Ever wondered why Israel is always in the news, and why the U.N. has condemned this tiny country more than it has all the tyrannies of the world combined? It’s pretty obvious why the Arabs hate Israel. They hate Israel because of the Jews. But why does the Left also treat this tiny Jewish state as an international pariah? Look no further than this little presentation below for the answer.
October 17, 2011
October 6, 2011
Proving you don’t have to be a Jew or a Christian Zionist to be pro-Israel, you can’t dismiss this pro-Israel atheist as some rapture-ready kook “millenarian”. Just try and refute him.
“The Arabs don’t hate Jews because of Israel, they hate Israel because of Jews.”
October 2, 2011
Arab representative during the 1919 Paris peace talks:
“We will push the Zionists into the sea, or they will push us back into the desert.”
Arab League Secretary General, Rahman Azan:
“This will be a war of extermination which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades.”
September 26, 2011
This is what speaking truth to power REALLY looks like. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu delivers one of the tightest, most fact intensive political speeches I have ever heard.
Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East, is unjustly singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Is it possible that tiny Israel is worse than China, N. Korea, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Myanmar, etc., and the rest of the world’s dictatorships COMBINED? Is that truly possible? Seriously folks, the persecution of Israel by this corrupt world body held hostage by the Muslim block and Arab Oil, and populated by the worst thugocracies on the planet might almost be mistaken for apocalyptic. It’s sick and bizarre. Netanyahu warns of a malignancy that is sweeping the world called militant Islam (why is nobody else at the U.N. addressing this?) which opposes, not the policies of Israel, but its very existence. He slams Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran for suggesting 9/11 was an American conspiracy, warns of the consequences should Iran acquire a WMD, the rise of militant Islam across the Middle East, and the creation of a Palestinian state. Speaking about the U.N., he says:
This is an unfortunate part about the U.N. institution, it’s a theatre of the Absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain, it often casts REAL villains in leading roles. Ghaddafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. commission on human rights. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq headed the U.N. committee on disarmament. Hesbollah controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. security council. This means in effect that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing world security [and recall Sudan’s comic/tragic membership on the U.N.’s human rights committee]. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Netanyahu addresses the claim by President Abbas that the core of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the “settlements”:
Well, that’s odd. Our conflict was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas says is true, then I guess the “settlements” he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheva. Maybe that’s what he meant when he said the other day that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for sixty-three years. He didn’t say from 1967, he said from 1948. It illustrates a simple truth — the core of the conflict is not the settlements. The core of the conflict is the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state in ANY border.
Responding to demands that Israel make a “sweeping” offer in order to secure peace he says:
There’s only one problem with that theory. We’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked. In 2000 we made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. Palestinians then launched a campaign of terror that claimed a thousand Israeli lives. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an even more sweeping offer to the Palestinians. President Abbas didn’t even respond to it.
But Israel has made more than just sweeping offers:
We have actually conceded territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. We left Gaza hoping for peace. We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. That didn’t calm the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and made it stronger. Hesbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. When Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were DEVOURED by the radicals.
On the consequences of Israel’s concessions:
We did exactly what the theory says. And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. And then having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas. You can all remember the world applauded the withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. As a bold act of peace. Now, the theory says it should all work out. But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace, we got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority in one day.
On a Palestinian state in the West Bank:
President Abbas says the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yup. Hopes, dreams, and ten thousand missiles and grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya and elsewhere. Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand, given all this, Israelis rightly ask what’s to prevent all this from happening again from the West Bank. Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we are not prepared to have another Gaza there.
And he was just getting started. I haven’t quite understood why Abbas declaring a Palestinian state in the West Bank was so threatening to the Israelis, but I get it now. Makes perfect sense why peace must be achieving FIRST, before statehood is awarded to the Palestinians, which he explains here. The consequences otherwise could quite literally mean the start of a regional war.
Full transcript here.
June 4, 2011
Just as we would expect from him, President Obama has thrown his lot in with the Arabs and is demanding Israel to withdraw to the 1967 “borders” as part of his new Middle East peace plan curtain raising. I use the scare quotes because they were never actually historical borders, not in any genuine sense of the word, but merely an armistice line resulting from Israel’s war of independence in 1948. There is nothing about those armistice lines upon which the Palestinians can lay any objective claim– Israel might have acquired more than that in ’48, or less. No matter. Those “borders” are as fictitious and impermanent as is the 48th Parallel in Korea. Yet the real goal of pushing Israel back to pre-1967 lines isn’t about restoring “historical borders” or gaining the Palestinians a few extra acres of rocky soil on which to raise some goats. If mere acreage were the issue, Palestinians would accept the proposed land swaps allowing Israel some semblance of defensible borders. But they don’t. No, CCHQ believes the real object of Obama’s and the Palestinian’s 1967 initiative is to split Jerusalem down the center, as it was pre-1967, and establish a Palestinian capital there. Make no mistake about it, returning to ’67 is all about East Jerusalem.
What you won’t hear from President Obama, however, is that when it comes to the issue of those borders, the current Arab residents of Jerusalem don’t see eye to eye with him nor their palestinian brethren.
Arabs of Jerusalem ask Israel to remain in control
The Israeli Knesset’s Interior Committee met on Monday to discuss future control of Jerusalem as pressure mounts for Israel to surrender the city’s eastern half to the Palestinian Authority. Among those slated to address the committee were Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem who want to continue living under Israeli sovereignty.
That these Arabs would risk their lives to come forward and request to remain part of Israel debunks the international misconception most recently enunciated by US President Barack Obama that the Palestinian Arabs cannot reach their full potential or live dignified lives while under “Israeli occupation.”
It also provides further evidence for the conclusion of Israel Today’s recent cover story revealing that many Palestinian Arabs do not want an independent state, and already live in peace and prosperity with their Jewish neighbors. Monday’s Knesset gathering was called by lawmakers who are growing increasingly concerned over how parts of eastern Jerusalem are slowly falling under the de facto control of the Palestinian regime.
“Signs of Israeli sovereignty are disappearing in parts of Jerusalem that are behind the partition fence and their place is being taken by hostile elements,” wrote the lawmakers. “This, despite the lack of any decision by the Knesset or the government on the matter.”
They warned that this “impotence leads to the de facto division of Jerusalem.”
December 11, 2010
This one will nauseate you. I couldn’t figure out whether I was infuriated at these tools, or just ashamed for them, their performance was so revoltingly bad. Either way, my day was just ruined. Here student activistas of the Left engage in a flash mob at a grocery store that sells Israeli products. It’s called the Philly BDS (boycott, divest, sanction). They are trying to turn Israel into a pariah state, and they are succeeding. Here’s how you can respond to this nonsense– buy Israeli from time to time.
December 5, 2010
Israel has forests? Apparently so, and they have been decimated by forest fires. Muslim yutes have been arrested. I say ‘Muslim’–rather than Arab– in order to be precise. Christian Arabs aren’t engaging in acts of terrorism against Israel, or anywhere else for that matter. Even in that country– as is the case here in the West– the media tries to downplay ethnicity/religion when the culprits are suspected of being Muslim. They are more afraid of non-existent “backlash” than of actual terrorism. Nevertheless, it has not yet been proven that these forest fires were intentional.
Press Low-Key on Wave of Arson by Israel’s Arabs
The IDF has released video footage shot from an IAF aircraft, which shows a vehicle escaping from the scene of an arson attack on the Carmel Mountain. The conversation on the radio, in Hebrew, is between pilots and police. The pilots report that they have received word from a firefighting aircraft that spotted the vehicle leaving the scene of an act of arson, near a spot called the Muhraka. The aircraft follows the vehicle – a Renault Kangoo – until it is stopped by police cars.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Despite this video, news of the wave of arson is seeping into the public consciousness mostly through smaller news sources and by word of mouth. Police said the main conflagration in the Carmel Mountains was unintentionally caused by a group of youth from Ossafiya. According to a report on Channel 2 news, the youths lit a fire as part of a nocturnal picnic and did not put it out properly before leaving the site. Later reports said that while most of the residents of Ossafiya are Druze, the youths who were arrested are Arabs.
However, Channel 2‘s website also carries a report that Border Police arrested two Arabs, one an Israeli citizen and the other from the Palestinian Authority, who tried to start a fire near Jerusalem on Saturday night. The two were caught in a ravine near the “tunnels checkpoint” at the entrance to the neighborhood of Gilo. Citizens who passed through the checkpoint noticed the suspects and reported their activity to security forces. A Border Police team identified the two trying to set a fire, called on them to stop and fired four shots in the air. The suspects tried to escape in a vehicle but were arrested after a short chase. A short time later, a 34-year-old Arab man was arrested near Dodge Junction close to Nazareth. He was taken to interrogation. The volunteer “New HaShomer” land security group also placed ambushes in key locations. On Friday it reported several arrests, via text messages that it sent to its volunteer guards.
The News1 website reported that Radio Haifa interviewed several people who witnessed car horn-honking and other acts of public celebration in the Arab village of Furadis, south of Haifa, after news of the tragedy became known Thursday. According to the report, Arab citizens uploaded to a Facebook account gruesome photographs of charred bodies of victims. Other Arabs expressed their feelings by clicking “like.” The police are said to be investigating the matter and the Facebook page is said to have been closed.
However, the pictures have already begun making the rounds worldwide. A group called “Mujahedeen of Palestine,” identified with Al-Qaeda, put the pictures of the bodies on a YouTube video. The video includes text that says “Muhammad’s lions” came out at night to set alight the land of the “occupiers.”
UPDATE: The Jewish National Fund is taking donations here to help replant the forests decimated by the fires.
UPDATE: A 14-year-old boy arrested Monday has admitted to setting the fire accidentally and was now the main suspect, said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. The boy told police he had been smoking a water pipe Thursday and threw some burning coals into an open area in the Carmel forest. He said he panicked, fled the scene and returned to school without telling anyone, Rosenfeld said.
December 4, 2010
And they wonder why their very Liberal “mainline” denominations are going extinct? I grew up in the Presbyterian Church (USA) as the son of Presbyterian missionaries. My grandfather was a Presbyterian pastor. I went to a Presbyterian college. I have served as an Elder in the Presbyterian church. I have been a director of one of their non-profit agencies. My credentials were impeccable. I left the Presbyterian church going on 10 years now. How come? It pains me to say this, but that church has become an absolute DISGRACE. They are dying because they now stand for modern Liberalism, and little else. Here is one of the many reasons why:
Presbyterians Against Israel
In many ways, the second half of the 20th century was a high point for Jewish-Christian relations. Today, however, the anti-Israel politics of certain powerful Christian bodies hampers interfaith relations and threatens to breathe new life into medieval doctrine that demonized Jews for hundreds of years.
In 2007, the World Council of Churches, an umbrella organization of mostly liberal Protestants claiming a membership of 580 million worshipers, convened the “Churches Together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East Conference.” The conference produced the Amman Call, a document that condemned violence and endorsed a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but denied Israel’s right to a future as a Jewish state.
In 2008, the World Council of Churches convened a group of Protestant and Catholic theologians to review the underpinnings of Christian attitudes toward Israel. (No Jews were invited.) The group published the so-called Bern Perspective, which, among other things, instructed Christians to understand all biblical references to Israel only metaphorically.
This understanding denies the connection between today’s Jews and Moses, Jeremiah and Isaiah. It marks a return to “replacement theology,” the medieval view that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that all biblical references to Israel refer to the “new Israel”—that is, to Christians. For centuries, that view was the theological basis for denying rights to Jews in Church-dominated Europe.
In 2009, on the first day of Chanukah (which Jews again celebrate this week), a group of Christian Palestinians issued the Kairos Palestine Document, which was immediately published on the World Council of Churches website. The document calls for a general boycott of Israel and argues that Christians’ faith requires them to side with the “oppressed,” meaning the Palestinians. It speaks of the evils of the Israeli “occupation,” yet is silent on any evils committed by Palestinians, including the Hamas terrorists who now govern the Gaza Strip.
The Kairos document also describes the Jewish connection to Israel only in terms of the Holocaust, denying 3,000 years of Jewish domicile. “Our presence in this land, as Christian and Muslim Palestinians, is not accidental but rather deeply rooted in the history and geography of this land,” it states. “The West sought to make amends for what Jews had endured in the countries of Europe, but it made amends on our account and in our land.”
The Kairos document quickly won accolades from religious groups including from the Presbyterian Church (USA), which has 2.3 million American members and in 2004 was the first mainline American Protestant group to call for divestment from Israel.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center will soon meet with the president of the World Council of Churches to urge an end to its campaign against Israel and the Jewish people. Like anti-Israel diplomatic and academic campaigns, such religious calls and writings won’t improve the life of a single Palestinian. But they will certainly embolden terrorists and anti-Semites, and cast carefully nurtured interfaith relations into darkness and disarray.
Read the rest.
November 21, 2010
PC and bureaucratic pig-headedness demand we continue to ignore time-tested and common sense solutions to airport security already used by the Israelis:
“It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,” said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He’s worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.
“Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don’t take s— from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, ‘We’re not going to do this. You’re going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport.”
That, in a nutshell is “Israelification” – a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death.
You don’t have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit — technology, training. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept.”
Instead, Mohamedanism and the Left once again converge in this perfect storm of political correctness where EVERYBODY is frisked, patted, probed and scanned so that those most likely to bomb a plane (guess who) not be profiled. Here passengers are body slammed– yes, body slammed– to the ground if they don’t remove their nipple rings and prosthetic limbs, or are covered in urine when their colostomy bags are torn. Just another reason why Islam and the Left are such a scourge on Western civilization.
Meanwhile, even though we are more than two years into the Age of Obama, the loonie commenters at the Huffington Post are still blaming “Booosh” for this madness. You see, Bush “invented” the terrorist threat, and Obama is just falling for it. Unreal.
UPDATE: Here, the longest line you have ever seen at an airport.
September 29, 2010
By Michael J. Totten — Once in a while, I “meet” someone online, on blogs and in comment sections, who thinks the current round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks might end the conflict, but I don’t think I know anyone in person who lives in the Middle East who believes this. Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh summed up the consensus view a few days ago. “The peace process is going nowhere,” he wrote, “and everyone is just pretending.” Nations make peace with their enemies, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — also known as Abu Mazen — is not really Israel’s enemy. He’s hardly a friend or an ally, but the Israeli army and Abbas’s security forces have a better and more professional working relationship with each other right now than they ever have. Even Israel’s hard-line foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, doesn’t think of Abbas as the leader of the enemy camp. “I repeat,” he said a few weeks ago, “Abu Mazen will not fight us.”
Israel’s enemy is the Resistance Bloc consisting of Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. No one from that bloc is participating in peace talks. Even if Abbas signed a treaty with Israel — a most unlikely event while Hamas holds a gun to his head and even he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state — it would only mean the war between Israel and Abbas was over. But that war is effectively, though perhaps just temporarily, over already. Not much would actually change. The Arab-Israeli conflict would rage on, as would the Islamist-Israeli conflict. Not even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would end if Abbas signed a treaty. He couldn’t enforce it.
“By being forced out of the Gaza Strip,” Toameh wrote, “Abbas lost direct control over some 1.5 million Palestinians, roughly half the Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories. … So if Abbas cannot go to the Gaza Strip and has limited control over the West Bank, where is he supposed to implement a peace agreement? In downtown Ramallah? In Tel Aviv?”
The only reason he retains even limited authority is because he extended his expired term in office and is propped up by Israel. He has no authority whatsoever in Gaza and lacks even influence in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. If the Iran-led Resistance Bloc was wounded or crumbling, if it was under irresistible pressure from within and without to reform or die, a deal might be possible and would be worth exploring. But that’s not what’s happening. None of the bloc’s leaders will even start peace talks, let alone finish them, while they’re rising in power and have no need to change.
Just a few years ago, Hamas was but one force among several in Gaza, but today it rules with a totalitarian fist. Syria and Hezbollah have seized de facto control over Lebanon, despite Hezbollah’s poor performance in the recent election, while Iran is nearing the threshold of becoming a nuclear-armed regional superpower.
If Abbas had the authority of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments, he might be able to force a cold peace on his people, but he doesn’t. The Resistance Bloc has successfully embedded itself in the Palestinian population and rules roughly half of it. Hamas would simply ignore any treaty Abbas might sign and continue its war against Israel, just as Hezbollah does whatever it wants up north in Lebanon. Abbas can’t put a stop even to his own part of this region-wide conflict any more than Saad Hariri in Beirut can end his.
September 22, 2010
NEW YORK (AFP) – Fidel Castro, the longtime president and leftist icon who stepped aside during a health crisis but still leads the Cuban Communist Party, has told a reporter that Israel definitely has the right to exist. “Yes it does, without a doubt,” Castro, 84, told visiting US journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic magazine, according to a new article published Wednesday.
In the same interview Castro criticized Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and said in an interview Tehran should acknowledge Israel’s fears for its own survival. Asked if Cuba was ready to establish diplomatic ties with Israel, Fidel Castro said that those things took time, the report added.
“This went on for maybe two thousand years,” Castro was quoted as saying. “I don’t think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything.”
“In my judgment here’s what happened to them: Reverse selection. What’s reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation.”
Castro’s conciliatory words of late about Israel come as a surprise, but they shouldn’t. The Left used to support Israel back in the day when they were still seen as socialist kibbutzim underdogs. Then all that started to change when Israel began winning unwinnable wars and embracing capitalism. But Fidel, like all those cars from the 50’s they still drive around in Cuba, is stuck in a timewarp. His views on Israel have not evolved with those of the transnational Left who want to see Israel destroyed as a state.
August 27, 2010
Here Bill O’reilly interviews a Gitmo lawyer about the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Obama administration for their drone war against Al-Qaida. This is what anti-Americanism looks like. Of course, cloaked in the kind of arrogant and self-deceptive moral posturing that allows the do-gooders to believe they are better people than the rest of us. It’s a self-image I recognize well from growing up on the Left.
August 25, 2010
This one’s a lulzer. Even Muslims overseas can’t believe our democratic system can be so easily gamed. So it must be a Jew conspiracy! A high-level cleric at Al-Azhar University in Cairo says the plan to build the Ground Zero mosque is a “Zionist plot” to make Muslims look bad. He can’t believe Muslims could possibly be this stupid or insensitive on their own, so it must be all the fault of the Jew. Proof, as far as I’m concerned, that opposing the Ground Zero mosque doesn’t serve as recruitment for Al-Qaida.
The Ground Zero mosque, which is stirring such a sandstorm in New York City, isn’t so popular in certain precincts of the Middle East, either. Some Muslims there think President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York are nuts. Impotent and irresolute, too. Some of the true believers in Arabia say the mosque is a conspiracy hatched by the Jews to set out a clear and permanent connection between Sept. 11 and Islam, a constant reminder of an attack on America led by devout Muslims. Dr. Abd al-Muti Bayumi, a prominent fellow of the Islamic Research Academy of Al Azhar, sometimes regarded as “the Vatican of Sunni Islam,” says the construction of a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero is the child of a “devious mentality” to connect the dots of Sept. 11 and Islam, to stoke memories of barbarism in the name of Islam.
Another Arab notability, Dr. Amna Nazir, a professor of doctrine and philosophy at Al Azhar, calls “building a mosque on this rubble indicates bad intention — even if we wished to shut our eyes, close our minds and insist on good will.” These are not the empty sentiments of good will and sensitivity so beloved of the girly men of the West. They’re statements of concern that “Zionist conspiracy” aid in construction of the Ground Zero mosque will ultimately damage Islam. Dr. Bayumi, for one, preaches suicidal jihad to demonstrate that his heart is in the wrong place: “I say in all honesty that we recruit the people of Islam, and instill in them the spirit of the true jihad, which is death for the sake of Allah, for the sake of our faith.”
Sounds like a lot. Raymond Ibrahim, associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of “The Al Qaeda Reader” and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College, thinks it’s a result of culture and geography: “I believe it has to do with the differing mentalities of Western, or ‘indigenous,’ Muslims. The [indigenous Muslims], who have had little experience of the West, simply cannot believe that Muslims [in America] would be so foolhardy as to pursue such an obvious affront to their host nation.” An indigenous Muslim can’t believe that even an infidel nation would tolerate the insult. He knows what a similar insult, such as the construction of a Christian chapel in Saudi Arabia, would invite in an Islamic country. Not knowing very much about the world, the indigenous Muslim expects a similar result from the infidels.
Newsflash, Mr. Bayumi, Muslims are this stupid and insensitive on their own. And then some.
August 19, 2010
What do the controversies around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, the eviction of American missionaries from Morocco earlier this year, the minaret ban in Switzerland last year, and the recent burka ban in France have in common? All four are framed in the Western media as issues of religious tolerance. But that is not their essence. Fundamentally, they are all symptoms of what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington called the “Clash of Civilizations,” particularly the clash between Islam and the West.
Huntington’s argument is worth summarizing briefly for those who now only remember his striking title. The essential building block of the post-Cold War world, he wrote, are seven or eight historical civilizations of which the Western, the Muslim and the Confucian are the most important.
The balance of power among these civilizations, he argued, is shifting. The West is declining in relative power, Islam is exploding demographically, and Asian civilizations—especially China—are economically ascendant. Huntington also said that a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization.
The West’s universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western civilizations.
President Obama, in his own way, is a One Worlder. In his 2009 Cairo speech, he called for a new era of understanding between America and the Muslim world. It would be a world based on “mutual respect, and upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles.”
The president’s hope was that moderate Muslims would eagerly accept this invitation to be friends. The extremist minority—nonstate actors like al Qaeda—could then be picked off with drones. Of course, this hasn’t gone according to plan. And a perfect illustration of the futility of this approach, and the superiority of the Huntingtonian model, is the recent behavior of Turkey.
According to the One World view, Turkey is an island of Muslim moderation in a sea of extremism. Successive American presidents have urged the EU to accept Turkey as a member on this assumption. But the illusion of Turkey as the West’s moderate friend in the Muslim world has been shattered.
A year ago Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan congratulated Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election after he blatantly stole the presidency. Then Turkey joined forces with Brazil to try to dilute the American-led effort to tighten U.N. sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear arms program. Most recently, Turkey sponsored the “aid flotilla” designed to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and to hand Hamas a public relations victory.
True, there remain secularists in Istanbul who revere the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey. But they have no hold over the key government ministries, and their grip over the army is slipping. Today the talk in Istanbul is quite openly about an “Ottoman alternative,” which harks back to the days when the Sultan ruled over an empire that stretched from North Africa to the Caucasus.
If Turkey can no longer be relied on to move towards the West, who in the Muslim world can be? All the Arab countries except Iraq—a precarious democracy created by the United States—are ruled by despots of various stripes. And all the opposition groups that have any meaningful support among the local populations are run by Islamist outfits like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
In Indonesia and Malaysia, Islamist movements are demanding the expansion of Shariah law. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak’s time is running out. Should the U.S. support the installation of his son? If so, the rest of the Muslim world will soon be accusing the Obama administration of double standards—if elections for Iraq, why not for Egypt? Analysts have observed that in free and fair elections, a Muslim Brotherhood victory cannot be ruled out.
Algeria? Somalia? Sudan? It is hard to think of a single predominantly Muslim country that is behaving according to the One World script.
The greatest advantage of Huntington’s civilizational model of international relations is that it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies. And it helps us to identify the internal conflicts within civilizations, particularly the historic rivalries between Arabs, Turks and Persians for leadership of the Islamic world.
But divide and rule cannot be our only policy. We need to recognize the extent to which the advance of radical Islam is the result of an active propaganda campaign. According to a CIA report written in 2003, the Saudis invested at least $2 billion a year over a 30-year period to spread their brand of fundamentalist Islam. The Western response in promoting our own civilization was negligible.
Our civilization is not indestructible: It needs to be actively defended. This was perhaps Huntington’s most important insight. The first step towards winning this clash of civilizations is to understand how the other side is waging it—and to rid ourselves of the One World illusion.
August 1, 2010
The confrontation between Islam and the Jews began in the time of Mohammed and continues to this day. This exquisite little film takes us back to the inception of Islam, through 1,200 years of reign over the Eastern world, to the last 3 centuries of Islamic decline as it is overtaken and dominated by the West, and then humiliated by a Jewish state. At the direction of Iran, radical Islam is on the march and is preparing for the final war for Islamic revival and past glory– with Israel its primary target and obstacle. Learn how our misunderstanding of Islamic history and culture is leading to a confrontation that will have devastating consequences for Israel and the West.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
July 27, 2010
Filmmaker Oliver Stone has apologized after critics slammed him for making comments that were interpreted as anti-Semitic in an interview last Sunday. While promoting his documentary “South of the Border” with The Sunday Times of London, Stone not only defended Hitler, but also downplayed the Holocaust.
“Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein,” Stone, who is half Jewish, told the paper. “German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people.”
This year, while promoting his Showtime documentary “A Secret History of America,” Stone said “Hitler was an easy scapegoat.”
Later, he complained about the “Jewish domination of the media,” saying, “there’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f**ked up United States foreign policy for years.”
On Monday afternoon, Stone issued the following statement in an attempt to appease the situation: “In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret.
“Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry. The fact that the Holocaust is still a very important, vivid and current matter today is, in fact, a great credit to the very hard work of a broad coalition of people committed to the remembrance of this atrocity — and it was an atrocity.”
But Stone’s apology may be too little, too late for his critics, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and the American Jewish Committee, who said Stone’s comments have outed him as an anti-Semite.
“For all of Stone’s progressive pretensions, his remark is no different from one of the drunken, Jew-hating rants of his fellow Hollywood celebrity, Mel Gibson,” a spokesman for the American Jewish Committee said. For his comments on Israel foreign policy, Stone earned the criticism of Israel Diplomacy Minister Yuli Edelstein, who said his comments “could lead to a new wave of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, and it may even cause real harm to Jewish communities and individuals.”
Let us weigh the equities, shall we? Mel Gibson had to pay even though his comments were in private to a cop. Oliver Stone will get away with it even though his comments were made in PUBLIC to the Times of London. Whose comments do you think will have greater repercussions for Jewry– Gibson’s comments made in an angry, booze-fueled rant to a cop, and in PRIVATE? Or the stone-cold sober, rational and official comments Oliver Stone made to a global daily newspaper. Which?
And yet Oliver Stone will get away with it– because he’s on the Left. There is nothing a Leftist can say that will get him into trouble. Nothing. Because, despite their occasional “slip of the tongue”, deep down inside they mean well. It was merely a poor choice of words. Or so goes the thinking. If you are on the Right, however, you will not get away with it. Your stumbling requires no context. If you are on the Right, your slip-ups are proof-positive the Right is a barely-contained menace to the planet.
Mel Gibson was ostracized for his booze-fueled anti-semitic rant to that cop because he had just committed the unforgivable crime of his Passion of the Christ. His crime was being Christian and on the Right. THAT– and not his booze-fueled anti-semitic rant– is why he didn’t get away with it. Despite the ADL’s anger, Oliver Stone will get away with it. When the Right says they’re sorry, it has no mitigating effect. Yet, Stone’s apology pretty much kills the story. It’s over. Stone’s career and public standing will not suffer because he is immunized by his Leftism.
July 25, 2010
East and West have been at war since Xerxes. Modern jihad is but the latest incarnation of this timeless struggle. From the Mogul empire to the British Mandate, this series pretends to play it straight down the middle as it explores the history of Islam’s most recent conflict with Christendom, and now with the secular West. This documentary is decidedly anti-British, anti-Christian, and pro-Arab (they clearly don’t count the Islamic conquest of the Holy Land from the Byzantines as “empire”, only the Crusaders who tried to take it back). It is told purely from the Muslim and Arab point of view. But there’s so much good stuff in here I decided to post it. If you love history, this one plays like a thriller. If the clips don’t load the first time, try refreshing the page a couple of times.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
July 23, 2010
Islamic “critical theory” — even their entertainment only exists to further the struggle. Everything for the cause, right? No wonder Jihad and the Left get along so splendidly. They are birds of a feather.
“Hezbollah-Land” Opens In Lebanon
Israel-haters and terrorist-lovers, rejoice! You’ve now got a theme park to call your own. Hezbollah wants you to take the kids to Mleeta, a Lebanese mountain town, where it’s set up an indoor/outdoor museum devoted to the Shiite guerrilla group’s decades at war with the Israelis. It’s as subtle as you might imagine. Inside “the Abyss,” you’ll find destroyed or poorly-maintained Israeli equipment, arranged around what ABC News says is “meant to be a tombstone.” ABC basically found that the former Israeli military bunker is now home to war porn and propaganda. Museum attendees and volunteers apparently aren’t so concerned. “I believe it’s our right to have our own propaganda,” a tour guide tells ABC’s Lara Setrakian. It’s like Disneyland starring Farfour. Hezbollah is hardly the only anti-Israel organization attempting to fight the Jewish state with pop culture and entertainment. As Danger Room co-founder Sharon Weinberger has reported, Hamas has its own movie studio. But “HezbollahLand” takes terror tourism to a whole new level. “We’re going to build motels, playgrounds, camping areas, even spas or swimming pools so that all of the visitors — especially our people — can come here and spend their weekends or vacations,” the guide says.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
July 20, 2010
Via The Blogmocracy:
Not surprising. For all their Islamic hatred, the Arabs know that Israel is a rational nation with high moral scruples. That is why they have lived for over 40 years with the knowledge of an Israeli bomb because they know that Israel is not going to go postal on them and start dropping it on Damascus, Cairo, Riyadh, and Baghdad. The Iranians are another story altogether.
by Alexander Smotczyk and Bernhard Zand
It is early in the morning on the wharfs in Sharjah, just below the Museum of Islamic Civilization, where the heavy wooden ships known as dhows are being loaded with cargo. Pakistani laborers hoist engine blocks, plasma monitors and mineral oil into the ships’ holds. When asked where the dhows are headed, they say, matter-of-factly: “Iran.”
Trade between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and their neighbor across the Strait of Hormuz is an everyday occurrence that hardly deserves mention on the docks. The same families are often on both shores. The business relationships between them have grown over generations and are more enduring than any war or embargo.
Of course, shipping engine blocks to the Iranian port city of Bandar-e Lengeh is not prohibited. But the busy import and export trade in the dhow ports of the emirates of Sharjah, Dubai and Ras al-Khaimah shows how difficult it is to isolate Tehran.
This makes the words uttered last Tuesday by the UAE’s ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, in Aspen, Colorado, more than 12,500 kilometers to the west, all the more interesting. Otaiba was attending a forum at the Aspen Institute’s Ideas Festival, and the mood was relaxed, or at least it was too relaxed for diplomatic restraint.
The discussion revolved around the Middle East. When asked whether the UAE would support a possible Israeli air strike against the regime in Tehran, Ambassador Otaiba said: “A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster.”
Read the rest.
July 10, 2010
Did you know the palestinian Arabs were Hitler’s allies? Did you know the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al-Husseini, who was uncle to Yasser Arafat, raised several Muslim divisions for Hitler? History you weren’t taught in schools and which isn’t spoken of in polite society– you will find it here at CCHQ. This documentary from German TV shows the extent to which the palestinian Arabs cooperated with Nazi Germany in their effort to exterminate the Jews during WW2 and the years preceding. This is not merely history, however, as the past in this case illuminates the present.
Amin Al-Husseini: “By now we have exterminated approximately 3 million of them.”
“Every Jewish child who heard the name ‘Mufti’ thought of hate, destruction, death, murder.”
Vodpod videos no longer available.