selected!) by the suffering of persecution and humiliation. We have school friends and some Jewish students whom we have helped and educated, taking them to high academic levels, and today many of them teach in Israeli universities.

We are writing because we feel that our love and appreciation for you is being transformed into a burning rage… we think that many people, also outside the university, feel the same. You have to realize that what was done to you in the past, you are now doing to the Palestinians… if you continue on this path, hatred for you will grow throughout the world"


Fiamma Nirenstein comments that the letter seems to plead, "Come back, our dear Jews. Be ours again. Let us curse Israel together and then take a trip together to the Holocaust memorials".

I would add that the tone of the letter is one of proprietorship, of a master to a subordinate, or a superior to an inferior. They remind the Jewish professors that they have helped Jews, "taking them to "high academic levels," as if the Jews hadn't made it to high academic levels in almost every country in the Western World without the help of these imperious Bolognans.

And note that the reminder of all the help they have provided to the poor Jews is brought up in prelude to a warning that if they don't do what the imperious professors want them to do, then they will sow the wrath of the nations. It might be appropriate to remind a friend of a favor you have done for them in asking for a return favor, but it is not at all appropriate to demand compliance from whole group of people by reminding them that they have helped specific people ("school friends and some Jewish students") within their community.

And besides, have not Jewish professors helped Italian professors? Of course they have. But, somehow this group of Bolognists think they have helped Jews as a community more than Jews have helped them. Because, of course, Jews are inferior, and they couldn't have ascended to "high academic levels" without the help of these powerful Bologners.

Let's get down to brass tacks here. The truth is, Israel was established because the Euros realized that the Jews needed a homeland where they could hide from them. In a moment of terrible clarity on the morning after the Euros woke up from their drunken orgy of Jew-slaughter, the Euros looked in the mirror and said,

"We can't trust ourselves. Be gone with you Jews, before we kill every last one of you. Here, take this key and this deed and go live in that home down yonder. Leave quickly before we start killing again."

And now the Euros want the Jews to feel shame over the very existence of Israel. They want the Jews to negotiate and ultimately comply with the likes of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, when both groups call for the destruction of Israel in their charters. That's like asking the Jews to come down and fill out the papers for their train ride to Aushwitz all over again.

Israel is a sanctuary for Jews. It exists precisely because history has shown that if the Jews do not a place to which to flee then they will be murdered. This worlds unending paranoid obsession with Jews is a mystery.

Why do societies repeatedly blame the Jews for their problems? Who knows? But, we do know that it is happening again. Once again, the Jews are being blamed for the worlds problems. Politicians and members of the media the world over tell us that, if we could only solve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then we would have peace with the Islamofascists.

So, they demand that Israel negotiates according to the Road Map for Peace. But, the problem is, you can not negotiate with a person whose starting position is your death. You can not negotiate with someone who refuses to stop killing you.

Jews today are being presented with a Faustian bargain. Jews are being asked to reject Israel in order to be accepted in the world of academia and politics. But, Israel is the soul of the Jewish people. It is their breathing space, the thing that sustains them. And how does it profit a people to gain the world yet forfeit their soul?

Israel Shows The Palestinians How It's Done


Yesterday, the Israel Defense Force raided a Gaza Strip hotel and forcibly removed 150 Jewish extremists who had barricaded themselves inside, in anticipation of the planned Gaza pullout.

According to the Associated Press, the IDF sealed off Gaza entirely during the raid, to prevent other extremists from entering the zone and attempting to aid those in the hotel. Soldiers entered the hotel and went from room to room, removing the squatters by force, and arresting them.

This is quite a show of military force to effect upon one's on citizens. And the move along with anticipated future moves of it's like, are stirring much concern among less radical Israeli citizenry. But, the truth of the matter is, such maneuvers will be required if Israel is ever to separate itself from the terrorists in the Palestinian territories.

And just such maneuvers are exactly what are required of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, if he is serious about shutting down terrorism and "ending the occupation."

The Astute Blogger comments:



When Abbas is willing to take on the Palestinian Arab militias in a similar way he will have earned his followers a state. Until then - there can be and will be no state.

HERE'S ANOTHER ANALOGY: The ALTALENA AFFAIR. (IN SHORT: The New nation of Israel made the unavoidable decision that it had to have only one miltary, and NO militias, NO PARAMILITARIES. The IRGUN militia had to first disarm to be absorbed. When it was discovered that they still were gun-running, the new president of Israel - Ben Gurion - ordered the IDF to destroy the ship - the ALTALENA. Sixteen Irgun fighters were killed. But Israel became a nation.)

Unless and until Abbas - or some other Palestinbian president - has his "Altalena moment" - there will be no state.

I'm not holding my breath. HAMAS and Hizb'allah and Iran and Syria will not stand by and see their neojihadist proxies disarmed. IOW: unless and until we confront Syria and Iran - with military reprisals - they will not cease and desist their support of Palestinian terror.

Then again: This may come sooner than we think. The road the Ramallah goes through Damascus and Tehran. And Assad's intransigence and the new president of Iran may briong things to a head. STAY TUNED!


I agree with the Astute Blogger entirely. And I would add that, if Abbas does not make moves to shut down the terrorism after the Israeli Gaza pullout, then he will have proved that the Palestinian Authority was never interested in "ending the occupation," but instead that all this time, they simply have been intent on ending Israel, just like their charter says.

When the pullout has been completed, Israel should, in my opinion, notify the Palistinian Authority, and the entire world, that they will accept no further attacks.

The day Palestinians launch an attack from behind the wall in Gaza, Israel should accept it as an act of war by one state on another. The IDF should then go into the territories with overwhelming military force and end the Palestinians Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other groups who share the same goal of ending Israel, but who go by different names in order to deny accountability for their actions.

How would Israel put an end to organizations who have been elected by large majorities of common Palestinians and therefore represent the will of the people? By putting an end to the will of the people.

In other words, in such a case, Israel must effect total war, such as the United States enacted on Germany and Japan in WWII. The IDF must defeat the Palestinians with such overwhelming force that they would be broken and willing to sign a peace treaty which would completely remake their aspirations from the ground up.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

1801 -
Thomas Jefferson Declared War
On Islamofascist Terror


A little history lesson from Gerald Gawalt of the Library of Congress:



Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy.

Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.

After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation."

Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war."

Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . .

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war.

The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts.

Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States.

Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress:

"To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war.

... it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities.


Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north, the wind continues swirling along; and on it's circular course the wind returns. All things are wearisome. Man is not able to tell it.

That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

AIDS Threatens To Overwhelm Muslim Nations


From Agence French Presse:



An AIDS crisis is threatening to overwhelm many predominantly Muslim countries but their leaders remain in a state of denial and are doing little to stem the deadly problem, a pioneering study says.

In one of the most comprehensive reports on AIDS covering the Muslim world, experts warned of serious repercussions if governments continued to sweep the problem under the carpet.

In a report released by the Seattle-based think tank, the National Bureau of Asian Research, they said "if leaders continue to ignore the problem, AIDS could debilitate or even destabilize some of these societies by killing large numbers of people in the 15 to 49-year age group."

This would deprive the Muslim countries of some of their best, brightest, and most economically productive members, said Laura Kelley and Nicholas Eberstadt in the report.

A private infectious disease specialist, Kelly had previously undertaken AIDS research for the US National Intelligence Council as well as other diseases for the USAID, the principal foreign aid agency of the United States, while Eberstadt is a scholar at American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank.

"An important take home message for all Muslim nations is that real behaviours on the streets are sometimes in marked contrast to the expected behaviours of good Muslims and that is something that leaders in these countries must deal with," Kelly told AFP.

The report said that even though the Muslim world was home to behaviors such as premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, and intravenous drug use -- which help spread the HIV virus that causes AIDS -- many governments have been slow to respond to the rapidly spreading disease.

"What is especially troubling to behold is the reluctance to admit that Muslims engage in exactly those same dangerous behaviors that support the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS elsewhere," it said, blaming "deeply rooted cultural and religious attitudes.

"This reluctance even to recognize the problem will only accelerate the epidemic and make it more difficult for the international community to provide meaningful support and treatment," the report said.


Well, maybe if the Muslims could find someone to blame, they would feel better, and it would make it easier to admit that there is a problem.

Let's see, who could they blame?

Hmm.

The Jihad Against Israel
Alive And Well In Britain


A report on the progress of the Jihad in Britain, from Melanie Phillips:


A reader writes in with a snapshot of non-Muslim attitudes in Britain:

'I feel compelled to write to you again regarding what has become an increasingly desperate situation involving vicious anti-Israel campaigning in my home city of Newcastle upon Tyne. Around one year ago, representatives from the Durham branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign began campaigning every Saturday afternoon in Newcastle city centre to “Free Palestine”. This included various posters and leaflets stating “End Israeli Apartheid”, “End the Israeli Occupation” and “The Wall Must Fall”.

'After watching for several weeks with much dismay, I confronted one of these campaigners and asked why they were promoting such false propaganda. I suggested that words such as “occupation” and “apartheid” grossly ignored all of the acts of violence perpetrated against Israel, completely ignored the fact that Palestine has rejected a two-state solution on every occasion that was offered to it and dangerously paints Israel as an aggressive, expansionist state.

More importantly, I said, their false propaganda was contributing to rising anti-Semitism in the UK.

'Their response shocked me: they weren’t surprised anti-Semitism was rising; it was the Jews' own fault (a popular libel), Israel was a Nazi-like state, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were merely military organisations fighting against oppression and the Israeli army deliberately murders Palestinian children.

When I asked if they had ever read the Hamas charter or any of Hamas’ public rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel, these people said such comments were largely fabricated by the Zionist press who attempted to falsely paint freedom fighters as terrorists to justify their own killings.

'If this wasn’t bad enough, I watched in utter dismay every weekend as more and more people signed their petition, and what started as a stand staffed by 2 or 3 individuals grew to become a large group of campaigners.

Around three months ago, a second campaign desk was set up every Saturday on Northumberland Street (Newcastle’s busiest shopping street) outside Marks & Spencer with a large poster stating “Marks & Spencer support Israeli state-sponsored terrorism against Palestine”.

A second board depicted Ariel Sharon with the slogan “World's Number One Terrorist” and leaflets calling for a boycott of Marks & Spencer and any other Israeli produce were being distributed.

'However, worse was to come last Saturday (25th). A third set of campaigners paraded through the city with a large cardboard illustration of a forklift truck with the words “Caterkiller” denouncing the fact that Caterpillar supply trucks to the Israeli army to bulldozer 50,000 people from their homes.

Their banner depicted the classic sinister, hook-nosed Jew as driver with skull-shaped smoke emerging from the trucks' exhaust.

My partner was handed a leaflet from these people. The amount of lies, libels and defamations are horrifying, with the leaflet stating, amongst other things, that Israel deliberately steals Palestinian land and water, and deliberately murders (bulldozes) peace activists.

'This is nothing more than a defamatory smear campaign, racist in its undertones and responsible for the mass distribution of misinformation to the British public.'

Christian Released From Frying Pan


From Dhimmi Watch:


An Egyptian Christian was released from mental hospital following international pressure over his five-month forcible commitment to the mental hospital, and being charged from apostasy from Islam, Compass Direct has informed.

Gasir Mohammed Mahmoud was released on 9th June 2005 from the El-Khanka Hospital for Mental and Neurological Health in Cairo, Egypt.

Mahmoud was adopted and raised by a Muslim couple who were shocked last December after finding out that he had converted to Christianity two year before. Afterwards, his father appealed to local Muslim sheikhs prompting them to issue a death sentence against his son for apostasy.


With a father like that, who wants to be released from captivity?

Now, read on and find out how they preach the word of Allah in Egypt, so that people can see the light and come to know the Love and the Truth:


Initially following his arrest, Mahmoud expressed that he was questioned "in a decent way" in the presence of state security officer Mohammed Amar. However, when he was transferred to a different official, who was accompanied by two Muslim sheikhs, they tried to convinced him to re-convert to Islam again.

After eight days, eating only the food that other fellow-imprisoned people shared with him, he was sent to Suez Security Directorate. After four days he was released.

His first footsteps led to an evangelical church where he asked for another copy of the Bible, since his was destroyed: "But they were afraid," Mahmoud said, "and refused to give me a Bible."

When he returned home, a messenger was already waiting for him telling him to meet Mohammed Amar again. During the next set of interrogations, when asked why he went to church; Mahmoud said he could not stop himself from going there.

"So he started to torture me, to pull off the nails of my toes," Mahmoud said. "Now I'm still not able to wear shoes because of the pain."

This torture continued for a further 18 days ...

My Nomination For The New Secretary of Defense


The other Fjordman carried a story about a Swede who had been taken hostage in Iraq, and how he had decided to deal with the aftermath:


Australian Associated Press reports that Sweden’s Ulf Hjertström, who was held captive for several weeks in Baghdad before his release on May 30, is channeling the spirit of Charles Bronson. Apparently, Hjerström has “hired bounty hunters to track down his former captors, promising to eliminate them one by one.”

“I have now put some people to work to find these bastards,” he told the Ten Network today. “I invested about $50,000 so far and we will get them one by one.”


Well, apparently, he's making good progress. From Little Green Footballs:


Hjertström, an oil broker whose career took him to Iraq 25 years ago, makes no bones about the decision to exact revenge on his abductors. “I’ve lived [in Iraq] for a long time. This is how things are done there. It’s nothing new to me,” he says.

Hearty Hjertström “doesn’t want to go into detail” about the bounty hunters, but assures Expressen that they are “the best money can buy.”

“They’re not twiddling their thumbs,” declares Hjertström, revealing that he has “received confirmation that two of [the kidnappers] have already been taken care of.”
When asked to elaborate on the fate of the purportedly captured men, the Swede says he “hasn’t inquired” but has his “suspicions.”

Many in Sweden have expressed shock and dismay at Hjertström’s eye-for-an-eye approach. But the plucky pensioner claims that revenge is not his primary motive. “I just want the people of Baghdad to feel safe on the streets.”


Wow, those Swedes are tough.

:)


Iran's new President Mahmood Ahmadinejad
participated in the takeover of the American Embassy in Iran in 1979, He and his fellow "revolutionaries" kidnapped 70 Americans and held them hostage for 444 days.

Posted by Hello

Jihad Jihad Jihad


From the World Tribune:


Iran's president-elect has proclaimed an Islamic revolution of global proportionos.
Mahmood Ahmadinejad said his election coincided with what he termed a new Islamic revolution.

"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world," Ahmadinejad said. "In one night, the martyrs strode down a path of 100 years."

The 49-year-old Ahmadinejad, who participated in the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Teheran, in 1979, was regarded as the most anti-Western of the presidential candidates. On June 24, he defeated Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who headed the Expediency Council, the regime's watchdog over what had been a reformist-dominated parliament.

"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world," Ahmadinejad was quoted by the official Iranian news agency as saying. "The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end."

"Islamic and revolutionary culture have been neglected in the past years," Iranian parliamentarian Mohammad Taqi Rahbar said.

Iran has been cited as the leading financier of groups that appear on the U.S. State Department list of terrorist organizations. Iran's leading clients have been the Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both sponsored by Teheran, as well as Hamas and the Syrian-aligned Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

Bushitler: The Interview


With thanks to The Anchoress for pointing the way to this quote from George Bush, from the London Times:


PRESIDENT BUSH will celebrate his 59th birthday in Scotland on Wednesday, the first US President to go north of the border since Eisenhower.

Despite staying at a famous golf course, he feared that there would be no time for a game. But he hoped to walk the links with his wife, Laura. “Maybe she and I can walk a round together, holding hands in the Scottish mist.”


George Bush is over in Scotland this week to attend the G8 Summit. While he's on the European continet, the Euros will once again get to see what kind of man the President is.

The Times also ran an interview and a transcript of the interview. The transcript is filled with the famous Bush incoherency; line segment sentences which criss-cross in broken geometry, and never quite seem to follow one from the other. But let's look at some outakes, shall we? That way we will get the pure, unadulterated Bushitler.

First, there's this, where he rambles on about Africa and menacingly quotes from the Bible:



Hopefully we'll talk the freedom agenda. I think we will. I know we'll talk about Africa. I look forward to talking about Africa. We got a great record in Africa, and the reason we got a great record in Africa is that I believe that, in the admonition, "To whom much has been given, much is required."


See? We live in a theocratic police state. Help us, Europe. We need you. The next thing we know, the Chimp will be shoving that freaking Bible down our throat, forcing us to memorize that quote. The Horror:



INTERVIEWER: Billions of dollars flow out of the US every year in trade and aid to the developing world. And that figure, as you mentioned, has risen significantly on your watch. But having said that, the US Government still gives only .16 per cent of its GDP to overseas aid. Is that enough? And have you got anything else to offer?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We will have -- we'll make some more commitments. First of all, the way I like to describe our relationship with Africa is one of partnership. That's different than a relationship of cheque-writer. In other words, partnership means that we've got obligations and so do the people we're trying to help.


He wants to make the Africans serve him. The cowboy is going to make them dance while he shoots bullets at their feet. He's a racist. He would never require anything from anyone else. And besides, all this talk of partnership is really just a way to give as little as he possibly can. The minute the Africans don't live up to his "partnership" he will cut off the flow of money, and blame it on them:



... when it comes to African growth and opportunity, GOAL (Growth and Opportunity Act) it is. It's an aggressive trade pact that President Clinton started and I, with Congress, and then I signed extensions to it. It's working.


The devious Bush is working in legion with his evil minion Bill Clinton the Fascist:



Our approach, as well, has been when we see disaster, let's move in to help people. Recently, I announced a $674 million food package. I could proudly proclaim at the G8 that the United States feeds more of the hungry than any nation in the world.


There he goes again, wielding his hegemony:



INTERVIEWER: On the other main G8 topic, climate change, do you believe the Earth is in fact getting warmer, and if so do you believe that it is man who is making it warmer?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that greenhouse gases are creating a problem, a long-term problem that we got to deal with. And we are -- step one of dealing with it is to fully understand the nature of the problem so that the solutions that follow make sense.

And I think one of the interesting points that I made earlier that I'll continue to make, is that there's an interesting confluence now between dependency upon fossil fuels from a national economic security perspective, as well as the consequences of burning fossil fuels for greenhouse gases.

And that's why it's important for our country to do two things.

One is to diversify away from fossil fuels, which we're trying to do. We're leading the -- I think we're spending more money than any collection of nations when it comes to not only research and development of new technologies, but of the science of global warming. You know, laid out an initiative for hydrogen fuel cells. We've got a lot -- we're doing a lot of work on carbon sequestration. We hope to have a zero emissions coal-fired electricity plants available for the United States as well as neighbours and friends and developing nations.


Yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

He is so an idiot.

But wait, then there's this:


I'm a big believer that nuclear power ...


Yeah, the power that comes from nuclear weapons. He doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear reactor, but he wants to build nuclear power plants in America. But wait, read this frightening bit of news:



... the newest generation of nuclear power, ought to be a source of energy and we ought to be sharing these technologies with developing countries.


Do you think that's a threat? That sounds like a threat to me. What does he mean by share?:

I mean it just goes on and on like that. Bushitler embarrassing us on the international stage. Using the G8 summit to exert his imperialistic hubris all over the place.

I just hope the Europeans will forgive us.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The Left and The Extreme Right
Wedded in the Bliss Of Anti-Semitism


From Marlowe's Shade:


There is an old political saw that far right and far left aren't extreme ends of a spectrum but the point were a circle meets. Nowhere is that more apparent or dangerous than in Germany. And if that wasn't enough of a cause for concern, Jew-hatred is the gasoline being poured on the fire.
Here is a history of this phenomenon on the German Left:
Anti-Semitism was never exclusive to the Right; Communism, for its part, often vilified Jews as capitalists. Communism in East Germany, as elsewhere, denied the right to practice the Jewish religion and sought to eradicate religion in general, including Judaism.
East Germany's anti-Semitic policies first became evident in January 1953 when the Stasi - the state security service - confiscated documents of the Jewish communities, searched the homes of Jewish leaders, and spoke of a "Zionist conspiracy." After the Six Day War, East Germany officially adopted an anti-Zionist stance. However, no serious data on East German anti-Semitism is available before the reunification in 1989.
Although West German left-wing anti-Semitism also increased steadily after the Six Day War, before then the West German Left supported Israel generally, and specifically the Wiedergutmachung (Reparations Agreement of 1953) and the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1965.
This friendliness was, however, based on an idealization of Israel, kibbutzim, and pioneering and was not on genuinely firm ground. Opposition to the conservative government of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer also played a role in this left-wing philo-Semitism.
During the 1960s, the West German Left divided into a more "conservative" wing and a New Left trend. Whereas Chancellor Willy Brandt was said to be a true and unwavering friend of Israel, many young leftists took radical positions and opposed Brandt's "establishment" Social Democratic Party.
In 1966 they founded the Nonparliamentary Opposition (APO), a popular movement that sought to "renew" German politics from the outside. Many of its members and supporters later showed sympathy for the RAF, a leftist terrorist movement that had ties to the PLO and whose cadres trained in terrorist camps in Lebanon.
During the Six Day War, the New Left definitively transformed its hitherto moderate pro-Arab positions into full support for Arab states and the Palestinians, and its fragile pro-Israeli attitudes dissolved into anti-Semitic slogans thinly disguised as "anti-imperialist" criticism of a "fascist state."
After 1967, however, not only the radicals but large parts of the German Left turned their backs on Israel.


Go read the rest over at Marlowe's Shade.

Libertarian Links


There is an important and enlightening discussion going on over at Dave Budge.com, that started with thoughts on the 10 Commandments case, and morphed into a more general discussion on Libertarianism. Read the whole post and the comments section. You will have fun. If you don't come back here, and I'll write something twice as fun to make up for it.


Meanwhile, over at the Kafir Constitutionalist, Tom has some thoughts on why, what leftists like to call "political hate speech," is a natural outgrowth of the politics of coercion, which sprouts from socialism like mushrooms from a pile of ... well, you know.

Q and O.net is a "Journal of New Libertarian Thought" which is worth checking out.

And then, there is Mises.org, where you can download some of the great ones works gratis. You can't get much more Libertarian than that.

Democrats.com Calls For Impeachment


Last night I linked to an article from the Neo-neocon, which showed how leftists such as Tom Hayden are planning to end the war in Iraq. Tonight, The Anchoress notes that Democrats are doing the same thing, plus calling for impeachment:


Democrats.com Urges Bush to Apologize, Exit Iraq - and Resign or Face Impeachment

As George Bush prepares to speak to the nation about Iraq, Democrats.com urged him to apologize to the nation for lying about Iraq, to start pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by Thanksgiving - and to resign from office by New Year's Day or face the largest grassroots impeachment campaign in the nation's history.



What is the difference between Democrats and the far-Left, as represented by people like Tom Hayden?

Interesting that that came out on the same day at Daily Kos put out this little press release (as pointed out by LGF):


... here are two ways to talk about the war that don’t betray weakness:

Promoting a withdrawal

We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom. Iraq held successful presidential elections earlier this year, and the nation is now run by a democratic-elected government.
We have accomplished what we set out to do — bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam’s terror.

But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives. The future belongs to a free democratic Iraq, but it is a future they must fight for themselves.Afraid to call for withdrawal? Hammer on “accountability”.

We are facing a crisis in Iraq, and yet no one is being held accountable. Our troops don’t have enough men, equipment, or armor to effectively and safely do their job, yet those responsible for these deadly miscalculations remain at their jobs. They claim, as they always have, that Iraq is about to turn yet another corner, pass yet another milestone on the road to peace and prosperity. But the reality on the ground mocks those assertions.

We must have accountability in order to win this war.


Charles Johnson commented:


This new direction, of course, comes after years of brittle screaming from Markos that “bringing democracy to Iraq” is nothing but a lie and a sham, and that we need to immediately cut and run. It’s a little glimpse into the utter moral bankruptcy of the modern left, as they twist, distort, and change their stories at will depending on the political wind.

Yeah, That'll Happen


The Organization of the Islamic Conference is demanding a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. From Agence French Presse, via LGF:


SANAA (AFP) - Foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) opened a meeting with a call for a Muslim permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu urged a greater role for Muslim countries in world affairs and demanded a "permanent representation for the Islamic world on the UN Security Council".

"The Islamic world, which represents one fifth of total mankind, cannot remain excluded from the activities of the Security Council which assumes a fundamental role in keeping security and peace in the world," he said Tuesday.



But, delusions of grandeur weren't the only order of business Tuesday. There were also issues of identity:


The Turkish secretary general also proposed finding a new name for the organisation that would reflect "its reality".

OIC was given its current name when it was first established at a meeting of Islamic leaders convened in Morocco following an attempt by Jewish hardliners to burn down Islam's third holiest site -- Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque -- which is also revered in Judaism.



What the .... is Agence French Presse talking about?

I had never heard of such an occurrence, so I googled it. As far as I can tell "Jewish hardliners" never attempted to burn down the al-Aqsa Mosque. However, a Christian fundamentalist did do such way, way back in the summer of 1969:


Memories are long here, and one of the major events of recent history was when Australian Christian fundamentalist Michael Rohan tried to burn down al-Aqsa in 1969, causing considerable damage.


But, Agence French Presse blames the Jews.

Palestinians Are Victims Of Apartheid and Brutality
In The Arab World


For the past 57 Palestinians who fled their land during the war in 1948 - when Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq attacked Israel - have been refused the right to most any form of gainful employment. Recently conditions have slightly improved. From Palestine Media Center, via Supernatural Blog:


Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon welcomed as a "first step" a Lebanese government decision on Monday allowing Palestinians born in Lebanon to practice a limited number of professions they were excluded from for 57 years. There are 400,000 registered Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, 90% of whom were born there. Anyone aged 57 or younger will benefit from the work permit. The move brings Lebanon more in line with other Arab countries who long ago granted Palestinian refugees the right to work, and in some cases have offered them citizenship.

However, despite the new measure, Palestinian workers in Lebanon will be restricted to manual and clerical work. "They can work in a company or as a guard but not as doctors or engineers, for example; it is not really fair," said DFLP member Suhail al-Natour.


Supernatural Blog comments:


The strategy of the Arab world has always been to persist the plight of the Palestinian people. By ensuring that their conditions did not improve the Arab world has used them as a pawn around which a rallying point for Israeli hatred was created.


That might sound a little hard to believe, that Arabs would conspire to keep Palestinians in such a debased state. But, just ask yourself these questions:

1) Why, when Arabs all over the world are supposedly so angry about the conditions in which Palestinians live, do the Arabs not help the Palestinians within their own countries?

2) Why did Jordan enact a massacre upon the Palestinians, killing five to ten thousand people?

3) Why did PLO Executive Committee member, Zaheir Muhsein, say this:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Tough Love
Two Important Points About The Middle East Conflict


Right Wing News featured an interview with journalist Mark Steyn today. He was asked a question about what we can expect to see resulting from the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza His answer is worthwhile, because he's been to Gaza, so he tells us what he has seen and not seen on the ground:


John Hawkins: So how successful do you think the Israeli strategy of walling off the Palestinians will be?

Mark Steyn: I haven’t spent a lot of time in “Palestine,” but, when I have, I’ve never seen any sign anywhere in Gaza or the West Bank of anything remotely resembling a "nationalist" movement. There’s plenty of evidence of widespread Jew-hatred and the veneration of death-cult "martyrdom," but not that anybody’s seriously interested in building a nation for the “Palestinian people.”

So if you leave it to the Palestinians there's never going to be a state, only decade after decade of suicide bombings.

One can advance reasons for this - it's no coincidence that the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth are the ones who have been wholly entrusted to the formal care of the UN for three generations now. But,
the fact is what Israel is doing is the only thing that will force the Palestinians to get up off their allegedly occupied butts and run a state:
the Israelis are walling off what they feel they need, or what they can get away with, and it will be up to the gangsters of Arafatistan to see if they now feel like dropping the jihad and getting on with less glamorous activities like running highway departments and schools.


In other words, Steyn says,

1) The Palestinians don't want a state

and therefore,

2) the only way to stop their Intifada is to force them to take responsibility for themselves, rather than rely on others.

In other words, like we need to treat the Palestinians like self-destructive teenagers.

Sometimes, You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies


Palestinian terrorist organization, Hamas, stands a good chance of winning the upcoming elections for the National Council. P. David Hornik says this will make it very hard for the world's media and government to continue the lie of moral equivalence in the Middle East Conflict. From Front Page Magazine:


Unlike Fatah, Hamas doesn’t send smoothies before the public like Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashrawi who protest their desire for peace with Israel so long as it is flooded with “refugees” and demographically dissolved. Hamas leaders don’t, like Fatah’s Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, tell Western leaders that they’d stop terrorism against Israel if they could, but first need to be “strengthened” with payoffs of millions of dollars and releases of thousands of terrorists from Israeli jails.

Instead, Hamas is more or less explicit about its aim of eradicating Israel as a religious duty.

That has not, however, prevented a recent upsurge of EU-Hamas contacts. Although the EU designated Hamas’s “military wing” a terrorist organization in 2002, at that time France argued that Hamas’s “political wing” held a potential for future peacemaking with Israel and should be kept off the blacklist. Along with hard lobbying by the United States and Israel, it took a particularly gruesome Hamas attack on a Jerusalem bus in August 2003, which killed 23, to get the EU to relent and add the “political wing” to the list as well.

Now, though, with Hamas already having won municipal elections in over one-third of the 120 PA towns since last December, even that stance is unraveling. Mohammed Ghazal, a senior Hamas representative in the West Bank, has said that “Every ten days to two weeks we have at least one meeting with a European diplomat.” Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said EU officials have discussed both municipal and “political” issues with Hamas mayors, including the putative cease-fire with Israel. And Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas’s current leader, said he had recently met “a very important adviser of the German government.”

Confirmation comes from the European side as well. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has disclosed that diplomats from his country have met twice with members of Hamas’s “political wing,” though Straw claimed Britain would not meet with top-echelon leaders of Hamas till the group gives up violence. Bob Hiensch, Holland’s ambassador to Israel, also said the EU would hold no political dialogue with Hamas till it stops violence and recognizes Israel, but did not deny that member states could be meeting with Hamas on their own.

Indeed, although EU spokeswoman Elena Peresso has stated in Brussels that the EU has reached no collective decision about changing its policy toward Hamas, Haaretz reports that the EU has already informed the U.S. of a substantial shift: EU diplomats below the rank of ambassador are now allowed to conduct talks with Hamas candidates for the Palestinian Legislative Council. This EU decision, according to Haaretz, was taken without even discussing making demands of Hamas to moderate its stance toward Israel or eschew violence.

Considering how hard it was for the EU to classify Hamas as terrorist in the first place, not to mention its great difficulty in similarly labeling Hamas’s sister-organization Hezbollah, it is clear that the reasons for its rather easy resumption of ties with Hamas go deeper.

As it becomes more and more evident that withdrawals, gestures, releases, and so on avail Israel naught, and that it is under attack by forces seeking to annihilate it in any shape, the EU’s reaction is, of course, not to give Israel more backing, but to shore up ties with the attackers. Little more can be expected of Eurabia ...


You've just got to love your enemies when they tell the truth. Hamas comes right out and says "kill the Jews" and European Union officials meet with them.

So, we know very clearly where they stand, don't we?

Just a question: Why do EU officials "meet with Hamas candidate for the Palestinian Legislative Council?"

Wouldn't that be like EU officials meeting with candidates for the US Congress? Would they bother to meet with a candidate to represent say, the East Los Angeles District in California? Think about that. As an American, if you don't live in East Los Angeles, you wouldn't have any idea who's running for that seat. But, EU officials are meeting with equivalent candidates for the Palestinian territories.

Why is Palestinian politics so important to the Euros that they would go out of their way for small time players like that?

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Leftist Viet Namization of Iraq


Neo-Neocon says the Left has a plan on what to do about Iraq, and Viet Nam is the template:


One cannot underestimate the power of public opinion in this country, and it is an indisputable fact that those on the left were instrumental in shaping that opinion. ... (One can not underestimate) how far some of them such as, for example, the prominent pair Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden--actually went in their antiwar activities.

They were not simply protestors; they were (there's no other way to put this) active lobbyists for the enemy cause, and polished and successful ones at that.

Hayden and Fonda organized an "Indo-China Peace Campaign" to cut off remaining American support for the regimes in Cambodia and South Vietnam. For the next few years [the early 70s], the Campaign worked tirelessly to ensure the victory of the North Vietnamese Communists and the Khmer Rouge.

Accompanied by a camera team, Hayden and Fonda traveled first to Hanoi and then to the "liberated" zones in South Vietnam, to make a propaganda film. Called "Introduction to the Enemy," it attempted to persuade viewers that the Communists were going to create a new society in the south. Equality and justice awaited its inhabitants if only American would cut off support for the Saigon regime.

Assisted by radical legislators like Ron Dellums and Bella Abzug, Hayden set up a caucus in the Capitol, where he lectured congressional staffers on the need to end American aid. He directed his attention to Cambodia as well, lobbying for an accommodation with the Khmer Rouge guerillas.

Nixon's resignation over Watergate provided all the leverage Hayden and his activists needed. The Democrats won the midterm elections, bringing to Washington a new group of legislators determined to undermine the settlement that Nixon and Kissinger had achieved. The aid was cut, the Saigon regime fell, and the Khmer rouge marched into the Cambodian capital.

In the two years that followed, more Indochinese were killed by the victorious Communists than had been killed on both sides in all thirteen years of the anti-Communist war.

It was the bloodbath that [the Left's] opponents had predicted. But for the Left there would be no contrition and no look back.

Now talk of exiting the war in Iraq has increased. What will happen to the Iraqis who believed in us? Will we let them down too?

Iraq is not Vietnam. But it appears more and more that the left is trying to make it into Vietnam. Jane Fonda is no longer especially active, although every now and then she makes some general statement against the war in Iraq. Hayden, likewise, is no longer the mover and shaker he once was.

But when I read the following words about the Iraq war by Tom Hayden, I got the proverbial chill down my spine. If he's not as powerful as he used to me, it's not for lack of desire or lack of ideas. The man has a plan, and his plan--strangely enough--is to repeat what worked for him back in the early 70's:

...the [Leftist anti-Iraq war] movement needs to force our government to exit. The strategy must be to deny the U.S. occupation funding, political standing, sufficient troops, and alliances necessary to their strategy for dominance.

The first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose "conditions" for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding. If only 75 members of Congress go on record against any further funding, that's a step in the right direction – towards the exit.

The important thing is for anti-war activists to become more grounded in the everyday political life of their districts, organizing anti-war coalitions including clergy, labor and inner city representatives to knock loudly on congressional doors and demand that the $200 billion squandered on Iraq go to infrastructure and schools at home.

When trapped between imperial elites and their own insistent constituents, members of Congress will tend to side with their voters. That is how the wars in Vietnam and Cambodia were ended in 1975.

So there it is, in black and white--the plan is to repeat the glory days that led to the boat people and the killing fields of Cambodia.
Go read Hayden's entire document.


Watch for a deluge of Viet Nam characterizations from Republicans after tonights speech by President Bush.

Lamentation


From Gates of Vienna:


Following the map printed up for them by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network, the Church of England is busy driving over the cliff. How could anyone with a lick of common sense believe one word coming from a "Peace and Justice" committee? Did these people sleep through the birth and (Deo gratias) death of Communism?

Does the Anglican Communion in England have any idea how irrelevant it is? The Incredible Shrinking Church has just shriveled another centimeter or two. It’s sooo bad it’s embarrassing. You could go read the report here (it's a PDF. You'll need version 7), but why bother. You can recite the p.c. lines from memory by now: poor Palestinians, bad Jews. Let’s take our money away from the bad Jews and give it to the deserving Palestinians who only want peace but the Jews are too mean to let them have it. Blah. Blah.

Well, we knew it was coming; this was just a matter of waiting for the final mainstream sheep farm to sell out. The only surprise is that it took so long. Here’s Melanie Phillips’ take on this "defining moment" --

The APJN report is full of the most inflammatory lies, libels and distortions about Israel ... The document uncritically reproduced the Arab propaganda version of Israel’s history and the present circumstances of the Middle East conflict, presenting the Arab perpetrators of genocidal mass murder as victims and their real victims as oppressors merely for trying to defend themselves.

But then what can one expect of a report which concludes by referring to ‘the honor of meeting the President of the Palestinian Authority, the late Yasser Arafat, who so warmly welcomed us in what turned out to be one of his last days among us’?

A warm welcome from the late pederast himself. How charming.

Arafat was the father of terrorism, a diabolical Communist and one of the most truly evil people of his generation, so of course the Anglican Peace and Justice Network loved him. What’s not to love?

There are not words to describe the moral revulsion the name Arafat engenders. You could perhaps see why the naive could be taken in by the man-in-the-street Palestinian: they've had years to work on and perfect their royal sense of resentful entitlement. And you might even decide to overlook the festering sores on a culture which produces suicide bombers who want to attack the hospital that treated them.

But information on Arafat is readily available; his shameful history is there for the reading. One has to be willfully blind to refuse to acknowledge the depth and breadth of his malevolent inquity.

This is a grievous moment. The beautiful Anglican tradition, its sacramental life, its Scriptural authority -- all sold for a few pieces of agitprop dung. And there is no C.S. Lewis to turn us around, none.

What Is Left?


Melanie Phillips, commenting on a piece by Gerard Baker from the LondonTimes, notes that both George Bush and Tony Blair are experiencing a period of decline in support. She says:


the characteristics of this left revival are anti-globalisation and visceral anti-Americanism – with the main target of their ire and scorn America’s mission to spread democracy. As Baker writes:

‘In the Middle East the left finds it much easier to side with the mullahs and the jihadists, the persecutors of women and the torturers of dissidents. America’s flaws at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are viewed by the Left’s political and intellectual leaders as morally indistinguishable from (or perhaps worse than) anything the Islamists and Arab despots have got up to.

'To be fair, not all on the Left have taken their stand on the side of reaction. But the trends in political debate in the West are strikingly clear. We are well on the way to an inversion of the classic Left-Right divide.
These days if you’re in favour of policies designed to promote global economic integration, policies that have led hundreds of millions in Asia, Latin America, and Africa out of the misery of grinding poverty, and have significantly lifted the standard of living of workers in the West too; if you support change to topple tyrannical regimes and give some hope to people who have suffered in fledgling democracies, you’re now more likely to be considered a conservative.
What, exactly, is Left?’

As I have remarked before, it seems to me that one of the deeper reasons for the left’s pathological hatred of President Bush is that, in his foreign policy it is he who is acting as a liberal interventionist and it is the left who stand exposed as reactionary supporters of murderous and tyrannical ‘stability’.
It is the same in domestic policy, where it is the left who take the reactionary position of going along with socially destructive trends that make victims out of the vulnerable.


I believe this to be true. Of course, I was a liberal, who voted for nothing but Democrats my whole, until just 3 1/2 years ago. I watch now as Republicans have changed their Middle East policy to support regime change rather than realpolitik, as Bush is credited by Bono as deserving a place in history for his Africa policy, and as the right leads the call to do something about Sudan.

What is left? What is left of the left?

What Is Not Allowed In Iran


Robert Spencer finds that NBC11 didn't tell the whole story in this piece about Iranian Christians in America:


Hundreds of people gathered for a special dedication of the Iranian Christian Church in the South Bay. It is the largest one in the Bay Area. Nearly 600 Iranian Muslims who converted to Christianity attend the church.

It allows women to serve as pastors, something not allowed in Iran.


Spencers comment:


You know what else isn't allowed in Iran? Conversion to Christianity. It was good of NBC11 to notice their little blow for women, but it would have been nice if they had told the good folks in the South Bay about the Sword of Damocles these converts escaped. If these 600 Iranian ex-Muslims were still back home, they'd be facing death sentences for their act of conscience.

... based on a notorious statement by the Muslim Prophet Muhammad: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Sahih Bukhari, 9:84:57).

In the United States these converts can live freely as Christians. Yet dhimmi spokesmen will still praise the diversity of the Islamic world over that of the West.