Palestinians Confirm: It’s a “No”

by Tom Wilson


Few seemed to be listening earlier this week when the Palestinian Authority released a list of red lines that in practice meant an outright rejection of Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace framework. Prior to this, noises were coming from PA officials suggesting that they are not happy with Kerry’s efforts or enthusiastic about his proposals. But, in contrast to when figures in the Israeli government express skepticism about the negotiations, remarkably few seemed to be willing to hear any of this from the Palestinians. The Washington Post and The Times of Israel both recounted that Abbas had indeed released new red lines. But there was little sense given that these red lines were effectively driving a stake through the heart of any viable framework agreement. The State Department released no official statement, and even the Israelis apparently decided they weren’t dignifying Abbas’s outlandish demands with a public response.

So now the Palestinians are turning up the volume on their rejectionism, perhaps in the hope that someone will acknowledge that they are serious about what they are saying. The PA has officially informed Kerry that they will not accept his framework in its present form. This itself is confusing since Kerry has not yet released a full framework, merely the vaguest of outlines of one, and less than ten days ago the State Department’s spokespeople were denying that such a framework even existed.

As part of this concerted rejectionist push, one senior PA administrator even stressed, “We said ‘No’ to him in the past, and we will say it again in the future.” What is still more remarkable about this is that it doesn’t simply concern the content of any agreement, but the very principle of the PA even participating in an agreement. According to the Times of Israel, all of the officials that spoke to them claimed that the PA could not reach an agreement because it does not have legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian public for taking such a move. They’re not wrong. Abbas is now ten years into his four-year electoral term as president. In the past Abbas has used the end of the Israeli prime minister’s term to walk away from an agreement, as he did with Ehud Olmert in 2008. Now it seems that the Palestinian Authority may use its own lack of legitimacy to flee peace talks.

The Palestinians may be aware that issuing an outright “no” to having any agreement with Israel ever would not play out well for their international standing. A “no” has to be delivered in such a way that it can at least be framed as merely a rejection of specific proposals. But by making every single proposal a red line it is clear that the Palestinians are in effect saying “no” to the whole thing. And if they are serious about pushing this line that they don’t have the authority to make an agreement with Israel, then they are essentially ruling out the very possibility of agreeing to anything. Presumably the only thing that would change this status would be new Palestinian elections–and there’s no sign of these coming anytime soon.

Whether the U.S. administration or the international community wish to acknowledge it, the Palestinians are saying loudly and clearly “no.” At some point policy will have to be adjusted to recognize this reality.


Tom Wilson

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/14/palestinians-confirm-its-a-no/

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

Mordechai Kedar: The Tribal Paradigm – They are Finally Beginning to Understand

By Mordechai Kedar

Read the article in the original עברית
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

Thesis: tribally oriented Middle Eastern societies benefit from being partitioned into homogeneous tribal units

I will begin on a personal note: I sometimes wonder if the things that I publish on this honorable stage reach decision makers in Israel, the Arab world or the world at large. I am usually fairly skeptical, because the conduct of Western politicians indicates a rather poor understanding of Middle Eastern matters, and the rulers in this region prefer their personal interests over the general good.

 

For years I have been claiming that the only thing that can save the population of the Middle East from sinking into a morass of violence, blood, tears and fire is to partition the dysfunctional states into emirates with a homogeneous population and traditional leadership emerging from within the people, not appointed by colonialists, whether from historical times or modern times. Only this type of framework can offer its citizens a reasonable quality of life.

Lately a glimmer of hope has begun to shine, with the government of Yemen deciding to divide the state into six regions, each of which with its own capital city: the region of Hadramawt and its capital Al Mukalla, the region of Saba (the modern name for the historical kingdom of Sheba) with its capital of Ma’rib; the region of Aden with its capital the port city of Aden; the region of Janad with its capital Taez; the region of Azal with its capital of Sana’a; the region of Tehama with its capital the port city of Hudaydah. The idea of partition has won the overwhelming support of the decision making bodies in Yemen.

In a federation of tribal regions, the general good must take precedence over any specific tribe and resources must be shared

The Basic principles behind the proposal:

• Equality of citizenship for all citizens of the state, meaning that no tribe – even that of the president of the country – will have preferred status over any other tribe.
• The regions will be autonomous and no region will attempt to interfere in the matters of any other region.
• Regions with natural resources will cooperate in the exploitation of these resources with regions that have fewer such resources, especially regarding oil.
• Regions will seek to achieve social and economic harmony in order to satisfy the needs of the population and grant it a life of dignity.
• The authorities to be vested in the branches of government in each region and on every level will be determined in a federal constitution.

For our purposes, the important point in this plan is the fact that it is the fruit of the people of Yemen’s own public thought process and is based on familiarity with the social characteristics specific to each individual region. Each region has a solid social basis with familiar and legitimate leadership that is capable of establishing a way of life based on law and order that will be acceptable to the great majority of the population. Each region is capable of maintaining itself economically.

The capital of the federation will be Sana’a. Its municipal management will not be under the control of any of the regions, and the constitution will assure its neutrality and its independence. The city of Aden will have special status in the federal constitution, in order to assure that the port located in this city will serve all of the regions equally.

Each region will be able to partition itself into administrative districts according to its own considerations, that is, according to the internal distribution of its population. The purpose of this is to allow the tribes and their leaders to express themselves on the public stage.

The federal state will have a parliament in which each region will be represented. The natural resources of the well-endowed regions (in oil and minerals) will be managed transparently and fairly so that the state will be able to enjoy these resources, and the regions which do not have natural resources will not feel that they are economically marginalized members of the federation.

Free movement of goods, capital and services will encourage entrepreneurship and economic development

Each region will have economic freedom. Citizens, goods, capital and services will be able to move about freely, without customs-related barriers or prohibitions on imports or exports between regions, in order to encourage commercial activity and entrepreneurship.

The federal government will be responsible for conducting inter-regional activity, and it will watch for the development of pockets of economic neglect, because these pockets could become a source of public anger that may eventually cause violence to be directed against the general public.

The borders of the regions were determined by a committee of experts, who partitioned north Yemen into four regions and south Yemen into two. The committee is headed by Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who has been the president of Yemen for the two last years. At the meeting of the committee held in late January of this year (2014) he called on the members of the committee to act impartially, giving priority to the general good of the citizens of Yemen over the local interests of any sector of the population.

The fact that the president of the country was personally involved in the work of the committee is very important, because it clearly illustrates that he operates in a totally differently way from the failed policy of his predecessor, Ali Abdullah Salah, who insisted that the country remain one unit under his and his tribe’s sole control. Hadi, in contrast, tries to find a way to transfer authorities from the central government to the local leadership, thus responding to the sensitivities of a population that has never undergone a process of obscuring tribal identities.

Who will be responsible for privately owned weapons and recent jihadi immigrants?

This is the plan, and it has a broad and solid basis in social logic in a land as divided as Yemen, but the devil – as always – is in the small details, for example: who will deal with the weapons that are freely traded in the Yemenite markets, will it be the federal government or perhaps this will be assigned to the local government, which is, in many cases, managed by cousins of the weapons dealers. This matter is especially important, since in Yemen every man has at least one automatic, long barrel weapon, and whenever he feels that something of his was taken from him he uses his weapon freely.

The second question that casts a shadow on the plan is who will deal with the aliens who have entered Yemen from all over the Islamic world under al-Qaeda leadership; will it be the federal government or perhaps the local friends of these foreign jihadists. This matter will be especially problematic if responsibility for security is transferred to local governments, because then local militias will be able to impose their agenda on the population while claiming to be the “regional police”.

One one hand, local militias are supposed to be a legitimate force to impose the local interests on all of the people of the region and on their behalf, however – on the other hand – they may become crime organizations under the leadership of “war barons” dealing in drugs, weapons, goods and currency, sowing fear and terror among the population while being camouflaged as “local police”, who are acting within their authority and responsibility.

Conflicting ideals: the cohesive tribal unit vs. the greater Arab nation

Arab intellectuals who see the plan view it with significant doubt and great suspicion, because – in their opinion and according to their approach – the Arab nation must go in the direction of erasing the differences between the groups and unifying the people under the concept of one great Arab nation.

However, the deteriorating situation in Syria, Iraq and Libya, countries where there is a great deal of tribalism, prompts Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, the president of Yemen, to go forward in the direction of partitioning the country. He and his associates do not want Yemen, which is similarly socially divided, to deteriorate as well into the situation that exists in Syria, Iraq and Libya, so they decided to take preemptive steps by increasing regional autonomy of the various sectors of the population, despite the implicit recognition that with this plan, traditional frameworks are given priority over the modern ideas of unity and social blending. Hadi and his associates understand well that they must tailor the country according to the “social dimensions” of the population, and not continue imposing upon the population a state that does not reflect the traditional social characteristics of most of its citizens.

Hadi takes a strategic decision not to fight the natural tendencies of the citizens

President Hadi has made a strategic decision: instead of shaping the people to fit the criteria of the state he has decided to shape the state according to the principles of the people. He is cooperating with the people and with its established inclinations, and does not forcibly try to impose upon the people a political template that most of the people of Yemen are not interested in.

In my opinion Hadi will enter the pantheon of leaders who have understood – sometimes after difficult and bloody struggles – that there is room to challenge the artificial political frameworks that had been determined by colonialist superpowers according to Europe’s interests, and to begin to establish frameworks according to the desires of the peoples of the Middle East.

And if, in a given place, the public is loyal to the tribal framework, then the most correct thing is to allow the the tribal framework to manage the life of its population according to its own principles and by means of its own traditional leadership. Is this scheme impervious to danger? No, however the modern political scheme has been proven to be a failed plan with no chance of success, and the hundreds of thousands of fatalities in Syria, Iraq and Libya are the irrefutable proof of this.

Hadi is willing to try the tribal paradigm, which we have been claiming for years is the only one capable of granting the people of the Middle East a reasonable way of life, and from this honorable stage, we wish him great success.

===============

Dr. Kedar is available for lectures

Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by SallyZahav with permission from the author.

Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

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

Obama’s War on Israel

by Daniel Greenfield


If the left’s foreign policy these days had a slogan, it would be, “Boycott Israel, not Iran.” The double standard, dishonest as it is ugly, is also the motto of Obama’s foreign policy, which benevolently blesses Iran’s nuclear program with one outstretched hand in the name of peace and chokes concessions out of Israel to the terrorists with the other also in the name of peace.
 
Both peace plans are going disastrously according to plan.

Iran has made it clear that it will dismantle nothing and that it will go on developing ballistic missiles and nuclear technology. Its military commanders threaten to attack the United States and boast that their ships are encroaching on America’s maritime borders.

The Palestinian Authority has shed the last vestiges of democracy as its leader begins the tenth year of a four-year term and its elected legislature has been discarded in favor of the PLO Council. Instead of a representative government, the Palestinian Authority has reverted back to what it always was; the PLO.

A Palestinian state has receded into the figment of a dream as elections have become a distant memory and Hamas continues to hold Gaza, leaving a PLO mafia in the West Bank to maintain its monopoly on cigarettes and other commodities while passing around Western aid money to its terrorist militias.

The more Kerry pressures Israel, the more bellicose PLO leaders have become. Fatah officials have accused Kerry of threatening to poison Abbas, the Palestinian Authority’s current President-for-Life. The accusation is ridiculous, but the PLO, like Iran, is feeling emboldened by American weakness.

The softer American power gets, the harder its enemies hit.

Obama Inc. however has eyes only for Israel. Its officials and its allied media apparatus in New York and Washington have decided to hold Israel’s Prime Minister personally accountable for any criticism of Kerry and Obama not only by Israeli Jews … but also by American Jews.

An Obama Inc. official said that Obama and Kerry were disturbed over “Jewish activism in Congress” and that the administration had informed Israel of its displeasure over criticism of them by American Jews.  Holding Netanyahu accountable for the comments of American Jewish leaders is an ugly Alinskyite tactic in which Obama uses Israel as a hostage in order to silence domestic Jewish criticism.

“Shut up or the Jewish State gets it.”

The constant monitoring and suppression of Israeli criticism was so pervasive that Kerry’s handler, Jen Psaki, denounced a comedy video mocking his disastrous diplomacy put out by an Israeli political group, sight unseen, while discussing expectations that Israeli leaders would rein in criticism of Kerry.

Psaki described criticism of Kerry as “not an attack on him; that’s an attack on the process. And of course that kind of rhetoric we find unacceptable.” John Forbes Kerry had become the living embodiment of peace. The peace process, whether in Iran or Israel, had become reducible to peace. Opposing it meant opposing peace and supporting war. And Kerry had become reducible to the process and therefore to peace. Louis XIV had only claimed to embody the State. Kerry claims to embody peace.

Meanwhile Kerry makes poorly coded threats about international boycotts and intifadas to Israel while promising Jerusalem to the PLO.

The lack of options is the theme of both peace plans. Sanctions on Iran mean war, claims Obama. A failure to reach a deal that will let Iran keep its nuclear program also means war. And so, in true Chamberlainian fashion, the only alternative to war is to accept any offer that the enemy makes.

The willingness to accept any deal is the traditional negotiating posture of the losers of a war, but when any alternative to a peace deal is considered unacceptable, the peace negotiators come to the table as the losers of a war that was never even fought because they had already surrendered in all but name.

When the Senate attempted a little bit of bipartisan pressure on Iran, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes began denouncing the vast Jewish war conspiracy and the left-wing of an already left-wing media shrieked that we were about to be plunged into a war by the Zionist warmongerers. The same outlets that give a hearing to proposals to boycott Israel, chant in angry unison that any boycott of Iran is an act of war.

Every good progressive in Obama Inc. and in its media corps knows that Iran, which took American hostages and murdered hundreds of Americans, is a victim of American foreign policy, while Israel, which is being cut up into a completely indefensible, broken territory for a peace that will never come, is its beneficiary. The terrorist peace processes are unworkable, but they were never supposed to work.

The peace process with the Palestinian Authority has always failed because it was always meant to fail. Peace was the brass ring that Israel was supposed to reach for, but never actually get close enough to reach, carving itself to pieces under the bloody knives of the negotiators in the hopes of proving its moral worth to the world. Dying so that it might be allowed to live. The Iranian deal is more of the same.

Perhaps there is enough tie dye in Obama’s blood for him to genuinely want a world without nukes, but if the US is to retain its nuclear capability, then like Oppenheimer and the other scientists who helped the USSR get the bomb in the name of world peace, he wants Iran to have the bomb for world peace.

Prime Minister Netanyahu thought that he might be able to trade one peace process for another, but he hasn’t even been able to trade concessions to terrorists for sanctions on Iran. Instead he has made the worst possible bargain, trading a self-inflicted punch in the face for an enemy’s kick in the teeth. Israel has once again ended up with the worst of both worlds in the name of peace.

Obama’s dual peace processes have the same agenda. They are both meant to destroy Israel. If the PLO can’t get the job done with intermittent terrorism and negotiations, maybe a nuclear Iran will. The goal is to create enough threats to Israel that it either ceases to be a viable state or simply ceases to exist.

The destruction of Israel flows naturally from the destruction of American power. Israel has to be undone, just as Mubarak was undone, just as the United States military was undone, to heal the humiliations of the Muslim world. The United States had to lose in Afghanistan and Iraq, it had to destroy its allies in the Middle East, to make Muslims feel good about finally defeating the United States.


Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obamas-war-on-israel-2/

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

Former Senate Intel Chair Slams Pollard Life Sentence

by Gil Hoffman

David Durenberger, who has first hand knowledge of full Pollard case and secret documents, to Obama: "right this wrong."

Jonathan Pollard red, white and blue Photo: Courtesy

Former senator David Durenberger, who served as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard’s conviction, wrote US President Barack Obama recently and requested that he release Pollard as quickly as possible.

Durenberger’s letter is significant, because he had firsthand knowledge of Pollard’s full case file and all of the secret documents. He served on the committee from 1979-1986 and was its chair during the 1985-86 session of Congress.

“Of course Pollard broke the law and his conviction was deserved,” he wrote.

“But the harshness of his sentence, in light of existing relations between our countries and the nature of our observation of implicit agreements between the countries, was uncalled for.”

The former senator said he had criticized Pollard’s life sentence when it was given, within the parameters of confidentiality imposed on him as chairman of the committee. He said Obama could use his right to grant clemency to fix the error.

“The fact that no President has chosen to take the action which I, and many of my former colleagues and associates in government, request that you take, Mr. President, does not reflect well on the office,” Durenberger said. “I believe in my heart that you have the capacity to right this wrong.

And I respectfully request that you do so at your early convenience.”

A Republican who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1978-1995, Durenberger is currently a senior health policy fellow at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis and chairs the National Institute of Health Policy.


Gil Hoffman

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Former-Senate-Intel-chair-slams-Pollard-life-sentence-341259

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

Rumsfeld: Obama, Biden Wrong About Weakening al-Qaida

by NewsMax


[Editor: Pres. Obama said over and over again that "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor...Period", although he apparently was aware that the phrase was not true, even as he said it. Likewise, he and his faithful cronies have no problem trying to sell us the idea that al-Qaeda is fading away, although anyone who actually reads the news is shocked by their resurgence and their increasing presence in the world. Far from disappearing, al-Qaeda has become a greater threat to so-called "soft" targets throughout the world.
Towards the end of this article Rumsfeld has some wise words about the current ongoing efforts to force a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel.]



The insistence by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden that al-Qaida has been severely weakened and is nearing defeat is "just plain flat wrong," former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says.
"[These are] overblown contentions . . . just plain flat wrong and a misunderstanding of how the world works and how terrorist organizations function," Rumsfeld told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"It should be embarrassing . . . to have the two top leaders of our country be so flat wrong on what they said about al-Qaida.
"It seems to me it ought to be cited and noted because it goes directly to their credibility. Hoping something’s the case doesn't make it so," Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

Rumsfeld — who was secretary of defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush — also says the United States did not adequately protect its consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which led to a Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans.

"If the United States is going to put people in overseas posts, they have an obligation to see that they’re properly protected," he said.

"The British knew that there were al-Qaida threats, and they pulled their people out because they knew they couldn’t protect them. Our people knew there were al-Qaida threats, and they not only did not protect them, but they didn’t pull them out.

"And that, in my view, is a neglect of important responsibilities . . . Clearly, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is the person responsible."

Rumsfeld, author of the new book "Rumsfeld's Rules," says the ongoing efforts by the United States for a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine are unlikely to work.

"There is a theory that some people subscribe to that it is possible to take . . . two parties in this case, and grab them by the scruff of the neck, and push them together, and have them make a deal. Now, the reality is that’s utter nonsense," Rumsfeld said.

"People have to see something as in their interest, or no matter how hard they’re pushed, they’re simply not going to agree, and if they do agree, it won’t stick, it won’t last.

"In this instance, it takes persuasion, it takes time, and it takes conviction on both sides . . . It is very clear that the Israelis know themselves, they know their country . . . They can’t afford to make a mistake, and I doubt that they will. I think their leadership is courageous, and prudent, and respectful, and understanding of history."

NewsMax

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Donald-Rumsfeld-al-Qaida-terrorism-Joe-Biden/2014/02/12/id/552453

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

Dhimmitude in Tennessee

by David James

The Nashville Jewish Federation apologizes for telling the truth about Islamic anti-Semitism.

 

Tennessee Islamists recently complained to their friend, Fox Channel 17 news reporter Sky Arnold, about a pamphlet that was inadvertently included in a pro-Israel booth at a school cultural/heritage fair.  Looking to incite the Muslim community, the complainants posted this image of the pamphlet that addressed anti-Israel hate messages in Palestinian school materials.

 

The pamphlet these young radical extremists are referring to looks like the same information that has been documented and catalogued by the translators at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) since 1996.  A 2013 video from the Palestinian Authority TV of two young girls reciting a poem about Jews as the “most evil among creations, barbaric monkeys,” is only one of the many examples that validate the assertions in the pamphlet. There are many more including:

- This young girl’s poem recitation on Palestinian Authority TV: “Our enemy Zion is satan with a tail.”  Or this one: “Christians and Jews are inferior, cowardly and despised.”

- The recent Palestinian Authority TV host report that “our prisoners are heroes and not terrorists.”  These “heroes” are planners of suicide bombings.

PMW says that exposing the propaganda and separating fact from lies is one way to clear away deliberate obstruction to peace.

Even Hillary Clinton relies on PMW research.  Speaking at a 2007 joint press conference with PMW, Clinton said:

“I have been speaking out against the incitement of hate and violence in Palestinian textbooks for years. In 2000 I joined Nobel peace prize winner Elie Wiesel in New York to denounce the   lessons of hatred and violence that are part of the curricula in Palestinian schools…..
This propaganda is dangerous. You know, words really matter. Some people sort of downplay the importance of words. But words really matter. Because in idealizing for children a world without Israel, children are taught never to accept the reality of the State of Israel, never to strive for a better future that would hold out the promise of peace and security to them, and is basically a message of pessimism and fatalism that undermines the possibility for these children living lives of fulfillment and productivity.
This has dire consequences for prospects of peace for generations to come

While the photograph above has the PMW and MEMRI websites listed, it is not clear what organization actually published this particular pamphlet.  What is clear however, is that the content of the pamphlet has been documented by both PMW and MEMRI and is accurate.  It is information that should be of concern to everyone.

If the Tennessee Islamists aren’t convinced by the PMW research, they could watch a few of the videos catalogued by MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute.  MEMRI follows what is being said in the Middle East by “monitoring, translating, and studying Arab, Iranian and Turkish media, schoolbooks, and religious sermons.”  For example:

• http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1637.htm – TV Host on Hamas TV, Child Saraa Barhoum, Sings: “We Liberated Gaza by Force” Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) – December 20, 2007
• http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2599.htm – TV Cartoon Depicts Koran-Based Story of Jews Being Transformed into Apes Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) – August 25, 2010
• http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2291.htm – Anti-semitic Hamas TV Cartoon Portrays Stereotypical Jews, While Accusing Israeli Education System of Racism Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) – December 4, 2009

And here is the January 2014 New York Times article documenting the negative statements about Israel and Jews in official Palestinian Authority media and textbooks. Research included in the report:

Adolf Hitler is quoted on the websites of Palestinian Authority schools. A young girl appears on Palestinian television, describing Jews as “barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs” and the “murderers of Muhammad,” the Islamic prophet. Maps on the Facebook page of the Palestinian presidential guards do not show Israel. President Mahmoud Abbas himself embraced as “heroes” released Palestinian prisoners who killed Israelis.”

Textbook Used in Tennessee Islamic School Teaches Lies about Jews and Christians

Watch Knoxville Anoor Academy’s 2013 promo video carefully and at minute 1:04 you see a row of textbooks which are Yahiya Emerick’s What Islam Is All About.  This text is being used in Islamic private and weekend schools around the U.S., including in Tennessee.  According to Emerick, this book was written in standard English to teach Muslim children living in the U.S. about Islam.  The following are only a few examples of what the children learn from the Knoxville academy textbook about their Jewish and Christian neighbors:

p. 187 – I. Who Follows Ibrahim’s Example?
“So, although the Christians and Jews may make a big noise about following Prophet Ibrahim, in fact, neither of them do.  Prophet Ibrahim fulfilled Allah’s commands, the Jews don’t even follow half of what their corrupted books say.  The Christians don’t follow anything except what their philosophers and priests make up from time to time.”
p. 188 – “Prophet Ibrahim called all people to Allah’s way of life.  The ‘Jews’ don’t call anybody to anything.  They subscribe to a belief in racial superiority calling themselves the ‘chosen’ ones and excluding non-Jews as much as possible.  Their religion even teaches them to call down curses upon the worship places of non-Jews whenever they pass by them!  They arrogantly refer to anyone who is not Jewish as ‘Gentiles,’ equating them with sin.”
“Prophet Ibrahim told people to do good and he forbade the wrong.  Many ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’ Jews and Christians lead such decadent and immoral lives that lying, alcohol, nudity, pronography, racism, foul language, pre-marital sex, homosexuality and everything else are accepted in their society, churches and synagogues.  Just turn on the television in any Jewish or Christian community and see what’s ‘normal.’”

Complaining Islamist Is Also a Vocal BDS Collaborator

After learning about the pamphlet, local agitator, Drost Kokoye, contacted apologist reporter Sky Arnold who wrote about the story. Arnold reported that after students and parents complained about the pamphlet, the Nashville Jewish Federation issued an apology for offending Muslim sensitivities.

But Tennessee Islamist Drost Kokoye’s only interest is in censorship and incitement.  As she said, the offered apology isn’t adequate.  Of course not, because her real agenda is more in line with her Quaranic doctrine.  She is a vigorous advocate of BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against the State of Israel and agitation against Jews.

 

Kokoye, who previously was a local organizer for the TN Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC), now works with Muslim youth and is a board member of the Muslim Youth Network of TN (MYNT) and the TN American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC).  She collaborates closely with her friend, Remziya Suleyman, Dir. of the Islamist American Center for Outreach (ACO) and conveniently takes the role of “bad cop” for Suleyman, the Muslim voice of Tennessee, on sensitive interfaith issues like BDS.

Kokoye takes her inspiration from Islamic extremists like Siraj Wahhaj, Zaid Shakir, Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi, and more recently, her twitter buddy BDS leader, Ali Abunimah.  She was very young when she and her family came to the U.S. as refugees from Iraq, and she seems to regret this move because she routinely expresses her disdain for Americans, calling them “stupid,” especially those she labels as “white people.”

Why Doesn’t the Jewish Federation Stand Up to Jew Haters?

Should the Jewish Federation’s director Mark Freedman have done the Obama-Cairo bow and scrape?  Doesn’t Freedman understand yet that pro-BDS Jew and Israel haters like Drost Kokoye aren’t interested in apologies or appeasement of any degree?  Doesn’t he understand that what she really seeks is the Islamist brass ring of full-blown dhimmitude for Jews?  What will he say when CAIR insists that the Federation staff needs CAIR’s special sensitivity training?

Maybe Freedman should read what is posted on the national Jewish Federation website and the local Nashville Federation website. Myth and Fact #248 titled “People of the Book, Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law” explains the dhimmi relationship.  This entry ends on a statement of clarity that Freedman would do well to review: “The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”

Myth and Fact #219  (#9 on the Nashville Federation website), is titled “Muslim schools in the United States teach tolerance of Judaism and other faiths, and promote coexistence with Israel.”  Turns out this is the “myth.”  This entry explains that Muslim schools in the United States, similar to schools in Arab and Islamic countries are likewise “indoctrinat[ing] students with hatred of Jews and Israel.”

With the recent start of the virulently anti-Israel, Jew-hating Students for Justice in Palestine student organization at UT-Knoxville, school districts in Tennessee using textbooks with overly pro-Palestinian terrorist whitewashing, CAIR anti-Semites training Muslim students, and now anti-Israel agitators like Drost Kokoye pushing BDS, it may be time for the Nashville Jewish community to wake up to the dangers confronting them and seek out strong and insightful leaders.

Nashville is not the only target for these Islamist agitators.  The Nashville Jewish community is like all the rest in the U.S.  This appeasement is a systemic problem and needs to be addressed.

According to Winston Churchill, “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”


David James

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-james/dhimmitude-in-tennessee/

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