US Pressing Israel to Lose Its Nukes - Nitsan Keidar

by Nitsan Keidar

Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman visited Israel, spoke to diplomats about making Middle East nuke-free.

Assistant US Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, recently visited Israel and held talks with senior Foreign Ministry officials, about the possibility of making the Middle East nuclear-free.

Washington seeks to advance the idea after reaching agreement with Russia about the matter.

The State Department confirmed Countryman's visit and sources in the US Administration said that Israeli agreement to the idea would be a catalyst for bringing additional countries into discussions on the matter.

The Americans have been attempting to convene an international conference on the subject for some time, without success. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about the idea with pessimism, and said it was “a very tough challenge.”

The Foreign Ministry did not want to respond to the report about Countryman's visit and told Arutz Sheva that “the subject is a sensitive one, we will not talk about it.”


Nitsan Keidar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/195711#.VV5FvEazd-8

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

WaPo Rewrites Israeli History - Michael Berenhaus

by Michael Berenhaus

There were people displaced on both sides of the 1948 war, but we hear only about the Palestinian Arabs because the Jews were resettled by Israel while the Palestinian Arabs were left in camps by their fellow Arabs.

The May 16 Washington Post article "Onetime Palestinian negotiator revisits boyhood memories in Jaffa" by William Booth describes the origins of the tragic Palestinian refugee problem as "the mass exodus of indigenous Arabs from British Palestine during the war and upheaval that attended the birth of the state of Israel in 1948".

In the Washington Post's Orwellian universe, the displacement was due to the "birth of the state of Israel"! This, despite the fact that no one disputes that the day that Israel declared Independence on May 14, 1948, there was no refugee problem. Right after Israel made the declaration, at least five Arab armies and the local Arabs started a war of genocide against the Jews, which if it had succeeded, would have caused back-to-back Holocausts for the Jewish people. Describing the birth of the refugee problem as if the displaced Palestinian Arabs were simply minding their own business when the displacement occurred is to take the conflict totally out of context and rewrite history. Would the Washington Post ignore the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in describing the onset of America's war with Japan in WWII?

There were people displaced on both sides of the 1948 war, but we hear only about the Palestinian Arabs because the Jews were resettled by Israel while the Palestinian Arabs were left in camps by their fellow Arabs. 

By continuing to propagate the Palestinian Arab narrative, and not pointing the finger where it belongs - at the Arab countries that, to this day, refuse to resettle their fellow Arabs -- the Washington Post doesn’t do justice to the Palestinian Arabs or their cause and takes the responsibility off the culpable party for their displacement: the neighboring Arab nations.

Michael Berenhaus

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/wapo_rewrites_israeli_history.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Defending Freedom of Speech - Geert Wilders

by Geert Wilders

• We should never allow ourselves to be intimidated. And here, in America, you are allowed to make pictures and drawings, no matter what the Sharia says. ... If we react to threats over cartoons by no longer making cartoons, the terrorists have won. ... The jihadis want to kill me, but others want to silence me... by legal or political harassment. All this is happening not in third-world dictatorships, as you might expect, but in Western democracies.
• And may I ask: Where are the demonstrations of Muslims who do not agree with the violence committed in the name of Islam and its prophet? I have not seen any of them, have you? The majority may not commit violence, but they do not oppose it either.
• A free society should not grant freedom to those who want to destroy it. We should stand with every nation and every people who are threatened by jihad. This includes Israel... whose conflict with the Arabs is not about land; it is a conflict between freedom and tyranny.
• If we allow ourselves to be self-censored about anything we say about Islam, then soon Islam will start telling us how to live, how to dress, how to breathe. ... That is how civilizations decay.
  

Freedom of speech is under threat today. Not only in Europe, where I come from. But also here, in America.

The last time I was in the United States was less than two weeks ago. I was in Garland, Texas, where I gave the keynote speech at a contest of Muhammad cartoons.

The contest was held in a conference center, where after the Paris Charlie Hebdo assassinations, an Islamic organization had convened to demand that freedom of speech be restricted and Muhammad cartoons be forbidden. The Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland was organized to make a stand against this demand. We should never allow ourselves to be intimidated.

Bosch Fawstin's winning entry in the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Texas, held on May 3, 2015. (Image source: Bosch Fawstin)

The winner of the Garland contest was a former Muslim. There was something very symbolic about the fact that he was an apostate. Under Islamic Sharia law, apostasy is punishable by death. Under the same law, making illustrations of the prophet Muhammad is also punishable by death.

The winner of the contest had made a picture of a fierce looking Muhammad, waving a sword. "You cannot draw me," Muhammad said. Underneath the picture, the artist had written: "That is exactly why I am drawing you!"

That is the true American spirit. This cartoonist is an example to us all.

Bosch Fawstin (second from left), the cartoonist who won the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Texas on May 3, is presented with his prize by (from left to right) Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller. (Image source: Atlas Shrugs blog)

Under Islamic Sharia law, depicting Muhammad is a crime. But as an American, the artist is not living in an Islamic country. He is living in America. And here, in America, you are allowed to make pictures and drawings, no matter what the Sharia says. And you are also allowed to change your religion and become an apostate. And we should allow no one ever to rob us of these freedoms. If America were to give in to Islamic law, it would no longer be America. Its Judeo-Christian values would be lost. Its civilization would be lost. Its freedoms would be lost.

The enemies of our civilization try to impose Sharia law on us. Barely a few minutes after I had given my speech in Garland, two jihadis attacked the event. They shot a police officer in the leg, but fortunately they were killed before they could do more harm. Through violence and terrorism, these two jihadis tried to impose Sharia law on America. Thanks to brave American policemen, they did not succeed.

We should never allow the terrorists to win. If we react to threats over cartoons by no longer making cartoons, the terrorists have won. But if we react by drawing and showing even more cartoons, the signal is clear: Terror has no effect on us. We will not be intimidated by terror and violence, by doing exactly the opposite of what terrorists want. The terrorist will have lost.

This is why I have invited the Garland Mohammed cartoon exhibition to be shown in the Parliament of the Netherlands. We should show it all over the free world. In Europe and America, Canada, Australia, in the entire free West -- we have to stand up for freedom and make a stand against Islam.

Before I continue, allow me to tell you a little bit about myself.

I am an elected politician, a member of the House of Representatives in the Netherlands. I am the leader of the Party for Freedom. In the last general elections, we gained about 10% of the national vote. I speak on behalf of almost 1 million people. My party is not a marginal phenomenon. It is even the biggest party in a recent major national television poll.

However, I have been marked for death. I am on the death list of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic organizations, such as the Pakistani Taliban, and ISIS. For over ten years now, I have been living under 24/7 police protection. I have lived with my wife in army barracks, prison cells and safe houses, just to be safe. Wherever I go, armed policemen accompany me to protect me.

The jihadis want to kill me, but others want to silence me. Not by murdering me, but by legal or political harassment. They try to convict me in court or have me banned. All this is happening not in third-world dictatorships, as you might expect, but in Western democracies.

In my country, the Netherlands, I had to stand in court a few years ago because I spoke out against Islam and the Islamization of my country. Fortunately, I was acquitted. But now I have been charged again. And the only reason is that I have voiced my opinion. They call my speech "hate speech," but I do nothing else other than defending the Judeo-Christian values of our civilization and speaking the truth about Islam.

Two months ago, I was in Austria, where I spoke in the Hofburg Palace in Vienna about the threat of Islamization in Europe. Islamic organizations demanded that the Austrian authorities prosecute me for my words. And last month, I was in the German city of Dresden, where I addressed 15,000 people at a public rally. The public prosecutor had officers attend the meeting in order to listen to what I said, so that they could assess whether to charge me with incitement.

Is there a spy or a public prosecutor in this room? I don't think so. America does not muzzle people.

Two weeks ago, I was in Washington DC for a meeting with members of your Congress, at the invitation of congressmen who wanted to inform themselves about the situation in Europe. Two Muslim congressmen, Keith Ellison and André Carson, however, wanted to have me muzzled. They tried to have me banned from entering your country. They were unsuccessful. Because in America, people are still free to speak. And I have no doubt, Americans will never give up that freedom.

Because it is the essence of what make America America! It is what makes America unique.
There is more at stake than our freedom of speech. Our very existence, our freedom to exist, is in danger. If we allow ourselves to be self-censored about anything we say about Islam, then soon Islam will start to tell us how to live, how to dress, how to breathe.

We will even lose the right to life if we do not follow Sharia's commands. If we give in to totalitarianism, we will lose everything, including our lives. That is how civilizations decay. That is how democracies perish.

It is our duty to ensure that this never happens.

Of course, I realize that while most terrorists today are Muslims, not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course, I realize that the terrorists are only a minority -- but they are many.

Research by the University of Amsterdam showed that 11% of the 1 million Muslims in the Netherlands are prepared to use violence for the sake of Islam. That is 100,000 people in a country of 17 million inhabitants.

The terrorists may be only a minority, but polls suggest that they have the support of the majority.

Surveys in my country revealed that 73% of the Islamic population in the Netherlands consider Muslims who go to Syria to fight in the jihad to be heroes. And 80% of the Turkish youths in the Netherlands do not think that the violence by groups such as ISIS against non-believers is wrong. Four out of five.

And may I ask: Where are the demonstrations of Muslims who do not agree with the violence committed in the name of Islam and its prophet? I have not seen any of them, have you? The majority may not commit violence, but they do not oppose it either.

We cannot put our heads in the sand and do as if all these facts do not exist. We have to face the reality.

In Nazi Germany, too, it was only a minority that committed the atrocities. But the majority allowed it to happen. In the Soviet Union, too, it was only a minority that committed the horrible crimes. But the majority allowed it to happen.

As Edmund Burke, the great philosopher of liberty, once said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

So, this is the first step towards safeguarding our freedoms: Realize the facts, speak out the truth, draw the conclusions, and act upon them. If we do not act, we are bound to lose.

In times like these, when our weak leaders close their eyes to the dangerous threat of totalitarian Islam, in times like these when the task of raising the alarm has fallen on ordinary citizens, in times like these, freedom of speech is more important than ever.

George Orwell once said: "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." That is why your First Amendment is so important. It is needed especially to protect the freedom of speech of those who speak the truth and are hated for it.

The words "hate speech" have a very specific meaning today. Criticizing Islam is considered hate speech nowadays. You are allowed to put a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or depict Israel as a Nazi state. That is not considered an act of hatred. But if you draw a picture of Muhammad or speak out again Islamization or tell the truth about Islam, you are considered to be an extremist, a hatemonger, a provocateur.

The fact is that the more Islam we get, the less free our societies become. During the past decades, our politicians allowed millions of Islamic immigrants to settle within our borders. They came with their culture and with their Sharia law. And now, they try to impose it on us. Instead of saying: 'If you come to our country, you have to adapt to us', our political leaders said: 'Keep your culture, we respect Islam and its sensitivities.' Nowhere the demand was made that the immigrants assimilate.

And now the European nations have fallen so deep that they enforce the Islamic taboos in their own laws. They call it a hate crime when freedom-loving people reject the Islamic taboos. Criticizing Islam has become hate speech, punishable by our own laws.

We are not only confronted with Islamization, but also with the folly of cultural relativism and the weak appeasement mentality of our political leaders. This cowardliness has to stop. If this situation continues to go on, it will lead us straight to catastrophe.

That is why I do what I do. I will not stand idly by and let our civilization and democracy perish. I speak out against Islam and I speak out against our weak leaders. I love my country, I love freedom, I do not want to live in slavery and that is why I speak out.

Without a First Amendment, the consequences for speaking out are harder than if you have a First Amendment. But nevertheless, our duty remains the same: In the name of freedom, we have to speak out. No matter the consequences. Because liberty and dignity, that is what we stand for.

The truth is our only weapon -- we must use it. Free speech is a fragile thing that must be boldly defended. So long as we are free to speak, we can tell people the truth and make them realize what is at stake. The West's political, academic, and media establishment are concealing from the people the true scope of the Islamic threat. We must spread the message. That is our first and most important duty.

If immigrants subscribe to our laws and values, they are welcome to stay and enjoy, as anybody else, all the rights our society guarantees; we will even help them to assimilate. But if they commit crimes, act against our laws, impose Sharia law on us, or wage jihad, we must expel them.

We have to stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to conquer the West. A free society should not grant freedom to those who want to destroy it. As Abraham Lincoln said: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves".

Every halal shop, every mosque, every Islamic school, and every burka is regarded by Islam as a step toward the ultimate goal of our submission.

And finally, we must remember that as Islam has global ambitions, we are all in danger. We should stand with every nation and every people who are threatened by jihad. This includes Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, whose conflict with the Arabs is not about land; it is a conflict between freedom and tyranny. We must all support Israel because we are all Israel. And we should never trust Islamic criminal regimes such as Iran. A treaty with the Islamic State of Iran about nuclear weapons is a travesty and a major threat to the security of Israel and the entire West.

I am from Europe. You are Americans, but we are all in the same boat. We should unite against our common adversary. The Islamic tide is strong, but the West has repulsed it before, and we can do so again.

Ronald Reagan said that "the future does not belong to the fainthearted, it belongs to the brave."

So let us be brave. And secure the future.

This address was delivered in a slightly different form to the Gatestone Institute in New York City, May 12, 2015.

• Follow Geert Wilders on Twitter

Geert Wilders

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5796/wilders-freedom-of-speech

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Murders in Bangladesh, Government Looks the Other Way - Monir Hussain

by Monir Hussain

• Forty-seven percent of Bangladeshi Muslims said that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets could be justified to defend Islam from an enemy (compared to Malaysia at 18%, Indonesia at 9% and Pakistan at 3%).
• It seems clear, therefore, why the dissidents, atheists and secularists in Bangladesh remain unassisted by the society and the government.
  

A third brilliant blogger has been hacked to death in Bangladesh since February. On May 9, Ananta Bijoy Das, a banker by profession, and a blogger, was murdered, apparently by Islamist extremists.

Das was murdered in broad daylight on a busy street in the country's fifth largest city, Sylhet. He had written for Mukto-Mona (Free Mind), a website with which the Bangladeshi-American blogger, Abhijit Roy, had worked before being hacked to death himself in February by machete-wielding assailants.

Five weeks after Roy's death, yet another blogger, Oyasiqur Rahman, was also brutally murdered by three men in Dhaka.

Their deaths echoed the murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider on February 15, 2013, and the stabbing in Bangladesh of Asif Mahiuddin in January 2013.

Ansarullah Bangla Team, one of the Islamist groups operating in Bangladesh, claimed all three killings of recent months. The group, also known as Ansar Bangla 8, tweeted within hours of Das's murder: "Alhamdulillah [Arabic for 'praise God'], all the brothers of Operation team are safe." An hour later, the group said that Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) claimed responsibility for killing Das. Detectives suspect that the Ansarullah Bangla team maintains contact with Al-Qaeda.

Recently, the leader of AQIS, Asim Umar, also claimed responsibility for the murder of six people, who according to him, were blasphemers. One included Avijit Roy, a Bangladeshi-American science writer.

In addition to Roy, AQIS heralded its Jihadists as responsible for killing:

• Ahmed Rajib Haider (Bangladeshi blogger)
• Shafiul Islam (a university professor killed in September 2014)
• Oyasiqur Rahman (Bangladeshi blogger)
• Muhammad Shakil Auj (Dean of Islamic studies at Karachi University in Pakistan)
• Aniqa Naz (Pakistani blogger)

"Praise be to Allah," Umar said. "These assassinations are part of a series of operations initiated by the different branches of Al Qaeda on the orders of our respected leader, Sheikh Ayman Al Zawahiri (may Allah protect him). It is equally part of our commitment to fulfill the oath Sheikh Osama [bin Laden] (may Allah have mercy on him)."

BBC reported that "[a]ll these killings were carried out in near identical fashion. ... This pattern has convinced observers that the killers, even if they are from different parts of the country, as being advised or trained by one group."

Ananta Bijoy Das (left) was hacked to death on May 9 in Bangladesh, with Islamist extremists taking credit for the attack. At right, police collect evidence at the murder scene.

In an editorial after the latest murder, the Guardian wrote, "Like Raif Badawi, imprisoned and flogged in Saudi Arabia, the brave men who have been murdered are guilty of nothing more than honesty and integrity. Those are virtues that fundamentalists and fanatics cannot stand."

In January 2014, As-Sahab Media released a video message from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, entitled "Bangladesh: A Massacre Behind a Wall of Silence." Zawahiri said,

My Muslim brothers in Bangladesh, I invite you to confront this crusaders' onslaught against Islam, being orchestrated by the leading criminals in the Sub-continent and the West against Islam, the Prophet of Islam and the Islamic creed, so that they may turn you into slaves of a despotic and disbelieving system. ... I invite you to launch a massive public uprising in defense of Islam, against the enemies of Islam. I invite the leading scholars of Bangladesh to fulfill the role Islam has given them.
...
I invite you [Bangladeshi Islamic scholars] to firmly hold on to the principle of the supreme authority of the Shariah, and its primacy over man-made constitutions and laws, so that it governs the will of the masses, rather than being governed by their will, or by any other authority. I invite you to lead the masses to lead the masses in a vast and... popular uprising (intifada) whose tide does not recede, nor its dynamism subside, until the Shariah of Islam governs the land of Islam.
...
The reality of democracy is that it knows no religion, values or principles. Everything is right as long as it gets the majority of votes. It was a democratic Britain that occupied Muslim lands, killed millions, and robbed its resources for centuries. It was a democratic Britain that promised Palestine to the Jews. It was the democratic Britain that handed over Palestine to the Zionists before withdrawing from Palestine.

Zawahiri's call went viral among Muslims in Bangladesh, where they constitute approximately 90.4% of the population.

In 2014, when Asian and African Muslims were asked in a Pew survey whether suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilian targets could be justified to defend Islam from an enemy, 47% percent of Bangladeshi Muslims said yes. They represented the highest number, after Gaza (62%). The number of those who those justified suicide bombings and other violence is far higher than those in Malaysia (18%), Indonesia (9%) and Pakistan (3%).

Imran H. Sarker, spokesman for Gonojagorn Manch, a secular movement in Bangladesh, has accused the government of trying to cover up the murder of bloggers for its political gain.

It seems clear, therefore, why the dissidents, atheists and secularists in Bangladesh remain unassisted by the society and the government.

Monir Hussain

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5787/bangladesh-bloggers-murders

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

BAE Systems Successfully Demonstrated the Silver Bullet - IsraelDefense

by IsraelDefense

BAE Systems’ live fire test demonstrated that its Rokar Silver Bullet precision guidance kit can transform a standard 155mm artillery shell into a highly accurate munition, allowing more precise engagement in urban environments and against protected targets

BAE Systems’ live fire test demonstrated that its Rokar Silver Bullet precision guidance kit can transform a standard 155mm artillery shell into a highly accurate munition. The system’s advanced ability to self-correct in flight greatly increases effectiveness while reducing collateral damage, allowing more precise engagement in urban environments and against protected targets.

“The Silver Bullet precision guidance kit provides military commanders with additional operational flexibility, through a higher hit capability and increased mission effectiveness for artillery forces,” said Nir Lavi, general manager of BAE Systems Rokar. “Silver Bullet can significantly enhance the warfighter’s ability to operate on the modern battlefield.”

The most recent live fire event, held in February in Israel, was the latest in a series of demonstrations with several customers including a successful firing performed with South Korean defence contractor, Poongsan Corporation. In these tests, more than 150 Silver Bullet precision guidance kits have been tested over several years of development. Conducted in severe conditions over challenging terrains including land and sea, the firing tests highlight the system’s mature design and resulting high reliability. The majority of kits in these demonstrations hit within 10 meters of the target.

The Silver Bullet’s in-flight high correction capability reduces the need for an aiming process as its enhanced accuracy greatly increases the ability to hit a target with the first shot fired. Compatible with existing inventories of conventional artillery shells, the GPS-based Silver Bullet can be assembled in the field by the soldiers as a standard artillery fuze to provide highly accurate, self-correcting capability.

The system has proven its versatility through successful firings from a number of artillery guns including the M109 and the K9 barrel and has been proven effective on several types of shells including the M795 and the K307.

IsraelDefense

Source: http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/bae-systems-successfully-demonstrated-silver-bullet

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israeli company refuses to pay Iran compensation set at $1 billion - Eli Leon and Hezi Sternlicht

by Eli Leon and Hezi Sternlicht

According to Iranian report, a Swiss court has ordered Israel to pay $1.1 billion in compensation to Iran over 1968 joint oil deal • Finance Ministry: By law we are prohibited from transferring money to enemies, including the National Iranian Oil Company.

 

An Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company rig in Eilat | Photo credit: Yehuda Ben-Yatah

The Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company has reportedly been ordered to pay $1.1 billion in compensation to Iran by a Swiss court, according to Iran's official IRNA news agency. 

Though efforts to verify the report were unsuccessful, the Finance Ministry released a statement, saying, "Without delving into the details of the issue, we will note that, in accordance with the Trading with the Enemy Act, we are prohibited from transferring money to the enemy, including the National Iranian Oil Company."

The ruling follows a long legal conflict between Israel and Iran over the profits from a joint oil pipeline venture dating from 1968, before Iran's Islamic Revolution and when it was still an Israeli ally. The goal had been to sell Iranian oil to Europe via Israel. 

According to IRNA, which attributed the report to "an informed source" at the Presidential Office's Legal Affairs Center, the ruling deals with a delivery of 14.75 million cubic meters of crude oil from the National Iranian Oil Company to Israel's Trans-Asiatic Oil Ltd., affiliated with the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company. The delivery was worth $450 million.

The Iranians claimed Israel never paid for the shipment, leaving the issue unresolved after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when contracts between the two countries were canceled. The difference between the original amount and the amount reportedly ordered in compensation is due to interest and $7 million in legal fees.

Eli Leon and Hezi Sternlicht

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=25655

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinian Statehood - Separating Fact from Fantasy - Mark Silverberg

by Mark Silverberg

There never was a “peace process” except in the minds of the Western media and most Western leaders.

-- despite generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert, it is clear that no Palestinian leader then or now is prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist in any borders whatsoever despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.

The NY Times recently reported that the Vatican has concluded a treaty recognizing Palestinian statehood. During Israel’s recent election, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented that if re-elected, he would oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. He has good reason to oppose it.

Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) speaks of withdrawal by Israel from lands occupied in the Six-Day War provided that Israel’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force are recognized.

The response of the Palestinians and the Arab world was simple and unequivocal - The Khartoum Declaration - “No recognition, no negotiation, no peace” - and despite generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert, it is clear that no Palestinian leader then or now is prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist in any borders whatsoever despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.

This became clear on May 10th, 1994, in the wake of Arafat’s signing the Oslo Accords, when he travelled to Johannesburg, South Africa and compared his signing of the Accords with Mohammed’s deceptive signing of a 10-year peace treaty at Hudaybiyyah with the Quraish tribe of Mecca. Two years later, Mohammed broke the Treaty, attacked the Quraish, slaughtered them and conquered Mecca. In other words, the 10-year Treaty was a deception designed to allow Mohammed time to build his forces until they were powerful enough to conquer the Quraish. Arafat stated unequivocally that he viewed the Oslo Accords in the same light as Hudaybiyyah.

In the same month, Israel and the PLO signed the Cairo Agreement under which Israel withdrew from Jericho and more than half of Gaza , all of which was turned over to Palestinian control. The Agreement was based on the formula of “land for peace” whereby Israel relinquished strategic territory and the Palestinians promised to prevent violence and combat terrorist attacks against Israel.

The Cairo Agreement had the exact reverse effect. It unleashed a wave of unprecedented Palestinian terrorism, which included suicide bombings that shook Israel to its core. “Land for peace” quickly devolved into “land for terrorism.” Subsequent deals, such as the Oslo II Accord of September 1995, the January 1997 Hevron protocol, and the October 1998 Wye River Agreement were all based upon the same principle. In each case, Israel handed territory over to the Palestinians in exchange for promises of peace, and, in each instance, without fail, Israel’s gestures were reciprocated with terrorist attacks against its citizens and its country.

And for those who maintain that a more “moderate” Palestinian leadership is now in power, perhaps they should consider the comments of Ahmed Bahar, deputy speaker of the PA parliament, who, on May 14th, confirmed that the Palestinian parliament continues to reject any Jewish right to the land of “Palestine” (meaning the State of Israel) which it defined as "an Islamic endowment to which Jews have no right to even a single inch." It also confirmed that the Palestinians will never agree to the settlement of the so-called “Palestinian refugees” outside the territory of “Palestine” (meaning the State of Israel), nor will they ever agree to recognize Israel.

The Palestinians have broken every promise they made in the Oslo Accords and continue to seek recognition from world bodies such as the UN and the ICC so as to avoid any negotiations (as required by the Accords) or compromise that would require their recognition of the State of Israel.

Critics of Netanyahu’s position fail to note that, in furtherance of this goal, Palestinian suicide bombers were sent into Israel during the Second Intifada solely for the purpose of killing Jews in marketplaces, restaurants and discoteques because they believed that by doing so, they would secure their “martyrdom”.

The irony is that there never was a “peace process” except in the minds of the Western media and most Western leaders who have bought into all these lies and deceptions. The intention, rather, was to use international diplomatic pressure to force Israel into making strategic concessions that would ultimately lead to its destruction ….. as Arafat openly admitted in Johannesburg over twenty years ago.

Critics should note as well that the Palestinian educational system includes Palestinian poetry, schoolbooks, crossword puzzles and children’s music videos that teach Palestinian children that “Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys” and must be killed, and Palestinian leaders have openly declared that any future Palestinian state would be “Jew-free”. They are also using US and European foreign aid dollars to pay Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons as well as the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and they continue to name marketplaces, town squares, tournaments, and cinemas after these suicide bombers whom they hail as “heroes” and “martyrs”. Nor is mention ever made of Hamas’s founding Charter that openly calls for the murder of Jews wherever they are, and for the destruction of their State.

The sad truth is that the Palestinians want a state not beside Israel, but in place of it. If critics would take the time to read what the Palestinians are saying to each other in Arabic (as translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute and Palestine Media Watch) as opposed to what they are saying to Western leaders and the Western media in English, they would understand the Islamic concept of taqqiyah (deception) and discover the real truth behind the Arab-Israeli conflict – not Israel’s refusal to accept a State of Palestine, but the Arab refusal to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state on what they consider to be Islamic lands.

Netanyahu’s new government needs to reject any such pressure to recognize a Palestinian state under current circumstances as should all Western leaders. To give up further lands in exchange for a deceitful peace is something that Israel tried in the 1990s with tragic results. It should not be repeated again.


Mark Silverberg

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16951#.VVwrykazd-8

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Benghazi-Syria Weapons Connection - Arnold Ahlert

by Arnold Ahlert

“Newly released documents show a serious disconnect between what the administration said, and what was known at the Defense Intelligence Agency, also known as the DIA,” reported Catherine Herridge yesterday morning on “America’s Newsroom.”

The shameless lying that has formed the heart of the Obama administration’s Benghazi narrative took another turn yesterday. 

Documents obtained by Fox News reveal that U.S. intelligence agencies were “fully aware” weapons were being moved from Benghazi to Syria before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 that claimed the lives of ambassador Christopher Stevens, Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and diplomat Sean Smith, The documents also put the lie to President Obama’s assertion that the rise of ISIS caught the administration “by surprise.”

“Newly released documents show a serious disconnect between what the administration said, and what was known at the Defense Intelligence Agency, also known as the DIA,” reported Catherine Herridge yesterday morning on “America’s Newsroom.” “This Sept. 16, 2012 memo, copied to the national Security Council, State Department, CIA and others, concluded that the Benghazi attack was planned at least 10 days or more in advance. The DIA memo also reports the attack was tied to 9/11, and was retaliation for a June 2012 drone strike that killed an al Qaeda strategist. There is no discussion of a demonstration or an anti-Islam video,” Herridge added.

The memo is indeed damning. It reveals that the “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR) who claimed “ultimate responsibility” for the Benghazi attack were engaged in an effort “to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the [U.S.] killing of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.” The memo further reveals the Obama administrations knew these terrorists had access to sophisticated weapons, including SA-7 and SA23/4 MANPADs “as well as unidentified missiles over two meters in length.” They knew a force of 120 men under the age of 28, led by Abdul Baset (AZUZ), had established a headquarters and training facility in the city of Derna “where they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scripture including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology,” the memo stated.

In addition to sources named by Herridge, the memo was also copied to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.

A second document from Oct. 2012 is the first official confirmation the Obama administration knew weapons were being shipped to Syrian rebels “from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,” an effort made easier by “uncertainty” directly attributable to the downfall of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi. “The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.  The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.],” the document states.

A third document from August 2012 reveals events in Libya were taking a “clear sectarian direction,“ and that Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) “are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The development was seen as creating “dire consequences” for Iraq, as well as facilitating the subsequent rise of ISIS:

This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI [ISIS] could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

Once again, Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Judicial Watch (JW). A court order demanding the documents’ release arose from JW’s filing of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against both the DOD and State Department on May 15, 2014. The suit sought communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.” As a result DOD and State were forced to release more than 100 pages of documents previously classified as “Secret.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton rightly described the implications from the data disclosure. “These documents are jaw-dropping,” he stated.

No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go–and yet lied and covered this fact up–Mitt Romney might very well be president.

Fitton continued with a highly disturbing question. “And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war —and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists. These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

The Judicial Watch revelation comes only one day after the New York Times revealed Clinton used more than one private email address during her tenure as Secretary of State, contradicting claims made by her office in that regard. Clinton used “hrod17@clintonemail.com” to engage in a series of communications with longtime Clinton hatchet man Sidney Blumenthal. The paper explained that Clinton took seriously much of the information Blumenthal supplied to her, passing it on to members of the State Department and “at times asking them to respond…even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.”

Blumenthal was seeking business contracts from the newly-formed Libyan transitional government, such as the construction of floating hospitals to take care of the war wounded and the construction of schools, both of which would have required State Department permits. Even as he was advising Clinton on Libya, Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation and worked on occasion for Media Matters and American Bridge, two leftist organization involved in the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign. “Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government,” the paper states.

As a result of this relationship, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who leads the congressional committee investigating Benghazi,  has said he will subpoena Blumenthal for a private, transcripted interview.

And the revelations just keep on coming. Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras announced he will order the State Department to effect a “rolling production” of Clinton emails only hours after the agency announced it would hold them back until January 2016. A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Vice News precipitated the order. Their lawyer explained State has one week to provide a general schedule of releases—and a specific one regarding the release of records related to Benghazi.

For more than two years, the American left has continually insulted the public’s intelligence, insisting “there’s no there there” with regard to Benghazi, embracing the preposterous fraud perpetrated by the Obama administration. And while the litany of lies perpetrated by numerous administration officials, as well the president himself are egregious, one Benghazi lie stands out above all the rest:

“She came over…she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’” recalled Charles Wood, father of Tyrone. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.” Wood was referring to the exchange he had with Hillary Clinton when his son’s body arrived at the receiving ceremony on September 14, 2012, two days after his murder.

In a better world that kind of politically-calculated callousness would be chilling. In this one it may be insufficient to derail Clinton’s presidential ambitions. It remains up to the public to determine the outcome.


Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/the-benghazi-syria-weapons-connection/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Emergence Of 'Galilee Forces' – Palestinian Forces Fighting Alongside Syrian Regime - MEMRI

by MEMRI

In recent weeks, fierce battles have raged on several fronts between supporters and forces of the Syrian regime and the Syrian opposition, from Idlib in the north of Syria to Rif Dimashq in the south to the Al-Qalamoun mountains on the Lebanese border. Both sides see these campaigns as highly critical ones that could win the war that is now in its fifth year, and are sending more and more troops to those areas.

In addition to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Lebanese Hizbullah, and the Shi'ite Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani militias, Palestinian forces are also fighting alongside the Syrian regime.[1]  According to the Revolution Forces of Syria website, the main Palestinian forces fighting alongside the regime included the 60,000-strong Palestinian Liberation Army – "the military wing of the PLO" – and Liwa Al-Quds, led by Muhammad Sa'id, which comprises several thousand residents of Palestinian refugee camps near Aleppo.[2]
This Palestinian loyalty towards the Syrian regime is unsurprising, in light of the fact that over the years, Syria has served as a base and a refuge for armed secular Palestinian groups, and, until recently, for Islamic groups such as Hamas. Against the backdrop of the fighting in the Al-Yarmouk refugee camp near Damascus, and ISIS's entry into the camp, the alliance between the Syrian regime and the armed Palestinian groups has become closer, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) even announced that it supported the regime's actions vis-à-vis the camp.[3]
In recent days, a new Palestinian group, the Galilee Forces (Quwat Al-Jalil) or Galilee Brigade (Liwa Al-Jalil), has emerged and is fighting alongside the Syrian regime in Al-Qalamoun and Rif Dimashq; this group is the military wing of the Palestinian Youth Return Movement, and is led by Fadi Al-Mallah, aka Abu Al-Fidaa.

The Palestinian Youth Return Movement

The Palestinian Youth Return Movement, headed by Al-Mallah, was established in Damascus on May 12, 2012, a year after the outbreak of the anti-regime riots, which by then had developed into a full-blown war. The organization's establishment also coincided with the anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba.


Left: Palestinian Youth Return Movement emblem; right: Galilee Forces shoulder badge

A few days after the establishment of the Palestinian Youth Return Movement, Al-Mallah declared that it had "a large popular base in Syria and occupied Palestine" and that it demanded achieving Palestinian national rights by the liberation of Palestine and all occupied land in the Arab homeland by means of all forms of struggle, chiefly armed resistance." He stressed that the movement had no relation to any other movement or party.[4]
 
The movement's Facebook page features photos of cities both in the Palestinian territories and in Israel, such as Jaffa, Haifa, Safed, which prior to 1948 were major Arab urban centers, captioned "so that we do not forget."[5]  


Left: Safed; Right: "This is Haifa... and the stones speak"

Alongside statements about the desire and the aspiration to realize the Palestinian right of return, Palestine Youth Return members express unqualified support for the Syrian regime. In an interview with the Syrian website nuss.sy a few days after the movement was established, Al-Mallah praised "the steadfast stand made by the Arab Syrian people and the wisdom of President Bashar Al-Assad," adding that "the path of return begins in Damascus."[6] On May 21, 2014, the movement issued a statement of support for the Syrian presidential elections and called them "the true and legitimate way to preserve the unity of Syria – [the symbol] of the resistance."[7] In addition, in August 2014, at the height of the fighting in Gaza, movement members participated in a blood drive for the Syrian army. According to Al-Mallah, "every drop of blood donated for the Arab Syrian army is a donation for the heroic Gaza... Palestinian blood donations are a kind of reciprocation to Syria and its sons... who have done everything for the Palestinians and their cause in the past decades."[8]

The Galilee Forces – The Military Wing Of The Palestinian Youth Return Movement 

As noted, the Palestine Youth Return Movement's support for the Syrian regime recently acquired another expression with the establishment of its military wing, the Galilee Forces. On the Galilee Forces Facebook page, Al-Mallah is described as "our commander, and our older and younger brother, who taught us the meaning of sacrifice and taught us lessons in loyalty."[9]    

Fadi Al-Mallah

The Galilee Forces sees itself as an integral part of the resistance axis. In a Facebook post, the group stated: "We are the sons of the Galilee, Acre, Haifa, Ramla, Safed, Al-Ja'una, Semakh, Yazour, and Lod. We are the sons of the Golan, Sheba'a Al-Hamadiya, and Majdal. We are the Galilee Forces, the descendants of ['Izz Al-Din] Al-Qassam, [Haj Amin] Al-Husseini, [and Raghib] Al-Nashashibi. We are the descendants of [Ahmad] Jibril, [Ahmad] Al-Shukairi, [Yasser] Arafat, [George] Habash, [Nayef] Hawatmeh... The descendants of [Yahya] 'Ayyash, [Fathi] Al-Shaqaqi, and [Ahmad] Yassin... We are the brothers of Bashar Al-Assad and the sons of [Hassan] Nasrallah and ['Abd Al-Malik] Al-Houthi. We are the brothers of ['Imad] Mughniyah."[10]
 
According to the group's Facebook page, its main activity is in Al-Qalamoun, where the regime and its supporters have been fighting bloody battles against the opposition under the leadership of "Jaish Fath Al-Qalamoun."[11] The page recently featured a video from Al-Qalamoun dated May 4, 2015, showing Galilee Forces members carrying the bodies of anti-Assad "terrorists." Additionally, on May 14, 2015, the Facebook page reported that a unit of the Galilee Forces – the Al-Basel Brigade – had participated in the battle of Tal Moussa in Al-Qalamoun a few days previously, which ended in victory. 

Al-Basel Brigade after the victory in Tal Moussa

The Galilee Forces is also fighting alongside the Syrian regime in Rif Dimashq. A recent video posted on the group's Facebook page featured "one of the operations of the [armaments] production unit in the Galilee Brigade together with the national defense forces and Arab Syrian army."[12]
 
Hizbullah Sources: War Plan For Al-Qalamoun Also Applicable To Galilee 

The reports on the Galilee Forces joining the fighting in Al-Qalamoun alongside Hizbullah and the Syrian regime appeared alongside reports in the Arab press that linked the present fighting in that area to a future battle between Hizbullah and Israel in the Galilee. Senior Hizbullah official Hashem Safi Al-Din declared that "the resistance can replicate its newly acquired experience from the Al-Qalamoun mountains and Syria in the Galilee."[13] Hizbullah officials told the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai that the war plan implemented in Al-Qalamoun is also applicable to the Galilee, where "the internal front behind the defense lines will be attacked, and all the [military] positions, outposts and concentrations of forces will be shelled until direct contact is achieved through a direct  attack on the settlements and military positions." The sources added that the Hizbullah leadership was waiting to see the outcome of the battle in Al-Qalamoun in order to draw lessons from it and improve the performance of their troops. They assessed that the war in the Galilee will be easier than the war in Al-Qalamoun, where Hizbullah is fighting forces imbued with deep faith that impels them to fight to the death, "unlike the Israeli army."[14]

The Lebanese daily Al-Safir, known as a supporter of Hizbullah, wrote that this organization's takeover of Tel Moussa, one of the tallest peaks in the Al-Qalamoun range, is, among other things, "a message to Israel that the resistance [i.e., Hizbullah] is in better shape than ever and that the war in Syria has not exhausted it but has [only] strengthened it and improved its capabilities..." The daily added: "Hizbullah's actions in Al-Qalamoun may be a rehearsal for a similar scenario that may unfold in the occupied Upper Galilee in any future war that might erupt.[15] Al-Safir reporter Khalil Harb claimed that, by its victories in the Al-Qalamoun, Al-Qusayr and Homs areas, Hizbullah had created for itself "strategic depth for any future conflict with Israel, which will provide the resistance axis with broader options in the field... Another message... addressed to the Israeli generals [is this]: To what extent is the terrain in the Galilee less difficult than [the terrain] in Al-Qalamoun?[16]

It should be noted that Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has previously threatened – most recently in January 2015 – that in the next war with Israel, Hizbullah will occupy the Galilee. [17]
 
Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that this is an attempt by Hizbullah to justify the fighting in Al-Qalamoun, where it sustained heavy losses, and to defend it to its core supporters by claiming that it was actually gaining experience for a future war against Israel in the Upper Galilee.     

Endnotes:

[1] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1157, Iran Tightens Its Grip On Syria Using Syrian And Foreign Forces, May 5, 2015.

[2] Rfsmediaoffice.com, May 13, 2015.

[3] In early May 2015, a PA delegation headed by Fatah Central Committee member Zakaria Al-Agha visited Damascus to discuss ways of dealing with the crisis caused by ISIS' infiltration of the Al-Yarmouk refugee camp. In a meeting with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Al-Miqdad, Al-Agha mentioned the depth of strategic relations between the Palestinian and Syrian leaderships and their agreement on the methods to deal with the crisis in the camp. He further said that the PA supports steps taken by the Syrian government to defend its land and people. SANA news agency (Syria), May 5, 2015. The extent of Palestinian involvement in the Syrian arena can be seen by the part Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas played in securing the release of two Swedish citizens who were captured by Jabhat Al-Nusra in April 2015. Dp-news.com, April 26, 2015.

[4] Nuss.sy, June 2, 2012.

[5] Facebook.com/althwra, April 30, 2015.

[6] Nuss.sy, June 2, 2012.

[7] Facebook.com/SyriaTVChannels, May 21, 2014.

[8] Dampress.net, August 11, 2014.

[9] The Galilee Forces Facebook page, May 11, 2015.

[10] The post includes a list of towns in pre-1967 Israel, some of which appear under their Hebrew names and some under their Arabic names, as well as the names of commanders of Palestinian organizations that fought Israel over the years and the names of elements related to the resistance axis.

[11] Jaish Al-Fath is a coalition of opposition factions formed in March 2015 comprising Al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate Jabhat Al-Nusra and other factions, both Islamist and moderate.

[12] Facebook.com/ /pages/1579316665649427, April 26, 2015.

[13] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), May 19, 2015.

[14] Al-Rai (Kuwait), May 14, 2015.

[15] Al-Safir (Lebanon), May 14, 2015.

[16] Al-Safir (Lebanon), May 14, 2015.

[17] Almayadeen.net, January 14, 2015.

MEMRI

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8571.htm

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Monty Python to the rescue against Islamic scholars - F.W. Burleigh

by F.W. Burleigh

To turn Muhammad into a myth is to throw away a potent weapon to use against Islam.  Islam is at war with everything that is not Islam.  It has been at war for the last 1400 years, and it is now gearing up for another phase of violent expansion -- now with the aim of global domination.  How do people defend themselves against it?

Did Muhammad really exist, or was he a myth?  Western scholars have taken upon themselves to disprove what 1.5 billion people believe, which is that their prophet was flesh and blood. This article brings Monty Python into the conversation.

There is a strange, self-defeating trend going on in Western scholarship related to Islam and Muhammad, and such odd conclusions have been drawn from their work that the only way to deal with it properly is to turn to Monty Python.

This new scholarship questions if Muhammad ever lived and speculates that he may have been a myth created by Arabs to give an Arab face to a religion that evolved far away from Western Arabia as an offshoot of Christian sect that rejected the divinity of Jesus.  These scholars attempt to put the cart before the horse: Arab followers of this sect conquered wide swathes of territory, then conspired to justify their violent, expansionist practices by creating the character of a warlord founder who communed with the divine and preached the violent imposition of their true religion of God.

This line of inquiry is only made possible by ignoring the vast body of the original literature of Islam, which these scholars happily do in order to make their case. Their arguments are built on loose soil and turn largely on the fact there was little mentioned of Muhammad outside of Islam’s canonical literature for a generation or two after his death; crude period coins that seem to display a mix of Islamic and Christian symbols; that it is a fact that the Koran was compiled and edited after Muhammad’s death and contains oddities that raise the question of insertions of apocryphal material; confusions about the meaning of Koran verses caused by the primitive way Arabic was written in 7^th century Arabia compared to the more complete orthography of later times; and other arcane arguments.

These ideas were given space in an article by Steve Chambers published in American Thinker on May 11.  Chambers was critical of the recent Muhammad cartoon contest held in Garland, Texas, that was attacked by a couple of Muslim fanatics.  This event motivated Chambers to write an article about this new line of  scholarship in order to promote it as it as an alternative to provocative art.  In his view, the publicizing of cartoons of Muhammad was a mistake because the violent reaction it brought about was predictable, and it did “nothing substantial to undermine the ideology of radical Islam that plagues the earth.”

Instead, he offered the idea of pairing intellectuals with moderate Muslims and media bigwigs to debate the questions about Muhammad’s historicity in seminars and panel discussions.  Jim Lehrer could even be called in to moderate, he suggested.  Calling into question the foundations of Islam by questioning if Muhammad ever existed would somehow pull the rug out from under the extremists.  As rebels without a cause, they would have to lay down their arms. Islam would settle down into respectable, peaceful patterns like all other religions, and we would live from then on free of terrorists because they would no longer be able to justify their terrorism.  How could they if Muhammad never existed?

This is where Monty Python comes in.  This team knew how to cut to the quick with skits that could say it better than an avalanche of books and articles.  So what would Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, and the other members of the Monte Python crew have to say about this new scholarship and the idea that it could be used to tame Islam?  Perhaps they would come up with a skit along the lines of Monte Python and the Holy Grail, something like the following:

It would begin atop the battlements of a castle with worried knights peering into the distance as a Muslim horde prepares for a siege.  The occupants of the castle are distressed.  Some are even soiling their pants, but the valiant knights come up with a solution.  

A group of them prance out of the gate, banging coconut shells together to make it sound like they are actually riding steeds of war.  

They caper up to the enemy line and halt in front of burly cutthroats who are mounted on powerful war horses.  Sir Oliver, the leader of the knights, looks up at the barbarians and says, “Dear Sirs, we have come to you with a proposal.  From our extensive studies in areas outside of your literature, we have uncovered evidence that the man you hold to be the creator of your religion might actually be a mythical character, and this is something that all of us, knights in shining armor and unwashed Muslim hordes both, should give due consideration to and discuss in a setting that is more conducive to discussion than this.  Think about this Dear Sirs: Much of the Koran makes no sense unless you strip the diacritical marks from it the way it is currently written in your language, but if you do so you find that you are reading Syriac, not Arabic.  And so you then see that the Koran may have actually been translated into Arabic from another language, which suggests that it was composed later than is thought, and therefore it can be argued the story of Muhammad in Mecca and Medina was created to make it seem like it was of Arab origin.”  

Sir Oliver flashes a winning smile and finishes by saying, “My dear friends, what I propose is that you join us in a forum, in panel discussions, to talk about these highly interesting matters.  I am certain we could enlist Sir James Lehrer to serve as moderator.  Come, join us in this.  We can learn so much from one another.”  Grunts come from the horsemen.  They glance at one another. When their leader draws his sword, they all draw their swords.  It is unlikely Steve Chambers would want to be there, or Gerd Puin, Karl Heinz Ohlig, Christoph Luxenberg and other new trend scholars he mentions in his article.

Aside from the weakness of the scholarly arguments, there are two major problems with this line of academic inquiry.  The first is that for it to work it must dismiss the vast body of Islamic literature as collections of contradictory and dubious legends and therefore of little value for establishing the historicity of Muhammad.  There is indeed a lot of nonsense that bulks up the original materials, but the literature is like a vast tapestry, and if you step back enough to get a good look, the nonsense and contradictions get absorbed into the background and you can clearly see the picture.

It is not possible to invent someone like Muhammad because along with him, you would have to invent the epic cast of cronies and enemies that stand out in the original literature as believable, three-dimensional people.  Take Ali, for instance. Do these scholars question Ali’s existence?  In the literature, he is the first cousin of Muhammad who grew up in his household, later conquered Persia, and became the fourth successor to the throne of Islam.  These scholars would have to deny his existence because if they do not, they have the thorny problem of explaining his sermons, letters, and sayings that were later published in an 800-page book, The Peak of Eloquence, in which he frequently quotes Muhammad or alludes to him.  Were these fictions, inventions of a later period?

They would also have to deny Iran’s history, a history of Ali’s blitzkrieg conquest of Persia in A.D. 644.  The Iranians certainly do not doubt his existence.  

What about Muhammad’s child wife Aisha?  According to the literature, he died when she was 18 years old, and she died 46 years later after providing early Muslim interviewers with 2,210 traditions about Muhammad.  Was she an invention too? Were the stories she told of her relations with Muhammad and her memories of what he had to say fabrications? If Aisha and Ali were fictions, then a host of characters -- friends and enemies of Muhammad -- would have to be inventions as well: Umar, Abu Bakr, Uthman, Zubayr, Zayd, Khalid, Abu Sufyan, Hind, Yazid, Muawiya, and hundreds more.

What is remarkable about the foundational literature of Islam is the extraordinary measures the early Islamic scholars took to vet the anecdotes they collected about Muhammad.  Bukhari (810-870), whose collection is considered one of the most reliable, was said to have compiled 300,000 traditions about Muhammad, yet he only certified 7,563 as authentic.  These scholars vetted their materials by scrutinizing the chain of people who narrated them, starting with the person who originated the story.  Part of their methodology was to rank each of the narrators according to their personal qualities such as reliability of memory, reputation for integrity and piety, and other factors that included their degree of closeness to Muhammad and his companions.  Certainly a lot of nonsense filtered through anyway, but it is ludicrous to dismiss this entire body of work as fabrication because of the nonsense or contradictions that can be found in it.

The second problem with this line of inquiry, certainly the more serious, is that it is the equivalent of disarmament in the middle of a war.  To turn Muhammad into a myth is to throw away a potent weapon to use against Islam.  Islam is at war with everything that is not Islam.  It has been at war for the last 1400 years, and it is now gearing up for another phase of violent expansion -- now with the aim of global domination.  How do people defend themselves against it?  Do they turn to someone like Barack Hussein Obama?  People have to take up their own defense, and within the literature is the perfect weapon: the truth about Muhammad.  All people have to do it to pick this powerful weapon up and do something with it.

As found in the literature, the image that emerges of Muhammad is grotesque. His is the story of an exceedingly sick and vile man who committed almost every crime imaginable as he forced his cult on people.  This is potent stuff, particularly if people who understand the need for defense against Islam get up enough gumption to turn these facts about him -- as found in the original literature -- into film.  Films, from docudramas to full-length feature films, are powerful in their ability to quickly disseminate ideas and influence large numbers of people.  That is what it will take for an effective defense against Islam, large numbers of informed people.

It will never be polite conversation and collegial debate about whether or not Muhammad existed that will undermine radical Islam or halt the advance of the religion that enables it.  What it will take is the kick in the gut that can come from movies that show this “prophet” send off hitmen to kill his critics, mass murder people who refused to join his religion, and scream “Kill! Kill! Kill!” as he and his followers attack the caravans, towns, villages, and camps of people who rejected him.

This is the ultimate weapon for defense against what Muhammad started, and these new scholars want to throw it away.

A word of caution for such intellectuals.  Resist yielding to the temptation to bang coconut shells together and prance up to the enemy with offers to debate if Muhammad ever existed with them.  It may be the last temptation you will ever yield to.


F. W. Burleigh is the author of It’s All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet. He blogs at www.itsallaboutmuhammad.com.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/monty_python_to_the_rescue_against_islamic_scholars.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.