RSS 2.0Archive for July, 2007
What do anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia have in common?
In fact, nothing.
But according to Islamist groups, Western media and the United Nations, they have everything in common. Anti-Semites hate all Jews, racists hate all members of another race, and Islamophobes hates all Muslims.
Whoever coined the term “Islamophobia” was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not “Muslim-phobia” or “anti-Muslimist,” it is Islam-ophobia — fear of Islam — yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.
The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism.
The New York Times Op-Ed page is typically a cesspool of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and an intellectually dishonest reporting of the facts on the ground in Iraq, so kudos to them for printing Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack’s A War We Just Might Win:
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory†but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the “moderate” imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?
The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.
President Bush made an excellent speech this week, laying out the case that al Qaeda in Iraq is a subsidiary of al Qaeda in Waziristan. He went further, and delineated the differences between the various terrorist organizations which share an ideology. His central premise –a retreat in Iraq means a huge win for al Qaeda everywhere it organizes– was carefully constructed and reasoned and simply cannot be argued by the war’s critics, only ignored.
Which is exactly what Congressional Democrats and the anti-war zealots have proceeded to do. There is a certain panic in the anti-war leadership as they see the same data that pro-surge commentators do, and understand that the unmistakable momentum on the side of the coalition threatens to bolster support for victory in Iraq. Victory in Iraq –the creation of a stable, functioning representative government protected by a strong Iraqi military capable of and committed to the suppression of terrorism and sectarian violence– would be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, and although it would also be in the very best interests of the country as a whole, the left sees a political disaster in such an outcome, and has hence redoubled its efforts to tarnish not just the president who ordered the war, but also the generals who lead it, and the soldiers who fight it. In the service of this last objective, The New Republic was pleased to bring its readers the now infamous “Baghdad Diarist,” but that is just one of the more visible libels on the troops dressed up as “reporting” intended to be understood as a generally applicable view of the conduct of America’s military.
They have been discovered mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman told The Age yesterday.
Commander Jeffrey Gordon said the detainees had, while in custody, falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan.
“We are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or engaged in other activities,” said Commander Gordon.
Charles Krauthammer: Obama would be quite the Democratic gamble
Filed under: Democrats, Politics, US Foreign Policy, United States
For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night’s South Carolina debate: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?â€
“I would,†responded Obama.
Barack Obama’s latest pronouncement on Iraq should have shocked the conscience. In an interview with the Associated Press last week, the freshman Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate opined that even preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq.
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now–where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife–which we haven’t done,” Mr. Obama told the AP. “We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea.”
Mr. Obama is engaging in sophistry. By his logic, if America lacks the capacity to intervene everywhere there is ethnic killing, it has no obligation to intervene anywhere–and perhaps an obligation to intervene nowhere. His reasoning elevates consistency into the cardinal virtue, making the perfect the enemy of the good.
As of this minute, Syria occupies at least 177 square miles of Lebanese soil. That you are now reading about it for the first time is as much a scandal as the occupation itself.
The news comes by way of a fact-finding survey of the Lebanese-Syrian border just produced by the International Lebanese Committee for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, an American NGO that has consultative status with the U.N. Because of the sensitivity of the subject, the authors have requested anonymity and have circulated the report only among select government officials and journalists. But its findings cannot be ignored.
Independent journalist Michael J. Totten is on the ground in Baghdad, and reports on the progress being made as a result of the “surge”:
“Do they ever get pissed off when you search them?†I said.
“Not very often,†he said. “They understand we’re trying to protect them.â€
“This is not what I expected in Baghdad,†I said.
“Most of what we’re doing doesn’t get reported in the media,†he said. “We’re not fighting a war here anymore, not in this area. We’ve moved way beyond that stage. We built a soccer field for the kids, bought all kinds of equipment, bought them school books and even chalk. Soon we’re installing 1,500 solar street lamps so they have light at night and can take some of the load off the power grid. The media only covers the gruesome stuff. We go to the sheiks and say hey man, what kind of projects do you want in this area? They give us a list and we submit the paperwork. When the projects get approved, we give them the money and help them buy stuff.â€
(emphasis mine)
With the left-wing Labour Party’s decision to teach Nakba to Israeli, Arab school-children, David Shalom’s The Enemy Within could not be better timed.
The late Rehavam Ze’evi (H.y.d.) wrote in the Hebrew-language Moledet party publication, some 14 years ago, about the menacing phenomenon of the Israeli left-winger, whose daily betrayals embitter the lives of us all. If left unchallenged, he will literally bring us all down together. As it was then, it is more so today.
The Israeli Left remains the single greatest threat to the Jewish people in their homeland. It can be argued that their actions, inactions, their spin and media manipulation, have caused more damage to Israel than those of the PLO and Hamas. It must be remembered that it was the Left that imported these terrorists to our shores through the treacherous Oslo Accords. Their goals, couched in the falsely deluding language of peace and liberalism, are inimical to those very ideals. In fact, their true path lies in the destruction of a sovereign Jewish state in the Land of Israel. It is imperative that we understand the left-wing phenomenon we face in order to decelerate the forces pushing Israel to self-destruct.
Israeli, Arab third-graders to be taught ‘Nakba’
Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Culture, Israel, Palestinians, Politics
Nakba is the Arab term for “catastrophe”, or more specifically: the establishment of the state of Israel. In fact, the most important day of the year for Palestinian Arabs is the anniversary of this “catastrophe”, called… wait for it… yup… Nakba Day.
Well, this so-called Nakba (Israel) happens to be the only plural society in all of the Middle-East, extending equal rights to all of its citizens, including Arab-Muslims. Israel is also the only nation in all of the Middle-East governed by a democratically elected government; has an independent judiciary that enforces secular laws; and freedom of the press.
Being a Jew in an Arab-Muslim country (assuming Jewish presence hasn’t been entirely prohibited) is often dangerous to one’s health. Being an Arab-Muslim in Israel means having the right to participate in anti-government dissent, without any fear of retribution. In fact, being an Arab-Muslim in Israel means you have the same opportunity as any other Israeli citizen, to participate in the government - Arab-Muslims hold seats in the Knesset. Where in the Arab-Muslim world can a non-Muslim, forget Jew, enjoy such equality?
The Palestinian Arabs have spent these last 60 years not building their own functioning society, but reveling in some sort of perpetual victimhood, while teaching martyrdom and Jew hatred to their children. Well, this diet of Jew/Israel hatred will no longer be limited to the children of the Palestinian territories; it’s coming to Israel:
Arab schoolchildren in Israel will be taught next year that the founding of the State of Israel was a tragedy (Nakba in Arabic) in accordance with a widespread Arab view of the event.
The Education Ministry, headed by Prof.Yuli Tamir (Labor), has approved adding the Arab version to the curriculum in response to calls by Arab nationalists who requested the “Nakba†version be taught in their schools.
The new directive approves a Grade 3 textbook “Living Together in Israel,” which was written by Arabs who left their homes during the 1948 War of Independence and claim that Israel took their land. The textbook evenhandedly points out that the Arab nations refused to accept the United Nations partition plan creating the Jewish State and a new Trans-Jordan country.
Definition of national suicide: allowing your enemies - who have repeatedly tried, and failed to annihilate you - to write your history books.
President George W. Bush has the right instincts in believing that the only way to prevail in a place like Iraq is to make an open-ended commitment, with no talk of withdrawal. There are no quick fixes in Iraq, and no obvious slow ones either. But that’s hardly enough. Bush seems to have no real clue about what to do next and is going through the same flawed thought processes as those of Richard Nixon in 1969, when he sought to engineer “peace with honor” in Vietnam, while facing a public mostly focused on the “peace” part of the equation. Like Nixon, Bush is fiddling with the switches, even if he, correctly, sees any talk of withdrawal at home as weakening his bargaining hand in Iraq. The military is preparing a plan to cut troop levels in quieter northern Iraq by half in the next 12 to 18 months. Nixon did much the same thing during his first year in office, mainly to reduce domestic political resentment; but this did not alter his desire to pursue, even escalate, the Vietnamese conflict.
How do you feel about the American hostages in Iran?
No, not the guys back in the Seventies, the ones being held right now.
What? You haven’t heard about them?
Odd that, isn’t it? But they’re there. For example, for two months now, Haleh Esfandiari has been detained in Evin prison in Tehran. Esfandiari is a U.S. citizen and had traveled to Iran to visit her sick mother. She is the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, which is the kind of gig that would impress your fellow guests at a Washington dinner party. Unfortunately, the mullahs say it’s an obvious cover for a Bush spy.
Among the other Zionist-neocon agents currently held in Iranian jails are an American journalist, an American sociologist for a George Soros-funded leftie group, and an American peace activist from Irvine, Ali Shakeri, whose capture became known shortly after the United States and Iran held their first direct talks since the original hostage crisis.
Amid the Senate’s all-night pillow fight and other Iraq grandstanding, real things are happening on the ground in Iraq. They consist of more than just a surge of U.S. troop levels. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have engaged us in a far-reaching and fundamental political shift. Call it the 20 percent solution.
Ever since the December 2005 Iraqi elections, the U.S. has been waiting for the central government in Baghdad to pass grand national accords on oil, federalism and de-Baathification to unify and pacify the country. The Maliki government has proved too sectarian, too weak and perhaps too disposed to Iranian interests to rise to the task.
The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda.
Nelson Mandela and five other senior statesmen will today form themselves into a team of international troubleshooters called “The Elders“.
Filling out the lineup, we have:
- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter
- Former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan
- Former Irish president Mary Robinson
- Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town Desmond Tutu
- Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Palestinians are going to be big fans of this band of “international troubleshooters”. Meryl Yourish assembles the clues:
Mary Robinson, who led the UN Human Rights Commission during the infamous Durban conference: Anti-Israel. Anti-Israel. Anti-Israel.
Jimmy Carter, whose latest anti-Israel screed is a Anti-Israel. Anti-Israel. Anti-Israel.
Nelson Mandela, who never met a Palestinian terrorist he didn’t like: Anti-Israel. Anti-American.
Desmond Tutu, who thinks all the world’s problems can be traced to the U.S. and Israel: Anti-Israel. Anti-Israel. Anti-Semitic.
h/t: israellycool
For nearly four decades the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has carried on a relentless battle against the right of Jews to live in Yehuda, Shomron, and Aza (YeShA). Declaring all Jewish presence beyond the 1949 Armistice lines “illegal,” they condemn Israel for violating the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV). Acting as judge and jury in secret deliberations, they decided that Israel was guilty. And, despite objections from distinguished international legal experts, the ICRC refused to consider any appeal. There’s only one problem: they made up ‘the law’ to fit their politics.
Several years ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) joined this effort by declaring Israel’s ’security barrier’ and all Israeli settlements “illegal” because they were built beyond the boundaries of 1949 on “occupied Palestinian territory.” That territory was never defined; it couldn?t be, since there is no such entity. And their conclusions ignored the facts.
Divided between two terrorist organizations, Fatah and Hamas, the Palestinian Authority is not a state, nor does it comply with the recognized attributes of statehood. Defining “Palestine” as a single unit between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, most Arabs agree that Israel has no right to exist. “The Nakba” (Catastrophe) was not in 1967, but 1948.
Hamas leaders now write op-eds in the leading American newspapers either concealing completely or greatly distorting their group’s aims. The newspapers are complicit in this process by accepting articles which either have nothing to do with the real Hamas or at least are full of demonstrable lies. While it can be argued that many op-eds contain untruths or that it is not the editors’ job to make such judgments, the Hamas pieces go far beyond the other op-eds being published.
Equally disturbing is that the fact that on this matter the op-ed pages are not really balanced. While these newspapers publish op-eds which criticize Hamas as part of an analysis of U.S. policy–say, a piece by Dennis Ross urging U.S. support for Fatah’s West Bank government–they do not seem to run op-eds that challenge directly Hamas’s misstatements or which provide a comprehensive look at the true nature and activities of Hamas.
Recently, the three main city-based newspapers in America ?the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times–ran op-eds by Hamas leaders. First, an identical article by Ahmed Yousef, an advisor to the man who had headed the Palestinian Authority, appeared the same day, June 27, in the Washington Post and New York Times.
This is an extremely unusual development and it turned out, according to Washington Post editors, that Hamas’s public relations’ agent had fooled them by not informing either newspaper that the other was publishing. It was not the last time that Hamas would fool them.The idea of the op-ed article is to let an individual or group express its opinion directly, without the mediation of the newspaper’s reporters or editors. In this sense, the Yousef pieces were not op-eds and should not have been published. The reason is that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the thoughts or actions of Hamas. They were, rather, merely free advertising copy.
“And then what?†That is the question which should be asked of those who are demanding that we pull out of Iraq now.
No candid answer should be expected from cynical politicians like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have their bets riding big time on an American defeat in Iraq, as their ticket to winning the 2008 elections.
But that question should be answered by those who honestly and sincerely think that a troop pullout is the answer to the Iraq problem. What do they think will happen if we do?
That question is studiously avoided by those in politics and the media who urge pulling out.
World War II was called a world war for a reason: President Roosevelt might have preferred to take on only Imperial Japan, the nation that had attacked us. Instead, he had to lead the country into battle also against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. He had to fight not only in the Pacific but in North Africa and Europe as well.
It’s astonishing how many otherwise smart people seem incapable of grasping this reality. Many have been making the peculiar argument that we shouldn’t worry too much about al Qaeda in Iraq — because it’s somehow different from al Qaeda Not in Iraq. Consider the question a reporter asked of President Bush at a recent press conference:
But, sir …what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?
