users online counter
Interesting

Coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing has ignored admitted bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s connection to his college’s Muslim Student Association, a group that has close relations with both the Muslim Brotherhood and a local imam friendly with an al-Qaida operative.

Read more
 

Patronising the Palestinians. By Pat Condell

IslamicApartheid1.jpgIslamicApartheid2.jpgIslamicApartheid3.jpgIslamicApartheid4.jpgHats off to my colleague Pamela Geller: the Leftists and Islamic supremacists keep lying, and she keeps coming right back at them with the truth. The details:

Photo(12)
The Myth of Israeli Apartheid

We submitted [the top four ads above] responding to the repulsive, anti-Semitic American Muslims for Palestine ads (above) that were announced yesterday. Our ads will focus on the real apartheid, Islamic apartheid: the institutionalized oppression of women, gays and non-Muslims under Islamic law (Sharia). This is the fourth repulsive anti-Semitic campaign that Muslim Jew-haters are running in the New York City transit system. It is important to point out that it is these campaigns that were the impetus for the AFDI pro-Israel and #MyJihad campaigns. I can assure you that this latest Goebbels-style demonization of the Jews will not go unanswered. We are working right now to get ads responding to these ready for submission.

Anne Bayefsky notes that “there were once an estimated 900,000 Jews” in the Muslim world, “but today there are less than a few thousand.  They were given a choice: die, convert or flee.” That’s apartheid. The slaughter of gays across the Muslim world: that’s apartheid. The persecution of Christians across the Muslim world: that’s apartheid. Muslims are freer in Israel than in any Muslim country.

Our ads will focus on the real apartheid, Islamic apartheid: the institutionalized oppression of women, gays and non-Muslims under Islamic law (Sharia).

How can State of Israel reach an agreement with people who believe it should not exist?

It has been said doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting different results is one definition of insanity. One can make a case this applies to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For example, many look to a two state solution as the best way to resolve the conflict. Yet is this a new concept? The answer is no, it’s already been tried. It happened in 1947 with UN resolution 181 which partitioned two states for two peoples. In spite of being approved by a 72% majority, the implementation on the ground was a dismal failure. Why? The Arab nations refused to accept the UN vote and attacked Israel one day after declaring independence.

Since this attempt at Israel’s destruction there have been numerous wars, two intifadas, thousands of Israeli victims of terror attacks and a host of terror organizations birthed, all with a singular goal- the destruction of Israel.

Yet the Left would have us believe two states for two peoples is the only answer which can bring a lasting peace to the decades old conflict. However, there is a major problem. Sixty-five years after rejecting a two-state solution, the Arabs have yet to change their mind. They still refuse to accept it.

It’s not that they don’t want their own state. They certainly do. However, if accepting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is a requirement in order for them to have their own, they prefer to remain stateless. Apparently the Left is ignoring this, or simply doesn’t believe it. Yet Arab public opinion confirms this.

A 2012 poll jointly conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and American Pollster Stanley Greenberg contained the following results:

  • 61% of Arabs/Palestinians do not accept two states for two peoples 
  • 66% would accept two states only as a first step toward one Arab-Palestinian state 
  • 92% said Jerusalem must be the capital of Palestine only 

Other polls have produced similar findings.

These views reflect a belief that all the land Israel sits upon belongs to the Arabs. Why? They controlled it several hundred years ago, therefore it belongs to them forever. The Jews are seen as “occupiers.”

However, there is a fundamental flaw with this presumption. If you look back in history, is it fair to stop several hundred years ago, simply because it suits their agenda? If we are going to use ‘historical connection’ to make a case, why can’t the Jews point to theirs, which predates the Muslims by well over 2000 years? In spite of irrefutable historical and archeological evidence confirming Jewish presence, the aforementioned poll also showed 72% of Arab-Palestinians reject any Jewish connection to the land or Jerusalem.

This is a case of refusing to allow the facts to alter their agenda.

Pressuring Israel to unilaterally give up land

Yet in spite of Arab rejection of a two-state solution, PM Netanyahu has repeatedly said he’s willing to accept it. Why would he say this? Does he actually support it? Is he acquiescing to the Left? Is he saying it because there is so much worldwide support for it? Actually, it’s politics at the highest level.

I believe Netanyahu is astute enough to realize if he speaks against it he will be criticized and viewed as not wanting peace. Thus, in order to placate his critics he publically supports a two-state-solution. Yet in his heart I think he realizes it will not happen. Why? It won’t happen because no Arab leader is going to sign an agreement legitimizing Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state, with Jerusalem as its capital. Said leader would risk being killed by one of his own for accepting Jewish sovereignty on land the Muslims consider theirs.

By publically proclaiming support for a two-state solution, Netanyahu accomplishes something important. He continues to be viewed as flexible by world leaders. Plus, it takes the spotlight off him and places the burden of acquiescence on the Arabs.

He also knows previous Israeli PMs have made generous offers which were refused. Lest we forget the offer made to Yasser Arafat by PM Barak? It included giving up close to 100% of Judea and Samaria, and the division of Jerusalem. Yet Arafat rejected it because a sovereign state of Israel was part of the deal.

Then-President Bill Clinton was highly disappointed in Arafat and blamed him for the breakdown of negotiations. The refusal to accept Israel by the Arabs is not lost on Netanyahu.

Yet the Left keeps pressuring Israel to unilaterally give up land. This will not produce peace. It’s the Arabs’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist which is the obstacle. A question for the Left is how do you make compromises or negotiate with people who don’t believe you should exist?

Until such time as they can provide an answer, it’s one reason why the Left isn’t right.

Dan Calic is a writer, historian and speaker.

Perfect metaphor for the media’s coverage of Israel (e.g., Israel vis-à-vis Gaza).

Perfect metaphor for the media’s coverage of Israel (e.g., Israel vis-à-vis Gaza).

Footage of demonstrators holding signs in Arabic and Spanish:

Sign: “We have not forgotten Andalusia. We will definitely return.”

Sign: “The conquest of countries will not be erased by oblivion.”

Demonstrator: “As we speak, in Islamic Andalusia, in Spain, they are marching to celebrate the fall of the Islamic state of Andalusia, or Spain. While they are celebrating, we here are upset, because the Muslims used to rule in those European countries.

“Over there, they are celebrating the fact that they killed Muslims and drove out the Muslims rulers, who ruled them with justice.”

[…]

Demonstrator: “This is a good opportunity to remind people of the history of their Islamic nation, because a nation that forgets its history is, I’m sad to say, doomed to failure.”

Demonstrator: “My name is Muhammad Gamal.”

Reporter: “Muhammad, why are you demonstrating?”

Demonstrator: “At this very moment, there are celebrations in Spain, to mark the expulsion of the Muslims from Andalusia. We are here to respond to them, and say that Allah willing, we will return to Andalusia. We are here to remind people of this day of commemoration.”

[…]

Demonstrator: “We are trying to remind people of the history of Andalusia. It was toppled over 500 years ago by the Spaniards, who are occupying it to this day. We want to remind people that no matter how long the Spanish occupation of Andalusia continues, the day will come, Allah willing, when we liberate it and Islam will return.”

[…]

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi In 2010: No To Negotiations With The Blood-Sucking, Warmongering ‘Descendants Of Apes And Pigs’; Calls To Boycott U.S. Products

View this clip on MEMRI TV.

Following are excerpts from archival interviews with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, which were posted on the Internet in 2010:

Mohamed Morsi: “These futile [Israeli-Palestinian] negotiations are a waste of time and opportunities. The Zionists buy time and gain more opportunities, as the Palestinians, the Arabs, and the Muslims lose time and opportunities, and they get nothing out of it. We can see how this dream has dissipated. This dream has always been an illusion. Yet some Palestinians, who erroneously believe that their enemies might give them something… This [Palestinian] Authority was created by the Zionist and American enemies for the sole purpose of opposing the will of the Palestinian people and its interests.

[…]

“No reasonable person can expect any progress on this track. Either [you accept] the Zionists and everything they want, or else it is war. This is what these occupiers of the land of Palestine know – these blood-suckers, who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.

[…]

“We should employ all forms of resistance against them. There should be military resistance within the land of Palestine against those criminal Zionists, who attack Palestine and the Palestinians. There should also be political resistance and economic resistance through a boycott, as well as by supporting the resistance fighters. This should be the practice of the Muslims and the Arabs outside Palestine. They should support the resistance fighters and besiege the Zionist wherever they are. None of the Arab or Muslim peoples and regimes should have dealings with them. Pressure should be exerted upon them. They must not be given any opportunity, and must not stand on any Arab or Islamic land. They must be driven out of our countries.

[…]

“Therefore, these negotiations must stop once and for all. Everybody must turn to the support of the resistance, which is the option chosen by the Palestinians and by us all – the Arabs and the Muslims, Palestinians and others. We must all realize that resistance is the only way to liberate the land of Palestine.”

[…]

Al-Quds TV (Lebanon) March 20, 2010, via the Internet

“The Zionists have no right to the land of Palestine. There is no place for them on the land of Palestine. What they took before 1947-8 constitutes plundering, and what they are doing now is a continuation of this plundering. By no means do we recognize their Green Line. The land of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, not to the Zionists.

[…]

“We must confront this Zionist entity. All ties of all kinds must be severed with this plundering criminal entity, which is supported by America and its weapons, as well as by its own nuclear weapons, the existence of which is well known. It will bring about their own destruction. The peoples must boycott this entity and avoid normalization of relations with it. All products from countries supporting this entity – from the U.S. and others – must be boycotted.

[…]

“We want a country for the Palestinians on the entire land of Palestine, on the basis of [Palestinian] citizenship. All the talk about a two-state solution and about peace is nothing but an illusion, which the Arabs have been chasing for a long time now. They will not get from the Zionists anything but this illusion.

[…]

“They have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout history. They are hostile by nature.

[…]

“The Zionists understood nothing but the language of force.”

[…]

What Does ‘Mildly Islamist’ Mean? By Jeremy Rosen
The Economist, amongst many others, loves to refer to Recep Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, and his Justice and Development Party, as “mildly Islamist”. He has steered Turkey to new levels of economic prosperity. He has completely overturned the Attaturk secular model of Turkish society and he has turned Turkey into an Islamic State. What I wonder does “mildly” anything mean? Is “mildly” a compliment or a condemnation of compromising mediocrity?

Let’s start with Erdogan. He has been trumpeted as a moderate, and yes, a mild Islamist. Once Turkey was the largest state of Muslims in which Jews could live comfortably and without harassment. Now it is a state where Ishak Alaton, one of its most prominent Jews, feels uncomfortable and unwanted, targeted by the endemic anti-Semitism that sadly has become a raging disease throughout the Muslim world and beyond. It is not just the Jews. While proclaiming his moderation, Erdogan continues to slaughter Kurds and deny them equal rights in Turkey today. Of course, he also refuses to acknowledge the massacre of Armenians, though he will get upset at Syria for its massacres. His selectivity and hypocrisy in regard to Israel is such that he encouraged a nongovernmental group of toughs to sail to Gaza against the wishes of the NATO he belongs to, because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. But he refuses to acknowledge any responsibility or blame for the fiasco that ensued. He demands apologies from everyone else, but seems incapable of apologizing for anything himself. Well, if this is mild you can keep it. Would they call Israel’s policies mild, I wonder?
What is mild then? Surely no one would call the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia mild. Or the Ayatollahs of Iran. Though we should recall that Khomeini was called “mild” at first too, because initially he tolerated the secularists, non-Muslim dress for women, and freedom of lifestyle choice. Only slowly, almost imperceptibly, did he hand over the core elements of industry and power to like-minded fundamentalists and then succeeded in imposing his fanaticism on everyone else. This, of course, is what will happen in Egypt now.
But in reality all of this is by the by. If Erdogan’s wife covers her hair, he and she are still described in Europe as mild. If a Jew’s wife covers her hair with a sheitel, would her husband or she be called mildly Jewish? I doubt it. Not even mildly Orthodox. But non-Muslim Europe is desperately trying to fool itself that there is such a phenomenon as mild Islam. This is what will flourish in Europe and as such it will be anodyne and undemanding and not affect the so-called Christian character of the European Union.
I actually recall telling a conference of Muslims and Jews in London thirty years ago that it would be a mistake for Muslims to follow the Jewish example. When religious Jews came to the UK in large numbers they tried very hard not to be conspicuous, not to make demands and not to assert themselves. As a result, the level of ignorance and assimilation was catastrophic. If we have come back from that brink it is only because after 1967 Jews felt confident enough to assert themselves. My advice at the time was for Muslims NOT to be mild. Mildness rarely succeeds. The Muslim world is now rampant. But hold on. Isn’t that also true of the Jewish world?
You see, we are so used to the majority of Jews not being religious, that amongst Jews “mildly religious” means being more non-Jewish than Jewish. It means having Jewish components in one’s life but of relatively little practical significance, perhaps once or twice a year. That is enough to reassure ourselves that we are loyal to our religion, our culture, or our people. Such a position was the default position of Western Jewry. But no longer. The mildly Jewish world is fast disappearing. Either it is assimilating or it is becoming less mild.
We do not call Orthodoxy, in any of its manifestations, “mild.” We talk more about the degree of commitment. But in a world of commitment, it is the strong commitment we admire and which we believe will preserve the tradition rather than the mild sort. But wherever we look around the Orthodox world, we are seeing exactly what is happening in Islam. The only difference is we do not have a tradition of trying to impose it on others. It is bad enough that now, in too many communities, we try to impose it on other Jews.
This is where names and labels come into it. We used to have “Orthodox”. Then some added Modern Orthodox. To counter that came ultra-Orthodox. But ultra-Orthodox did not like the term and so they switched to Charedi, pious, trembling before God. It sounds purely descriptive. But it isn’t. Wahhabi or Salafi does not just describe a way of being religious, like mysticism or Sufism or Chasidism. It describes a state of mind, a state of offense, a state of expansionism, of triumphalism. This is what is happening in Judaism as much as Islam. At this moment we do not fully realize it because the numbers are still comfortably on the side of the non-religious, but it is changing.
As a caring Jew, I would completely welcome greater religious intensity and commitment, just as I would, as a citizen of whatever Western country, welcome more Muslims becoming more spiritual and better, more tolerant, less anti-Semitic human beings. But for this disease of imposition, this mark of the fanatic that seeks to impose his truths, his interpretations, his choices on everyone else. And the only way to avoid that in a modern state is to refuse to allow religion to interfere with the lives of ordinary citizens, not to allow specific alternative religious courts and social pressures to override civil law. Jew, Christian, Muslim, whatever religion, should be free to practice to whatever degree of intensity they desire. But let us not pretend it is mild. For the mild and the anodyne do not survive in the face of the dramatic onslaught of the Western values of excessive pleasure, indulgence, and egotism that reminds me in no small measure of the last days of the Roman Empire.
Let Erdogan fight for his vision of his state and Israel for hers, so long as they are both honest and fair. Whether it is religion or politics, I would rather we tell it as it is and use terms that honestly differentiate those for whom it is a personal expression of faith, loyalty, morality, and tolerance from those for whom it is an ideology to be imposed and forced onto others.
And whatever New Year you celebrate, may it be a good one!

What Does ‘Mildly Islamist’ Mean? By Jeremy Rosen

The Economist, amongst many others, loves to refer to Recep Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, and his Justice and Development Party, as “mildly Islamist”. He has steered Turkey to new levels of economic prosperity. He has completely overturned the Attaturk secular model of Turkish society and he has turned Turkey into an Islamic State. What I wonder does “mildly” anything mean? Is “mildly” a compliment or a condemnation of compromising mediocrity?

Let’s start with Erdogan. He has been trumpeted as a moderate, and yes, a mild Islamist. Once Turkey was the largest state of Muslims in which Jews could live comfortably and without harassment. Now it is a state where Ishak Alaton, one of its most prominent Jews, feels uncomfortable and unwanted, targeted by the endemic anti-Semitism that sadly has become a raging disease throughout the Muslim world and beyond. It is not just the Jews. While proclaiming his moderation, Erdogan continues to slaughter Kurds and deny them equal rights in Turkey today. Of course, he also refuses to acknowledge the massacre of Armenians, though he will get upset at Syria for its massacres. His selectivity and hypocrisy in regard to Israel is such that he encouraged a nongovernmental group of toughs to sail to Gaza against the wishes of the NATO he belongs to, because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. But he refuses to acknowledge any responsibility or blame for the fiasco that ensued. He demands apologies from everyone else, but seems incapable of apologizing for anything himself. Well, if this is mild you can keep it. Would they call Israel’s policies mild, I wonder?

What is mild then? Surely no one would call the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia mild. Or the Ayatollahs of Iran. Though we should recall that Khomeini was called “mild” at first too, because initially he tolerated the secularists, non-Muslim dress for women, and freedom of lifestyle choice. Only slowly, almost imperceptibly, did he hand over the core elements of industry and power to like-minded fundamentalists and then succeeded in imposing his fanaticism on everyone else. This, of course, is what will happen in Egypt now.

But in reality all of this is by the by. If Erdogan’s wife covers her hair, he and she are still described in Europe as mild. If a Jew’s wife covers her hair with a sheitel, would her husband or she be called mildly Jewish? I doubt it. Not even mildly Orthodox. But non-Muslim Europe is desperately trying to fool itself that there is such a phenomenon as mild Islam. This is what will flourish in Europe and as such it will be anodyne and undemanding and not affect the so-called Christian character of the European Union.

I actually recall telling a conference of Muslims and Jews in London thirty years ago that it would be a mistake for Muslims to follow the Jewish example. When religious Jews came to the UK in large numbers they tried very hard not to be conspicuous, not to make demands and not to assert themselves. As a result, the level of ignorance and assimilation was catastrophic. If we have come back from that brink it is only because after 1967 Jews felt confident enough to assert themselves. My advice at the time was for Muslims NOT to be mild. Mildness rarely succeeds. The Muslim world is now rampant. But hold on. Isn’t that also true of the Jewish world?

You see, we are so used to the majority of Jews not being religious, that amongst Jews “mildly religious” means being more non-Jewish than Jewish. It means having Jewish components in one’s life but of relatively little practical significance, perhaps once or twice a year. That is enough to reassure ourselves that we are loyal to our religion, our culture, or our people. Such a position was the default position of Western Jewry. But no longer. The mildly Jewish world is fast disappearing. Either it is assimilating or it is becoming less mild.

We do not call Orthodoxy, in any of its manifestations, “mild.” We talk more about the degree of commitment. But in a world of commitment, it is the strong commitment we admire and which we believe will preserve the tradition rather than the mild sort. But wherever we look around the Orthodox world, we are seeing exactly what is happening in Islam. The only difference is we do not have a tradition of trying to impose it on others. It is bad enough that now, in too many communities, we try to impose it on other Jews.

This is where names and labels come into it. We used to have “Orthodox”. Then some added Modern Orthodox. To counter that came ultra-Orthodox. But ultra-Orthodox did not like the term and so they switched to Charedi, pious, trembling before God. It sounds purely descriptive. But it isn’t. Wahhabi or Salafi does not just describe a way of being religious, like mysticism or Sufism or Chasidism. It describes a state of mind, a state of offense, a state of expansionism, of triumphalism. This is what is happening in Judaism as much as Islam. At this moment we do not fully realize it because the numbers are still comfortably on the side of the non-religious, but it is changing.

As a caring Jew, I would completely welcome greater religious intensity and commitment, just as I would, as a citizen of whatever Western country, welcome more Muslims becoming more spiritual and better, more tolerant, less anti-Semitic human beings. But for this disease of imposition, this mark of the fanatic that seeks to impose his truths, his interpretations, his choices on everyone else. And the only way to avoid that in a modern state is to refuse to allow religion to interfere with the lives of ordinary citizens, not to allow specific alternative religious courts and social pressures to override civil law. Jew, Christian, Muslim, whatever religion, should be free to practice to whatever degree of intensity they desire. But let us not pretend it is mild. For the mild and the anodyne do not survive in the face of the dramatic onslaught of the Western values of excessive pleasure, indulgence, and egotism that reminds me in no small measure of the last days of the Roman Empire.

Let Erdogan fight for his vision of his state and Israel for hers, so long as they are both honest and fair. Whether it is religion or politics, I would rather we tell it as it is and use terms that honestly differentiate those for whom it is a personal expression of faith, loyalty, morality, and tolerance from those for whom it is an ideology to be imposed and forced onto others.

And whatever New Year you celebrate, may it be a good one!

How Ha’aretz Ruined My Christmas. By Van Zile
Photo: Screen capture of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Christmas greeting on YouTube
On Christmas eve, Dexter Van Zile, CAMERA’s Christian media analyst, writes in the Algemeiner ”How Ha’aretz Ruined by Christmas Eve”:

… I received a message from a colleague alerting me to Ravid’s piece in Haaretz condemning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for radicalizing “his traditional Christmas greeting into an attack on Muslims in Arab countries.”
Whoah, that’s a serious charge.
Apparently, in his Christmas greeting, Netanyahu made the unforgivable sin of stating the obvious: That Christian populations are shrinking and are in danger in the Middle East. Netanyahu then added salt to the wound and reminded his listeners that Christians are safe in Israel.
According to Ravid, “Netanyahu did not specify in his greeting who is threatening to annihilate the Christians, but it’s clear from the wording that he means the Muslims.”
Earth to Barak Ravid: Netanyahu didn’t have to say who was threatening the annihilation of the Christians because we already know.
Unless they’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, most Christians know that Muslim extremists throughout the Middle East have been attacking Christians on a regular basis for the past few years. Their churches have been bombed. Their pastors kidnapped, held for ransom and killed.
And moderate Muslims and secularists in the region do not have the power necessary to stop the attacks on their Christian neighbors. They can’t even defend themselves.
In 2003, there were more than 1.5 million Christians living in Iraq. Now there are less than 500,000 living in that country. Why? Because Muslims have been attacking them on a regular basis since the ouster of Saddam Hussein!
Many of the Christians who fled Iraq went to Syria because it was safer. And guess what? Many of them are now heading back to Iraq to avoid being murdered by the Islamist rebels who are fighting against the Assad regime.
And with the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Christians are under siege in Egypt. More than 100,000 have left the country since the ouster of President Mubarak in 2011.
Barak Ravid ignores all of this and writes that “Netanyahu did not go so far as to use the Christian holy figures for political purposes,” but then some how tries to blame Netanyahu for the decision of Israeli diplomats in Ireland to post a now-deleted entry on the Embassy’s Facebook page stating that the Holy Family would probably be lynched by Palestinians if they had tried to get into Bethlehem today.




It was a bit over the top. But Christians are being lynched and attacked on a regular basis in Muslim-majority countries throughout the world. They get little support from the secular human rights community and liberal Christian peacemakers in North America and Europe who have portrayed Israel as the singular threat to human rights and peace in the Middle East.
As a result of this obsession with Israel, time, energy and money that could be used to promote awareness of the plight of Christians suffering from Islamist oppression is wasted on portraying Palestinians as the quintessential victims of oppression in the Middle East.
They aren’t. Not by a long shot.
People are screaming pretty loud in a lot of places in the Middle East, but their screams are not heard in the West because peace and human rights activists allow Palestinian leaders to hog the microphone. Every Christmas we see pictures of the Jesus and Mary blocked from getting into Bethlehem by the security barrier. (Maybe that’s where the Israeli diplomats in Ireland got their inspiration.)
Yesterday, (Dec. 23) I watched a webcast of a Bethlehem Prayer Service that was organized in part by the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Not one word of solace or comfort was offered on behalf of Christians living under the threat of Islamist violence in Syria, where Christians are starving to death or Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is achieving a fascist takeover.
In light of this violence, Barak Ravid wants to take Netanyahu to task for stating that Christians are safer in Israel than they are elsewhere in the Middle East. Ravid says this is “radicalizing” a Christmas greeting.
No it isn’t.
It’s simply stating the obvious.

Barak Ravid’s piece on Netanyahu’s “anti-Muslim” Christmas greeting is here.

How Ha’aretz Ruined My Christmas. By Van Zile

Photo: Screen capture of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Christmas greeting on YouTube

On Christmas eve, Dexter Van Zile, CAMERA’s Christian media analyst, writes in the Algemeiner ”How Ha’aretz Ruined by Christmas Eve”:

… I received a message from a colleague alerting me to Ravid’s piece in Haaretz condemning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for radicalizing “his traditional Christmas greeting into an attack on Muslims in Arab countries.”

Whoah, that’s a serious charge.

Apparently, in his Christmas greeting, Netanyahu made the unforgivable sin of stating the obvious: That Christian populations are shrinking and are in danger in the Middle East. Netanyahu then added salt to the wound and reminded his listeners that Christians are safe in Israel.

According to Ravid, “Netanyahu did not specify in his greeting who is threatening to annihilate the Christians, but it’s clear from the wording that he means the Muslims.”

Earth to Barak Ravid: Netanyahu didn’t have to say who was threatening the annihilation of the Christians because we already know.

Unless they’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, most Christians know that Muslim extremists throughout the Middle East have been attacking Christians on a regular basis for the past few years. Their churches have been bombed. Their pastors kidnapped, held for ransom and killed.

And moderate Muslims and secularists in the region do not have the power necessary to stop the attacks on their Christian neighbors. They can’t even defend themselves.

In 2003, there were more than 1.5 million Christians living in Iraq. Now there are less than 500,000 living in that country. Why? Because Muslims have been attacking them on a regular basis since the ouster of Saddam Hussein!

Many of the Christians who fled Iraq went to Syria because it was safer. And guess what? Many of them are now heading back to Iraq to avoid being murdered by the Islamist rebels who are fighting against the Assad regime.

And with the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Christians are under siege in Egypt. More than 100,000 have left the country since the ouster of President Mubarak in 2011.

Barak Ravid ignores all of this and writes that “Netanyahu did not go so far as to use the Christian holy figures for political purposes,” but then some how tries to blame Netanyahu for the decision of Israeli diplomats in Ireland to post a now-deleted entry on the Embassy’s Facebook page stating that the Holy Family would probably be lynched by Palestinians if they had tried to get into Bethlehem today.

It was a bit over the top. But Christians are being lynched and attacked on a regular basis in Muslim-majority countries throughout the world. They get little support from the secular human rights community and liberal Christian peacemakers in North America and Europe who have portrayed Israel as the singular threat to human rights and peace in the Middle East.

As a result of this obsession with Israel, time, energy and money that could be used to promote awareness of the plight of Christians suffering from Islamist oppression is wasted on portraying Palestinians as the quintessential victims of oppression in the Middle East.

They aren’t. Not by a long shot.

People are screaming pretty loud in a lot of places in the Middle East, but their screams are not heard in the West because peace and human rights activists allow Palestinian leaders to hog the microphone. Every Christmas we see pictures of the Jesus and Mary blocked from getting into Bethlehem by the security barrier. (Maybe that’s where the Israeli diplomats in Ireland got their inspiration.)

Yesterday, (Dec. 23) I watched a webcast of a Bethlehem Prayer Service that was organized in part by the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Not one word of solace or comfort was offered on behalf of Christians living under the threat of Islamist violence in Syria, where Christians are starving to death or Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is achieving a fascist takeover.

In light of this violence, Barak Ravid wants to take Netanyahu to task for stating that Christians are safer in Israel than they are elsewhere in the Middle East. Ravid says this is “radicalizing” a Christmas greeting.

No it isn’t.

It’s simply stating the obvious.

Barak Ravid’s piece on Netanyahu’s “anti-Muslim” Christmas greeting is here.

Mythic anti-Semitism and Islamic radicalization alongside democratic aspirations and hopeful opposition; a look into contemporary Malaysian culture, politics, society

MALAYSIA – “The world is in complete disarray. Evil spreads across Arab countries like dark clouds. A man who awakes a believer might lose his faith at nighttime. People trade their religion for a tiny portion of earthly goods. Whoever remains faithful will resemble a man holding blazing cinders. The temple will be the reason for the destruction of a country. The rebuilding of Temple will accompany the destruction of a country and a horrible battle.”

Numerous texts circulate in the Muslim world, prophesying the ominous emergence of Dajjal, a false prophet considered to be “the Jewish King,” whose coming will incite Armageddon. Dozens if not hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world are extremely concerned with the impending coming of said king.

The text continues: “The occupation of Constantinople will be accompanied by the appearance of the king of Jews – Dajjal. Yes, the Jews are waiting impatiently to the arrival of their beloved king. And he shall appear; he shall conquer the earth, from east to west. He shall command all creatures to worship him. He will emerge from the valley between Syria and Iraq, and spread disarray and mayhem all over. His desire is to lead humanity down the path of utter disbelief or the assuming of some false religion. Many will follow him, saying that he provides them with food. He will instill in them a false hope of his ability to restore the world’s balance.”

Dajjal signifies the ultimate evil under Islamic belief. The meaning of the name in Arabic is “deceiving” – a false messiah.Muslim traditions depict him in various manners: Some argue he would be emerge as a man blind in one eye; others see him as a monstrous creature, whose head is above the clouds and his feet are in the bottom of the ocean.

Regardless, the fate of the Jewish King is determined. He is to rule the earth a mere 40 days until Allah’s true messenger will defeat and destroy him and all his followers, leaving only Muslims to walk the earth.

I was not aware of the intensity of this apocalyptic prophecy until I stumbled upon the overwhelming abundance of Dajjal-related literature in book shops and booths across Malaysia. From the capital’s Islamic museum’s gift-shop to improvised paraphernalia market booths, books focusing on the false-prophesying Jewish King are sold alongside decorative Quran books, prayer mats and DVDs featuring local preachers.


אחד מספרי סוף העולם על "מלך היהודים" דג'אל (צילום: אלדד בק)

Apocalyptic recounts of Dajjal (Photos: Eldad Beck)

Islamic apocalyptic literature thrives in Malaysia, as in the rest of the Muslim world. Clerics and self-ordained experts offer contemporary interpretation to the figure of Dajjal and his imminent emergence. Many argue that his coming is correlated with conflicts in the Middle East: Prediction of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel; Jewish domination of the Temple Mount and the expulsion of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock; revolution in the Arab world; the suffering of Muslims by the hands of Christians and Jews. On top of everything, recent natural disasters – from massive earthquakes to floods in Southeast Asia – are perceived as omens for nearing fulfillment of the apocalyptic prophecy.

According to Islamic oral tradition, upon Dajjal’s arrival, an army of 70,000 Jews from Iran’s Ispahan will follow him. The uncompromising prophecy ignores the fact that Iran currently boasts only 20,000 Jews. Nevertheless, according to Muslim scholars, Dajjal is undoubtedly Jewish, or as they put it: “The son of a Jewish mother.” Some even argue that he was already born and is residing in the Jewish State.

Jews and other minorities 

In Malaysia, one of the strongest economies in Southeast Asia, with a population of some 30 million people, there has never been a large Jewish community. Following the British Empire’s mid-19th century conquest of the emirates that would later create the Federation of Malaya, a few merchant families from Iraq, India, China and Europe have settled in the multicultural port-cities Melaka and George Town.

During WWII, most of Malaysia’s Jewish population fled to Singapore, in fear of the Japanese invasion. Nearly all Jews that returned after the war left the country again in the 1970s, due to a bloody civil war and ensuing islamization-related anti-Semitism.

The synagogue at the constituent island of Penang was officially closed in 1976, for lack of worshipers, and what was once known as the “street of the Jews” is now the residence of the ruling Islamic party’s offices.


בית הקברות היהודי בפנאנג (צילום: אלדד בק)

Hardly any Jews left. The Penang Jewish cemetery

Though many in the world perceive Malaysia as a successful example of a country that manages to integrate Islamic law with democratic values, the country’s Muslim majority – though it comprises only a little over 50% of the population – seems to exercise hostility toward many of the country’s minorities, which could perhaps account for the fact that even though there are hardly any Jews in the country, it is infected with anti-Semitism.

“Wherever you look, you’ll see how the government… exercises a divide and conquer policy so as to stop the key minorities – Chinese, Indian, Christians, atheists, Buddhists and Pagans – from uniting,” said a Malaysian opposition activist, who spoke anonymously.

“A little over 40 years ago, the ‘democratic’ Malaysia declared a state of emergency, by which the government was empowered to detain any person indefinitely without trial,” he said.

“This country has no democracy. You can’t express your opinion freely. The government controls he media. You can’t believe a word of what is being printed in the papers. Instead of creating a shared national identity, they’re creating cultural ghettos for the minorities, and offer benefits to everyone willing to convert to Islam – from governmental assistance to jobs.

“This religious apartheid,” the activist continued,” is seen at its worst in east Malaysia… where a large population of pagans reside. We know of many cases in which medical students were sent to eastern regions to perform surgeries on non-Muslims… when in fact the students were conducting medical experiments on these people, experiments that would often result in death.”

The ubiquity of anti-Jewish perceptions in Islamic culture is therefore linked to a political atmosphere of general xenophobia and an absence of an actual Jewish community to humanize the demonic misconceptions. All that, coupled with a diplomatic instability when it comes to ties with the Jewish State, raises many questions in regards to the democratic future of Malaysia, in the face of potential radicalization, as well as to its cultural and political ties with Israel.

Political turmoil

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, 64, a former minister and deputy prime minister and said in January interview with the Wall Street Journal: “I support all efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel.”

As a result, Malaysian government officials accused Ibrahim for essentially acknowledging the State of Israel, in contradiction with the declared policy of his country. Protests were organized against him, claiming that he was “pro-Israeli.”

Ibrahim was forced to issue an official statement declaring that his words were taken out of context and that he in fact expressed his support of a two-state solution that would ensure both that the rights of Palestinians were defended and that Israel’s defense was secured.

In May 2010, however, Ibrahim spoke against Jews, up to a point that B’nai B’rith International, a prominent Jewish human rights organization condemned him, claiming that he was a “purveyor of anti-Jewish hatred.”

Ibrahim’s branding as a “political chameleon” by his own country is indicative to the country’s fluctuation.


הפגנה למען בחירות חופשיות, השנה בקואלה לומפור (צילום: EPA)

Malaysians protest for fair elections (Photo: EPA)

Furthermore, though the Malaysian government vowed that it would not construct any diplomatic ties with Israel, Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has maintained amicable ties with Israeli prime ministers – in the 1990s as peace negotiations with Palestinians were at their peak, Mahathir was corresponding with Israeli prime ministers Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak andYizthak Rabin, in a letter to whom he added in his own handwriting: “I wish for normal ties with Israel.”


הפגנה נגד ישראל בימי המשט לעזה (צילום: רויטרס)

Anti-Israel protest after 2010 Gaza flotilla (Photo: Reuters)

US senior official who was involved with efforts to promote Israeli-Malaysian ties told Ynet that, the “Local regimes repeatedly reject our efforts to promote (diplomatic ties with Israel) and claim that they’re afraid of the reactions of fundamentalist Islamists.”

A Westerner familiar with Malaysian history argued that “part of the Malaysian Muslims’ sympathy with Palestinians stems from the fact that most Muslims in the country are the descendants of the region’s indigenous people. The rest of the ethnic minorities – Chinese, Indians and others – were brought in by the British colonization systems in order to develop Malaysia’s economy. The latter started to accumulate assets, funds and statuses that the Muslims feel were taken away from them.

“Ever since the independence, and especially under the rule of Mahathir, there was an effort to strengthen the economic, political and public status of Muslims. From the 1970s onwards, a clear process of Islamic radicalization has been consequently underway, and the Palestinian issue and subsequent anti-Semitic atmosphere have been a dominant part in that radicalization,” the source noted.

According to the estimates of the anonymous opposition activist, “If political upheaval indeed occurs, it will only be in the direction of further radicalization, seeing as radical Islamists are part of the opposition. The Islamists are perceived as ‘clean’ politicians in the face of a corrupt government. They will also get many votes of Chinese and Indian voters.

“So many people around me are willing to go the extra mile to finally bring down the ruling party, but they’re not really taking into account the meaning that their votes will have on their futures,” the activist concluded.

What to follow when making an argument: Grice’s Maxims

Be Truthful

  • Do not say what you believe to be false.
  • Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Quantity of Information

  • Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
  • Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Relevance

  • Be relevant.

Be Clear

  • Avoid obscurity of expression.
  • Avoid ambiguity.
  • Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
  • Be orderly.

(or, even better, take the free on-line course:  Think Again: How to Reason and Argue!)

free counters