posted by Pastorius @ 8:54 PM
Comments: 2
CUANAS
I Took This Shift Because Of Her --- Politics - Justice - And Wrestling With The Angel
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Symphony No. 5 Adagietto By Gustav Mahler
One of the most beautiful pieces of music ever. Zubin Mehta conducting the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.
One of the most beautiful pieces of music ever. Zubin Mehta conducting the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.
posted by Pastorius @ 5:34 PM
Comments: 0
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Life Amidst The Postmodern Ruins
Truth doesn't exist, and we posses it.
From One Cosmos:
The left practices a "false humility." After all, it can sound like a plea for humility when the postmodern multiculturalist asks, "who am I to say that I can possess the truth, or that one culture is better than another?"
But this attitude is a "more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic." That is -- and this is apparently a subtle point, so listen closely -- "The old humility was a spur that prevented man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether."
This is one of the reasons that the left habitually attacks motives instead of substance, for they first undermine the idea that you can know anything objectively, and then insist that the purpose of knowledge is domination and oppression anyway. For the last several years, "job one" of of the left has been to make us doubtful of our aims in Iraq, in the hope that we will simply become demoralized and surrender.
But they do this so selectively that it is mind-boggling. For example, surely there was more credible evidence that Saddam had WMD than that the earth is undergoing catastrophic manmade warming. But in both cases, their main argument is that people who disagree with them have venal motives.
In the case of President Bush, he really wanted to invade Iraq because he thought it would somehow enrich his already wealthy "friends." And in the case of global warming, those who reject the theory are simply on the payroll of Bush's wealthy friends. So for all practical purposes, humility is not possible on the left, since their conspiratorial form of thought means that they always have the answer. And it sounds humble to the stupid, since they are always opposed to the intrinsically racist-sexist-homophobic America.
So, just as the left engages in the moral inversion of detaching virtue from tradition, they engage in a weird "cognitive inversion" that combines "intellectual helplessness" with a kind of monstrously arrogant omniscience. This is how you can spend some $100,000 plus on an elite university education, only to learn that truth doesn't exist and we possess it.
Truth doesn't exist, and we posses it.
From One Cosmos:
The left practices a "false humility." After all, it can sound like a plea for humility when the postmodern multiculturalist asks, "who am I to say that I can possess the truth, or that one culture is better than another?"
But this attitude is a "more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic." That is -- and this is apparently a subtle point, so listen closely -- "The old humility was a spur that prevented man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether."
This is one of the reasons that the left habitually attacks motives instead of substance, for they first undermine the idea that you can know anything objectively, and then insist that the purpose of knowledge is domination and oppression anyway. For the last several years, "job one" of of the left has been to make us doubtful of our aims in Iraq, in the hope that we will simply become demoralized and surrender.
But they do this so selectively that it is mind-boggling. For example, surely there was more credible evidence that Saddam had WMD than that the earth is undergoing catastrophic manmade warming. But in both cases, their main argument is that people who disagree with them have venal motives.
In the case of President Bush, he really wanted to invade Iraq because he thought it would somehow enrich his already wealthy "friends." And in the case of global warming, those who reject the theory are simply on the payroll of Bush's wealthy friends. So for all practical purposes, humility is not possible on the left, since their conspiratorial form of thought means that they always have the answer. And it sounds humble to the stupid, since they are always opposed to the intrinsically racist-sexist-homophobic America.
So, just as the left engages in the moral inversion of detaching virtue from tradition, they engage in a weird "cognitive inversion" that combines "intellectual helplessness" with a kind of monstrously arrogant omniscience. This is how you can spend some $100,000 plus on an elite university education, only to learn that truth doesn't exist and we possess it.
posted by Pastorius @ 4:25 PM
Comments: 0
Bush And Olmert To Hold Private Meeting On Iran
Ahmadinejad is saying the Annapolist Conference is a failure, though it just started. However, I think he and I agree on that. Additionally, old Mahmoud says Israel will "collapse."
Well- chosen words. Better than saying Israel will be "wiped off the map."
But still, probably not enough to get him out of trouble, considering George Bush and Israeli President Ehud Olmert will be holding a "private" meeting on what to do about Iran:
Having depicted the wide Arab participation in Tuesday's Annapolis summit as a sort of victory for Middle East moderation over Iranian opposition, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will hold his second private White House meeting of the week with President George Bush on Wednesday to try to translate the summit's momentum into a more effective effort to thwart Teheran's nuclear drive.
Ahmadinejad is saying the Annapolist Conference is a failure, though it just started. However, I think he and I agree on that. Additionally, old Mahmoud says Israel will "collapse."
Well- chosen words. Better than saying Israel will be "wiped off the map."
But still, probably not enough to get him out of trouble, considering George Bush and Israeli President Ehud Olmert will be holding a "private" meeting on what to do about Iran:
Having depicted the wide Arab participation in Tuesday's Annapolis summit as a sort of victory for Middle East moderation over Iranian opposition, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will hold his second private White House meeting of the week with President George Bush on Wednesday to try to translate the summit's momentum into a more effective effort to thwart Teheran's nuclear drive.
posted by Pastorius @ 5:44 AM
Comments: 0
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
How Does Mahmoud Abbas See The Annapolis Summit?
Is Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, ready to make tough compromises with Israel in order to bring about peace? Joshua Pundit gives us the rundown:
... looking at the statement made by Mahmoud Abbas is enlightening.
Put aside the rhetoric and get to the meat and you see that Abbas was very plainspoken about the fact that the Palestinians are not planning on making any of those tough choices the president spoke about.
He mentioned Palestinian sovereignty over half of Jerusalem no less than three times, as well as a retreat by Israel to the pre-1967 lines, including the Golan and what Abbas referred to as `the remaining occupied parts of Lebanon', which shows that this was cleared with Hezbollah as well, since only they regard any part of Lebanon as `occupied'.
He also was adamant about the release of all Palestinian terrorists in Israeli custody, which shows just how deep his commitment to peace and opposition to terrorism run.
And of course, he's insisting on flooding Israel with Arab `refugees'.
Is Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, ready to make tough compromises with Israel in order to bring about peace? Joshua Pundit gives us the rundown:
... looking at the statement made by Mahmoud Abbas is enlightening.
Put aside the rhetoric and get to the meat and you see that Abbas was very plainspoken about the fact that the Palestinians are not planning on making any of those tough choices the president spoke about.
He mentioned Palestinian sovereignty over half of Jerusalem no less than three times, as well as a retreat by Israel to the pre-1967 lines, including the Golan and what Abbas referred to as `the remaining occupied parts of Lebanon', which shows that this was cleared with Hezbollah as well, since only they regard any part of Lebanon as `occupied'.
He also was adamant about the release of all Palestinian terrorists in Israeli custody, which shows just how deep his commitment to peace and opposition to terrorism run.
And of course, he's insisting on flooding Israel with Arab `refugees'.
posted by Pastorius @ 4:12 PM
Comments: 2
Riots In Paris
Once again, Muslims are rioting in Paris. Beginning in November of 2005 Paris has seen rioting on and off which has left dozens of buildings burned out and over 10,000 cars torched.
Imagine that.
Also, ask yourself why the media rarely reports on these riots. Did you know that the 2005 riots went on for over three weeks?
And finally, why is it the media doesn't name the people who are doing the rioting? Why is it they refer to them with the anonymous title, "youths"?
Well, you wouldn't want to call them Muslims, would you? After all, that might make the Muslims even angrier, and then they might ... riot, I guess.
From Nidra Poller:
Violence is spreading from Villiers le Bel to a dozen neighboring communities. At least twenty policemen have been injured so far tonight (forty injured last night according to the latest figures), some of them critically. The insurgents are using firebombs, iron rods, baseball bats, and firing buckshot. Journalists are attacked, their cameras are stolen. The mayor of Villiers le Bel is running a crisis center from an undisclosed location. Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie is strangely absent, silent, or ineffectual. This is not the way it is supposed to be happening in the Sarkozy government. Don’t be surprised if Alliot-Marie is replaced early next year.
Cars, dumpsters, and buildings have been torched. A school gym has gone up in flames. Shop windows that weren’t smashed last night are targets tonight.
Police investigators and several eyewitnesses corroborate the patrolmen’s version of the accident. The police car was going at a normal speed, no sirens, no hot pursuit. The mini-motorcycle came down a side street at high speed and made a left turn, crashing directly into the police car. The police remained on the scene for approximately twenty to thirty minutes until the fire department ambulance arrived.
President Sarkozy, on a state visit to China, issued a plea for calm. It must have seemed quite logical from where he’s standing… but it’s totally inaudible here on the receiving end.
Monday morning
The tally on Sunday’s punk jihad outburst is heavy and rising.
Twenty-five policemen injured, dozens of cars burned, shops destroyed, individuals assaulted. Blind with rage, the rampaging mob found time to steal before smashing and burning. For the brother of Mushin, one of the victims, “it’s not violence, it’s an expression of rage.”
Journalists are unwelcome, often assaulted, but they are getting the story out.
According to concurrent reports, the rage broke out immediately. The police claim the motorcycle ran into their patrol car at an intersection; the enraged know better—the police car in hot pursuit of the innocent boys, Moushin and Larami, smashed into their motorcycle. Moushin’s uncle was outraged because the bodies were left lying in the fire station. But it seems that the forces that came to pick them up had to turn back because they were attacked. The boys had gone out to do a little bit of rodeo, a favorite sport in the banlieue projects. Le Parisien posted You Tube videos filmed by reckless kids.
Reckless, yes, but when they get wrecked it’s the fault of the police, the Peugeot dealership, and McDonald’s.
The euphemism for these enclaves — “quartier sensible”—bears a nugget of truth if correctly translated as “touchy neighborhoods.” Villiers le Bel is in the administrative district of Sarcelles / Garges-les-Gonesses about 20 km north of Paris. Not so long ago Sarcelles was the home sweet home of Jewish refugees from North Africa; today it is their nightmare. They endure constant attacks and harassment from the permanently enraged African-Arab-Muslim residents who live cheek by jowl with their still neat clean streets.
Socialist leader François Hollande is demanding the truth, the whole truth and of course the right truth on this incident—it has to be the fault of the police, the fault of the brutal Sarkozy government, the fault of deaf ears turned to the suffering of youths in this, the touchiest of touchy neighborhoods.
Whether this remains an isolated incident or the beginning of a new chain of assaults against law and order, it exposes the recent strike for what it is: psychodrama in a country whose citizens voted for just the opposite. Neither the railroad workers nor the voters will get anything worth having if they don’t come to terms with the seething rage in those touchy enclaves. Readers who have been following the al Dura affair will notice the child-killing motif—you killed our kid(s) we’ll burn your house down.
Sunday night
Fires are raging in the banlieue tonight. Two boys aged 15 and 16 riding on a mini-motorcycle (prohibited on the road) hit a police car this afternoon in Villiers-le-Bel. The boys, who weren’t wearing helmets, were killed. Hundreds of enraged men and boys are tearing up the neighborhood.
Le Parisien reports that they burned down a Peugeot dealership, sacked a train station and shops, tore up a McDonald’s, stole the day’s receipts and attacked customers, smashed and burned cars, and are still going strong. A police commissioner who tried to talk to the mob was attacked with iron rods; his face and skull are fractured. A police station was burned down, seven policemen were injured.
Interviewed by Le Parisien, the uncle of Moushin Souhhali, one of the victims, says he understands the rage; it’s terrible to lose a 15 year-old boy. His body, claims the uncle, was dumped at the fire station with no respect. The police who, in his opinion, caused the accident were nowhere to be seen. He heard they were speeding. His nephew was a good boy, not a delinquent.
The November 2005 riots that lasted three weeks were triggered by the death by electrocution of two teenage boys who ran away from the police and hid in an electric substation. According to the sociological interpretation of the incident, the police were guilty of pursuing the innocent boys.
Once again, Muslims are rioting in Paris. Beginning in November of 2005 Paris has seen rioting on and off which has left dozens of buildings burned out and over 10,000 cars torched.
Imagine that.
Also, ask yourself why the media rarely reports on these riots. Did you know that the 2005 riots went on for over three weeks?
And finally, why is it the media doesn't name the people who are doing the rioting? Why is it they refer to them with the anonymous title, "youths"?
Well, you wouldn't want to call them Muslims, would you? After all, that might make the Muslims even angrier, and then they might ... riot, I guess.
From Nidra Poller:
Violence is spreading from Villiers le Bel to a dozen neighboring communities. At least twenty policemen have been injured so far tonight (forty injured last night according to the latest figures), some of them critically. The insurgents are using firebombs, iron rods, baseball bats, and firing buckshot. Journalists are attacked, their cameras are stolen. The mayor of Villiers le Bel is running a crisis center from an undisclosed location. Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie is strangely absent, silent, or ineffectual. This is not the way it is supposed to be happening in the Sarkozy government. Don’t be surprised if Alliot-Marie is replaced early next year.
Cars, dumpsters, and buildings have been torched. A school gym has gone up in flames. Shop windows that weren’t smashed last night are targets tonight.
Police investigators and several eyewitnesses corroborate the patrolmen’s version of the accident. The police car was going at a normal speed, no sirens, no hot pursuit. The mini-motorcycle came down a side street at high speed and made a left turn, crashing directly into the police car. The police remained on the scene for approximately twenty to thirty minutes until the fire department ambulance arrived.
President Sarkozy, on a state visit to China, issued a plea for calm. It must have seemed quite logical from where he’s standing… but it’s totally inaudible here on the receiving end.
Monday morning
The tally on Sunday’s punk jihad outburst is heavy and rising.
Twenty-five policemen injured, dozens of cars burned, shops destroyed, individuals assaulted. Blind with rage, the rampaging mob found time to steal before smashing and burning. For the brother of Mushin, one of the victims, “it’s not violence, it’s an expression of rage.”
Journalists are unwelcome, often assaulted, but they are getting the story out.
According to concurrent reports, the rage broke out immediately. The police claim the motorcycle ran into their patrol car at an intersection; the enraged know better—the police car in hot pursuit of the innocent boys, Moushin and Larami, smashed into their motorcycle. Moushin’s uncle was outraged because the bodies were left lying in the fire station. But it seems that the forces that came to pick them up had to turn back because they were attacked. The boys had gone out to do a little bit of rodeo, a favorite sport in the banlieue projects. Le Parisien posted You Tube videos filmed by reckless kids.
Reckless, yes, but when they get wrecked it’s the fault of the police, the Peugeot dealership, and McDonald’s.
The euphemism for these enclaves — “quartier sensible”—bears a nugget of truth if correctly translated as “touchy neighborhoods.” Villiers le Bel is in the administrative district of Sarcelles / Garges-les-Gonesses about 20 km north of Paris. Not so long ago Sarcelles was the home sweet home of Jewish refugees from North Africa; today it is their nightmare. They endure constant attacks and harassment from the permanently enraged African-Arab-Muslim residents who live cheek by jowl with their still neat clean streets.
Socialist leader François Hollande is demanding the truth, the whole truth and of course the right truth on this incident—it has to be the fault of the police, the fault of the brutal Sarkozy government, the fault of deaf ears turned to the suffering of youths in this, the touchiest of touchy neighborhoods.
Whether this remains an isolated incident or the beginning of a new chain of assaults against law and order, it exposes the recent strike for what it is: psychodrama in a country whose citizens voted for just the opposite. Neither the railroad workers nor the voters will get anything worth having if they don’t come to terms with the seething rage in those touchy enclaves. Readers who have been following the al Dura affair will notice the child-killing motif—you killed our kid(s) we’ll burn your house down.
Sunday night
Fires are raging in the banlieue tonight. Two boys aged 15 and 16 riding on a mini-motorcycle (prohibited on the road) hit a police car this afternoon in Villiers-le-Bel. The boys, who weren’t wearing helmets, were killed. Hundreds of enraged men and boys are tearing up the neighborhood.
Le Parisien reports that they burned down a Peugeot dealership, sacked a train station and shops, tore up a McDonald’s, stole the day’s receipts and attacked customers, smashed and burned cars, and are still going strong. A police commissioner who tried to talk to the mob was attacked with iron rods; his face and skull are fractured. A police station was burned down, seven policemen were injured.
Interviewed by Le Parisien, the uncle of Moushin Souhhali, one of the victims, says he understands the rage; it’s terrible to lose a 15 year-old boy. His body, claims the uncle, was dumped at the fire station with no respect. The police who, in his opinion, caused the accident were nowhere to be seen. He heard they were speeding. His nephew was a good boy, not a delinquent.
The November 2005 riots that lasted three weeks were triggered by the death by electrocution of two teenage boys who ran away from the police and hid in an electric substation. According to the sociological interpretation of the incident, the police were guilty of pursuing the innocent boys.
posted by Pastorius @ 3:52 PM
Comments: 0
A Glimmer Of Hope At Annapolis?
I'm not sure I agree with this article, but I present it for consideration:
U.S. President George W. Bush will host a meeting Nov. 27 between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Annapolis, Md. This is fairly banal news, as the gathering seems intended to give the impression that the United States cares what happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The last such meeting, the Camp David summit between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, sponsored by then-President Bill Clinton, was followed by massive violence. Therefore, the most we have learned to hope for from such meetings is nothing. This one will either be meaningless or catastrophic.
There is an interesting twist to this meeting, however. The Arab League voted to encourage Arab foreign ministers to attend. The Saudis have announced they will be present, along with the Egyptians and Jordanians who were expected there. Even the Syrians said they will attend, as long as the future of the Golan Heights is on the table. We would expect the Israelis to agree to that demand because, with more bilateral issues on the table, less time will need to be devoted to Palestinian issues. And that might suit many of the Arab states that are ambivalent, to say the least, about the Palestinians.
We have written of the complex relations between the Palestinians and the Arabs, although the current situation is even more complex. Abbas is from the Palestinian group Fatah, Arafat's political vehicle. Fatah was historically a secular, socialist group with close ties to Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt and the Soviet Union. It also was regarded as a threat to the survival of the Arab monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. When Syria invaded Lebanon in 1975, it was not to fight the Israelis or the Lebanese Christians, but to drive out Fatah. Given this history, it is ironic that the Arab League has decided to sanction attendance at the Annapolis Conference. The Saudis and the Syrians are particularly hostile to Fatah, while the Jordanians and the Egyptians have their own problems with the group.
Behind this strange move are the complexities of Palestinian politics. As PNA president, Abbas is charged with upholding its charter and executing PNA foreign policy. But another group, Hamas, won the last parliamentary elections and therefore controlled the selection of the prime minister. Such splits are not uncommon in political systems in which there is a strong president and a parliamentary system, as in France.
But in this case the split ripped the Palestinians apart. The problem was not simply institutional, but geographic. The Palestinian territories are divided into two very different parts -- the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The former was dominated by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, the latter by Egypt. They have very different social and economic outlooks and political perspectives. In June, Hamas rose up and took control of Gaza, while Abbas and Fatah retained control of the PNA and the West Bank.
This created an historic transformation. Palestinian nationalism in the context of Israel can be divided into three eras. In the first era, 1948-1967, Palestinian nationalism was a subset of Arab nationalism. Palestine was claimed in whole or in part by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. In the second era, 1967 to mid-2007, Palestinian nationalism came into its own, with an identity and territorial demands distinct from other Arab powers. An umbrella organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), consisting of diverse and frequently divided Palestinian movements, presided over the Palestinian national cause, and eventually evolved into the Palestinian National Authority.
Recently, however, a dramatic shift has taken place. This was not simply the Hamas victory in the January 2006 elections, although the emergence of an Islamist movement among the Palestinians represented a substantial shift among a people who were historically secularist. It was not even the fact that by 2007 Hamas stood in general opposition to the tradition of the PLO, meaning not only Fatah but other Palestinian secular groups. The redefinition of the Palestinian issue into one between Islamists and secularists had been going on for a while.
Rather, it was the rising in Gaza that dramatically redefined the Palestinians by creating two Palestinian entities, geographically distinct and profoundly different in outlook and needs. The idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, divided by Israel, was reminiscent of Pakistan in its first quarter-century of existence -- when what is today Pakistan and Bangladesh, divided by India's thousands of miles, were treated as one country. It was a reach.
Suddenly in June, a new reality emerged. Whatever the Palestinian charter said, whatever the U.N. resolutions said, whatever anyone said, there were now two Palestinian entities -- "states" is a good word for them, though it upsets everyone, including the Palestinians. Hamas controlled Gaza and Fatah controlled the West Bank, although neither saw this situation as final. The PNA constantly threatened to reassert itself in Gaza, while Hamas threatened to extend its revolution to the West Bank. Either might happen, but for now, the Palestinians have split along geopolitical lines.
From Israel's point of view, this situation poses both a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that Hamas, more charismatic than the tired Fatah, opposes any settlement with Israel that accepts the Jewish state's existence. The opportunity is, of course, that the Palestinians are now split and that Hamas controls the much poorer and weaker area of Gaza. If Hamas can be kept from taking control of the West Bank, and if Fatah is unable to reassert its control in Gaza, the Israelis face an enemy that not only is weakened, but also is engaged in a long-term civil war that will weaken it further.
To bring this about, it is clear what Israel's goal should be at Annapolis. That is, to do everything it can to strengthen the position of Abbas, Fatah and the PNA. It is ironic, of course, that Israel should now view Fatah as an asset that needs to be strengthened, but history is filled with such ironies. Israel's goal at Annapolis is to cede as much as possible to Abbas, both territorially and economically, to intensify the split in the Palestinian community and try to strengthen the hand of the secularists. Israel, however, has two problems.
First, Israeli politics is in gridlock. Olmert remains as prime minister even after the disaster in Lebanon in 2006, because no real successor has emerged. The operant concept of the Israelis is that the Palestinians are unstable and unpredictable. Any territorial concession made to the Palestinians -- regardless of current interest or ideology -- could ultimately be used against Israel. So, creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank would turn what is a good idea now into a geopolitical disaster later, should Abbas be succeeded by some of the more radical members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade -- a group that carried out suicide bombings during the intifada. Israel's obsession with the unpredictability of the Palestinians and its belief in territorial buffers cannot be overcome by a weak government. Thirty years ago, it took Menachem Begin, heading a strong government from the right, to make peace with the Egyptians.
At the same time, the Israelis are terrified at the idea that Hamas will topple Fatah and take control of the Palestinian community as a whole. As Olmert was quoted as saying Nov. 23, "We cannot maintain the status quo between us and the Palestinians ... it will lead to results that are much worse that those of a failed conference. It will result in Hamas taking over Judea and Samaria, to a weakening or even the disappearance of the moderate Palestinians. Unless a political horizon can be found, the results will be deadly." Olmert clearly understands the stakes, but with Benjamin Netanyahu to his right, it is unclear whether he has the political weight to act on his perception.
For Olmert to make the kind of concessions that are needed in order to take advantage of the geopolitical situation, he needs one thing: guarantees and controls over the evolution of Hamas. We have seen Fatah go from what the Israelis consider the devil incarnate to a moderating force. Things change. If Hamas can be brought into the political process -- and the split between Gaza and the West Bank maintained -- Israel will be in a superb position. But who can moderate Hamas, and why would Hamas moderate?
Enter the Saudis. The Arab League resolution gave them cover for attending the Annapolis talks -- which is the reason they engineered it. And the Saudis are the one force that has serious leverage with Hamas, because they underwrite much of Hamas' operations. Hamas is a Sunni Islamist group and as such has a sympathetic audience in Riyadh. Indeed, in many ways, Hamas is the Saudi answer to the secular Fatah. Therefore, if anyone can ultimately deliver Hamas, it would be the Saudis. But why would they?
On the surface, the Saudis should celebrate a radical, Islamist Palestinian movement, and on the surface they do. But they have become extremely wary of radical Islamism. Al Qaeda had a great deal of sympathy in the kingdom, but the evolution of events in the Islamic world since 9/11 is far from what the Saudis wanted to see. Islamist movements have created chaos from Pakistan to Lebanon, and this has created opportunities for a dangerous growth in Shiite power, not to mention that it has introduced U.S. forces into the region in the most destabilizing way possible.
At the end of the day, the Saudis and the other royal families in the Persian Gulf are profoundly conservative. They are wealthy -- and become wildly wealthier every day, what with oil at more than $90 a barrel -- and they have experienced dangerous instability inside the kingdom from al Qaeda and other radical Islamist movements. The Saudis have learned how difficult it is for the state to manage radical Islamism, and the way in which moral (and other) support for radicals can destabilize not only the region, but Saudi Arabia as well. Support in parts of the royal family for radical Islamist movements seems dicier to everyone now. These are movements that are difficult to control.
Most important, these are movements that fail. Persistently, these radical movements have not taken control of states and moved them in directions that align with Saudi interests. Rather, these movements have destabilized states, creating vacuums into which other movements can enter. The rise of Iranian power is particularly disturbing to the Saudis, though so is the persistent presence of U.S. forces. A general calming of the situation is now in the Saudi interest.
That means that the Saudi view of Hamas is somewhat different today than it was 10 years ago, when Riyadh was encouraging the group. A civil war among the Palestinians would achieve nothing. Nor, from the Saudi perspective, would another intifada, which would give the Americans more reason to act aggressively in the region. The Saudis have moved closer to the Americans and do not want them to withdraw from Iraq, for example, though they do wish the Americans would be less noisy. A Hamas grab for power in the West Bank is not something the Saudis want to see now.
Simply by participating in the Annapolis conference, the Saudis have signaled Hamas that they want a change of direction -- although Hamas will resist. "The period that will follow the Annapolis conference will witness an increase of the resistance against the Zionist occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," said Mussa Abu Marzuq, top aide to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Perhaps, but a confrontation with the Saudis is not something that Hamas can afford now or in the future.
The Saudis want to stabilize the situation without destroying Hamas (which is very different from al Qaeda, given that it stems from the Muslim Brotherhood tradition). The Israelis want to maintain the split between Hamas and Fatah and limit Hamas' power without eliminating it -- they like Fatah looking toward the Israelis for protection. Fatah badly needs to deliver concessions from Israel to strengthen its hand. The Americans can use a success and a change of atmospherics in the region.
Here is the delicate balance: Abbas has to receive more than he gives. Otherwise his credibility is shot. The Israelis find it difficult to make concessions, particularly disproportionate ones, with a weak government. But there are different kinds of strengths. Begin could make disproportionate concessions to the Egyptians because of his decisive political strength. Olmert is powerful only by default, though that is a kind of power.
It is interesting to think of how Ariel Sharon would have handled this situation. In a way he created it. By insisting that Israel withdraw from Gaza, he set in motion the split in the Palestinian community and the current dynamic. Had he not had his stroke, he would have tried to make Annapolis as defining a moment as the Begin-Sadat summit. It would be a risky move, but it should be recalled that few besides Begin believed that the Camp David Accords on the Sinai would have lasted 30 years. But that is merely editorializing. The facts on the ground indicate an opportunity to redefine the politics of the region. There are many factors lining up for it, the concessions Olmert would need to make in order to box Hamas in might simply be beyond his ability.
So long as no one mentions the status of Jerusalem, which blew up the Camp David meetings under Clinton, there is, nevertheless, a chance here -- one we take more seriously than others.
I'm not sure I agree with this article, but I present it for consideration:
U.S. President George W. Bush will host a meeting Nov. 27 between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Annapolis, Md. This is fairly banal news, as the gathering seems intended to give the impression that the United States cares what happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The last such meeting, the Camp David summit between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, sponsored by then-President Bill Clinton, was followed by massive violence. Therefore, the most we have learned to hope for from such meetings is nothing. This one will either be meaningless or catastrophic.
There is an interesting twist to this meeting, however. The Arab League voted to encourage Arab foreign ministers to attend. The Saudis have announced they will be present, along with the Egyptians and Jordanians who were expected there. Even the Syrians said they will attend, as long as the future of the Golan Heights is on the table. We would expect the Israelis to agree to that demand because, with more bilateral issues on the table, less time will need to be devoted to Palestinian issues. And that might suit many of the Arab states that are ambivalent, to say the least, about the Palestinians.
We have written of the complex relations between the Palestinians and the Arabs, although the current situation is even more complex. Abbas is from the Palestinian group Fatah, Arafat's political vehicle. Fatah was historically a secular, socialist group with close ties to Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt and the Soviet Union. It also was regarded as a threat to the survival of the Arab monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. When Syria invaded Lebanon in 1975, it was not to fight the Israelis or the Lebanese Christians, but to drive out Fatah. Given this history, it is ironic that the Arab League has decided to sanction attendance at the Annapolis Conference. The Saudis and the Syrians are particularly hostile to Fatah, while the Jordanians and the Egyptians have their own problems with the group.
Behind this strange move are the complexities of Palestinian politics. As PNA president, Abbas is charged with upholding its charter and executing PNA foreign policy. But another group, Hamas, won the last parliamentary elections and therefore controlled the selection of the prime minister. Such splits are not uncommon in political systems in which there is a strong president and a parliamentary system, as in France.
But in this case the split ripped the Palestinians apart. The problem was not simply institutional, but geographic. The Palestinian territories are divided into two very different parts -- the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The former was dominated by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, the latter by Egypt. They have very different social and economic outlooks and political perspectives. In June, Hamas rose up and took control of Gaza, while Abbas and Fatah retained control of the PNA and the West Bank.
This created an historic transformation. Palestinian nationalism in the context of Israel can be divided into three eras. In the first era, 1948-1967, Palestinian nationalism was a subset of Arab nationalism. Palestine was claimed in whole or in part by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. In the second era, 1967 to mid-2007, Palestinian nationalism came into its own, with an identity and territorial demands distinct from other Arab powers. An umbrella organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), consisting of diverse and frequently divided Palestinian movements, presided over the Palestinian national cause, and eventually evolved into the Palestinian National Authority.
Recently, however, a dramatic shift has taken place. This was not simply the Hamas victory in the January 2006 elections, although the emergence of an Islamist movement among the Palestinians represented a substantial shift among a people who were historically secularist. It was not even the fact that by 2007 Hamas stood in general opposition to the tradition of the PLO, meaning not only Fatah but other Palestinian secular groups. The redefinition of the Palestinian issue into one between Islamists and secularists had been going on for a while.
Rather, it was the rising in Gaza that dramatically redefined the Palestinians by creating two Palestinian entities, geographically distinct and profoundly different in outlook and needs. The idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, divided by Israel, was reminiscent of Pakistan in its first quarter-century of existence -- when what is today Pakistan and Bangladesh, divided by India's thousands of miles, were treated as one country. It was a reach.
Suddenly in June, a new reality emerged. Whatever the Palestinian charter said, whatever the U.N. resolutions said, whatever anyone said, there were now two Palestinian entities -- "states" is a good word for them, though it upsets everyone, including the Palestinians. Hamas controlled Gaza and Fatah controlled the West Bank, although neither saw this situation as final. The PNA constantly threatened to reassert itself in Gaza, while Hamas threatened to extend its revolution to the West Bank. Either might happen, but for now, the Palestinians have split along geopolitical lines.
From Israel's point of view, this situation poses both a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that Hamas, more charismatic than the tired Fatah, opposes any settlement with Israel that accepts the Jewish state's existence. The opportunity is, of course, that the Palestinians are now split and that Hamas controls the much poorer and weaker area of Gaza. If Hamas can be kept from taking control of the West Bank, and if Fatah is unable to reassert its control in Gaza, the Israelis face an enemy that not only is weakened, but also is engaged in a long-term civil war that will weaken it further.
To bring this about, it is clear what Israel's goal should be at Annapolis. That is, to do everything it can to strengthen the position of Abbas, Fatah and the PNA. It is ironic, of course, that Israel should now view Fatah as an asset that needs to be strengthened, but history is filled with such ironies. Israel's goal at Annapolis is to cede as much as possible to Abbas, both territorially and economically, to intensify the split in the Palestinian community and try to strengthen the hand of the secularists. Israel, however, has two problems.
First, Israeli politics is in gridlock. Olmert remains as prime minister even after the disaster in Lebanon in 2006, because no real successor has emerged. The operant concept of the Israelis is that the Palestinians are unstable and unpredictable. Any territorial concession made to the Palestinians -- regardless of current interest or ideology -- could ultimately be used against Israel. So, creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank would turn what is a good idea now into a geopolitical disaster later, should Abbas be succeeded by some of the more radical members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade -- a group that carried out suicide bombings during the intifada. Israel's obsession with the unpredictability of the Palestinians and its belief in territorial buffers cannot be overcome by a weak government. Thirty years ago, it took Menachem Begin, heading a strong government from the right, to make peace with the Egyptians.
At the same time, the Israelis are terrified at the idea that Hamas will topple Fatah and take control of the Palestinian community as a whole. As Olmert was quoted as saying Nov. 23, "We cannot maintain the status quo between us and the Palestinians ... it will lead to results that are much worse that those of a failed conference. It will result in Hamas taking over Judea and Samaria, to a weakening or even the disappearance of the moderate Palestinians. Unless a political horizon can be found, the results will be deadly." Olmert clearly understands the stakes, but with Benjamin Netanyahu to his right, it is unclear whether he has the political weight to act on his perception.
For Olmert to make the kind of concessions that are needed in order to take advantage of the geopolitical situation, he needs one thing: guarantees and controls over the evolution of Hamas. We have seen Fatah go from what the Israelis consider the devil incarnate to a moderating force. Things change. If Hamas can be brought into the political process -- and the split between Gaza and the West Bank maintained -- Israel will be in a superb position. But who can moderate Hamas, and why would Hamas moderate?
Enter the Saudis. The Arab League resolution gave them cover for attending the Annapolis talks -- which is the reason they engineered it. And the Saudis are the one force that has serious leverage with Hamas, because they underwrite much of Hamas' operations. Hamas is a Sunni Islamist group and as such has a sympathetic audience in Riyadh. Indeed, in many ways, Hamas is the Saudi answer to the secular Fatah. Therefore, if anyone can ultimately deliver Hamas, it would be the Saudis. But why would they?
On the surface, the Saudis should celebrate a radical, Islamist Palestinian movement, and on the surface they do. But they have become extremely wary of radical Islamism. Al Qaeda had a great deal of sympathy in the kingdom, but the evolution of events in the Islamic world since 9/11 is far from what the Saudis wanted to see. Islamist movements have created chaos from Pakistan to Lebanon, and this has created opportunities for a dangerous growth in Shiite power, not to mention that it has introduced U.S. forces into the region in the most destabilizing way possible.
At the end of the day, the Saudis and the other royal families in the Persian Gulf are profoundly conservative. They are wealthy -- and become wildly wealthier every day, what with oil at more than $90 a barrel -- and they have experienced dangerous instability inside the kingdom from al Qaeda and other radical Islamist movements. The Saudis have learned how difficult it is for the state to manage radical Islamism, and the way in which moral (and other) support for radicals can destabilize not only the region, but Saudi Arabia as well. Support in parts of the royal family for radical Islamist movements seems dicier to everyone now. These are movements that are difficult to control.
Most important, these are movements that fail. Persistently, these radical movements have not taken control of states and moved them in directions that align with Saudi interests. Rather, these movements have destabilized states, creating vacuums into which other movements can enter. The rise of Iranian power is particularly disturbing to the Saudis, though so is the persistent presence of U.S. forces. A general calming of the situation is now in the Saudi interest.
That means that the Saudi view of Hamas is somewhat different today than it was 10 years ago, when Riyadh was encouraging the group. A civil war among the Palestinians would achieve nothing. Nor, from the Saudi perspective, would another intifada, which would give the Americans more reason to act aggressively in the region. The Saudis have moved closer to the Americans and do not want them to withdraw from Iraq, for example, though they do wish the Americans would be less noisy. A Hamas grab for power in the West Bank is not something the Saudis want to see now.
Simply by participating in the Annapolis conference, the Saudis have signaled Hamas that they want a change of direction -- although Hamas will resist. "The period that will follow the Annapolis conference will witness an increase of the resistance against the Zionist occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," said Mussa Abu Marzuq, top aide to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Perhaps, but a confrontation with the Saudis is not something that Hamas can afford now or in the future.
The Saudis want to stabilize the situation without destroying Hamas (which is very different from al Qaeda, given that it stems from the Muslim Brotherhood tradition). The Israelis want to maintain the split between Hamas and Fatah and limit Hamas' power without eliminating it -- they like Fatah looking toward the Israelis for protection. Fatah badly needs to deliver concessions from Israel to strengthen its hand. The Americans can use a success and a change of atmospherics in the region.
Here is the delicate balance: Abbas has to receive more than he gives. Otherwise his credibility is shot. The Israelis find it difficult to make concessions, particularly disproportionate ones, with a weak government. But there are different kinds of strengths. Begin could make disproportionate concessions to the Egyptians because of his decisive political strength. Olmert is powerful only by default, though that is a kind of power.
It is interesting to think of how Ariel Sharon would have handled this situation. In a way he created it. By insisting that Israel withdraw from Gaza, he set in motion the split in the Palestinian community and the current dynamic. Had he not had his stroke, he would have tried to make Annapolis as defining a moment as the Begin-Sadat summit. It would be a risky move, but it should be recalled that few besides Begin believed that the Camp David Accords on the Sinai would have lasted 30 years. But that is merely editorializing. The facts on the ground indicate an opportunity to redefine the politics of the region. There are many factors lining up for it, the concessions Olmert would need to make in order to box Hamas in might simply be beyond his ability.
So long as no one mentions the status of Jerusalem, which blew up the Camp David meetings under Clinton, there is, nevertheless, a chance here -- one we take more seriously than others.
posted by Pastorius @ 3:47 PM
Comments: 0
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Ah, Sweet Memories
I found this post at No Pasaran:
"Having children is selfish," the now-35-year-old says.
A vegetarian by age 15, Vernelli met her husband at an animal rights demo; on the morning of her sterilization, he gave her a "Congratulations" card.
Each new child, she says, "uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
What a depressing take on the value of human life. But it was echoed by another eco-crazed couple profiled by the Mail.
Sarah Irving, a 31-year-old green magazine editor, and Mark Hudson, a 37-year-old health care worker, reminisced about how, "after a year of dating, we started talking about sterilization."
If everyone lived their lives like these people, reminiscing about sterilization, the human race itself would be just a sweet memory.
I found this post at No Pasaran:
"Having children is selfish," the now-35-year-old says.
A vegetarian by age 15, Vernelli met her husband at an animal rights demo; on the morning of her sterilization, he gave her a "Congratulations" card.
Each new child, she says, "uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
What a depressing take on the value of human life. But it was echoed by another eco-crazed couple profiled by the Mail.
Sarah Irving, a 31-year-old green magazine editor, and Mark Hudson, a 37-year-old health care worker, reminisced about how, "after a year of dating, we started talking about sterilization."
If everyone lived their lives like these people, reminiscing about sterilization, the human race itself would be just a sweet memory.
posted by Pastorius @ 5:21 PM
Comments: 0
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Islam - A Religion Of Peace?
Walid Shoebat and Dave Hunt discuss the Pagan roots of Islam (thanks to Olivia).
Walid Shoebat and Dave Hunt discuss the Pagan roots of Islam (thanks to Olivia).
posted by Pastorius @ 6:31 PM
Comments: 0
Monday, November 19, 2007
The United Nations Is Dominated By Thugs
Every country in the world has a vote in the United Nations. Human Rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Nigeria, North Korea, China, and Iran, all have a vote.
How can anything be reformed when the abusers themselves sit on the commitees which are charged with fixing a given problem?
A conference is being held in Manhattan called "Eye On The U.N." The conference is being held to shine a light on the inequities and abuses of the United Nations, and to discuss what, if anything, can be done about it.
Pamela, from Atlas Shrugs, is reporting. First up, Herb London, President of the Hudson Institute:
The Security Council serves as the conduit for Palestinian claims that terrorists are martyrs.
Anne Bayefsky, spoke next and presented the abysmal record of Israel bashing, resolution after resolution against the Jewish state.
Every country in the world has a vote in the United Nations. Human Rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Nigeria, North Korea, China, and Iran, all have a vote.
How can anything be reformed when the abusers themselves sit on the commitees which are charged with fixing a given problem?
A conference is being held in Manhattan called "Eye On The U.N." The conference is being held to shine a light on the inequities and abuses of the United Nations, and to discuss what, if anything, can be done about it.
Pamela, from Atlas Shrugs, is reporting. First up, Herb London, President of the Hudson Institute:
Jewish blood does not count and that is very obvious in every single
decision that is made in teh United Nations today. UN policy is now a policy
organized largely by these these Muslim states [OIC] organized for one purpose
anti-American activities and anti-Israel activities.
The misguided view of many Americans about the UN, includes many Jews I
might add, the business of brotherhood of man, the flags wave, children come in
buses to the United Nations thinking this a a place organized for a ostensible
purpose - to bring about peaceful understanding among peoples. And yet it is
very very different.
The Human Rights council has become laughable.................The Human Rights Council exists for one purpose and that is to support nations that
violate human rights."
The UN still has no definition of terrorism. The UN's
Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) has never
named a single state sponsor of terrorism, individual terrorist or terrorist
organization.
The UN has been unable to adopt a comprehensive convention against
terrorism. The Organization of the Islamic Conference insists blowing up
Israelis and Americans in the name of self-determination doesn't count.
The Security Council serves as the conduit for Palestinian claims that terrorists are martyrs.
Anne Bayefsky, spoke next and presented the abysmal record of Israel bashing, resolution after resolution against the Jewish state.
"The UN human rights system has been irrevocably hijacked, corrupted and
lost to those who stand to gain the most from its demise. The death throes have
been evident for some time. But in many ways, events, only this last Friday,
plunbed new depths of depravity. The General Assembly committee charged with
humanitarian affairs whose decisions are rubber stamped by the Assembly plenary
declared that Israel would be the only UN member state subject to permament
agenda item of the human rights council."
The vote 168 for and 7 against was met with a round of applause."
Jew hating at its finest. This is the "reformed" UN.
"This is the real UN. Less than 50% of members are fully
democratic.There are 192 members of the general assembly. 117 belong to
the so called non aligned movement (NAM). And the largest single voting bloc of
the NAM is made up of the 56 nations of the Organization of the Islamic
conference."
posted by Pastorius @ 5:29 AM
Comments: 0
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Fragile
I love this woman. I had the opportunity to meet her once and turned it down because I'm a married man and I didn't trust myself.
Cassandra Wilson performing the great song by Sting.
I love this woman. I had the opportunity to meet her once and turned it down because I'm a married man and I didn't trust myself.
Cassandra Wilson performing the great song by Sting.
posted by Pastorius @ 6:45 PM
Comments: 0
Use Me
D'Angelo, live with David Sanborn and some guy named Eric Clapton.
D'Angelo, live with David Sanborn and some guy named Eric Clapton.
posted by Pastorius @ 6:37 PM
Comments: 0
We Are In Grave Danger
Read the posts below, and then read Zechariah, especially chapter 12. If we continue to pursue the course we are on I believe we are in grave danger.
posted by Pastorius @ 11:52 AM
Comments: 0
Why Is It
That
The Palestinians
Are Not
Being Asked
To Initiate Peace?
The United States is putting pressure on Israel to make some "gestures" to the Palestinians ahead of the Annapolis Summit which will attempt to work out an agreement in the Middle East conflict. From AP:
JERUSALEM - The U.S. is pressuring Israel to declare a complete freeze on West Bank settlement construction ahead of a high-stakes peace conference, rejecting Israel’s long-standing policy of expanding existing communities, Israeli government officials say.
The U.S. also wants Israel to release more Palestinian prisoners than it plans to free before the meeting, expected to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, later this month, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal the information. U.S. Embassy officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
The U.S. has been urging Israel to make a series of gestures to the Palestinians ahead of the summit. American proposals have included an Israeli freeze on West Bank settlement construction and a large-scale release of Palestinian prisoners. Israel holds an estimated 9,000 such prisoners.
Israel maintains that it should be allowed to build housing in settlements to account for the “natural growth” of the existing settler population. The U.S. opposes settlement activity, but President Bush has signaled that he would support Israel’s position that it retain some settlements under a final peace deal.
Why is it that the Palestinians are not being asked to make "gestures"?
Why aren't they asked, or rather told, to cease lobbing missiles at Israeli schools? Why are they not asked to put a stop to suicide bombings? Or, at the very least, why aren't they asked to change the charters of Fatah and Hamas, which both call for the destruction of the state of Israel?
Why is it that Israel is asked to make concessions and the Palestinians are not? I believe the reason is everyone knows the Palestinians are not serious partners for peace, and that any request for gestures would be a losing cause.
That
The Palestinians
Are Not
Being Asked
To Initiate Peace?
The United States is putting pressure on Israel to make some "gestures" to the Palestinians ahead of the Annapolis Summit which will attempt to work out an agreement in the Middle East conflict. From AP:
JERUSALEM - The U.S. is pressuring Israel to declare a complete freeze on West Bank settlement construction ahead of a high-stakes peace conference, rejecting Israel’s long-standing policy of expanding existing communities, Israeli government officials say.
The U.S. also wants Israel to release more Palestinian prisoners than it plans to free before the meeting, expected to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, later this month, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal the information. U.S. Embassy officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
The U.S. has been urging Israel to make a series of gestures to the Palestinians ahead of the summit. American proposals have included an Israeli freeze on West Bank settlement construction and a large-scale release of Palestinian prisoners. Israel holds an estimated 9,000 such prisoners.
Israel maintains that it should be allowed to build housing in settlements to account for the “natural growth” of the existing settler population. The U.S. opposes settlement activity, but President Bush has signaled that he would support Israel’s position that it retain some settlements under a final peace deal.
Why is it that the Palestinians are not being asked to make "gestures"?
Why aren't they asked, or rather told, to cease lobbing missiles at Israeli schools? Why are they not asked to put a stop to suicide bombings? Or, at the very least, why aren't they asked to change the charters of Fatah and Hamas, which both call for the destruction of the state of Israel?
Why is it that Israel is asked to make concessions and the Palestinians are not? I believe the reason is everyone knows the Palestinians are not serious partners for peace, and that any request for gestures would be a losing cause.
posted by Pastorius @ 8:57 AM
Comments: 0
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Current Efforts
To Get Israel
To Give Up
More Land
Will End
In Death
And Destruction
Why would I say that? Well, tell me, when has Israel ever given up more land when it did not end in death and destruction.
Read this, by Ted Belman from Israpundit:
Make no mistake about it, Annapolis (a "peace" summit arranged by the Bush Administration) represents a mortal danger to
Israel and the Jewish people. We don t have to know how and when the
peace process train will reach its destination. Once you are on the
deportation train, it is too late. It is enough to know the
destination is Auschwitz borders and behind such borders lies
Auschwitz.
The Jewish remnant in the Warsaw Ghetto, when hearing of the death of
300,000 Jews deported from the ghetto, decided to go down fighting
rather than to go to their deaths like sheep. And fight they did.
We know where Annapolis is taking us to, namely; Auschwitz borders,
expulsion and deportation of 200,000 Jews and the division of
Jerusalem with the Holy Basin under the control of the Muslims. Need
we know more?
And for what? Certainly not recognition as a Jewish state, certainly
not an end of conflict agreement with all Muslim nations, certainly
not a more secure future.
In the words of the PA;
1. The Annapolis declaration will include Palestinian recognition of
Israel but not as a Jewish state.
2. The boundaries of the future Palestinian state will follow the
pre-1967 War lines with minor adjustments through territorial swaps.
A few hundreds of square meters may be offered on the West Bank in
return for areas in central Israel, not the Negev.
3. Palestinian sovereignty over Temple Mount, the holiest shrine of
the Jewish people, must be undivided and include the Jewish place of
worship at the Western Wall.
4. The right of return for 1948 refugees is absolute and
non-negotiable.
5. The future Palestinian state will enjoy full sovereignty,
including its air and electromagnetic space and underground
resources, such as water.
6. Negotiations after the Annapolis conference must be concluded by
Aug. 2008..
We also know that the people we are ceding our security to are
latter day Nazis who are the inheritors of the final solution. Forty
years ago they wanted to throw us into the sea. Today they want to
wipe us off the face of the map.
The state of Israel is a Jewish enterprise not an Israeli enterprise.
It was promised to the Jews not to Israelis. We must assert our rights
as a people. We cannot avoid responsibility by hiding behind the duly
elected government of Israel . It doesn t represent us Jews and it
doesn t represent the majority of Israelis. There is nothing to
debate.
The Jewish habit of arguing "on the one hand" and "on the other hand"
must stop. Even Tevia, the quintessential Jew, in Fiddler on the Roof,
knew enough to declare, in some matters, There is no other hand. .
Yeddin, draw the line and fight. Now, not later.
The "right of return" for those who don't know is the phrase the Palestinian Authority uses for the idea that all the descendents of anyone who ever lived in Palestinian, ever in history, ought to have the right to live in Israel.
According to the Palestinian Authority, these people number in the millions. Israel, as a Jewish state, would be overwhelmed if they were to accede to such a "right." Jews would become a demographic minority in their own land, and the whole reason for Israel to exist (so that Jews could govern themselves, rather than having to live at the approval or disapproval of the world's antisemites) would be lost.
It is likely, given how Hamas feels about the Jews, that there would be a genocide of the Jews.
The last time the Jews gave land to the Palestinians, every Jew was forced to leave their homes in Gaza. The Israelis even had to dig up their dead, so the Palestinians would not desecrate their graves.
These are the facts on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If you know them, they make all talk of peace sound like the barking of hyeanas. But, of course, most don't know the facts. And so, most will reach for the panacea of "peace."
And, if such a "peace" were to be achieved, the Jews would have to pay for it in blood.
Never again.
To Get Israel
To Give Up
More Land
Will End
In Death
And Destruction
Why would I say that? Well, tell me, when has Israel ever given up more land when it did not end in death and destruction.
Read this, by Ted Belman from Israpundit:
Make no mistake about it, Annapolis (a "peace" summit arranged by the Bush Administration) represents a mortal danger to
Israel and the Jewish people. We don t have to know how and when the
peace process train will reach its destination. Once you are on the
deportation train, it is too late. It is enough to know the
destination is Auschwitz borders and behind such borders lies
Auschwitz.
The Jewish remnant in the Warsaw Ghetto, when hearing of the death of
300,000 Jews deported from the ghetto, decided to go down fighting
rather than to go to their deaths like sheep. And fight they did.
We know where Annapolis is taking us to, namely; Auschwitz borders,
expulsion and deportation of 200,000 Jews and the division of
Jerusalem with the Holy Basin under the control of the Muslims. Need
we know more?
And for what? Certainly not recognition as a Jewish state, certainly
not an end of conflict agreement with all Muslim nations, certainly
not a more secure future.
In the words of the PA;
1. The Annapolis declaration will include Palestinian recognition of
Israel but not as a Jewish state.
2. The boundaries of the future Palestinian state will follow the
pre-1967 War lines with minor adjustments through territorial swaps.
A few hundreds of square meters may be offered on the West Bank in
return for areas in central Israel, not the Negev.
3. Palestinian sovereignty over Temple Mount, the holiest shrine of
the Jewish people, must be undivided and include the Jewish place of
worship at the Western Wall.
4. The right of return for 1948 refugees is absolute and
non-negotiable.
5. The future Palestinian state will enjoy full sovereignty,
including its air and electromagnetic space and underground
resources, such as water.
6. Negotiations after the Annapolis conference must be concluded by
Aug. 2008..
We also know that the people we are ceding our security to are
latter day Nazis who are the inheritors of the final solution. Forty
years ago they wanted to throw us into the sea. Today they want to
wipe us off the face of the map.
The state of Israel is a Jewish enterprise not an Israeli enterprise.
It was promised to the Jews not to Israelis. We must assert our rights
as a people. We cannot avoid responsibility by hiding behind the duly
elected government of Israel . It doesn t represent us Jews and it
doesn t represent the majority of Israelis. There is nothing to
debate.
The Jewish habit of arguing "on the one hand" and "on the other hand"
must stop. Even Tevia, the quintessential Jew, in Fiddler on the Roof,
knew enough to declare, in some matters, There is no other hand. .
Yeddin, draw the line and fight. Now, not later.
The "right of return" for those who don't know is the phrase the Palestinian Authority uses for the idea that all the descendents of anyone who ever lived in Palestinian, ever in history, ought to have the right to live in Israel.
According to the Palestinian Authority, these people number in the millions. Israel, as a Jewish state, would be overwhelmed if they were to accede to such a "right." Jews would become a demographic minority in their own land, and the whole reason for Israel to exist (so that Jews could govern themselves, rather than having to live at the approval or disapproval of the world's antisemites) would be lost.
It is likely, given how Hamas feels about the Jews, that there would be a genocide of the Jews.
The last time the Jews gave land to the Palestinians, every Jew was forced to leave their homes in Gaza. The Israelis even had to dig up their dead, so the Palestinians would not desecrate their graves.
These are the facts on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If you know them, they make all talk of peace sound like the barking of hyeanas. But, of course, most don't know the facts. And so, most will reach for the panacea of "peace."
And, if such a "peace" were to be achieved, the Jews would have to pay for it in blood.
Never again.
posted by Pastorius @ 7:14 PM
Comments: 0
Monday, November 12, 2007
Joe Lieberman - Democrat
On The State Of
The Democratic Party
From William Kristol:
If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you. To that end, we're happy to provide excerpts from the remarks of the independent Democrat from Connecticut:
Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.
But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.
Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .
I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.
The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran--and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary--has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. . . .
Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it--and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.
. . . [T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.
There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.
For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed. . . . That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party--but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.
I hope that Democrats will one day again rediscover and re-embrace these principles. . . . But regardless of when or if that happens, those convictions will continue to be mine. And I will continue to fight to advance them along with like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans.
***
Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck--offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.) But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman--those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?
On The State Of
The Democratic Party
From William Kristol:
If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you. To that end, we're happy to provide excerpts from the remarks of the independent Democrat from Connecticut:
Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.
But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.
Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .
I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.
The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran--and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary--has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. . . .
Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it--and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.
. . . [T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.
There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.
For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed. . . . That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party--but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.
I hope that Democrats will one day again rediscover and re-embrace these principles. . . . But regardless of when or if that happens, those convictions will continue to be mine. And I will continue to fight to advance them along with like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans.
***
Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck--offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.) But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman--those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?
posted by Pastorius @ 4:10 PM
Comments: 1
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Jew-Hatred In Islam
It's in the Koran. It's in the culture. It's woven into the fabric of the lives of Muslims the world over, unfortunately.
Read about the history of Jew-hatred in Isalm in this article by Andrew Bostom:
Fawaz Damra, the former Imam of the Islamic Center of Cleveland was convicted in 2004 for lying to immigration officials about his links to the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and subsequently deported. Yet Damra was touted as a promoter of interfaith dialogue even after evidence of his participation in fundraising events for the PIJ, was produced, along with a videotape of the Imam telling a crowd of Muslim supporters in 1991 that they should aim "...a rifle at the first and last enemy of the Islamic nation, and that is the sons of monkeys and pigs, the Jews."
As I will demonstrate, Imam Damra's blatant Jew-hatred was fully sanctioned by -- indeed he was merely paraphrasing, and quoting directly from -- the core religious texts of Islam. And the historical treatment of Jews in Muslim societies has been consistent with this sacralized religious bigotry. Sheer ignorance of such theology and history, combined with craven denial, allowed Damra's words to go unchallenged for more than a decade. However the Damra affair is pathognomonic of a much larger and more dangerous phenomenon: the complete, often willful failure to examine and understand the living legacy of Islam's foundational anti-Jewish animus.
Read the whole thing.
It's in the Koran. It's in the culture. It's woven into the fabric of the lives of Muslims the world over, unfortunately.
Read about the history of Jew-hatred in Isalm in this article by Andrew Bostom:
Fawaz Damra, the former Imam of the Islamic Center of Cleveland was convicted in 2004 for lying to immigration officials about his links to the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and subsequently deported. Yet Damra was touted as a promoter of interfaith dialogue even after evidence of his participation in fundraising events for the PIJ, was produced, along with a videotape of the Imam telling a crowd of Muslim supporters in 1991 that they should aim "...a rifle at the first and last enemy of the Islamic nation, and that is the sons of monkeys and pigs, the Jews."
As I will demonstrate, Imam Damra's blatant Jew-hatred was fully sanctioned by -- indeed he was merely paraphrasing, and quoting directly from -- the core religious texts of Islam. And the historical treatment of Jews in Muslim societies has been consistent with this sacralized religious bigotry. Sheer ignorance of such theology and history, combined with craven denial, allowed Damra's words to go unchallenged for more than a decade. However the Damra affair is pathognomonic of a much larger and more dangerous phenomenon: the complete, often willful failure to examine and understand the living legacy of Islam's foundational anti-Jewish animus.
Read the whole thing.
posted by Pastorius @ 7:14 PM
Comments: 0
Saturday, November 10, 2007
A
PLO
Operative
In The Phillipines?
What The ...?
What the heck is the Palestinian Liberation Organization doing in the Phillipines? From my friend Reliapundit at the Astute Bloggers:
* THE PHILIPPINES HAVE LONG BEEN AN IMPORTANT HUB OF JIHADIST TERROR.
* THE PLO - IN THE PHILIPPINES!?!? BUT THEY DON'T HAVE MANY JOOOOOOZE THERE.
* D'YA THINK MAYBE JIHADOTERROR AIN'T ABOUT THE JOOOOOOZE, THEN!?
* AND NOT ABOUT ISRAEL.
* AND NOT ABOUT THE NEOCONS OR THE GOP.
* AND TWISTING ISRAEL'S ARMS TO GIVE CONCESSIONS TO THE JIHADISTS WILL NOT END OR EVEN REDUCE TERROR.
* IT WILL ONLY INCREASE IT BECAUSE IT SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE: TERROR WORKS.
* BUSH IS WRONG TO MAKE ISRAEL GIVE INTO FATAH.
* IT WILL COME BACK TO HURT US ALL.
PLO
Operative
In The Phillipines?
What The ...?
What the heck is the Palestinian Liberation Organization doing in the Phillipines? From my friend Reliapundit at the Astute Bloggers:
KHALEEJ TIMES/AFP: Former PLO member arrested in Philippines
MANILA -
Authorities arrested a former Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) member
in the southern Philippines, a report said Saturday, amid suspicions he was
involved with local Islamic militants.
Immigration, police and military
personnel arrested Yussof Umar Animour, 41, also known as Yusop Omar, in the
town of Sibalu in the southernmost islands of Tawi-Tawi on November 1 for
illegally staying in the country, an Immigration Bureau report said.
However sources in the intelligence community believe he has ties with
local Muslim militants who have battled the government.
Intelligence
reports say that in 2000 he was spotted in a Philippine camp with insurgents of
the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) while the military was
launching an assault against the group.
It was unclear what he was doing
in the Philippines at the time of his arrest.
Omar was as a
communications specialist with the PLO in Lebanon from 1982 to 1984, then went
to Manila to study in 1986. However schools rejected his application because he
did not have a student visa, the bureau report said.
* THE PHILIPPINES HAVE LONG BEEN AN IMPORTANT HUB OF JIHADIST TERROR.
* THE PLO - IN THE PHILIPPINES!?!? BUT THEY DON'T HAVE MANY JOOOOOOZE THERE.
* D'YA THINK MAYBE JIHADOTERROR AIN'T ABOUT THE JOOOOOOZE, THEN!?
* AND NOT ABOUT ISRAEL.
* AND NOT ABOUT THE NEOCONS OR THE GOP.
* AND TWISTING ISRAEL'S ARMS TO GIVE CONCESSIONS TO THE JIHADISTS WILL NOT END OR EVEN REDUCE TERROR.
* IT WILL ONLY INCREASE IT BECAUSE IT SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE: TERROR WORKS.
* BUSH IS WRONG TO MAKE ISRAEL GIVE INTO FATAH.
* IT WILL COME BACK TO HURT US ALL.
posted by Pastorius @ 12:28 PM
Comments: 0
Friday, November 09, 2007
I've Got A Right To Be Wrong
Joss Stone. Wow!
Here are the lyrics:
I've got a right to be wrong
My mistakes will make me strong
I'm stepping out into the great unknown
I'm feeling wings though I've never flown
Got a mind of my own
I'm flesh and blood to the bone
I'm not made of stone
Got a right to be wrong
So just leave me alone
I've got a right to be wrong
I've been held down too long
I've got to break free
So I can finally breathe
Got the right to be wrong
Got to sing my own song
I might be singing out of key
But it sure feels good to me
Got a right to be wrong
So just leave me alone
You're entitled to your opinion
But it's really my decision
I can't turn back I'm on a mission
If you care don't you dare blur my vision
Let me be all that I can be
Don't smother me with negativity
Whatever's out there waiting for me
I'm going to face it willingly
I've got a right to be wrong
My mistakes will make me strong
I'm stepping out into the great unknown
I'm feeling wings though I've never flown
I've got a mind of my own
Flesh and blood to the bone
See, I'm not made of stone
I've got a right to be wrong
So just leave me alone
Joss Stone. Wow!
Here are the lyrics:
I've got a right to be wrong
My mistakes will make me strong
I'm stepping out into the great unknown
I'm feeling wings though I've never flown
Got a mind of my own
I'm flesh and blood to the bone
I'm not made of stone
Got a right to be wrong
So just leave me alone
I've got a right to be wrong
I've been held down too long
I've got to break free
So I can finally breathe
Got the right to be wrong
Got to sing my own song
I might be singing out of key
But it sure feels good to me
Got a right to be wrong
So just leave me alone
You're entitled to your opinion
But it's really my decision
I can't turn back I'm on a mission
If you care don't you dare blur my vision
Let me be all that I can be
Don't smother me with negativity
Whatever's out there waiting for me
I'm going to face it willingly
I've got a right to be wrong
My mistakes will make me strong
I'm stepping out into the great unknown
I'm feeling wings though I've never flown
I've got a mind of my own
Flesh and blood to the bone
See, I'm not made of stone
I've got a right to be wrong
So just leave me alone
posted by Pastorius @ 7:12 PM
Comments: 3
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Botox
For
The Brain
From Reuters, an article about the future of brain-enhancing drugs and surgery:
By Ben Hirschler
LONDON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - A rise in healthy people popping pills to boost performance in exams or work, raises long-term ethical and safety concerns about the effects of such treatments, British doctors said on Thursday.
The British Medical Association (BMA) wants a public debate about the risks and benefits of using drugs to improve memory and concentration, sometimes called "cognitive enhancement".
The ability of prescription drugs and medical procedures to improve intellectual performance is likely to increase significantly in the next 20 to 30 years as technology advances.
"We know that there is likely to be a demand by healthy individuals for this treatment," Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's Medical Ethics Committee said at the launch of a discussion paper on the issue.
"However, given that no drug or invasive medical procedure is risk free, is it ethical to make them available to people who are not ill?"
Surreptitious use of brain-boosting prescription drugs is particularly common in the United States and likely to increase in Britain, the BMA said.
"There is a growing expectation that the use of these so-called cognitive enhancers in the UK is both imminent and inevitable," the BMA said.
Today, the use of pharmaceutical aids to boost performance is mainly confined to certain groups -- notably students cramming for exams.
Popular choices include drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, such as Ritalin, or methylphenidate, made by Novartis AG
Another favourite is modafinil, the active ingredient in Cephalon Inc's
Such drugs are widely available to buy online.
BOTOX FOR THE BRAIN
In the future scientists may be able to provide more permanent fixes for bad memory or poor concentration through brain stimulation and neurotechnology.
This would involve techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation -- sometimes referred to as "botox for the brain" -- where magnetic pulses are used to stimulate particular brain regions, and deep brain stimulation, where electrodes are inserted into the brain to transmit tiny electrical currents.
These and future medical interventions could benefit individuals and, potentially, wider society, if they increase the competitiveness of the workforce.
But "over-enhancement" of the brain's cognitive functions could have damaging side-effects.
posted by Pastorius @ 4:46 PM
Comments: 5
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Kristalnacht:
69 Years Later
And I Can
Still Hear
The Glass Breaking
Kristalnacht = The Night of Crysal. Read this. A great post from Yid With Lid:
Through out the world we remember Kristallnach, the night the Nazi's began the Holocaust in earnest. Its amazing how little has changed in almost seven decades. Arab countries fill their children's textbooks with anti Jewish Hatred.
Islamic Clerics call for the death of Jews. In Germany Anti-Semitism is making a comeback. And much of the world believes that 9/11 was planned by the Jews.
posted by Pastorius @ 8:27 PM
Comments: 0
Nazi Band Coming To A Venue Near You
From 1389 Blog:
Croatian rock star Marko Perkovic ‘Thompson’ has just begun a US-Canadian tour, with two concerts in New York (Nov. 2 and 3), followed by concerts in Toronto (Nov. 4, reportedly cancelled), Cleveland (Nov. 9), Chicago (Nov. 10), Los Angeles (Nov. 11), Vancouver (Nov. 16), and San Francisco (Nov. 18.) Full details are in footnote [1].
Emperor’s Clothes has proven that Thompson is a self-declared Ustasha - a Croatian clerical-fascist. (Clerical-fascist ideology indoctrinates with a mixture of Nazi-type racism and Catholic religious fanaticism.) The Ustasha movement murdered over a million people from 1941-1945. The overwhelming majority were Serbs (Slavs who are Orthodox Christian, i.e., non-Catholic), but they also killed most Jews and Roma (’Gypsies’) in the greater Croatia that they ruled.
It is chilling that one can find videos on Youtube, such as the one below, in which people at Thompson’s June 2007 concert in Zagreb, Croatia, are heard chanting “Ubij, Ubij, Ubij Serbina.” It means “Kill, kill, kill a Serb.”
This tour by Thompson’s band, also called ‘Thompson’ (after the Thompson submachine gun), has produced justified outrage. It is an attempt to legitimize clerical-fascism. If Thompson - whose politics would logically lead to the murder of millions of North Americans, including African-Americans and other so-called ‘non-whites,’ Jews, people of Serbian descent and others of the Orthodox Christian faith, progressives, and anyone (teachers? trade unionists?) who dared to resist the clerical-fascists - if Thompson can carry out this tour successfully, it will be a victory for fascism.
Information about where to complain is at the top of the above TENC article. (The US State Department email form works only part of the time, but you can always use the address or phone number.)
Information about the concert schedule is in footnote 1 in the above article.
From 1389 Blog:
Croatian rock star Marko Perkovic ‘Thompson’ has just begun a US-Canadian tour, with two concerts in New York (Nov. 2 and 3), followed by concerts in Toronto (Nov. 4, reportedly cancelled), Cleveland (Nov. 9), Chicago (Nov. 10), Los Angeles (Nov. 11), Vancouver (Nov. 16), and San Francisco (Nov. 18.) Full details are in footnote [1].
Emperor’s Clothes has proven that Thompson is a self-declared Ustasha - a Croatian clerical-fascist. (Clerical-fascist ideology indoctrinates with a mixture of Nazi-type racism and Catholic religious fanaticism.) The Ustasha movement murdered over a million people from 1941-1945. The overwhelming majority were Serbs (Slavs who are Orthodox Christian, i.e., non-Catholic), but they also killed most Jews and Roma (’Gypsies’) in the greater Croatia that they ruled.
It is chilling that one can find videos on Youtube, such as the one below, in which people at Thompson’s June 2007 concert in Zagreb, Croatia, are heard chanting “Ubij, Ubij, Ubij Serbina.” It means “Kill, kill, kill a Serb.”
This tour by Thompson’s band, also called ‘Thompson’ (after the Thompson submachine gun), has produced justified outrage. It is an attempt to legitimize clerical-fascism. If Thompson - whose politics would logically lead to the murder of millions of North Americans, including African-Americans and other so-called ‘non-whites,’ Jews, people of Serbian descent and others of the Orthodox Christian faith, progressives, and anyone (teachers? trade unionists?) who dared to resist the clerical-fascists - if Thompson can carry out this tour successfully, it will be a victory for fascism.
Information about where to complain is at the top of the above TENC article. (The US State Department email form works only part of the time, but you can always use the address or phone number.)
Information about the concert schedule is in footnote 1 in the above article.
posted by Pastorius @ 7:27 AM
Comments: 0
Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
We Have 3,000
Centrifuges
Operating
And, of course, they are operating for peaceful purposes:
Iran has achieved a landmark, with 3,000 centrifuges fully working in its controversial uranium enrichment program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Wednesday.
"We have now reached 3,000 machines," Ahmadinejad told thousands of Iranians gathered in Birjand, in eastern Iran, in a show of defiance of international demands to halt the program believed to be masking the country's nuclear arms efforts.
Ahmadinejad has in the past claimed that Iran succeeded in installing the 3,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But Wednesday's claim was his first official statement that the plant is now fully operating all those centrifuges.
When Iran first announced launching the 3,000 centrifuges in April, the UN nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Tehran had only 328 centrifuges up and running at Natanz's underground facility.
Italian Premier Romano Prodi said Tuesday that Iran has every right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, while the international community has an equal right to verify its peaceful nature using the existing judicial measures.
In a speech delivered to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, on a visit to Rome, Prodi also said that Italy opposes any military action against Iran over Tehran's contentious nuclear program because such an attack could destabilize the entire Middle East.
Italy, as of this year a non-permanent member of the UN. Security Council, traditionally has good relations with Tehran and maintains a strong presence in Iran's gas market through Italian oil and gas giant Eni SpA. Senior government officials, including the foreign minister, have spoken out against any use of force against Iran, saying that a new war in the region would be disastrous and calling instead for increased diplomatic efforts.
Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, but its assertions are widely disbelieved. The Security Council has demanded that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment -a potential pathway both to generating nuclear power and creating the fissile core of warheads.
posted by Pastorius @ 5:13 AM
Comments: 2
Monday, November 05, 2007
Hitler And The Mufti -
The History Of
Islamic Nazism
Why did Hitler love the Arabs so much? They weren't Aryan, right?
Well, as he told his Arabs friends, "We have the same goal, the extermination of the Jewish people."
The History Of
Islamic Nazism
Why did Hitler love the Arabs so much? They weren't Aryan, right?
Well, as he told his Arabs friends, "We have the same goal, the extermination of the Jewish people."
posted by Pastorius @ 8:33 PM
Comments: 0
UK: Jews Are
Four Times
More Likely,
Than Muslims,
To Be Attacked
For Their Religion
From Melanie Phillips at City Journal:
In August 2006, as the war in Lebanon raged, a gang of teenage girls confronted 12-year-old Jasmine Kranat and a friend on a London bus. “Are you Jewish?” they demanded. They didn’t hurt the friend, who was wearing a crucifix. But they subjected Jasmine, a Jew, to a brutal beating—stomping on her head and chest, fracturing her eye socket, and knocking her unconscious.
According to the Community Security Trust, the defense organization of Britain’s 300,000-strong Jewish community, last year saw nearly 600 anti-Semitic assaults, incidents of vandalism, cases of abuse, and threats against Jewish individuals and institutions—double the 2001 number. According to the police, Jews are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than are Muslims. Every synagogue service and Jewish communal event now requires guards on the lookout for violence from both neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists. Orthodox Jews have become particular targets; some have begun wearing baseball caps instead of skullcaps and concealing their Star of David jewelry.
Anti-Semitism is rife within Britain’s Muslim community. Islamic bookshops sell copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the notorious czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; as an undercover TV documentary revealed in January, imams routinely preach anti-Jewish sermons. Opinion polls show that nearly two-fifths of Britain’s Muslims believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”; that more than half believe that British Jews have “too much influence over the direction of UK foreign policy”; and that no fewer than 46 percent think that the Jewish community is “in league with Freemasons to control the media and politics.”
Four Times
More Likely,
Than Muslims,
To Be Attacked
For Their Religion
From Melanie Phillips at City Journal:
In August 2006, as the war in Lebanon raged, a gang of teenage girls confronted 12-year-old Jasmine Kranat and a friend on a London bus. “Are you Jewish?” they demanded. They didn’t hurt the friend, who was wearing a crucifix. But they subjected Jasmine, a Jew, to a brutal beating—stomping on her head and chest, fracturing her eye socket, and knocking her unconscious.
According to the Community Security Trust, the defense organization of Britain’s 300,000-strong Jewish community, last year saw nearly 600 anti-Semitic assaults, incidents of vandalism, cases of abuse, and threats against Jewish individuals and institutions—double the 2001 number. According to the police, Jews are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than are Muslims. Every synagogue service and Jewish communal event now requires guards on the lookout for violence from both neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists. Orthodox Jews have become particular targets; some have begun wearing baseball caps instead of skullcaps and concealing their Star of David jewelry.
Anti-Semitism is rife within Britain’s Muslim community. Islamic bookshops sell copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the notorious czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; as an undercover TV documentary revealed in January, imams routinely preach anti-Jewish sermons. Opinion polls show that nearly two-fifths of Britain’s Muslims believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”; that more than half believe that British Jews have “too much influence over the direction of UK foreign policy”; and that no fewer than 46 percent think that the Jewish community is “in league with Freemasons to control the media and politics.”
posted by Pastorius @ 7:28 AM
Comments: 0
Thursday, November 01, 2007
A Quick Rundown Of Our Idiocy Today
Just stuff you need to know about.
Muslims Imam teaches teenage boys how to beat wife (on TV show).
Britain is giving 70m Pounds to Muslim groups, basically, as protection money.
"Peace Group" to celebrate Kristalnacht ("The night of Crysal", often acknowledged as the beginning of the Holocaust) with Holocaust Denial Conference.
(From the Astute Blogger) The Labour Party's favorite think tank has proposed "downgrading Christmas" and expelling the Bishops from the House of Lords because Britain is no longer a Christian nation.
Non-Muslim students at the new Madani High School in Leicester will be forced to wear Muslim hijab head scarves -- and the school will be required to admit 10% non-Muslim students.
And in the West Midlands, all 257 students (mostly Christians) and all 41 teachers (all Christians) at the Rufford primary school were required to dress up as Muslims "to promote multi-culturalism."
Just stuff you need to know about.
Muslims Imam teaches teenage boys how to beat wife (on TV show).
Britain is giving 70m Pounds to Muslim groups, basically, as protection money.
"Peace Group" to celebrate Kristalnacht ("The night of Crysal", often acknowledged as the beginning of the Holocaust) with Holocaust Denial Conference.
(From the Astute Blogger) The Labour Party's favorite think tank has proposed "downgrading Christmas" and expelling the Bishops from the House of Lords because Britain is no longer a Christian nation.
Non-Muslim students at the new Madani High School in Leicester will be forced to wear Muslim hijab head scarves -- and the school will be required to admit 10% non-Muslim students.
And in the West Midlands, all 257 students (mostly Christians) and all 41 teachers (all Christians) at the Rufford primary school were required to dress up as Muslims "to promote multi-culturalism."
posted by Pastorius @ 8:02 PM
Comments: 4