Sunday, February 10, 2013

Saudi Hypocrisy At Its Best



by Raymond Ibrahim


 

Few things offer surreal experiences as when Islam and the West interact—when 7th century primordialism encounters 21st century relativism.  Consider the issue of “interfaith dialogue.” In principle, it is a decent thing: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others trying to reach a common ground and professing mutual respect. But what does one make of the gross contradictions that emerge when a human-rights violating nation calls for “dialogue,” even as it enforces religious intolerance on its own turf?

Enter Saudi Arabia.  Birthplace of Islam, the Arabian kingdom is also the one Muslim nation that regularly sponsors interfaith initiatives in the West—even as its official policy back home is to demonize and persecute the very faiths it claims to want to have an interfaith dialogue with.
Back in 2008, for example, in what was deemed an unprecedented move, Saudi King Abdullah “made an impassioned plea for dialogue among Muslims, Christians, and Jews,” going so far as to refer to the latter two as “our brothers.” His stated goal was to develop “respect among religions.”
The Saudi monarch’s most recent initiative reached fruition recently, on November 26, 2012, when the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Center for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue was launched in the Austrian capital, Vienna. According to its own website, the center “was founded to enable, empower and encourage dialogue among followers of different religions and cultures around the world.” Lending international legitimacy to this Saudi gesture of goodwill, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was among those who attended the opening.

While all this ostensibly sounds well and good, consider the many incongruities, the many absurdities—initially demonstrated by the simple fact that Saudi Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, who was quoted praising the Austrian-based center as proof that “Islam is a religion of dialogue and understanding and not a religion of enmity, fanaticism, and violence,” is also on record calling Jews “monkeys and pigs” and Christians “cross worshippers.”

Nor is he just a run-of-the-mill sheikh: he is the government-appointed imam of Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mosque in Mecca—Islam’s holiest site, where Christians, Jews, and others are routinely condemned and cursed during the prayers of the faithful.

But this is not surprising. Even the State Department’s most recent internal religious freedom report on Saudi Arabia notes that “Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice.  The public practice of any religion other than Islam is prohibited, and there is no separation between state and religion.”

And this is the key point: Saudi Arabia’s brand of religious intolerance is not a product of the “Arab street,” terrorists, or mob violence.  It is institutionalized; it is enforced by the state itself.  In other words, religious intolerance is being enforced by the very people who claim to want to have dialogue with Christians and Jews under the umbrella of “tolerance” and “mutual respect.”

In this context, what, exactly, do they wish to talk about?

Do they wish to talk about how the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia—yet another top-ranked Saudi religious official—declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region,” basing his verdict on the commands of Muslim prophet Muhammad?

Do they wish to talk about how, despite promising to reform their school textbooks, the Saudi education system continues to indoctrinate Muslim children with hatred and incitement, teaching that “Christians are the enemies of the Believers” and that the “the Apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians”? Little wonder the imam of Mecca’s Grand Mosque uses such monikers—even as he gushes about the Saudi-sponsored Vienna-based initiative for “dialogue.”

Maybe they wish to talk about the 28-year-old Saudi woman, Maryan, who, after converting to Christianity, had to flee the nation, and is reportedly currently hiding in Sweden, even as authorities try to extradite her back to Saudi Arabia to face the crime of apostasy, which calls for the death penalty?  Earlier Maryam had said that, though she “was raised to hate Judaism and Christianity she has come to love those religions since finding peace in Christianity.”

Do they wish to talk about how 35 Christian Ethiopians were arrested and abused for almost a year, simply for holding a private house prayer?  Upon release, one of the Christians observed that “The Saudi officials do not tolerate any religions other than Islam. They consider non-Muslims unbelievers. They are full of hatred towards non-Muslims.”

Or do they wish to talk about how last December 2012, Saudi “religious police” stormed a house in the province of al-Jouf, detaining more than 41 guests for, in the words of the police statement, “plotting to celebrate Christmas”?

Of course, the Vienna-based King Abdullah International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue does not wish to talk about any of these instances of state-enforced religious intolerance. Instead, the purpose of the center’s existence is to deflect criticism from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, and direct it onto the West. This was amply demonstrated during the center’s inaugural symposium, when Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, urged Western governments to enact laws countering “Islamophobia,” because it “leads to hate crimes and as such, it generates fear, feelings of stigmatization, marginalization, alienation and rejection.”

In other words, Saudi-sponsored “interfaith dialogue” is about silencing the truth—pressuring the West to show tolerance to Muslims by not criticizing them for persecuting others, which would be portrayed as “Islamophobia.”

It still remains to determine which is more surreal, more unbelievable: that Saudi Arabia, which tops the charts of state-enforced religious intolerance, is sponsoring “religious dialogue,” or that the West, including leaders of those religions whose adherents are daily persecuted by Saudi and Muslim intolerance, are going along with the gag—and all of them with a straight face.


Raymond Ibrahim

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/saudi-hypocrisy-at-its-best/

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

PA 'unaware' of Abbas, Netanyahu Meeting During Obama Visit



by Khaled Abu Toameh


Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat says the Palestinian Authority has not been briefed by the US administration on details of possible Abbas-Netanyahu summit; denies US president's visit behind failure of Hamas, Fatah talks in Cairo.

Netanyahu meets with Erekat
Netanyahu meets with Erekat Photo: Government Press Office


The Palestinian Authority is unaware of plans to hold a meeting between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu next month, Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said Sunday.

Commenting on reports that Abbas and Netanyahu may meet during US President Barak Obama's visit to the region next month, Erekat said that the US administration still has not briefed the PA leadership on details of Obama's schedule.

Erekat said that the talk about a possible Abbas-Netanyahu summit was nothing but "Israeli analysis and statements." He said that the PA leadership's demands regarding the peace process remained unchanged - Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state and a full cessation of construction in settlements.

Erekat denied that Obama's planned visit was behind the failure of the latest attempt to end the dispute between Fatah and Hamas.

Hamas and Fatah representatives who met in Cairo last weekend failed to reach agreement on the formation of a Palestinian unity government and holding new presidential and parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"The US probably does not want Palestinian reconciliation," Erekat said. "But President Abbas's stance is that reconciliation is a higher Palestinian interest and priority."‭‮


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=302799


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

Alawites Not Responsible for Assad’s Survival



by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed



I read Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s statements to Asharq Al-Awsat more than once because he addresses a number of sensitive issues very frankly and it is not often that a politician reveals his thoughts to others.

He knowingly spoke of Syria, where he lived for many years when he was an opposition figure. He said he was not surprised by the path of the ongoing struggle and that he was not surprised by the regime’s ability to survive. He also said that during a visit to Washington he predicted this outcome during talks with the US president, vice president, and the then secretary of state. Maliki revealed that they thought Bashar Al-Assad would fall within two months, while he assured them that Assad would not fall even after two years. Why? Maliki claims that the regime in Syria is a sectarian one; the presence of Alawites in power provides a safety net for the sect and if they were ousted they could all be wiped out. The Iraqi prime minster believes the Alawites are fighting because they have to, because of their survival instinct, and that is why the regime has remained in power.

Although Maliki’s assessment of the regime’s resolve, entrenched by the Alawites, is correct, it is not true that Assad has survived for all this long time, amid the destruction, because the Alawites are more united and determined or, as he put it, because they are in a state of desperation. No. Although his sect is an important factor behind Assad’s survival in power, it is not the reason why his regime is still standing. The real reason is clear; Assad’s regime is fighting with the help of Russia and China. It is confronting a huge popular uprising of millions of people who lack both protection and support. These people are fighting with primitive weapons and confronting warplanes and tanks with rifles. Such a war never results in a landslide victory, and indeed there may never be a decisive outcome.

Maliki and the Dawa party fought Saddam Hussein for 20 years, but they did not succeed in seizing one inch of Iraq because the country’s borders were closed and their weapons were inadequate. When Saddam fell, he fell because of the “American Armada”. Assad’s regime has not remained afloat because the Alawites have stood by him, far from it. They only stood by Assad after the saw his success in garnering Russia and China’s support, and in neutralizing the Western countries and the Vatican, alleging that a sectarian war was being carried out against the Christians and Druze and that the revolution was seeking to establish an extremist religious regime.

The rebels have only received a little from Turkey and barely anything from Jordan; they are truly exposed. They carry primitive weapons with fighters sharing the same rifle, and when ammunition runs out they are forced to withdraw from the sites they have captured.

Saddam fell easily in 2003 because America, the world’s superpower, put an end to him in eight days. Previously, Saddam survived for eight years when Iran fought him and killed a million without success. What I mean is that the balance of power is not only entrenchment, determination and faith. The Afghan mujahedeen expelled the Soviets with “Stinger” missiles that paralyzed the Russian warplanes, with the massive aid of advanced Western weapons. Likewise the Viet Cong in Vietnam, with generous Chinese backing, were able to overthrow the pro-US regime while the liberation movement in Chechnya failed against the Russians because it was isolated.

Today, the Syrians are fighting a security-dominated and suppressive regime that resembles all fascist dictatorships. However, it cannot be labeled sectarian, as Maliki says, because Sunni and Christian pockets are fighting alongside Assad because they share the same interests or fears.

Both sides are fighting tirelessly. It is an absurdly bloody conflict because of the hesitance of the international community, and we are now facing the biggest massacre of the 21st century. We have not known of a war where only one party uses warplanes, tanks, and artillery on a daily basis to shell cities and kill thousands of civilians month after month. Show me one such scene from our modern history.

What Maliki says of the Alawites’ heroism is not true and is not even important. The fact is that without Iran and Russia’s generous support, the Assad regime would run out of ammunition and fuel for its tanks and warplanes.

However, what Maliki did not deny—or did not speak of for that matter—was the end of the war. He knows it well; Assad’s regime in Damascus will fall no matter how long the struggle takes.



Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed

Source: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=32856

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

A Matter of Perspective



by Yaakov Ahimeir


Do you know when the Palestinian people came to be, or when their national identity was formed? A textbook taught at one of the Palestinian Authority schools states that the "ancient history of Palestine bore witness to the invasion of the Israelites, led by Joshua in [the 12th century B.C.E.], and to their battle with the Canaanites and the Palestinians." If that is the case, Joshua and his army didn't conquer Canaan, they conquered Palestine, which, according to this textbook, existed in the 12th century B.C.E. (if not earlier). In that case, it was Palestinians who lived between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 

"King David fought the Canaanites and the Palestinians and built his kingdom on part of the Palestinian land," so claims one Palestinian textbook, according to a study published last week, titled "Victims of Our Own Narrative? Portrayal of the 'Other' in Israeli and Palestinian Schoolbooks." 

And there is another so-called fact printed in Palestinian textbooks that has been deemed worthy of teaching Palestinian schoolchildren: We didn't know it, but the Palestinians were led by Goliath. The Philistine Goliath was a Palestinian leader. But the only link between Philistines and Palestinians is the similarity in the pronunciation and spelling of the names. 

The research, presented by Professors Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University, Bruce Wexler of Yale and Sami Adwan of Bethlehem University, was funded by a grant from the U.S. State Department. In the study, the professors examined 492 Israeli textbooks and 148 Palestinian textbooks on various subjects. 

One of the conclusions was that the hostility that lurks between the lines of both sides' textbooks is declining, and that is a good thing. But what can one say about the part of the study that demonstrates "negative" representation of the other? Here is a quote from an Israeli textbook that describes Palestinian terror acts: "Terrorism peaked when 13 students and teachers from Moshav Avivim were murdered on their way to school (1970)." Is this a "negative" representation of the Palestinians, as the study asserts, or simply a description of fact, of a terrifying incident that actually happened? In the eyes of learned professors, including one Israeli, this is an example of "negative" representation. Was this terrible incident fabricated? Is there any ideological bias in this description? Or is it simply factual truth? 

What else can be found under the "negative representation of the other" category? According to the researchers, a description of the gruesome murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972 qualifies as such. 

As aforementioned, the study came to the positive conclusion that the mutual hostility between Israelis and Palestinians is declining. But what will become of the Palestinian students when they grow up to be adults? Will they mention in this or that conversation that Goliath was a Palestinian leader, astonishing their conversation partners? Or perhaps they will be seen as ignorant? Why is it so important whether Goliath was Palestinian or Philistine? Because that is not how one teaches peace, reconciliation or mutual recognition. 

True, there are probably also teachers in Israel who don't honor the "other," the Palestinians, but the desire for peace cannot thrive alongside the examples mentioned above. Non-Israeli diplomats have warned in the past of profound distortions found in Palestinian schoolbooks. Perhaps the books have been slightly modified since, but why weren't the three educated professors who conducted the study more appalled by the examples above? Is it really possible to look at these things with nothing more than academic neutrality?


Yaakov Ahimeir

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3410

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

'Impossible to Reach Permanent Peace Deal with the Palestinians'



by Mati Tuchfeld, Daniel Siryoti, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff



Former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel should instead seek a long-term interim deal: "The conflict can be managed ... This is the only possible thing to do" • Fatah, Hamas again fail to implement Palestinian reconciliation accord.

Former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says the ball is "in Abbas' court" to revive diplomacy. Photo credit: Uri Lantz

Mati Tuchfeld, Daniel Siryoti, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=7340

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

Live by the Sword, Die by the Drone



by Daniel Greenfield


 

Ronald Ernest Paul, the nation’s last best hope for Internet gambling and the gold standard, responded to the murder of a Navy SEAL by saying, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” But the question is whose sword is it?

To the anti-war movement, all conflicts between the free world and the world of slaves are reduced to a pithy formula of moral equivalence. America lifted the sword and has gone on swinging it. It never puts the sword down and therefore it dies by it. Chris Kyle becomes a metaphor for the great beast of war, unleashed by the Rockefellers, the CIA, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve, that goes around swinging the sword until it destroys itself.

The far left and the far right agree on few things, but they both agree that America’s wounds in the War on Terror are self-inflicted. America creates terrorism through its foreign policy and fights terrorism thereby perpetuating terrorism. Islamic terrorism is just a figment of our foreign policy. Put down the sword, is the implication, and the fighting can stop. Keep fighting back and eventually more planes will fly into your skyscrapers as blowback for all the fighting back that you did before.

Moral equivalence would have it that all swords are created equal, much as gun control advocates insist that a rifle in the hands of a hunter is no different than a rifle in the hands of a serial killer. A gun is a gun and a sword is a sword. If you own one, you’re likely to use it. And if you use it, then you are utterly evil, regardless of the reason you use it and the purpose that you use it for.

In the school of thought embraced by such students of history as Oliver Stone, Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul, the sword is the massive steel blade of empire that is borne by the strongest power. Followers of this school of thought style themselves realists. Their sword of empire realism, however, fails to encompass the history and ambitions of over a billion people, their theology, their dreams and their internal conflicts.

To the realists, over a thousand years of Islamic history hardly carries any weight compared to the doings of ARAMCO and the CIA. There is a certain unrealism to such realism. The realist may be a cynic, but if he, like the World War II labor unions in the UK who told their members that the American soldiers weren’t coming to fight Hitler but to break up labor strikes, follows a realism mired in petty cynicism that cannot see past last week, then his realism is really ignorant cynicism masquerading as history.

The revisionist history of the realists blames America by beginning with America. America is the axis around which the world revolves. There was no Islam before America and if America sinks into the ocean, the realists must assume that Islamic terrorism will go with it, unless the Zionist Entity sticks around and continues infuriating the otherwise peaceful peoples of the Middle East whose brief history of violence only commenced in 1948 or 1917.

Anti-war activists cannot spend too much time contemplating the other side. The anti-war position automatically picks the other side and because of the innate whiff of treason in such a choice, it must justify that treason by utterly damning and demonizing its own side. It cannot afford nuance at home, though it often calls for it abroad, because to concede complexity is to endanger its own moral standing.

The only thing standing between the anti-war movement and treason is its ceaseless effort to demonize its own government, soldiers and people as monsters. If it lowers that sword of invective for a moment and accepts that they are less than monsters, then its moral standing falls apart.

The anti-war movement can only maintain its moral standing through extremism and hate. Its activism is an eternal war fought against an endless war whose existence justifies their existence.

Each war, whether it is against Communism or Islamism, tribal warlords or world powers, reaffirms their thesis that their country is a bloody monster, an empire of skulls ruled over by warlords who live by the sword and then die by it.

Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania and the Maine, September 11 and the Pueblo Incident all blend together into one false flag operation; a single continuous historical event with a single explanation. And the explanation is the Great American Sword that sets up bases to extract oil, drugs and arms deals along with all the other trappings of empire. It is the answer that answers everything. Even the question of why the wars don’t stop.

And what of the sword of Islam, its hilt inlaid with emeralds, its blade clotted with infidel blood, which was sweeping across the world a thousand years before some Virginia farmers got together to discuss theories of government? What was it that made that sword rise and fall, before the oil companies and the Israeli lobby, before arms dealers and neo-conservatives, and all the other crutches on which the realists hobble their lame revisionist history?

Uncle Sam did not raise the sword. Uncle Mohammed did, more years ago than anyone can count, and the sword has never been lowered since. As long as Mohammed is at the gates, Sam cannot put down the sword and spend all his time discussing monetary theory or social justice. Not if he expects to still be wearing his head by morning.

A war is not a dance, though there is some circling and some tricky steps. It is not a mutual agreement, but a historical collision. It does not take two to wield a sword. It does however take two to achieve a stalemate. It is this stalemate, a war that falls short of war, whether it is a Cold War or a War on Terror, that the anti-war movement hates and needs. It is this indefinite endless war that animates its thesis and sustains its ideology.

The Muslim world has chosen to live by the sword and the free world must learn to use the sword, if it is not to live under their swords. But there is a difference between these two swords, between the Sword and the Colt, which made all men equal, and the sword and the drone. It is the same as the difference between Sparta and Athens and between Mecca and Jerusalem.

There are nations and peoples that live by the sword, producing nothing of worth, living and priding themselves on their plunder while remaining deaf to their own worthlessness outside the realm of the sword. And there are nations and peoples to whom the sword is a tool, rather than a final answer, an implement which works alongside the hoe and the pen and the many other implements that make a society great.

A great nation does not live by the sword; it uses the sword to keep its way of life free from those who do live by the sword.

In such a society where many professions are possible, most free from risk of death, the man who picks up the sword, who pledges to hold the sword so that others may work, not only does not live by the sword, but also makes it possible for his entire society to live free of the sword.

The death of such a man is a tragedy for those who understand that the sword can only be opposed by a sword, and that freedom is won at the cost of resisting slavery, but is a cause for celebration to those who imagine that when the last of their countrymen who carries a sword dies, the endless war will finally end.


Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-drone/

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

Which Country has the Highest Rape Rate in the World?



by John-Pierre Maeli



After thinking over the question for five minutes, you might come up with South Africa or some other third world country as your answer.  However, the real answer might shock you.

Who has the highest number of rapes in the world?


The title sadly goes to Sweden, which now sees one out of every four Swedish women being the victim of rape.


Is this the result of the rapid influx of Muslim immigrants who continue to form a larger percentage of the Swedish population?


From the Counter Jihad Report:

With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.

The escalation of rape in Sweden is so bad that in July of last year there were an average of five rapes a day reported in Stockholm.  Think about that for a minute; five women being raped a day in a modern civilized city.  This isn't Afghanistan or Mexico we're talking about; it's Sweden.


The fact that the quantity of rapes is increasing due to the increase of Muslim immigrants is in itself disturbing. As of 2008, Sweden's rape statistics were up to 53.2 per 100,000 population.  Sadly, they are most likely higher as the Muslim population continues to grow without any willingness to assimilate into Swedish society.


The only way to fix such a problem is either halt immigration altogether, or to bring down the law on Muslim immigrants who are unwilling to obey.  However, such actions force Swedish officials to recognize the root of the problem - Islam. And we all know how government officials react to that.



John-Pierre Maeli writes weekly on his blog, The Political Informer.  You can learn more by following him on Google+



Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/which_country_has_the_highest_rape_rate_in_the_world.html.html

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

Obscuring the True Face of Mohamed Morsi



by Michael Kravshik


Why can't the Western media and the Obama administration call Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi out for what he is -- a racist?  On the contrary, both groups have a frightening habit of portraying Morsi as a respectable politician, someone whose values resemble something similar to our own.  The horrific comments made a few years back by Morsi that have recently made it to the headlines are a prime example of this disquieting trend. 

Take this comment by New York Times writer David Kirkpatrick, for example:

[T]he exposure this month of [Morsi's] virulent comments ... have revealed sharp anti-Semitic and anti-Western sentiments, raising questions about Mr. Morsi's efforts to present himself as a force for moderation and stability.  Instead, the disclosures have strengthened the position of those who say Israel's Arab neighbors are unwilling to commit to peace with the Jewish state.

Do Morsi's comments merely "raise questions about his moderation" or "strengthen the position" of those saying he is unwilling to make peace?  "We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews" should do more than just raise questions about Morsi's moderation.


Morsi, who clearly sees no difference between Jews and Zionists, goes on to call them "bloodsuckers" and "descendants of apes and pigs."  He then declares that "[t]he land of Palestine will not be freed except through resistance."  Does this seem like the future bearer of peace to the region?


Kirkpatrick seems genuinely confused about the nature of such statements, despite their candidly blunt articulation.  He goes on to analyze the political implications of the comments in the way one would go about describing Romney's position on health care, or Obama's tax plan.  Kirkpatrick labels Morsi's statements as a liability abroad but as standard discourse at home -- circumstances which put Morsi him in quite a bind.  Well, yes, it must be very difficult to pretend you're not a racist when you really are one.  Even more challenging when your political base demands that you remain that way and stay vocal about it.


This is a striking example of the media's attempt to impose Western political norms on a region that clearly does not conform to such standards.  None of Romney's, Obama's, or even Biden's past comments amounted to extreme bigotry.  Why, then, does Kirkpatrick treat Morsi's comments as just another run-of-the-mill political gaffe -- something that merely upsets one political constituency or another?


Saving judgment on whether Mr. Kirkpatrick is actually blind to the reality or just choosing to ignore it, repeated attempts by the media to portray Morsi's politics as moderate, or something not at all different from our own (something not confined to Mr. Kirkpatrick) are deplorable and, in the long run, extremely damaging.


This type of disingenuous reporting eventually plants the seed in Western readers that such comments are reasonable and therefore acceptable merely because, in Kirkpatrick's words, it is "standard stump discourse."  That Morsi can't "clarify" or retract his comments because it would be politically damaging -- since so many of his supports are virulent anti-Semites -- has somehow become a justifiable response to learning of their existence.


The response of the Obama administration has been only marginally better.  Yes, various officials have released a slew of weakly worded condemnations.  But you'd think that such appalling comments would warrant the personal attention of, and a statement by, the president himself.  Unfortunately, so far he has been silent on the matter, relegating that duty to his underlings.  One of these, White House spokesman Jay Carney, seems to be just as delusional as Kirkpatrick on the subject, telling reporters:

We believe that President Morsi should make clear that he respects people of all faiths and that this type of rhetoric is unacceptable in a democratic Egypt."  No, it's Mr. Carney who should make clear that Morsi doesn't respect people of all faiths, something that's blatantly obvious at this point.  In a similarly bigoted rant Morsi claims, "[Jews] have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout their history.  They are hostile by nature.

How much evidence of this severe prejudice is needed for it to be called what it is?


Of course, Mr. Carney and the Obama administration are aware of the reality, but instead of just being honest, they seem to have decided that the best course of action is to make excuses for Morsi and sweep the whole unpleasant business under the carpet.  If another world leader made similar remarks -- say, Benjamin Netanyahu about the Palestinians -- would that have been treated with the same level of nonchalance?


Mohammed el-Baradei, an Egyptian politician and former head of the IAEA, had this to say regarding Morsi's comments: "We are all aware that those statements were not taken out of context and that this discourse is very common among a large number of clerics and members of Islamist groups."  And indeed it hasn't taken long for more comments to surface.  Just recently, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, a senior figure close to President Morsi, Fathi Shihab-Eddim, called the Holocaust a myth made up by U.S. intelligence.


Despite all of this, the Obama administration still concluded that a good course of action is to supply Morsi with another $1.5 billion in aid -- aid bereft of any conditions on its use, even as Morsi calls Americans his "enemies" in the same hate-filled rant.  The whitewashing continues, even amid the deadly anti-Morsi protests currently sweeping through Egypt.  These protests provide resounding recognition that a great many Egyptians themselves do not view Morsi as the keeper of their revolution.  Why, then, does the West help Morsi maintain the charade?


It's time our media and the Obama administration stop the superficial quest to portray Morsi as something he is not.  These comments cannot be judged on the same merits as a debate on implementing health care or raising taxes.  We need to call President Morsi what he is: an unrelenting anti-Semite, and a purveyor of exactly the kind of thinking that we in the West abhor.



Michael Kravshik is a chartered accountant who is obtaining his masters in conflict analysis focusing on the Middle East.  Visit his blog at www.kraxinlogic.com.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/obscuring_the_true_face_of_mohamed_morsi.html

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

Chuck Hagel Camp: He’s not Dropping Out



by Tim Mak


Chuck Hagel’s camp pushed back forcefully Friday against the notion that he might remove himself from consideration to be secretary of Defense.

“There is absolutely no truth to the notion that Sen. Hagel might consider withdrawing,” a Hagel aide told POLITICO. “He's continuing his prep work and getting up to speed on the issues he will deal with as secretary of Defense.”

Online commentators began to speculate that Hagel might bow out, as more than a week had passed since his widely panned confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee with no word about when its members might take a vote.

Author Thomas Ricks floated the idea in a post on his blog Friday, arguing that the odds of a withdrawal were 50-50 and would increase two percent for every business day the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn’t schedule a vote. The conservative Weekly Standard — run by Hagel arch-nemesis Bill Kristol — immediately picked up that post.

But among politicians and operatives supportive of Hagel, there is little evidence of a coming withdrawal — and more than a little pique at Republicans for delaying the confirmation process. They insist he should surrender still more information about his income, but Democrats have cried foul.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter Friday to ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), arguing that Hagel “has provided all the financial information the rules of the committee require.”

Levin’s letter echoed Democratic frustrations with Republican demands for more financial disclosure, and argued that Republican demands far exceed the standard practices of the committee.

"The committee cannot have two different sets of financial disclosure standards for nominees, one for Sen. Hagel and one for other nominees," Levin wrote.

The Hagel aide added, “With Chairman Levin's statement today, we're looking forward to a vote soon.”

Still, the nominee has also made no secret of the fact that he didn’t seek out the chance to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who — even though Hagel hasn’t been confirmed — was still set to mark his departure from the Pentagon on Friday in a ceremony outside Washington with President Barack Obama as his guest.

Hagel told lawmakers at his hearing that although he’d accepted the president’s offer and considered himself well qualified, he did not seem wildly enthusiastic about it.

“When the president asked me to consider this job, I didn't want another job,” he said. "I was not looking for another job. There are a lot of qualified Americans that can do this job. ... I'm not the only one.”

Nonetheless, aides’ comments on Friday and other commitments of support this week made clear that Democrats are sticking by the Nebraska Republican.

On Thursday evening, Hagel added an endorsement from Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), bringing up his number of public endorsements to 19 senators, including two Republicans.

On the other hand, 15 Republican senators currently oppose his confirmation.

Levin had originally hoped that a vote on Hagel’s confirmation would coincide with Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on Benghazi, but these hopes were dashed when 25 Republicans jointly signed a letter demanding further financial disclosure.

Senate Republicans are demanding that Hagel disclose the sources of all his compensation worth more than $5,000 over the past five years — and that he make assurances that organizations he’s been affiliated with, such as the Atlantic Council, have not received foreign funding over the past decade.

Hagel has argued that the documents are not his to disclose.

“Your request for financial information regarding certain private corporate and non-profit entities … is not mine to provide,” Hagel wrote in a letter to Republican senators earlier this week.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 4:02 p.m. on February 8, 2013.

Tim Mak

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/chuck-hagel-camp-insists-no-thoughts-of-withdrawal-87402.html#ixzz2KS4ZczL5

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

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Divestment and the Destruction of Israel



by Mike Konrad


Right now in Brooklyn, there is a major debate over whether Brooklyn College should allow speakers who advocate a policy of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel. The college president, Karen Gould, is allowing the scheduled forum to go ahead, under the rubric of free speech. The event is scheduled for February 7th. 

Opposed are Jewish and Zionist groups who are pulling out all stops to prevent the forum. There have been calls for Karen Gould's resignation. Political pressure at its rawest is being applied. New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a New York political heavyweight -- and a pitbull defender of Jewish rights -- is in the thick of the fight. Funding for the College is being threatened.

Politicians are being forced to line up one way or the other. New York, both City and State, is heavily Jewish, and crossing the Jewish community can be the third rail of political life.

We're talking about the potential for a second Holocaust here. - Assemblyman Alan Maisel

Adding to the irony is that Brooklyn College is famous for graduating some of the most famous Jews in American life, while Brooklyn was once -- and still is, to a lesser extent -- a heavily Jewish borough. Brooklyn is the veritable womb of the Jewish experience in America. How odd that its college should host a forum which is hostile to Israel?! It must be the final insult.

Recent UN votes have shown that the USA is the only real world power left which supports Israel. If American opinion is changed, then Israel will be all alone and the strangulation will start.

Of course, Jewish and Zionist groups will fight. They will fight hard! Wouldn't you?

While I am a free speech purist, and would not intefere with the forum, I feel obliged to speak up.

Assemblymen Hikind's and Maisel's methods may be wrong, but their motives are right. This is not about Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. This is not about the settlements, or giving equal rights to Palestinians. This is about the extermination of Israel.

The BDS movement refuses to limit its goal. It would be honorable if all they did was call for Israel to extend civil rights to Palestinians -- and I might support that -- but BDS groups allow one-staters who call for the demise of Israel. Anyone can join.

During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, no serious movement for the eradication of America was entertained, except by some lunatics. The goal was simply to enfranchise the black community fairly. Those who advocated the demise of America, like the Nation of Islam with its separatism, were relegated to the lunatic fringe.

The BDS movement will not state its limits; and it makes frightening alliances.

It is not enough for BDS organizers to declare they oppose anti-Semitism; they must also oppose the destruction of Israel. Then, and only then, can a legitimate discussion of Palestinian civil rights be addressed. Until they make such a declaration, which would probably gut half or more of their support, they should not be given the respectability they seek.

At the core, this is about destroying Israel, piece by piece. The supporters of BDS may not see it that way -- though I suspect more realize it than are willing to admit it -- but that does not negate the ugly reality.

What is being ignored, and here Assemblyman Maisel is right, is that there is a real potential for a Holocaust here. The Holocaust metaphor is overused; but in this case, it is appropriate. BDS is about destroying Israel by economic strangulation.

I am not like Newt Gingrich who denied Palestinian nationality. People have a right to define themselves -- and there is evidence that a Palestinian identity existed long before the PLO Covenant of 1964. However, a Palestinian nation would mean the destruction of Israel; and that is unacceptable.

Israel and Palestine are like conjoined Siamese twins, who share a vital organ (Jerusalem); but the organ is strong enough to only support one life. The twins have to be separated, and one will die.

If Israel lives, Palestine must die. If Palestine lives, Israel will die. If they are not separated, both will die.

This is the ugly truth. Compromise is impossible. Everyone with half a brain knows this. Much of the BDS movement -- not all of it -- is veiled anti-Semitism. The rest is fueled by a leftist ideology which is devoid of thought.

I suspect many of the BDS supporters know it. Certainly Assemblymen Hikind and Maisel know it, which is why they are fighting the BDS forum so fiercely.

The supporters of Palestine have to ask themselves, if they be honest, is the demise of the world's only Jewish state acceptable to prevent the demise of Palestinian nationality when there are dozens of other Arab states? No one is advocating the erasure of individuals; but there is only room for one nation in that small space.

Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. They cannot both exist. It is that simple; Physics 101. Israel or Palestine? To advocate for Palestine is to advocate for the destruction of Israel... and vice-versa.

No one is saying this is fair. Life is not fair.

No one can deny that Israel can be brutal to Arabs in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank); but I am not willing to see Israel destroyed over it. Neither can anyone deny that the Palestinians have spawned generations of psychopathic violence in defense of a culture that is barbaric.

My solution is for Israel to buy out willing Palestinian youth with generous packages of money and papers so they can immigrate to South America, which has a history of assimilating and converting Arabs. Others have expressed similar views.

Those Arabs who remain should be slowly enfranchised, given the vote, and equal access to building permits, upon demonstration of some facility in the Hebrew language at a sixth grade level, which used to be the standard for voting in New York State, albeit in English. Even if Judean and Samarian Arabs were enfranchised, Israel would still be 2/3rds Jewish; and that is assuming none would take the buyout offer.

What Messrs. Hikind and Maisel should have done is mobilize a grand forum at Madison Square Garden like the Jewish community did in the 1930s to reassert their case. There is no reason they cannot do it still.

In the future, what should be done is to mobilize tens of thousands of pro-Israel supporters outside each BDS forum meeting to let all attendees know that the destruction of Israel is not acceptable.

Free speech would not be hurt if the attendees had to walk through phalanxes of Israeli flags and supporters to get to their auditorium.

Messrs. Hikind and Maisel are right to expose the fraud of the BDS movement. Their fury is appropriate. Only their methods need honing.

It is to be hoped that in the future Messrs. Hikind and Maisel will respond more fiercely, but more appropriately: In the future, if the BDS movement ever schedules a conference at Queens College, which I am sure will be next.


Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is not Jewish, Latin, or Arab. He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com/where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/divestment_and_the_destruction_of_israel.html

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