THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK the tide has turned on the question of militant Islam, moderate Muslims, and the algebra of just getting along. Some believe as a result of Jack Straw's recent admission of concern over Muslim women's use of veils to cover their faces in British society and PM Tony Blair's call for full discussion on the Muslim conflict with modernity has signalled a sea change in mood for free speech traditions long stymied by the political correctness crowd.
Calling out for more common sense, these free speech advocates suggest that the rules of the game seem to have changed, that the genie is out of the box, so to speak, and isn't going back. They believe that the growing popularity of these views has been picked up by politicians at each end of the spectrum. Much of this is pure political vote grabbing, they admit, but quickly add that they are damn glad the politicians are using this particular issue to highlight voter unrest.
The right-wing BNP is not exactly a favorite among these new defenders of free speech, but they are comforted by the new strategies surfacing in regard to what is a very obvious problem: militant Muslims in their midst.
One observer of the Muslim controversy has stated, "The evidence that there is something wrong with Islam itself is just about overwhelming. Only a few pieces of critical information are needed to cinch it in the minds of millions."
Says another online pundit, "I think this observation is grievously mistaken."
1) More information, more data, more facts, will not be effective against the PC template by which millions in the West surgically detach Islam itself from the problems caused by Islam.
2) Sufficient information is already out there.
3) Millions of people whose minds are formed by the PC template already know sufficient information about Islam, but their minds filter that information.
4) It is not the knowledge of information alone that forms a person's opinion: it is the interpretative filter by which that information is fit into various cognitive and analytical slots in that person's mind.
5) Unless we decontruct the interpretative filter of the PC template, no amount of information, no mountains of data about the perniciousness of Islam, will be sufficient to change most minds affected by PC.
Summarizing the polarity of opinions is easy. It goes like this: the world community as a whole is being hurt by Muslims who are trying to make us all into dhimmis, and by the PC liberals, who have a very warped view about tolerance. I agree with this summary.
The Persian Ten Year Plan? HERE'S AN EYE OPENER, maybe an eye burner if one actually takes the time to realize how much this administration has co-operated with a transnational political policy which is actually succeeding in putting Humpty Dumpty (the Caliphate) back together again, and guess what, there are only a few pieces of the eggshell puzzle left to go. According to the former president (1997-2005) of Iran Seyed Mohammad Khatami, in what he dubbed "six plus six", Iran's eventual goal was to see secular dictators in all the countries bordering Iraq as well as Egypt, to fall.
Note where Obama has helped with speeches and even force of arms, and notice who Obama has silently ignored while the people cry out from their oppression. Iran. Syria, its satellite. Given a pass. Egypt. Libya. Oops. Beating to their own drum, more secular than mullah dominated. Thumbs down. Take down time comes rushing out from the other side of President Obama's Nobel prize winning mouth.
Well, it doesn't take a weather man to know which way the wind blows...
LIKE ALL RAD PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS, Barack Hussein Obama is moxy, arrogant and extremely Anti-Semitic. Jimmy Carter once held the highest distinction for hating Israel but has recently been bested by his disciple Obama. When it comes to supporting Islamic terror Hitler forged that same alliance before. His allies were Croat and Bosnian Muslim Nazis, known as Ustashas, the worst monsters of modern history. Their intended victims were Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. History keeps repeating itself. The same divide and conquer "game" played by Hitler in Bosnia, and other places, during WWII, is now played again by the the Obama regime of Progressive Nazi's. This is why we have to remind you what happened the last time the "game" was played:
"WWII, in Bosnia...The Croatian Fascists began a massacre of Serbs, which in the entire annals of World War II, was surpassed in savagery only by the mass extermination of the Polish Jews!"
The above quote can be found in any edition of Encyclopedia Britannica from Edition 1970 to 1989. (Macropedia, entry: Yugoslavia, World War II).
After World War I, the Great Powers of Europe jockeyed for influence in the Middle East's oil fields and trade routes, with France and Britain holding mandates throughout most of the region. In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought greater stakes in the area, and began courting Arab leaders to revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraqanother of Her Majesty's mandateswhere he again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually to Berlin.
Arab Mufti Greets Nazis, 1944
Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.
To show gratitude towards his hosts, in 1943 the Mufti travelled several times to Bosnia, where on orders of the SS he recruited the notorious "Hanjar troopers," a special Bosnian Waffen SS company which slaugh-tered 90% of Bosnia's Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. These Bosnian Muslim recruits rapidly found favor with SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden.
The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated. After the war, Husseini fled to Switzerland and from there escaped via France to Cairo, were he was warmly received. The Mufti used funds received earlier from the Hilter regime to finance the Nazi-inspired Arab Liberation Army that terrorized Jews in Palestine.
The Arab Embrace of Nazism: Husseini represents the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. News of the Nazi takeover was welcomed by the Arab masses with great enthusiasm, as the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Soon afterwards, parties that imitated the National Socialists were founded in many Arab lands, like the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" (PPS) or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa'ada, styled himself the Führer of the Syrian nation, and Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egypt his name was "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background. Later, a Lebanese branch of the PPSwhich still receives its orders from Damascuswas involved in the assassination of Lebanese President Pierre Gemayel.
The most influential party that emulated the Nazis was "Young Egypt," which was founded in October 1933. They had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi sloganslike "One folk, One party, One leader." Nazi anti-Semitism was replicated, with calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physical attacks on Jews. Britain had a bitter experience with this pro-German mood in Egypt, when the official Egyptian government failed to declare war on the Wehrmacht as German troops were about to conquer Alexandria.
After the war, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. Their first act – following in Hitler's footstepswas to outlaw all other parties. Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, among them the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry; he became Nasser's bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, another senior Nazi war criminal, found shelter in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff and still resides today.
Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism."
These leanings never completely ceased. Hitler's Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler's "ideology" and his "theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the self-rule areas, they offered the infamous Nazi salutethe right arm raised straight and upward.
The PLO and notably Arafat himself do not make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is venerated as a hero by the PLO. It should be noted, that the PLO's top figure in east Jerusalem today, Faisal Husseini, is the grandson to the Führer's Mufti. Arafat also considers the Grand Mufti a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. Little wonder. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti named Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."
The most recent "Obamination" is the giving of US tax dollars from the stimulus package to the PLA Fatah. A division of the PA or PLA is the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade a terrorist wing of the Fatah Security Force.
Again, aid and comfort to the enemies of the US and Israel are being funded by hard earned and foolishly spent tax payer dollars. At present US tax dollars are being spent to "fund" Islamic students at the UC in California. Students recieve a free ride under the liberal "diversity" outreach program plus $40,000.00 stipend. What do Americans get for their money? Hatred, Nazism, Islamonazism and a well educated enemy. Tell me, who gives the children of US citizens a free ride and 40 G's?
Obama is doing the same thing by the same identical play book used by Hitler to support and get support from the people of Islam. Again, there is no peaceful Islam, only outnumbered Muslims. Should he be relieved of his command?
UNTIL THE 1967 WAR, many in Western Europe saw Israelcorrectlyas a tiny and besieged state, surrounded by enemies who wished to destroy it. In this respect, they were helped along by the fact that the leader of those who would after the Six-Day War be carefully renamed as the "Palestinians," were not yet called "Palestinians" but simply "the Arabs" or "the Arab refugees." And their putative leader, Ahmed Shukairy (who was himself half-Turkish), had the habit of expressing himself as a truthful Muslim, and told the world that his goal was the destruction of Israel.
The Arab leaders said the same thing. And those Arab leaders, at the time, did not have the enormous oil wealth that the member-states of OPEC really began to acquire only in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then they enjoyed a really fantastic jump in oil revenues, and thus an equally fantastic increase in perceived power and real ability to buy all kinds of influence along with other, more tangible goods and services, only when OPEC quadrupled the price of oil in the fall of 1973.
And beginning with their defeat in the Six-Day War, the Arabs realized that they would not be able to defeat Israel militarily, at least not yet, not under the new conditions, and with Israel now in possession of "the West Bank" and Gaza and all of the Sinai (some 95% of the territory Israel won by force of arms in that war). They would have to formulate a new strategy to force Israel to disgorge what it had won, to make Israel appear not to be what in fact it still was, a tiny state subject to this unending Arab and Muslim hostility, that no concessions by Israel would ever truly assuage (at least not for the Muslims who took Islam seriously, and that meant, at least, all of the Arab Muslims). So they did several things. They decided on a campaign of diplomatic and economic warfare, accompanied by terrorist acts within Israel and against Israelis overseas, and on a campaign to weaken Israel and to force its former friends to sever ties, or at least to cease being friendly toward Israel, and ready to misunderstand its plight, and the real nature of the warthe Jihadbeing waged against it.
All of these countries, or almost all, within a year or two after the Six-Day War, had been persuaded by Arab money and the promisenever fulfilledof more money to come if they did what the Arabs wanted, cut off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.
Read it all as noted JW contributor Hugh Fitzgerald outs the liars and puts the truth back where it belongs.
IS IT REALISTIC TO BELIEVE that while Islam is conquering Europe and spreading throughout America that there is an economic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, indeed, that making Palestinians prosperous will transform them into bourgeois democrats? Is it not the case that many Islamic terrorists, including those that destroyed the World Trades Center, came from middle class families?
Is it realistic to think that a few million “Palestinians” are going turn their back on 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth? Is it realistic to believe that these Palestinians are going to trash their fourteen-century religion, overcome its equally long hatred of Jews, and genuflect to Bibi, who insists that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state? This strikes me as a page from Alice-in-Wonderland—to put it kindly.
Of course, Bibi and his allies may be disingenuous, merely playing the “politics of peace.” Many politicians and pundits pose as “politically correct” because they lack the courage to be politically incorrect. Like Hamlet said of men’s conscience, “Islam doth make cowards of them all.” It takes intellectual probity to see Islam for what it is. This is especially, but not exclusively, true of superficial secularists. It’s difficult for such secularists to take any religion seriously, especially one that strikes them as utterly alien and irrational.
If you ask any religious Jew whether genuine peace is possible between Israel and the Palestinians, I dare say nine out of ten will say no, and he will add that those who think otherwise are not realistic.
To clinch the argument, a large majority of Israel’s own Arab citizens, who enjoy a relatively high standard of living and possess educational and professional opportunities unequalled in the Islamic world, identify with Israel’s enemies and are therefore committed to Israel’s demise—contrary to their own economic interests.
Genuine realism requires a candid theological understanding of Islam correlated with a candid review of Islamic history—a correlation of the Quran’s venomous hatred of “infidels” and Islam’s genocidal slaughter of Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Armenian communities.
Genuine realists like philosopher Lee Harris and psychiatrist Wafa Sultan know that Islam’s ethos of Jihad makes it an enemy of civilization.
Genuine realists know there are no evidentiary grounds to expect the Palestinians to renounce that Islamic ethos—the precondition of peace—and become bourgeois democrats, unless you so devastate them as to eradicate their desire to wage war for a hundred years—as the Allied powers did to Germany.
As indicated in “Wishful Thinking Realists,” the economic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on a Marxist mode of thought: the primacy of economics over religion. Marxism involves a simplistic view of human nature. By the way, one reason why Bibi is so lucid is because he is rather superficial. Consider his insistence on “reciprocity” in negotiating with the Palestinian Authority. What can these Arabs give Israel that is comparable to Israel’s heartland, Judea and Samaria? Assume Bibi knows this. Then his talk about reciprocity is “politically correct” flapdoodle, which Arabs must surely laugh to scorn.
His talk about “reciprocity” has nothing to do with realism. If Bibi were a realist, he would know that a non-compromising approach to dealing with non-compromising Muslims is the only genuine realism. Secure in his prestige as an orator, however, Bibi talks foreign policy; he does not make foreign—certainly not a Jewish foreign policy.
So he plays a game of “political correctness.” You can hardly expect him to say in public that Israel is confronted by a foe with which genuine peace is impossible? He could confirm this “politically incorrect” position by recalling the Sharm e-Sheikh Memorandum of September 4 1999, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat, in addition to Gaza, 97 percent of Judea and Samaria including eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Yet Arafat refused. There’s a little secret here.
No leader of the Palestinian Arabs is going to sign a peace treaty with Israel—will recognize Israel as a Jewish state—because he knows he will be assassinated soon thereafter as was Anwar Sadat. Does Bibi know this? Is this why he endorsed a Palestinian State? If so, who is Netanyahu deceiving, and how many “politically correct” pundits are keeping his secret?
If this assessment is correct, does Bibi have any constructive plans for Israel’s future, plans that will preserve Israel as a Jewish polity? I intend to address this issue on my Monday morning (November 15) report on Israel National Radio.
Prof. Paul Eidelberg is a political scientist, author and lecturer; Founder and President, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He is a valued contributor to JewishIndy.
His previous book, Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fall, provides the philosophical and institutional foundations for reconstructing the State of Israel. It has been translated into Hebrew and Russian. His most recent books are: A Jewish Philosophy of History and The Myth of Israeli Democracy: Toward a Truly Jewish Israel.
TOUGH TO FOLLOW IN PLACES, but here is clip 4 of 5 from a German-produced video where we learn more details of the greatest secret being kept from any earnest discussion on race across the world today. This omission is not by accident. Find out why few white and even fewer black Americans know about the 1400-year African slave trade conducted by Middle Eastern Islamic and North African cultures...
Another timely exposé from Frank Gaffney, Jr.an esteemed analyst for the Center for Security Policy, dated Jun 01, 2009. I received this letter warning us of those dire circumstances most of us who follow US foreign policy already realize, namely that the persistently barnstorming POTUS is boxing our own nation and our staunchest Middle East ally, Israel, into an impossible standard where self-defense is not about safety but about survival. This is wretched enough. However, Mr. Gaffney makes several other newsworthy disclosures. Read for yourself:
IROM THIS VANTAGE POINT [Jerusalem], two events this week appear to be ominous straws in the wind, warnings of a "man-caused" maelstrom that may inexorably plunge the Middle East into another, potentially cataclysmic war.
The first is the fact that Israel feels obliged to undertake an unprecedented, country-wide civil defense exercise this week. At one point in its course, every man, woman and child in the Jewish State is supposed to seek shelter from a simulated attack of the kind Iran may shortly be able to execute against it.
The second is President Barack Obama's latest effort to reach out to the Muslim world, this time on June 4 from one of its most important capitals, Cairo. There, he is expected to make an address that will reiterate his previous statements on the subjectpronouncements that, unfortunately, can only have been interpreted by his intended audience as acts of submission.
If past is prelude, the President of the United States will: apologize yet again for purported offenses against Muslims by his country; promise to be respectful of Islam, including those who adhere to its authoritative, if virulent, theo-political-legal program known as Shariah; and enunciate diplomatic priorities and initiatives designed to reach out to America's enemies in the region, while putting excruciating pressure on its most reliable ally there, Israel.
It is hard to believe that the Obama Middle East agenda enjoys the support of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress. Historically, the public and strong bipartisan majorities on Capitol Hill have appreciated that an Israel that shares our values, that is governed democratically and that is in the cross-hairs of the same people who seek our destruction is an important ally.
This pressure has become more palpable by the day. It has taken various forms, including: U.S. stances adopted at the United Nations that will serve to isolate Israel; blank political and even financial checks for Palestinian thugs like Mahmoud Abbas; diminishing U.S.-Israeli cooperation on intelligence and military matters; and the withholding from Israel of helicopters (and perhaps other weaponry) being provided to Arab states.
Perhaps the most chilling example of this coercive pressure so far, however, was originally reported in the Israeli paperYediot Aharonot and given international prominence by my esteemed colleague and Jerusalem Post columnist, Caroline Glick. According to these accounts, in a recent lecture in Washington, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the American officer charged with training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, made a shocking declaration.
In Ms. Glick's words, "[Gen. Dayton] indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis." She went on to note that neither the general nor the Obama administration seemed to find this prospect grounds for rethinking the wisdom of such a training-and-arming program. In fact, her column observed that Defense Secretary Robert Gates "just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy."
Taken together with the U.S. administration's refusal to come to grips with what truly is the most serious threat to peace in the Middle EastIran's rising power and growing aggressiveness, reflecting in part its incipient nuclear weapons capabilitiesthe stage is being inexorably set for the next, and perhaps most devastating, regional conflict.
Whether the signals Mr. Obama is sending are intended to communicate such a message or not, they are going to be read by Israel's enemies as evidence of a profound rift between the United States and the Jewish State. In this part of the world, that amounts to an invitation to an open season on Israel.
It is hard to believe that the Obama Middle East agenda enjoys the support of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress. Historically, the public and strong bipartisan majorities on Capitol Hill have appreciated that an Israel that shares our values, that is governed democratically and that is in the cross-hairs of the same people who seek our destruction is an important ally. Quite apart from a sense of moral and religious affinity for the Jewish people's struggle to survive in their ancient homeland, most of us recognize that it is in the United States' strategic interest to stand with Israel.
It is worrisome in the extreme that Mr. Obama does not appear to share this appreciation. To those who worried about his affinity for the Saudi king and Islam more generally and his longstanding ties to virulent critics of Israel like Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi and former Harvard professor-turned-National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, the President's attitude is not exactly a surprise. His administration's posture may have been further reinforced by Arab-American pollster John Zogby's recent Forbes Magazine article arguing that friends of Israel made up John McCain's constituency, not Obama's. (This raises an interesting question about the sentiments towards Israel of the 78% of American Jews who voted for the latter in 2008.)
My guess, however, is that, as the implications of President Obama's Mideast policiesfor the United States as well as Israelbecome clearer, he is going to find himself facing the sort of popular and congressional revolt that has confronted him in recent weeks on Guantanamo Bay. The question is: Will such a reaffirmation of American solidarity with and support for Israel come in time to prevent the winds of war being whipped up by Mr. Obama's posturing and rhetoric, driving Israelis into bomb shelters, wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and perhaps far beyond?
Not hardly. Just a day after his warm massage of His Majesty in Saudi Arabia, and on the heels of his suggestive distortion that America is one of the largest Muslim nations (after declaring that the US was no longer a Christian nation) in the world, the truth-challenged but egregiously adored POTUS gave his much anticipated speech in Cairo this morning, brimming with bogus remarks about the nature and history of Islam. To his credit, however, he did concede in rather soft terms that he believed Israel had a right to exist as an independent state.
Such a marvelous concession after all these years from such a marvelous gamer. Unfortunately, he also suggested that Iran had a right to "peaceful nuclear power" which as we all know is a red herring given the evidence Iran has provided that it wants to extinguish the nation of Israel with one mighty blow, and liquidate every remaining infidel Jew in the necessary clean-up. Frankly, this is not an acceptable solution, Mister President.