ISLAM MAKES IT UNCUMBENT on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
Just seems to me, I've got other alliances and obligations that to choose to war against my neighbors in favor of those who wish me dead, dead, and more dead, as evidenced just one of many tens of thousands of time, by this recent leader of the masses who proclaim to follow the message of Mohammed, who was the"perfect model of human behavior" they say...
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.
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.
ENOUGH SAID. Consider this blog, Zionist friendly, which actually prefers all Arabs to remove themselves to Syria and Jordan, drop this palestinian pretense and become civilized human beings (hope springeth eternal). We have welcomed those who repeat the mantra that anti-zionism is not the same as anti-semitism to speak their peace at the Bellicose Augur. Speak plainly though, dear world, to suffer inarticulate joy riding fools is a waste of time, and encourages more of the same...
On the one hand Mr. Moyers considers Israel to be entitled to defend herself (as if she needed his permission) on the other hand, he wants, from the vantage point of his snug PBS studio to be able to pass judgment on what a fitting (proportional?) defense would be.
Proportionality? Yes, that grand doctrine of proportional warfare. Taking the old dictum (Newton's Third Law of Physics) about an equal and opposite reaction to its contemporary extreme, we are always stuck in some unwinnable war. Israel’s armed forces always has done and continues to do their best at separating Hamas from their human shields and killing only the combatants. But that is not enough for Bill Moyers. He uses two examples, examples which all media professionals by the time he used them knew to be suspect, to imply that the Israelis are no better than those who want only to murder them. He pointedly ignores the obvious difference in the morality of the two sides.
He pretends, as it were, that he has just walked into the room and sees Israel beating up the Palestinians without knowing any of the background. According to him, it is an onslaught and a slaughter and he hurls those epithets at Israel, not the hate-filled murderers who have caused the problem and intentionally placed their own people between them and the tiger they had taunted once too often.
He crowns his assault on morality with the remark that first caught our attentionthe one he has already backed away from as “obviously not sufficiently precise”. (Ah, suddenly the man who has traded in words all his professional life has “misspoken?
More likely he spoke too quickly and revealed too much) Not only did he state that it was the bible that “genetically encoded” violence in the Jewish people, even as he goes on to say, “A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth,” he compounds his betrayal of common sense and moral decency by adding “Israel misses no opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete walls, routine insults” as if he agrees with the Islamist honor/shame formula that their humiliation must be avenged in blood.
Picture this basic scenarioroving gangs terrorizing the neighborhood; residents and police act to curb the violence. Gang members, adept at finding flaws in a system meant to work as a favorable policy, start crying foul that they are being picked on.
Who was "living" in the area of Israel in 1947? Nobody. It was unattended forgotten desert. Bedouins migrated through it, but it was a vast wasteland. Now with the help of pseudo-compassionate people we are supposed to believe that this turf was always inhabited by the so-called Palestinian people. Hey, I know, let's introduce a turf war. Many an Arab country could alleviate the problem by assimilating the Palestinians (pan-Arabs) into their cultures and societies, but no, it is much more convenient for the Muslim world for them to be 'a thorn in Israel's side'.
Others have said it before, but honestly, the more I hear the screams from the sunshine patriots of the Left the more I am persuaded that unbridled liberalism is indeed some sort of mental disorderto be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, truth and fiction, the real and the unreal is to be delusional.
Too many Americans digest too much of what the MSM reports as news, thinking that US foreign policy is utterly without redeeming features and that things have never been worse in the nation or the world at large.
But just like President Georgie Bush said yesterdaythings during President Abe Lincoln's tenure surely weren't the rosiest of times, now were they? A nation crippled and divided where fathers fought sons, brothers fought brothers, and the blood ran red.
It's unfortunate our automobiles today can't run on the vitriolic fuel our political climate seems to produce in quite an abundant supply.
A HIGH-PROFILE NORWEGIAN doctor who has said the September 11 terrorists were justified in their attack is now treating patients in Gaza and is being accused of presenting "hard-core propaganda" to TV interviewers in his telling of the conflict between Hamas and Israel.
Think you know your neighbors?
Yes indeed, Dr. Mads Gilbert has become an unofficial advocate of the Palestinian cause, his critics say.
Many international media reports, including those from the BBC, CBS, CNN and FOX’s sister station Sky News, present Gilbert as an ordinary doctor. But a look at his record shows that Gilbert, 61, is a political activist and member of the Norwegian Maoist "Red" party, and he has been involved in solidarity work for the Palestinians since the 1970s. He has criticized the international aid organization Doctors Without Borders for refusing to take sides in conflicts.
Gilbert volunteers at the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza with the Norwegian Aid Committee (NORWAC), an aid organization funded by the Norwegian government, and he has been interviewed by the media on a variety of issues. Israeli government officials have said Hamas hides weapons in the hospital where Gilbert works. NGO Monitor, an Israeli human rights watchdog group, says Gilbert presents one-sided criticism of Israel to the media and has accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in its Gaza offensive to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israel.
In addition to being supportive of the terrorist organization Hamas, Gilbert has voiced support for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"The attack on New York did not come as a surprise after the policy that the West has led during the last decades," Gilbert told the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet on Sept. 30, 2001. "The oppressed also have a moral right to attack the USA with any weapon they can come up with."
When asked if he supported a terror attack on the U.S., Gilbert said, "Terror is a bad weapon but the answer is yes within the context which I have mentioned."
Gerald Steinberg, executive director of NGO Monitor, said Gilbert's characterization of the situation in Gaza is "in the form of incitement of hatred."...
Sounds like all the silly leftists I know. And here's a tidbit that will leave you shaking your head at the asinine lengths the left will go to commit treason against their own ability to reason.
A research paper that won a Hebrew University teachers' committee prize finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose. The paper shows that "the lack of organized military rape is an alternate way of realizing [particular] political goals." The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers' eyes.
Some wayfarers apparently need to hate, loathe, and desecrate their own nest and its defenders. We may each, whether from our dirty hovels or sprite shiny McMansions, pray this terrible madness ends before all civilization is lost and a new dark age arises from the ashes, but I fear this mental disease is not mental at all, but is purely a spiritual gambit, and while the endgame dance of fore and brimstone is probably still a convenient distance off yet in the future, the Armageddon-disproving madness of the Far Left equals and is in fact, precisely the same phenomenon that the Far Right Neocons salivate to usher in upon us just to prove their point. The Islamicists are giddy to oblige both groups their holy war. Opposing teams, different uniforms, different playbooks, same sorry agenda.
All stand condemnedsharing the fate of staring through the Judas hole, blinded by their own reflections.