Why Abbas will never agree to sign a peace deal with Israel

The thousands of demonstrators didn't forget to condemn the Palestinian Authority for "selling out to Jews" instead of seeking Israel's destruction. Unlike the U.S., Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sees and hears the voices of the extremists at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa Mosque, in the West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip. This is precisely why Abbas will never agree to sign a peace deal with Israel: it would turn him into the biggest traitor in the Palestinian and Islamic world.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
22 July '13..

What happened at the al-Aqsa Mosque during last week's Friday prayers should be sounding alarm bells in the U.S., Britain and France.

After the prayers, during a demonstration in support of Egypt's deposed President Mohamed Morsi, thousands of Muslims began shouting slogans against the U.S., Britain, France and Israel

"Allahu Akbar, destroy the U.S., Britain and France!" the demonstrators chanted in scenes that appeared as if they were taking place in a remote Taliban-controlled village in Afghanistan.

But the protest did not take place in Afghanistan or Pakistan. It took place at the Aqsa Mosque during the holy month of Ramadan, during which Israel allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank to enter Jerusalem for Friday prayers.

Why did the Muslim worshippers chant slogans against the US, Britain and France? Because they believe that these countries are the enemies of Islam and were involved in the "conspiracy" to remove the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt.

But of course such demonstrations cannot occur without also shouting threats and slogans against Jews.

Why Jews? Because the declared goal of these extremists is to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic Caliphate.

(Video) Dr. Mordechai Kedar - The underlying intolerance of a Jewish state of any size.

JooTubeTV..
03 February '13..
H/T Batzi..





Middle-East scholar, Prof. Mordechai Kedar, discusses Israel's legitimacy, the legality of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and Muslims' underlying intolerance of a Jewish state of any size in the Jewish ancestral homeland.



Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jGpDbQbwnPQ

About JooTube.TV Channel: A visual chronicle of the survival of Jewish faith and culture, with insights into preserving the health of all free societies.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.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.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

A President who sent to the shores of Tripoli - A lesson for today

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
21 September '12..

It is written in the Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet are sinners, whom it is the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who is slain in this warfare is sure to go to Paradise.

Tripoli’s envoy, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja

Difficult as it may be for some New York Times devotees to believe, the above wasn’t enunciated in response to an esoteric 14-minute YouTube clip, which was uploaded months ago by a California-resident Egyptian Copt, which few actually viewed but which invisible Islamic puppet-masters belatedly decried as too offensive to overlook.

The above quote dates back to 1785 but it undeniably bloviates in precisely the same spirit as latter-day Muslim rabble-rousers. Nothing has changed since these supremacist sentiments were sounded to American emissaries Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were dispatched to London in an attempt to reason with the proto-al-Qaida leaders of their day.

Suffice it to say that the negotiations led nowhere. What the two future American presidents – both Founding Fathers with the impeccable credentials of enlightened political philosophers – would hear was that Muslims are above accommodating themselves to lowly infidels and that the infidels had better admit their inferiority and pay the obligatory penalty for being inferior.

In time, this standoff would escalate to what became known as the First Barbary War. It marked the first occasion ever that America employed military force overseas as an independent republic. The military reputation of the newly autonomous upstart from across the Atlantic was beginning to be established. America’s ability to strike far from home was tested for the first time. It was also the first time a united American force was deployed as distinct from a collection of local militias.

This chapter in American annals was seminal enough to be immortalized in the official hymn of the American Marine Corps via the phrase “to the shores of Tripoli.”

Few Americans today have an iota of non-romanticized inkling about their own country’s beginnings, never mind the realization that the first foreign war the US fought was with Muslims. Such ignorance is a great shame for the country which still purports to lead the Free World. But worse yet is the suspicion that America’s current commander-in- chief, Barack Obama – the latest to don the mantle of both Adams and Jefferson – has no idea.

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.

The Lawless Middle East

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
28 February '11

While a great deal of attention has been paid to the motives and methods of the Middle Eastern protesters, the question of why so many governments have collapsed in the face of the protests has gone mainly unaddressed. The Middle East's governments are governments of men, not of laws. There are plenty of laws, but none of them actually matter as the ultimate authority in any situation is that of men, not of laws. Their institutions, from the military to the bureaucracy, depend not on laws, but on personal fealty.

Laws are covenants. And covenants must derive their authority from some unifying principle. An idea that the entire society can agree on. National exceptionalism can then base itself on that covenant, depicting its national history as the expression of that ideal. The laws then become the guardians of that national ideal. For example, subtract individualism from America and the Constitution ceases to make sense, its hallowed principles become gibberish and the legal system derived from them implodes on itself. (This is arguably what is taking place today, and why we no longer have governments of laws, but of men only.)

For all the flags being waved in the air, the Arab nations have tribal identities, not national identities. There is no such thing as Egyptian or Tunisian exceptionalism. And no national principles of law and government. The Arab world has plenty of legal traditions, but they are not married to any institutions. The nations of the Arab world are orphans of colonialism. Fictional entities trumped up to fill a void. Arabs will passionately champion them the way they do soccer teams, but it is a collective identification with a thing that has no identity. There are peculiar national jokes and antipathy toward citizens of Arab nations, but this is only tribal identity. And tribal governments are personal, not lawful.

In a government of men, day to day decisions may be made by following the rules, which provides a veneer of lawfulness, but any larger conflict is resolved through personal allegiance. Whether the police will take action, does not depend on the laws, but on the parties involved. The power of the complainant or the defendant is what determines police action. A foreigner against a native leads to a complex balancing act, calculating the loss of tourist revenue and foreign displeasure, over loyalty to one's own. The law never enters into it, except as justification after the fact. Map the micro onto the macro, and you can see that what happened in Egypt had nothing to do with democracy or law.

(Read full "The Lawless Middle East")

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.
.

Veiled nonsense

Why are some feminists labeling oppression as liberation?


Seth J. Frantzman
Terra Incognita/JPost
25 August '10


Anat Berko, a research fellow at the International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism and former IDF colonel, wrote a book about female Palestinian suicide bombers. She hasn’t been met with wrath from the Right for sitting for hours with would-be murderers, but she has received vitriol from the feminist Left. Why, pray tell?

In a review of the book, Dr. Sarah Ozacky-Lazar, a research fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, wrote that “a problem is that Berko appears to be chained to the theory that all Arab women are oppressed, restricted and under the absolute control of their male relatives, to the point where ‘they experience more freedom in prison than at home.’ That is an Orientalist, condescending and clearly unscientific viewpoint. Since this idea seems to be one of the author’s basic premises, it also dictates her conclusions. She makes no attempt to use critical or feminist theories to understand the complexity of the situation in which these women live.”

Leaving aside the petty academic insult of calling Berko’s work “unscientific,” it is worth trying to understand how the Islamic woman has been turned into a liberated figure by some feminists. Katherine Bullock’s 2002 Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil is a good primer. Bullock was a conscientious convert to Islam – something she did while completing her doctorate. A self-described “strong and committed feminist,” for her the veil “can be experienced as liberation from the tyranny of the beauty myth. The popular Western notion that the veil is a symbol of Muslim women’s oppression is a constructed image [which] served Western political ends, and it continued to do so even in the late 20th century.”

In fact our notion that the veil is oppressive is based on our own “liberal understandings of ‘equality’ and ‘liberty’ that preclude other ways of thinking about ‘equality’ and ‘liberty.’” Thus basing one’s notion of equality on things being equal leads one to label Muslim women as oppressed. Thinking outside the box, i.e equal meaning unequal or “differing equalities,” the Muslim women is more liberated than the Western one.

The redefinition of Islamic women as empowered, radical, bra-burning (well not bra-burning probably) feminists all hinges on the notion that since the West viewed Islamic women one way and since the West is always wrong (i.e. it’s racist and colonialist), then the opposite must be true. If the West had come to the Islamic East and ordered the women into burkas, or just clothed them like Catholic nuns, and stoned them for adultery and closeted them in harems or sold them into sex slavery, one can imagine that today we would hear the opposite: Islamic women must be freed from the West’s oppressive embrace.

(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.
.

Caliphate Power

I know the illustration (above) looks like the UN's "impartial international investigation"

of Israel warming up but it's really just members of the last

caliphate (Ottoman Turk) declaring holy war (jihad)

Diana West
dianawest.net
18 June '10

This week's syndicated column:

"How Is Israel the Guilty Party?"

We may not live in an Islamic world -- yet -- but we do live with an Islamic worldview. Witness the uniformly Islamicized consensus that met Israel's successful if costly defense of its Gaza blockade.

The blockade, by the way, is a defensive measure that Israel devised after Hamas terrorists were elected to govern Israel-ceded Gaza in 2005 and -- no surprise to any student of jihad -- decided to continue their charter-commanded war on Israel, raining down nearly 10,000 rockets onto Israeli civilians.

The rocketing, of course, was OK with the Islamicized consensus. What wasn't OK happened on the night of May 31 when Israeli commandos, lightly armed with paintball guns and emergency sidearms, unexpectedly battled aboard the Mavi Marmara against trained fighters with ties to the Turkish government, specifically to the ruling AKP party of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, to maintain Israel's lawful blockade.

These hostile forces were organized by the Turkish terror-linked organization known as IHH (which purchased the boat from an AKP entity). They were armed with knives, axes, clubs, Molotov cocktails and more, and they formed a militant cadre barely camouflaged by the "humanitarian cargo" (including night vision goggles, bulletproof vests and nearly a million euros) and other "peace activists," among whom were Muslim Brothers, Hamas partisans (at least one Hamas operative was later arrested), and members of the Turkish supremacist group BBP. At least five "passengers" publicly expressed their wish to become "shahids," or Islamic martyrs. Three got their wish in the fighting that ensued after the ship refused to yield to the Israeli Navy. Some of the Israeli blockade-defenders were wounded, a few seriously; nine jihadist blockade-runners were killed.

An Islamicized world wrath came down on Israel. And with such force as to obliterate what remnants of the Western system -- logic, morality, history - somehow still existed. Simultaneous to the instant apotheosis of blockade-running jihadis into ocean-going pacifists came an avalanche of rage so violent as to reverse the gravitational pull of global politics entirely. Or so it seems.

(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.
.