The Island of Peace - Poor impulse control or deadly ideology?

In 2011, Daqamseh said that he had not committed any crime, but rather “fulfilled his national and religious duty.” He was supported by Jordan’s Justice Minister (and his former attorney) Hussein Mjali, who called him a ‘hero’.

Fresnozionism.org..
15 April '13..





News item:

An overwhelming 110 members [out of 120] of the Jordanian House of Representatives signed a petition demanding a pardon for a Jordanian soldier who shot and killed seven Israeli schoolgirls in 1997.

Ahmad Musa Mustafa Daqamseh shot the girls during a school fieldtrip [to the Island of Peace] in Naharayim, near the Israel-Jordan border, and is currently serving a life sentence.

Here’s a description of the island:

The Island of Peace is an Israeli-Jordanian park at the confluence of the Jordan River and Yarmouk River, on the border between Israel and Jordan. …

Land along the Jordan River’s alluvial slopes and floor bed was under Jewish ownership before the establishment of the State of Israel. In 1927, Pinchas Rutenberg, founder of the Palestine Electric Company, signed an agreement with King Abdullah I of Jordan to build a hydroelectric power station. The canals and dams built for this purpose created a man-made island. …

In 1994, Israel ceded the area to Jordan as part of the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. Jordan agreed to lease it back so the Israeli farmers from Kibbutz Ashdot Ya’acov could continue to cultivate the land. Farming continues under a 25-year, automatically renewable lease. A gate was established to enable Israeli tourists to visit the park without a visa or passport, on presentation of their identity cards to the Jordanian guards at the border crossing.

It is a remarkably beautiful place, and represented one of the rare instances of anything approaching normal relations between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors. In 1994, King Hussein of Jordan told PM Itzhak Rabin that “no place better illustrates the fact that we are at peace.”

The 1997 murders were horrific. Daqamseh said that the picnicking girls had ridiculed him while praying, so he opened fire on them from a guard tower with his M16. Then he climbed down and chased them, continuing to fire until his weapon jammed.

In a gesture of a kind not seen from an Arab leader before or since, King Hussein came to Israel and visited the the shiva houses of the victims, sat on the floor with mourners, and ordered that the families be compensated. “Your pain is my pain,” he said.

Daqamseh was sentenced to life in prison by a Jordanian court, which normally equates to 25 years. His defense was a form of insanity plea: he could have received the death penalty, but the court was lenient because of his “antisocial personality disorder.” And by Western standards — even by King Hussein’s — anyone who would shoot down 13 and 14-year old girls because he believed they had made fun of him would have to be crazy.

In 2001, his mother called an al-Jazeera TV program and made this statement:

I am proud of my son, and I hold my head high. My son did a heroic deed and has pleased Allah and his own conscience. My son lifts my head and the head of the entire Arab and Islamic nation. I am proud of any Muslim who does what Ahmad did. I hope that I am not saying something wrong. When my son went to prison, they asked him: ‘Ahmad, do you regret it?’ He answered: ‘I have no regrets.’ He treated everyone to coffee, honored all the other prisoners, and said: The only thing that I am angry about is the gun, which did not work properly. Otherwise I would have killed all of the passengers on the bus.

Religious Persecution, Safe Havens and Israel

Many Christians, too, might like to leave places like Egypt or Iraq. But unlike the Jews, they have nowhere to go: No country on earth will automatically open its doors for them–with no questions asked and no numerical limitations–the way Israel does for Jews. And still less would any country do so for Jews if Israel didn’t exist.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary/Contentions..
26 February '13..

In recent months, a new consensus has emerged: For the first time in millennia, Judaism has lost its title as the world’s most persecuted religion; today, that dubious honor goes to Christianity. “Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers,” wrote Rupert Shortt in a 54-page report for the London-based Civitas institute in December, which meticulously documented their persecution on a country-by-country basis. Even politicians have begun grasping this fact: German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly deemed Christianity “the most persecuted religion in the world” in November. In short, as one commentator put it last week, Christians have become the new Jews.

There are two reasons why Christianity has displaced Judaism as the world’s most persecuted religion. One, obviously, is increased persecution of Christians, which stems largely from the rise of radical Islam: Though non-Islamic countries like China also repress Christians, only radical Islamists kill them wholesale. The other is that today, Jews face less persecution than ever before in history. And that is entirely due to the existence of the State of Israel.

Were hundreds of thousands of Jews still scattered throughout the Islamic world, as was true a century ago, they would assuredly face persecution no less severe than Christians do. But they aren’t, because most have relocated to Israel. In fact, for the last 64 years, any Jew anywhere who felt sufficiently threatened to want to leave his country has been able to find sanctuary in Israel, and Israel has repeatedly gone to great lengths to try to rescue those who want to leave but can’t.

Marquadt-Bigman - Global March to Jerusalem: denying Jewish rights and history

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
17 March '12..



Last week, a panel devoted to the question of Jerusalem’s importance to Muslims highlighted a few politically incorrect truths: from the days of Islam’s founder Muhammad, Muslims have been “raising or lowering Jerusalem’s importance in accordance with [their] political concerns.” As a matter of fact, the city that has been holy to Jews for millennia is not mentioned even once in the Koran.

But while Muhammad decided to downgrade Jerusalem’s importance for the followers of his newly established faith when his hopes to be accepted as a prophet by the Jews of what is now Saudi Arabia proved futile, Ayatollah Khomeini concluded that the chances to export his “Islamic revolution” beyond Iran would greatly benefit from efforts to rally all Muslims – whether Shiites or Sunnis – around the city that the re-established Jewish state had re-united in 1967. Khomeini lost no time, and in August 1979, shortly after taking power, he called on “Muslims all over the globe to consecrate the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as Al-Quds Day and to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine.” Khomeini also expressed his hopes “for the victory of the Muslims over the infidels.”

Some ten years later, during the First Intifada in January 1988, the Jerusalem Committee of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference found it useful to follow suit and decided that “Quds Day” should be commemorated in public events throughout the Arab world.

By now, many in the Western media have dutifully taken to describing Jerusalem as Islam’s “third holiest city” – while mentioning Jerusalem’s status in Judaism and Christianity is somehow less popular…

To take matters a bit further, there are now efforts to popularize the rather ridiculous concept of the “Judaization” of Jerusalem. A recent conference on Jerusalem in Qatar ended with a (not entirely coherent) declaration that invokes this notion repeatedly.

Yet another effort to protest the “Judaization” of Judaism’s millenia-old spiritual capital is being planned for the end of this month, when activists hope to mobilize one million people to set out from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt to storm Israel’s borders and march on to Jerusalem. Thanks to a great initiative by Cif Watch, all the relevant information about this planned “Global March to Jerusalem” (GMJ) is available on a special website.

Elder - Jews are Judaizing Jerusalem?

Elder of Ziyon..
26 February '12..






From AFP:

Qatar urged the United Nations on Sunday to investigate Jewish settlement expansion in annexed Arab east Jerusalem, warning that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories was unacceptable.

“We must act quickly to stop the Judaization of Jerusalem,” said Qatar’s emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, in his opening remarks at the International Conference on Jerusalem in Doha.

In his remarks, Sheikh Hamad called on the U.N. to “investigate the measures Israel has taken to Judaize Jerusalem since its occupation in 1967.”

He said such an investigation would constitute the first step towards “forcing Israel to reverse those measures.”

One cannot Judaize Jerusalem any more than one can wet water. Jerusalem is Jewish through and through. Every stone is infused with holiness because of its Jewish past. Its sacredness to other religions is but a weak echo of the holiness it has been given by Jewish kings and prophets, prayers and tears.

Ettinger - A return to Andalusia

Yoram Ettinger..
Israel Hayom..
25 January '12..

The collapse of Israeli-Palestinian agreements from the 1993 Oslo Accords until today stems from the fact that both Israeli and U.S. leaders ignore the real root of the conflict. The heart of the conflict is the denial of a non-Muslim entity's existence – namely, Israel – on land that, in the eyes of many Muslims, is "holy land" that belongs to them, and not any issue with Israel’s size or borders.

On Jan. 9, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, a close associate of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, stressed that all Israeli territory was Muslim "holy land," had been since 637 C.E., and would be forever. The mufti made his comments at a rally for Fatah, which Abbas heads, that was broadcast on the official state television station. The mufti also called for the killing of Jews to hasten the Islamic Resurrection. His sentiments have become rooted in the Palestinian consciousness, with the help of the Palestinian Authority educational system, as a poll from July 2011 shows. Conducted by liberal-democratic American pollster Stanley Greenberg, an associate of former President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the poll found that 73 percent of Palestinians viewed killing Jews as a springboard to Judgment Day. On March 27, 2010, Abbas declared: "Jerusalem and all its surrounding areas are holy lands promised by Allah. We must do everything we can to save them from the Jewish threat."

This principle of "holy land" is permanent, and is stronger than any leader or passing policy, and it applies to any land that was ever under Islamic control. It is an inseparable part of the legacy of Muhammad and Islamic law, as evidenced by the Muslim Brotherhood's recent ascent to power. They view Allah, the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, jihad and martyrdom as the goal, the law, the leader, the way and the exalted aspiration. Their loyalty to the "holy land" obligates Muslims to "holy war" and the restoration of sovereignty in the Philippines, Thailand, parts of China, Kashmir, Chechnya, Israel, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.

Sultan Knish - Islamophilia and the Israeli Question

Daniel Greenfield..
Sultan Knish..
03 January '11..

The dominant theme of the Islamophile foreign policy narrative is that America's troubles with Islamic terrorism and the violent instability of the Middle-East somehow derive from our excessive closeness to the Jewish State. In this narrative, which is prevalent among diplomats, journalists and assorted talking heads who are neither but pretend to be both, the terrorists are really just critics of our foreign policy. Except instead of penning smarmy New York Times columns like Thomas Friedman or Nick Kristoff, they plant bombs and ram planes into buildings not for the greater glory of Allah, but to prove the theses of Adlai Stevenson III and Zbignew Brzezinski.

The trouble with this is that it fails to reflect any reality other than the one in the stifling craniums of the opinionators. The foreign policy dolts have been complaining about the Zionist menace long before there was a special relationship between the United States and Israel. Back then the British Foreign Office thought that the Empire could govern the region through a passel of puppet kings and princes. They carved up Israel, turning most of the land over to an expat bunch of Saudi royals, trained the Hashemite Kingdom's Legion into the second best military in the region and commanded them in the assault on Jerusalem against a handful of Israeli farm boys and Ghetto fighters fresh off the boat.

What did the Empire get in return for all its Islamophilia? Less than ten years later it was forced to turn to those same farm boys and their sons after the Woolrich educated King Farouk I went into exile in Rome and General Nasser began to be unfavorably compared to Hitler by leading British politicians for his designs on the Suez Canal.

Fresnozionism - Political correctness, Jew-hatred and Islam

Fresnozionism.org
01 January '12

Dr. Charles Jacobs is a longtime anti-slavery and pro-Israel activist, one of the founders of CAMERA and the American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG). He has also been a persistent critic of the ADL, arguing that it concentrates way too much on ‘old-fashioned’ neo-Nazi antisemitism and not enough on threats from Islamists and the extreme Left. What I found interesting in a recent exchange was this:

Shifting the focus away from skinheads, neo-Nazis, and Christian bigots and onto radical leftists and Muslim Jew-hatred would be extraordinarily difficult. It would require a massive and unpopular effort: leading the Jews to think difficult thoughts about their new situation, thoughts that put them at odds with their comforting universalist theology of Political Correctness. And it would be costly: ADL would forfeit loads of leftwing money – and its liberal bona fides. The organization would hardly ever get a letter published in The New York Times. It would be viciously attacked by Islamist leadership. CAIR would be relentless. Abe Foxman, ADL’s head, acknowledges that Islamic Jew hatred is the biggest threat we face (he’s still shy about the radical left) – yet ADL spends much, much more time, effort, resources and focus on the older, less dangerous threats while practically ignoring the new, more ominous ones.

The problem he touches on is not just an issue for Jews and Israel. The taboos of political correctness (PC) applied to anything connected with Islam or Muslims have the Orwellian effect of making it impossible to describe the motivating force of the great majority of armed conflicts in progress today, or even the future of Western civilization.

Meltzer - Islam and Nationalism

Yoel Meltzer
frontpagemag.com
16 June '11

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/16/islam-and-nationalism/

One of the cornerstones of the two-state solution is the belief that the Palestinians, as well as the larger Arab world, will be satisfied with the creation of an Arab state either within the territory of Judea and Samaria alone or when combined with the smaller Gaza Strip. Either way such a country, as many of the two-state supporters claim, is all that the Arabs really want and therefore the fears that one day the Arabs will try to liberate all of “Palestine” are nothing but hot air.

In addition to whitewashing the PLO’s 1974 Phased Plan for Israel’s destruction, a plan which many argue is still in existence, as well as just being downright naïve following years of Arab belligerence, the faithful advocates of the two-state narrative are also ignoring another salient point.

As is well known the Palestinians, together with most of the Arab world, are overwhelmingly Muslim. This is a very key point because it affects the Arab outlook on state nationalism in a way that is very different from the standard Christian or Jewish perspective. For this reason it is erroneous to arrive at conclusions regarding Arab intentions based upon a non-Muslim mindset.

For instance, although in Judaism there is the concept of “the nation of Israel” (am yisrael) connecting all Jews throughout the world in a feeling of mutual allegiance and brotherhood, the existence of this international facet does not negate the distinct national aspect of Judaism, namely the obligation to establish Jewish sovereignty specifically in one area of the world known as the Land of Israel.

In Christianity the situation is different since there is no parallel concept to the “nation of Israel” fostering a kindred feeling amongst all Christians throughout the world. Thus without this binding factor a Christian living in France feels first and foremost attached to his French country and is committed to its wellbeing just as his fellow Christian in Argentina feels the same there.

In Islam, however, the situation is different from both Judaism and Christianity. There is the concept of the “ummah”, the nation of Islam, which unites all Muslims in the world as one family regardless of where they happen to dwell. Together with this there is the aggregate region where the Muslims at any one moment have complete sovereignty, itself a precondition for being allowed to freely and fully practice Islam, known as the Dar al-Islam or “abode of Islam”. Hence it is the combination of the two – the ummah creating the feeling of mutual obligation amongst all of the world’s Muslims and the Dar al-Islam, an entity which must constantly be expanded beyond its traditional Middle Eastern base – which precludes the idea of state nationalism from taking hold in the Islamic world in a way that is similar to either the Jewish or Christian world.

This being the case, it is foolish to believe that granting the Arabs another state will somehow make them sufficiently satisfied to the point of laying down their weapons and changing their ways since the whole concept of state nationalism, from a western perspective, is nonexistent in Islam. Similarly, it is wishful thinking to assume that they will ever accept the existence of a small Jewish “outpost” called the State of Israel, regardless of its size, in the heart of the Dar al-Islam.

Yoel Meltzer is a freelance writer living in Jerusalem. His personal blog is Yoelmeltzer.com.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Sultan Knish: Israel's Folly

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
26 April '11

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/04/israels-folly.html

The State of Israel spent the first 30 years of its modern existence reclaiming its territory, and the next 33 years negotiating the terms on which it would be returned to the neighboring countries which had made war on it, as well as an entirely new terrorist state created in the name of peace and maintained in the name of war.

33 years after the country's first 'hawkish' conservative PM allowed himself to be browbeaten by Jimmy Carter into turning over territory three times its own present size to an Egypt whose new leaders are now disavowing the accords-- its current 'hawkish' conservative PM is readying himself to offer a whole new raft of concessions in the hopes of preempting a unilateral solution by Obama or Abbas.

For all the furious New York Times articles, there is little to distinguish Israel's hawks from its doves once they take up their residence in Beit Aghion on the corner of Lord Balfour's street. Like their American counterparts, they rapidly trade in the rhetoric about an "Undivided Jerusalem" and "War on Terror" for the burden of realpolitik built on a copy of the Art of Appeasement.

The governing mandate of every Israeli PM since 1992 (and perhaps even earlier) has been to try and make a deal with the Palestinian Arabs work. The folly of this has been amply demonstrated time and time again, filling Israel's cemeteries and hospitals, destroying its security and international standing, and dividing its people against themselves. And yet all these factors have only spurred on the perception that the deal must be somehow made to work. Somehow.

The doves have tried multilateral negotiations. The hawks tried unilateral concessions. The sum total of their efforts is the creation of two terrorist states, one recognized by the international community, one by the far left, and both at war with Israel inside its own borders.

The first state is run by the KGB trained funder of the Munich Massacre and backed by the international community. The second state is run by the local affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood and funded by the Muslim world. These two states, popularly known as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas run Gaza, differ only in their tactics, not their aims. Neither are anything but unelected leaders of terrorist groups dedicated to Israel's destruction.

Almost two decades of negotiations have led to nothing but eighteen years of terror. A state of affairs ignored by everyone except the people living on the firing line, their family sedans scarred by bullets, their kindergartens equipped with bomb shelters and their children equipped with emergency cell phones to check in after every attack. As the international community, the media and the government push forward for more concessions and negotiations, they have no way to push back except through the occasional unheard protest.

Year after year, and leader after leader, the Israeli response has been to push forward in the hopes of finding light at the end of the tunnel. But the tunnel has only gotten darker and narrower. And it is growing obvious to even the dimmest observer that the tunnel of peace is really a dead end. Talk of a 'breakthrough' keeps alive the hope that Israel can slim down enough to squeeze through a pinhole that simply doesn't exist.

An Unholy Marriage

David Solway
frontpagemag.com
25 April '11

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/25/an-unholy-marriage/

One of the most profound conundrums of our time is the passionate love affair carried on by the young inheritors of the liberal and presumably enlightened West with the totalitarian specimens of the Arab Middle East. They tend to be meltingly soft on Islam—the “religion of peace”—and, obviously, the chief beneficiaries of their misplaced adoration are the Palestinians. Our fellow travelers arrive in the Middle East’s ideological swamp where the terrorists eagerly await them, like crocodiles passing the mustard. Why Western advocates for justice, peace and democracy, as they like to style themselves, believe it could be otherwise almost beggars comprehension.

Is it a case of chronic and pervasive brain cramp among a media-and university-indoctrinated class of adolescent donzels, fueled by the faux idealism of miseducated youth? Today’s youth, as is common knowledge, is mainly oriented toward the dreamscape of the utopian left, which sees reality as a binomial construct: evil here in the world we inhabit, good there in the world to come. And the glorious world to come is already prefigured in Gaza and the West Bank where revolutionary “heroes” fight against tyrannical oppression in the name of freedom and justice. Thus a cohort of our young people, accompanied in many instances by their stunted elders, cluster under the banner of a spurious humanitarianism and sail away or troop off to join their imagined partners in the quest for a better future.

Or does it go deeper than merely arrested development? Is Jamie Glazov right in his analysis of the constitutive factors of leftist utopian thinking, which he regards as predicated on the loss of a sustaining identity or, essentially the same thing in its effect, the repudiation of an unwanted self? According to Glazov, there arises as a result a compelling need to fill the vacancy by committing to a large and powerful collective that promises to restore a sense of meaning, purpose and value to the empty shell of an absconding or rejected self. “This psychological dynamic,” Glazov writes, “involves negative identification whereby a person who has failed to identify positively with his own environment subjugates his individuality to a powerful, authoritarian entity, through which he vicariously experiences a feeling of power and purpose.” As Erich Fromm points out in his definitive study of the integrals of self-abdication, Escape From Freedom, what we are witnessing is the “craving for power over men and the longing for submission to an overwhelmingly strong outside power.” The paradox is only apparent.

Why are they so insecure?

Fresnozionism.org
20 March '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/03/why-are-they-so-insecure/

The other day my son remarked that TV reports of Syrian protests showed protesters shouting “Alawi Jews.”

As you may know, the Assad family which has ruled Syria since 1971 belongs to a small minority Islamic sect, the Alawis (or ‘Alawites’). About 75% of Syrians are Sunni Muslims, and many do not even consider the Alawis true Muslims. Bashar al Assad, like his father Hafez, has always tried to keep on the good side of the Muslim world by supporting the most radical Islamist elements (who were crushed brutally, of course, when they tried to get power in Syria). Nobody actually thinks the Assads are Jewish.

In Libya, opponents of Muammar Gadafi could credibly claim that their enemy is a homicidal maniac. You’d think that would be a good enough reason to depose him. But they have a better argument: they are claiming that he is actually a Jew.

When an American woman journalist was brutally beaten and raped in Cairo’s Tahrir square, it was reported that her attackers shouted “Jew!” The crowd had no reason to think that she was Jewish (she wasn’t, as if it matters). Other foreign journalists were also accused of being Jews.

Cairo demonstrators were reported as shouting “leave, leave, ya Mubarak. Tel Aviv is waiting for you,” and “leave, leave, you American and Israeli traitor.” Clearly Mubarak is neither Jewish, Israeli or American.

In Pakistan,

In October 2009, Mahnama Banat-e-Aisha, an Urdu-language monthly magazine which is part of the Haftroza Al-Qalam group of publications belonging to the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, alleged in a lengthy article that the international polio eradication campaign was a “dangerous Jewish conspiracy.” The article, “Polio: Disease or Dangerous Jewish Conspiracy,” read in part:
“The Jews, who dream of ruling the world, have invented different types of vaccines, drugs, and injections in an organized way to weaken Muslims in their beliefs on spiritual, practical, and moral levels, and make their bodies contaminated…” — MEMRI

Reverses suffered by the Pakistani cricket team have also been blamed on Jewish plots.

In Indonesia,

A book bomb was found Thursday at the house of musician and producer Ahmad Dhani in Pondok Indah, South Jakarta. The book titled Yahudi Militan (Militant Jew) was sent to Dhani’s residence Tuesday but was only opened on Thursday. Dhani, like Patriotic Party chairman Yapto Soerjosomarno who received a book bomb on Tuesday, is believed to have Jewish ancestry…

University of Indonesia intelligence expert Andi Wijayanto said the targets of the bomb attacks were carefully chosen by the terrorists. “All of the books were about the enemies of Islam. So it is likely that the senders thought these four men personified the enemies of Islam,” he said.

Ulil, the recipient of the first bomb, is the founder of the Islam Liberal Network (JIL), which has been accused of receiving funding from Jewish organizations and the US government. Gories, who received the second bomb, formerly headed the National Police’s Detachment 88 counterterrorist unit, which has also been accused of being funded by Jews and the US.

Andi said this speculation could be true. “We can connect the dots and see the connection. These men could easily represent enemies of Islam, in this case, Jews,” he said. — Jakarta Post

I could go on… and on and on. Jew hatred in the Muslim world is out of control. And it is not especially related to the condition of the Palestinian Arabs, although atrocity stories about them are often used to stir up hatred among Muslims in other places.

During the 2008-9 war in Gaza, Aljazeera broadcast continuous footage showing horribly wounded and dead Arabs. Some of it was from previous Arab-Israeli wars and some was Paliwood fakerey, but the effect was to create an enormous amount of hatred against Israel and Jews.

But one cannot make the Palestinian connection with Pakistani cricketeers, popular Indonesian singers and Muammar Gadafi.

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and perhaps 13 million Jews. They outnumber us by more than 100 to 1. Why are they so insecure?

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Time to open our eyes

Yoaz Hendel
Israel Opinion/Ynet
24 February '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4033124,00.html

Samuel Huntington’s famous book, The Clash of Civilizations, includes a grim prediction of the post-Cold War world. Contradicting what was considered politically correct, Huntington chose to point to that which is different and problematic, thereby prompting a discussion on the danger inherent in cultural isolationism (Among other things, in respect to the distance between Islam and the West.)

Huntington got a cold shower of criticism by those who did not recognize gaps as a product of human nature; these were people who chose to ignore hundreds of years of ignorance in Arab states. If you will, it was similar to the old debate between pessimists and optimists.

In Europe, this was manifested through the turning of a blind eye to the ceaseless stream of immigrants. We then saw the famous multicultural approach, which allowed Muslim immigrants to live their lives with complete freedom, assuming that this will prompt them to abandon their old culture and warmly adopt the liberal Europe.

This approach, by the way, led to the creation of current-day Europe – scared of and trampled by the Muslim giant, which chose a renewed conquest instead of the melting pot.

The optimist approach was also manifested through the West’s foreign policy – especially in respect to the Middle East. The longtime Arab-Israeli conflict was forced to become a minor dispute over territory, while disregarding its cultural and religious roots, and especially the scope of the hatred it comprises.

For years, the West sold the notion of peace as a bridge between cultures. Egypt and Jordan served as proof. Yet peace did not become a bridge, but rather, a momentary interest. While the leaders made peace, Israel continued to serve as the target for mass fury.

New Middle East?

The approach espoused by objectors to the “clash of civilizations” notion forcefully permeated Israeli policy. Instead of examining the Middle East through a wide prism, our leaders (some of them brave and filled with good intentions) chose to examine reality via borders, withdrawals, and construction freezes. In short, they adopted a narrow view in line with the rhetoric of those who sought peace now.

I’d like to clarify that my words do not aim to again slam the supporters of withdrawal. There are situations where we may have to evacuate some communities in order to expand others and create viable borders. There are no holy compounds that we must not ask questions about when taking strategic decisions. On the other hand, thus far things in Israel had been done based on thoughts of a new Middle East or a breakthrough in shattering the obstacles of civilization.

The paradox is that now of all times, when the Arab world changes and seemingly adopts the root of Western culture, democracy, the clash of civilizations appears more tangible than ever.

The best illustration of this is the speech delivered by the 84-year-old Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi over the last weekend. After long years in exile as result of his radical views, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood returned to Egypt on the wings of democracy. In one appearance, whose most practical element was anti-Israel expressions, he managed to bring more than two million people to Tahrir Square.

This number is supposed to be of great interest to President Barack Obama’s people, who estimated that only half a million people support the Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi, whose weekly show on al-Jazeera is watched by 40 million people (much more than any reality show,) demonstrated what his civilization is all about.

Yet Egypt, the historic anchor of peace, is not alone. The process of radicalization is also sweeping through Jordan and the Palestinian street. Nonetheless, we are hearing calls in Israel that “this is the time to make peace.”

However, I suggest that we read Huntington and look in the mirror.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Where are the voices of moderate Islam?

Isi Liebler
Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem
03 February '11

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2789

When declaring war against radical Islam in response to the 9/11 bombings, president George W. Bush made the statement that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

His laudable intention was to distinguish between radical Islamic fundamentalists, law-abiding American Muslims and “moderate” Islamic states. But the reality is that the impact of radical Islam extends far beyond the identifiable jihadists.

The mantra is chanted mindlessly by the chattering classes and well-intentioned government officials, who delude themselves into believing that such an adamant denial of reality can somehow ease social tensions.

But regrettably, imbedding such a falsehood into public discourse relating to Islamic terror precludes any rational consideration of the root problem. It also empowers radical Islamists and enables them to more effectively intimidate moderate Muslims aspiring to achieve accommodation with the West.

It is misleading to describe any religion - Judaism, Christianity or Islam - as a force for peace. But to apply such a blithely generalized descriptive term to Islam as practiced in the 21st century is really like saying that pigs can fly.

History provides ample evidence of Christianity’s harsh treatment of ‘heretics,’ and its violence toward all other religions (for example, during the Crusades). By accusing Jews of the crime of deicide, Christianity also laid the foundations for the world’s oldest hatred, anti-Semitism. However, in the 21st century, the dominant interpretations and objectives of both mainstream Judaism and Christianity are unquestionably peaceful. Most Christians genuinely seek accommodation with other religions, and attempt to make amends for the anti-Semitism of their forbears.

Largely, this does not apply to Islam. Like all sacred books, the Koran is also open to many interpretations. But it is simply delusional to generalize that Islam as practiced today is a religion of peace, when it manifestly spawns terrorism and when so many of its practitioners reject the legitimacy of other religions.

Quote of the week: the Muslim-Jewish conflict

Fresnozionism.org
29 October '10

This week’s quotation is from a review of Martin Gilbert’s “In Ishmael’s House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands” by Jonathan Kay:

The creation of the Zionist movement radically changed the Western understanding of the Muslim-Jewish conflict — sweeping up generations of campus intellectuals who have projected upon it all their own obsessions with colonialism and class struggle. But in the Muslim world, Gilbert’s narrative shows us, Israel’s creation actually didn’t change the Muslim-Jewish dynamic as much as is commonly imagined. The rhetoric and barbarism hurled against Israeli Jews after the Zionist project began were not new but simply the old, more diffuse rhetoric and barbarism being redirected, as by a lens, toward a particular pinprick on a map. This is tied up with the reason that many Muslims refuse even to say the word “Israel,” preferring terms such as “the Zionist entity”: Deep down, they regard Israel not as a country in the proper sense but rather as a sort of soil-and-concrete stand-in for the stubborn, maddeningly ineradicable Jewish presence in Middle Eastern life since the age of Muhammad.

Kay’s review is titled “Fourteen Centuries of Hatred” and that about sums it up. Unfortunately, unlike the Catholic Church, which (perhaps as a result of the Holocaust) officially renounced and condemned the baseless hatred that had characterized its relationship to the Jewish people for centuries, Islamic authorities in general have not preached an end to antisemitism. Rather, as Kay suggests above, they have simply focused it more sharply.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Just Your Everyday "Rally for Justice in Palestine and the Oppressed Everywhere" (Except In Israel)

Daled Amos
06 September '10

The time has come that we must stir up our 'religious leaders' in this country to speak the truth about Israel. They must put their hands on the Quran and say that they do not recognize Israel as a legitimate entity. If they cannot do that, they must be branded as kaffirs [infidels]. It's as simple as that. Because the Quran says – drive them out from where they drove you out.
Kaukab Siddiqi

Here is the video--from the "Annual Al-Quds Day Rally for Justice in Palestine and the Oppressed Everywhere." The video automatically starts with Siddiqi:




When you have an associate professor of English haranguing a crowd about the Koran, you know it's not because of his knowledge of the Islam or Koran, but because he'll say anything to stir up a crowd.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Religion of Peace

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
04 August '10

Words are tricky things. Virtually every tyrant, no matter how bloody, has talked about his plans for conquest in terms of "peace". For example in 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a declaration in which they described their conquest of Poland as creating "a sure foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe". The same year that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he delivered a speech at the Amman Summit in which he insisted that; "the Arabs seek peace and justice throughout the world". And how can one argue with peace?

The Romans had the Pax Romana, which meant peace under Roman dominion. The "peace" that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam have in mind, was of that same nature. Dictators and tyrannies, national or ideological, frame the world as chaotic and requiring order. Only under their leadership and only their way will the world finally experience peace.

When Lenin stated that; "without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace", he was laying out the same basic thesis of every tyrant, and of Islam as well. That there can be no "true peace", without the creation of a society that follows his ideology. For Lenin, everyone had to submit to Communism. For Hitler, to Nazism. For Mohammed, to Islam. Each spoke about peace, but they defined peace only in terms of their own ideology and rule.

When apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace, they are correct. Insofar as it believes in peace through conquest, and its intended state of peace is to reduce non-Muslims to second class status. But since Islam is global and it recognizes no limit to its borders-- its form of "peace" is to engage in constant wars to conquer the territory of non-Muslims and Muslims whose legitimacy they do not recognize in order to achieve "peace".

Islam's peace has as much in common with what most people think of as peace, as Hitler and Stalin's assurance that they had laid a foundation for a lasting peace, by conquering Poland does with reality. Islam's peace, like Hitler's peace, was and is an expression of a Will to Power, a belief that the world would not be right without Mohammed or Adolf, or their followers running it.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

From Berlin to Jerusalem

The collaboration between National Socialism and Islamism has left a venomous legacy.


Clifford D. May
National Review Online
15 July '10
Posted before Shabbat

Last month, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem, called on Palestinians to defend the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which he said was “threatened by the plans of the enemies of God,” by which he meant Israelis.

It should go without saying that this is a lie. Israel poses no threat to Al-Aqsa, now or ever. On the contrary, Israelis have always recognized and respected Islamic sovereignty over Islamic religious sites within Israel — despite the fact that Jewish holy places have been desecrated by Palestinians, Jordanians, and others. The notion that the Israelis would raze Al-Aqsa to build a temple on its ruins — as the mufti has also claimed — is a ludicrous slander.

What should not go without saying is how serious it is that such an allegation has been leveled by Jerusalem’s senior Islamic religious authority. Under sharia, Islamic law, to be an “enemy of God” is to be the worst sort of criminal. Just a few weeks ago in Iran, five people were declared mohareb (enemies of God) — and then hanged.

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, must know all this. Yet he says nothing about it. Nor do most Western diplomats, politicians, and journalists.

Also overlooked is the historical context. In the 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem was Haj Amin el-Husseini. He, too, despised Jews — there was not yet a state of Israel to despise. After participating in a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941, Husseini moved to Berlin. There he became Hitler’s ally, the “most important public face and voice of Nazi Germany’s Arabic-language propaganda,” in the words of historian Jeffrey Herf, who adds: “Husseini was a key figure in finding common ideological ground between National Socialism, on the one hand, and the doctrines of Arab nationalism and militant Islam, on the other.”

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel

Steven Simpson
American Thinker
30 June '10

Posted before Shabbat

It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al- Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what -- or more precisely, where -- Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) -- then called Yathrib -- was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Cracking the Code of Civilization

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
27 June '10

Civilization is a code, and while we easily fall into the habit of assuming that civilized norms are universal, they are limited to the civilized. Kindness, humility and reaching out to the enemy are valid behaviors only when they are likely to be reciprocated. Practicing that code toward nations and cultures which markedly refuse to be civilized, is the same thing as painting a target on your own back.

Because civilized codes of conduct only work when they are reciprocal. They allow us to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves and permit us to find common ground based on underlying principles. But to those who choose to be outside the code, such concessions are a weakness. Not a sign of moral strength, but physical cowardice. To the Muslim who has been raised on the tales of the Koranic conquests of Mohammed and his successors, only force represents moral truth. In the Koran, the infidels negotiate in good faith, while Muslims negotiate in bad faith. That is because Islam was meant to supersede the old tribal codes with a superior moral system, based not on honor, but on submission to Allah and Mohammed.

What we might consider foul treachery, was to the Muslim only a means to an end. Because moral behavior no longer had anything to do with trust, only with forcing more victims to submit to Islam. Negotiating in good faith was itself a symptom of a lack of faith. For the true Muslim could never honestly accept any enduring compromise with an infidel that would lessen the temporal power of Islam. He could only do so as a stratagem for weakening the infidel. To do otherwise would be blasphemy and heresy, two charges still commonly raised in the Muslim world against their own leaders who make even the appearance of honest negotiations with Western leaders. Meanwhile the willingness of the infidels to negotiate in good faith, in the Muslim worldview only demonstrated their lack of faith.

Paradoxically the willingness to negotiate in bad faith, to betray and assassinate shows a commitment to something greater. While negotiating in good faith and treating your enemy kindly shows a lack of confidence and principles. This attitude is not unique to Muslim fanatics, it is just as ubiquitous the left of our own cities, which considers radicalism and ruthless terrorism the mark of a true revolutionary conscience. From Lenin to Mao to Che, Communists ridiculed and murdered those who were not willing to be as ruthlessly amoral as them.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Noose Around Israel's Neck

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
16 June '10

Israel is being hung on a public gallows erected on the grounds of the United Nations with yards of rope gleefully supplied by the Muslim world. But the hangmen are mostly Westerners who still think that the Muslim lynch mob at their doorstep can be pacified with the death of a single victim.

There are three things you can do when you are about to be hung. You can walk proudly, recite a glorious line or two to embed your martyrdom in historical memory, and then allow yourself to be hung. Jews have an extensive body of experience with that brand of martyrdom.

Alternatively you can plead your case all the way to the gallows, arguing that a mistake has been made, that your case has been improperly reviewed, begging for someone to listen and do something. This way also ends in a hanging. But it's the hanging of a slave without even a shred of dignity attached to it. A man that dies pleading with his murderers, and puts his fate in the honesty of the liars and hypocrites whose own crimes makes the worst of his look like virtues, is a craven fool.

Because there is really only one thing you can do when the noose is being placed around your neck. Resist. A noose works by tightening around your neck and cutting off your air or breaking your neck. If you resist the tightening of the noose, you may actually survive. On the other hand if you follow through all the procedures, if you allow your hands to be tied behind your back, and the noose to be fastened around your neck while trusting in the system to do right by you-- your death is inevitable.

For seventeen years Israel has been walking toward the gallows. Its leaders have led it there by the nose ring of international assurances. Its people have been led there by refusing to see what is waiting ahead for them, even while the blood was being cleaned off the streets. Every attempt to reach a peaceful solution, every concession and show of good faith, has only tightened the bonds around its hands and the noose around its neck.

That is because every concession Israel has made, has further restricted not only its ability to defend itself, but even its ability to do basic things such as build residential housing in the capital of its own nation. Every gesture and agreement Israel has signed has bound it to ever more restrictive terms. And none of them have brought any peace. All they have ever done is set the bar higher for the next round of concessions demanded by the enemy and its aiders and abettors in the next phase of negotiations.

This is not a peace process, and it has never been one. It is a public lynching. It is the lynching of a country whose only real crime is that its existence offends the religious fanaticism and prejudices of a billion Muslims, who control much of the world's oil, and whose followers are willing to riot and kill in the streets of nearly every major city in the world at the slightest offense.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.