Once again, the Imperialist (tm) West has invaded the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is being infiltrated by . . . KABBALAH BRACELETS!
"Dr Abdullah Al-Yusuf, professor of sociology at Imam Muhammad Bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that any imported foreign trendwill have an influence on the society to which it has been introduced and that the consequences of such a trend are considered a form of cultural invasion as new behaviors are adopted..."
Now, granted this is a major concern because the last thing anybody would want is for Saudi Arabian society to change its behaviors, right? Last I checked, Saudi Arabia is a pretty awesome place to live.
Oh, and Hamas thinks Bush is, like, a vampire and stuff. Good day.
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Hamas Holocaust Fun
I've spent a decent amount of time on this Earth, but I still sometimes make the mistake of thinking I've seen and heard everything when it comes to Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. However, right when I start getting bored, out comes Hamas with something so amusingly insane that my night is made.
Tonight was one of those nights. According to the invaluable Palestinian Media Watch, Hamas TV ran an "educational program" outlining the truth about the Holocaust so that all of us who are so horribly misinformed can finally learn the truth. Buckle up, everyone, because you know what's coming is going to blow your mind. Apparently, Holocaust was a Zionist plot to kill . . . other Jews, specifically handicapped Jews! Upon seeing the title, I was immensely enthusiastic to see what evidence Hamas would be presenting to rebut over sixty years of Holocaust scholarship. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.
The video begins with an apparent quote from David Ben Gurion (helpfully identified as "Zionist Leader - Israel's first PM," in case any of the viewers mistakenly thought he was a member of Hamas or something) stating that the "disabled and handicapped are a burden on the state." Now, I'm not too sure what "state" is being referred to here since there wasn't yet an Israel during the Holocaust, but whatever state it was I'm sure was like totally burdened and stuff.
A voiceover then kindly informs us that the "Satanic Jews" (nice) thought up the Holocaust to, well, off handicapped people. We then accused the "Nazis or others" (others?) so the Jews would seem persecuted and would benefit from international sympathy. As a bonus, we are told that these "Satanic Jews" were "the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression." I'm going to take a moment and relish in the awesomeness of that thought: Jews invented evil. I didn't know that evil could be "invented," but if we somehow managed to pull that off, that's kind of cool. Apparently, this particular plan was so meticulously executed that the best minds were misled for over sixty years. It took the Hamas brain trust to bring this nefarious plot to light.
Speaking of said brain trust, we are then introduced to Amin Dabur, the Head of the Palestinian "Center For Strategic Research." Dabur strategically researched this matter to death and concluded that the "Israeli Holocaust" (again, no Israel during the Holocaust) was "a joke," and the "perfect show." Ben-Gurion focused on young people and sent the handicapped off to die or something, curiously adding "if it can be proven historically." (He's unsure?)
Then my minute and a half of entertainment ends with a statement from the narrator that the "alleged" number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was "merely for propaganda." Jimmy Carter keeps great company. So, dear readers, how much of Judea, Samaria and Gaza do you think will satisfy these guys?
Tonight was one of those nights. According to the invaluable Palestinian Media Watch, Hamas TV ran an "educational program" outlining the truth about the Holocaust so that all of us who are so horribly misinformed can finally learn the truth. Buckle up, everyone, because you know what's coming is going to blow your mind. Apparently, Holocaust was a Zionist plot to kill . . . other Jews, specifically handicapped Jews! Upon seeing the title, I was immensely enthusiastic to see what evidence Hamas would be presenting to rebut over sixty years of Holocaust scholarship. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.
The video begins with an apparent quote from David Ben Gurion (helpfully identified as "Zionist Leader - Israel's first PM," in case any of the viewers mistakenly thought he was a member of Hamas or something) stating that the "disabled and handicapped are a burden on the state." Now, I'm not too sure what "state" is being referred to here since there wasn't yet an Israel during the Holocaust, but whatever state it was I'm sure was like totally burdened and stuff.
A voiceover then kindly informs us that the "Satanic Jews" (nice) thought up the Holocaust to, well, off handicapped people. We then accused the "Nazis or others" (others?) so the Jews would seem persecuted and would benefit from international sympathy. As a bonus, we are told that these "Satanic Jews" were "the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression." I'm going to take a moment and relish in the awesomeness of that thought: Jews invented evil. I didn't know that evil could be "invented," but if we somehow managed to pull that off, that's kind of cool. Apparently, this particular plan was so meticulously executed that the best minds were misled for over sixty years. It took the Hamas brain trust to bring this nefarious plot to light.
Speaking of said brain trust, we are then introduced to Amin Dabur, the Head of the Palestinian "Center For Strategic Research." Dabur strategically researched this matter to death and concluded that the "Israeli Holocaust" (again, no Israel during the Holocaust) was "a joke," and the "perfect show." Ben-Gurion focused on young people and sent the handicapped off to die or something, curiously adding "if it can be proven historically." (He's unsure?)
Then my minute and a half of entertainment ends with a statement from the narrator that the "alleged" number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was "merely for propaganda." Jimmy Carter keeps great company. So, dear readers, how much of Judea, Samaria and Gaza do you think will satisfy these guys?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
They're on to us!
Time for panic, people! The Pepsi connection has been exposed!
We knew this was coming. Just stick to the training:
1. Destroy all Pepsi-related documents immediately (but only with a ZOA-approved shredder to ensure maximum security). If you use a non-ZOA shredder and end up in a gulag, please do not write me a complaint letter. I won't want to hear about it.
2. You can PROBABLY still safely be seen drinking Mountain Dew or Gatorade, but personally, I wouldn't risk it.
3. If anybody with even arguably non-Zionist tendencies approaches you, do not be afraid to use our secret weapon. Your survival might depend on it.
4. If disaster strikes, and you are cornered, use your dying words to congratulate our enemies on their effective use of irony.
5. Nah, strike that one. If you're cornered by a bunch of Hamas radicals, ask them why they're stealing Iran's material from two years ago. Hamas used to be cool, but now Iran is fresh and with it when it comes to the forefront of Jihad. All Hamas can do is plagiarize them. While this sad reality sinks in, make your escape and help continue our quest for world domination!
We knew this was coming. Just stick to the training:
1. Destroy all Pepsi-related documents immediately (but only with a ZOA-approved shredder to ensure maximum security). If you use a non-ZOA shredder and end up in a gulag, please do not write me a complaint letter. I won't want to hear about it.
2. You can PROBABLY still safely be seen drinking Mountain Dew or Gatorade, but personally, I wouldn't risk it.
3. If anybody with even arguably non-Zionist tendencies approaches you, do not be afraid to use our secret weapon. Your survival might depend on it.
4. If disaster strikes, and you are cornered, use your dying words to congratulate our enemies on their effective use of irony.
5. Nah, strike that one. If you're cornered by a bunch of Hamas radicals, ask them why they're stealing Iran's material from two years ago. Hamas used to be cool, but now Iran is fresh and with it when it comes to the forefront of Jihad. All Hamas can do is plagiarize them. While this sad reality sinks in, make your escape and help continue our quest for world domination!
Sunday, May 4, 2008
More Jimmy Carter Awesomeness and More Fun with the UN
Today started off as a nice relaxing Sunday. I slept late and sat down to watch Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer as I ate my bagel and lox. Suddenly, Wolf announces he will be interviewing none other than our pal, Jimmy Carter about Jimbo's meetings with Hamas. You know my thought: awesome!
Wolf begins by playing a clip of a speech from President Bush denouncing Jimbo's meeting with the mass-murdering terror gang. Now, we know "Dubya" isn't exactly Abraham Lincoln when it comes to political oratory, and admittedly, yeah, he fumbled this one. Bush said almost nothing useful and stammered and stuttered about how Hamas would not recognize Israel, refused to endorse the so-called "Two State Solution," and was generally an "obstacle to peace." Of course, the problem with such a statement is that it implies that if Hamas were out of the picture, peace would be more likely to occur. Of course, as you know, faithful readers, this is a position I completely reject.
Carter responded by chortling mightily about how Bush OBVIOUSLY did not understand Hamas's TRUE positions because, dagnabbit, he met with their leaders, and while they seem all tough and musky on the outside, they're really just a nice bunch of guys who enjoy cuddling kittens and grooving to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez.
See, the Hamas leaders told Carter (after they crossed their hearts and hoped to die) that they wanted a ceasefire. And more important, they would recognize and abide by any peace agreement (including, Carter believes, one that would recognize Israel), so long as it was approved by a popular referendum of the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
Wolf, who is not completely oblivious, makes two points. First, Hamas spokespeople vigorously disputed Carter's account of the meetings and what was promised. And second, such statements fly in the face of what Hamas has proclaimed publicly, both to their own people in Arabic and to the West.
Carter's response was, well, Carter-like. He stated these Hamas spokespeople disputing his statements were low-level dudes on the totem pole, while he had met with the "high leaders" of Hamas. Unfortunately, Wolf didn't press Carter any further, and the conversation then moved to the Democratic Primary.
I really wish Wolf had confronted Carter with some of the statements that I have previously documented, along with the many others Hamas has made both disparaging Jews and declaring their unwillingness to recognize Israel.
At the very least, Wolf could have shown Carter the recent statement from Khaled Mashal (one of the leaders Carter met with) that the ceasefire, or "Tahdiah", that Hamas proposed "is a tactical means. It is a step within the resistance and is not detached from it." Mashal went on to say that:
"'It is only natural for any resistance movement, which cares about the interests of its people, to bear in mind the general Palestinian condition. At times, it generates an escalation, and at times, it withdraws a little. It is a process of ebb and flow, going up and down. This is how you run a battle. Hamas is renowned for this.
'In 2003, we began a tahdiah, and later renewed the operations. The same thing happened following 2005. Hamas conducted resistance from within the government, as well as when it was not in the government. This is a method of conflict management.'"
So, yeah, I guess it never occurred to Carter that Hamas might just be utilizing him as a useful idiot to improve their PR in the West.
In other news, there was a lot more fun at this Durban II Prep Session the past couple of weeks. Anne Bayefsky has two recent columns describing what went on. Both are excellent reads.
The April 23 column is especially fun. There, Bayefsky describes how the Arab/Muslim delegations argued that the only way to truly fight racism and oppression is well . . .with more oppression and less freedom (as I keep saying, satire is obsolete):
"The Egyptian representative gave a good summary of most everything wrong with Durban II. He claimed the conference and its preparatory process should focus on criminalizing “racial profiling,” “racism in the media,” “the challenges posed by Islamophobia since the events on 9/11,” and “instrumentalization of democratic processes for racist applications.” In short, racism is an evil Western plot to victimize Muslims, who can only be protected by the undermining of democracy, freedom, and law enforcement."
And then came my favorite part:
"While the European Union attendees stayed in their seats, the assault on democracy carried on. Algeria said “freedom of expression spread[s] hatred and violence and lead[s] to the burning of mosques in ‘advanced’ countries.” Syria ranted about “the crimes that are perpetrated in the name of democracy” and the “killers” that “are countries that advocate democracy . . . and give [a] free hand to perpetrate massacres.” *
Yes, indeed. Freedom of expression leads to mosque-burnings. I mean, what can I really add to that? Jimmy Carter could not have said it better. I fear that as I wrote this note, a child weeps in the distance as a mosque burns.
*Syria is, of course, uniquely qualified to educate the world as to what leads a nation to perpetrate an old-school massacre.
Wolf begins by playing a clip of a speech from President Bush denouncing Jimbo's meeting with the mass-murdering terror gang. Now, we know "Dubya" isn't exactly Abraham Lincoln when it comes to political oratory, and admittedly, yeah, he fumbled this one. Bush said almost nothing useful and stammered and stuttered about how Hamas would not recognize Israel, refused to endorse the so-called "Two State Solution," and was generally an "obstacle to peace." Of course, the problem with such a statement is that it implies that if Hamas were out of the picture, peace would be more likely to occur. Of course, as you know, faithful readers, this is a position I completely reject.
Carter responded by chortling mightily about how Bush OBVIOUSLY did not understand Hamas's TRUE positions because, dagnabbit, he met with their leaders, and while they seem all tough and musky on the outside, they're really just a nice bunch of guys who enjoy cuddling kittens and grooving to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez.
See, the Hamas leaders told Carter (after they crossed their hearts and hoped to die) that they wanted a ceasefire. And more important, they would recognize and abide by any peace agreement (including, Carter believes, one that would recognize Israel), so long as it was approved by a popular referendum of the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
Wolf, who is not completely oblivious, makes two points. First, Hamas spokespeople vigorously disputed Carter's account of the meetings and what was promised. And second, such statements fly in the face of what Hamas has proclaimed publicly, both to their own people in Arabic and to the West.
Carter's response was, well, Carter-like. He stated these Hamas spokespeople disputing his statements were low-level dudes on the totem pole, while he had met with the "high leaders" of Hamas. Unfortunately, Wolf didn't press Carter any further, and the conversation then moved to the Democratic Primary.
I really wish Wolf had confronted Carter with some of the statements that I have previously documented, along with the many others Hamas has made both disparaging Jews and declaring their unwillingness to recognize Israel.
At the very least, Wolf could have shown Carter the recent statement from Khaled Mashal (one of the leaders Carter met with) that the ceasefire, or "Tahdiah", that Hamas proposed "is a tactical means. It is a step within the resistance and is not detached from it." Mashal went on to say that:
"'It is only natural for any resistance movement, which cares about the interests of its people, to bear in mind the general Palestinian condition. At times, it generates an escalation, and at times, it withdraws a little. It is a process of ebb and flow, going up and down. This is how you run a battle. Hamas is renowned for this.
'In 2003, we began a tahdiah, and later renewed the operations. The same thing happened following 2005. Hamas conducted resistance from within the government, as well as when it was not in the government. This is a method of conflict management.'"
So, yeah, I guess it never occurred to Carter that Hamas might just be utilizing him as a useful idiot to improve their PR in the West.
In other news, there was a lot more fun at this Durban II Prep Session the past couple of weeks. Anne Bayefsky has two recent columns describing what went on. Both are excellent reads.
The April 23 column is especially fun. There, Bayefsky describes how the Arab/Muslim delegations argued that the only way to truly fight racism and oppression is well . . .with more oppression and less freedom (as I keep saying, satire is obsolete):
"The Egyptian representative gave a good summary of most everything wrong with Durban II. He claimed the conference and its preparatory process should focus on criminalizing “racial profiling,” “racism in the media,” “the challenges posed by Islamophobia since the events on 9/11,” and “instrumentalization of democratic processes for racist applications.” In short, racism is an evil Western plot to victimize Muslims, who can only be protected by the undermining of democracy, freedom, and law enforcement."
And then came my favorite part:
"While the European Union attendees stayed in their seats, the assault on democracy carried on. Algeria said “freedom of expression spread[s] hatred and violence and lead[s] to the burning of mosques in ‘advanced’ countries.” Syria ranted about “the crimes that are perpetrated in the name of democracy” and the “killers” that “are countries that advocate democracy . . . and give [a] free hand to perpetrate massacres.” *
Yes, indeed. Freedom of expression leads to mosque-burnings. I mean, what can I really add to that? Jimmy Carter could not have said it better. I fear that as I wrote this note, a child weeps in the distance as a mosque burns.
*Syria is, of course, uniquely qualified to educate the world as to what leads a nation to perpetrate an old-school massacre.
Jimmy Carter is Awesome
A couple of weeks ago on The Office, Pam Beesly was stuck at her boss Michael Scott's torturous dinner party. Suddenly, when it seemed as though things could not get any worse, Pam's, um, eccentric co-worker Dwight Schrute crashed the party with his old baby-sitter as his "date" ("Purely carnal. That's all you need to know."). Pam, realizing that this party was about to get a LOT more entertaining, smiled to herself and whispered quite possibly the best line I've heard on television all year: "Awesome."
That is how I feel every time I see a new article about Jimmy Carter. Jimmy is in the news again, this time defending his meeting with exiled Hamas mass-murderer Khaled Mashal.
Lots of people I know hate Carter and call him an anti-Semite along with other pejoratives. Try as I might, I just can't bring myself to hate the guy. To me, he's just an uninformed, yet oddly entertaining, doofus when it comes to the Middle East. Hating him for that is like hating a second-grader because he can't understand Calculus and sounds kind of funny every time he tries to talk about it.
As Carter says,
"I feel quite at ease in doing this. . . . I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."
See? Totally awesome. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're wondering "What would Neville Chamberlain say?," just Google a Carter quote about Hamas, and you'll probably have your answer.
Carter then got more specific about his reasoning:
"I think that it's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire — things of this kind," he said.
So Carter wants to assess Hamas's flexibility, huh? He must not read very much because Hamas has touted in the past just how flexible they are. They'd be happy to renounce violence and live in peace as long as Israel withdraws from . . . all of Israel:
"Abu Marzouk: "One of Hamas’s founding principals is that it does not recognize Israel. We [participated in] the elections and the people voted for us based on this platform. Therefore, the question of recognizing Israel is definitely not on the table unless it withdraws from ALL the Palestinian lands, not only to the 1967 borders. How can we be expected to recognize an occupying entity when millions of our people are refugees, and thousands of others are prisoners!? Why must we recognize them when they do not recognize us as a sovereign state with full independence?"
See? They're TOTALLY flexible. And if the Neville Chamberlain analogy seems like hyperbole, keep in mind that the Hamas Charter includes some pretty kick-ass old-school Antisemitism:
"Article Twenty-Two:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it."
Yup. The Freemasons and Rotary Clubs. Starting World War I, World War II, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution. They went there. I'm just a bit surprised they glossed over the Jewish role in starting the First Punic War because that was some pretty underhanded stuff.
But don't beat up poor Jimmy over this. He's probably never even read the Hamas Covenant or any substantive quotes from Hamas officials. In fact, I read that book of his last year, and it seemed like, well, he hasn't read much of anything on the Middle East. The only citations in the entire book are to two prior books Carter himself wrote. I won't get into the pervasive factual inaccuracies because they've been covered fairly well elsewhere (camera.org and Alan Dershowitz both did a decent debunking).
But overall, that book was a disorganized mess. Carter constantly vacillated between giving his own first-hand experiences and describing the "history" of the conflict (no footnotes or endnotes, of course). There was a fun controversy where Dennis Ross accused Carter of stealing the maps that were originally in Ross's book. Of course, this can't really be verified because the maps in Carter's book were completely silent as to their sources. The book did have an appendix, which contained an odd set of documents related to the conflict which seemed to be assembled almost randomly. For example, Carter decided to include Israel's objections to the famous Road Map for Peace without actually including the Road Map itself.
On one page early in the book, Carter describes the PLO as an "umbrella" of different groups who were using different means to accomplish their goals (notably, Carter doesn't identify these goals). The implication appears to be that some members of the PLO are either opposed to violence or don't utilize it. That, of course, is blatantly contradicted by Article 9 of the PLO Charter, which explicitly states that "armed struggle" is the only way to liberate "Palestine".
A bit later, Carter took Yasser Arafat at his word when Arafat told him that the PLO never sought to destroy Israel. That's just great comedy. Of course, later in the book, Carter alludes to the fact that the PLO promised during the Oslo process to amend its Charter to take out the provisions that called for Israel's destruction. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up (in fairness, Carter didn't actually quote any of the provisions at issue, which leads me to believe he's never actually read the PLO Covenant).
My favorite, though, was a tiny sentence buried at the end of one of the chapters where Carter muses wistfully about how the blood of Abraham flows through "Arabs, Christians, and Jews." Not Muslims, Christians and Jews. Arabs, Christians, and Jews, as if there are no Arab Christians or Arab Jews.
By this point, the book was getting pretty hard to read because I was giggling at the end of every sentence. So have some understanding for me. I just can't bring myself to hate Jimmy Carter. He's just too awesome.
That is how I feel every time I see a new article about Jimmy Carter. Jimmy is in the news again, this time defending his meeting with exiled Hamas mass-murderer Khaled Mashal.
Lots of people I know hate Carter and call him an anti-Semite along with other pejoratives. Try as I might, I just can't bring myself to hate the guy. To me, he's just an uninformed, yet oddly entertaining, doofus when it comes to the Middle East. Hating him for that is like hating a second-grader because he can't understand Calculus and sounds kind of funny every time he tries to talk about it.
As Carter says,
"I feel quite at ease in doing this. . . . I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."
See? Totally awesome. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're wondering "What would Neville Chamberlain say?," just Google a Carter quote about Hamas, and you'll probably have your answer.
Carter then got more specific about his reasoning:
"I think that it's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire — things of this kind," he said.
So Carter wants to assess Hamas's flexibility, huh? He must not read very much because Hamas has touted in the past just how flexible they are. They'd be happy to renounce violence and live in peace as long as Israel withdraws from . . . all of Israel:
"Abu Marzouk: "One of Hamas’s founding principals is that it does not recognize Israel. We [participated in] the elections and the people voted for us based on this platform. Therefore, the question of recognizing Israel is definitely not on the table unless it withdraws from ALL the Palestinian lands, not only to the 1967 borders. How can we be expected to recognize an occupying entity when millions of our people are refugees, and thousands of others are prisoners!? Why must we recognize them when they do not recognize us as a sovereign state with full independence?"
See? They're TOTALLY flexible. And if the Neville Chamberlain analogy seems like hyperbole, keep in mind that the Hamas Charter includes some pretty kick-ass old-school Antisemitism:
"Article Twenty-Two:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it."
Yup. The Freemasons and Rotary Clubs. Starting World War I, World War II, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution. They went there. I'm just a bit surprised they glossed over the Jewish role in starting the First Punic War because that was some pretty underhanded stuff.
But don't beat up poor Jimmy over this. He's probably never even read the Hamas Covenant or any substantive quotes from Hamas officials. In fact, I read that book of his last year, and it seemed like, well, he hasn't read much of anything on the Middle East. The only citations in the entire book are to two prior books Carter himself wrote. I won't get into the pervasive factual inaccuracies because they've been covered fairly well elsewhere (camera.org and Alan Dershowitz both did a decent debunking).
But overall, that book was a disorganized mess. Carter constantly vacillated between giving his own first-hand experiences and describing the "history" of the conflict (no footnotes or endnotes, of course). There was a fun controversy where Dennis Ross accused Carter of stealing the maps that were originally in Ross's book. Of course, this can't really be verified because the maps in Carter's book were completely silent as to their sources. The book did have an appendix, which contained an odd set of documents related to the conflict which seemed to be assembled almost randomly. For example, Carter decided to include Israel's objections to the famous Road Map for Peace without actually including the Road Map itself.
On one page early in the book, Carter describes the PLO as an "umbrella" of different groups who were using different means to accomplish their goals (notably, Carter doesn't identify these goals). The implication appears to be that some members of the PLO are either opposed to violence or don't utilize it. That, of course, is blatantly contradicted by Article 9 of the PLO Charter, which explicitly states that "armed struggle" is the only way to liberate "Palestine".
A bit later, Carter took Yasser Arafat at his word when Arafat told him that the PLO never sought to destroy Israel. That's just great comedy. Of course, later in the book, Carter alludes to the fact that the PLO promised during the Oslo process to amend its Charter to take out the provisions that called for Israel's destruction. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up (in fairness, Carter didn't actually quote any of the provisions at issue, which leads me to believe he's never actually read the PLO Covenant).
My favorite, though, was a tiny sentence buried at the end of one of the chapters where Carter muses wistfully about how the blood of Abraham flows through "Arabs, Christians, and Jews." Not Muslims, Christians and Jews. Arabs, Christians, and Jews, as if there are no Arab Christians or Arab Jews.
By this point, the book was getting pretty hard to read because I was giggling at the end of every sentence. So have some understanding for me. I just can't bring myself to hate Jimmy Carter. He's just too awesome.
The "Moderate" Mahmoud Abbas
I saw this a few weeks ago from the Middle East Media Research Institute and had to write about it. Some absolutely priceless statements are in there from Mahmoud Abbas. You know Abbas, right? He's the secular "moderate" peace-lover who is the Great Hope for ending the Arab/Israeli Conflict. Never mind the fact that Abbas was Arafat's number 2 guy in the PLO for roughly 40 years while they were conducting more terrorist attacks than Hamas could ever dream of. Never mind that the reason we call Abbas "Dr." is that he wrote a Ph.D thesis arguing: (i) that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis; and (ii) that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was purposefully inflated to further Zionist aims.
Isn't that so cute and moderate? Don't you just want to pinch his cheek? And oh yeah, he probably personally financed the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre.
But back to the MEMRI article. See, the big difference between the PLO and Hamas is that the PLO recognized (say it with me now) "Israel's Right to Exist." This is the big thing preventing the US from dealing with Hamas -- they won't say those magic words. So yeah, the PLO will recognize the right of us Jews to live in Israel while Hamas won't. Um, not so much, according to a briefing our Peace Prince gave to a Jordanian newspaper at the end of February:
"Abbas stressed that he is opposed to the so-called 'Jewish state,' saying, We already rejected such a proposal at the Annapolis summit, last November in the U.S. [In fact,] the summit almost broke up over this issue. We were asked at the time [to agree] that the summit's concluding statement should refer to the Jewish state – but we categorically objected to this..."
Read that again so it fully sinks in. They will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Of course, this is not very surprising since PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said basically the same thing several weeks ago (with just as little coverage from the media). In January 2001, Faisal Husseini, another "moderate" the Israelis thought they could deal with, told an Egyptian newspaper that the Oslo Accords were a "Trojan Horse" and that the ultimate strategic goal remained the same: all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The goals of the PLO are what they always have been: declare a "Palestinian State" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and deluge Israel proper with millions of Arabs through the so-called "Right of Return" to take over the country demographically and ultimately unite the whole area as "Palestine" with a large Arab majority ruling over the Dhimmi Jews just like old times.
Abbas even has a nice "moderate" attitude when it comes to lobbing missiles at helpless civilians. They're not bad because killing civilians is bad. No, they're bad because they provide a "pretext" for Israel to hit back (note to Radical Islamists: terrorism often does make civilized people want to hit back).
In fairness to Abbas, it's perfectly rational and understandable for him not to be satisfied with a nice cuddly little state next to Israel. His family isn't from the "Occupied Territories." He was born in Safed, from where his family fled the fighting in 1948. So giving back the territory conquered in 1967 doesn't settle the issue for him at all. Nor does it settle the issue for the PLO, most of whom come not from Judea, Samaria or Gaza, but from families who also fled Israel proper from 1947-49.
Under the Palestinian Narrative, which Mahmoud Abbas wholly subscribes to, their land was stolen out from under them by foreign,imperialist, colonialist (insert further pedantic-sounding pejoratives here) Jews, they want it ALL back, and they're willing to fight for it for as long as it takes. Just read the PLO Covenant.
So why this "Palestinian State" business? Why this Trojan Horse? Well, during the Cold War, the PLO was heavily allied with the Soviets, and the Soviets taught them to say things the West wanted to hear. No more driving the Jews into the sea and destroying Israel. Now it's all about the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, about vindicating universally recognized human rights under (drum roll please) International Law (don't worry, we're not going there with this note). So in 1974, the Palestinian National Council passed what is known as the "Phased Plan." Basically, the PLO would take any portion of "Paleistine" it was offered and declare a provisional state. But the endgame remains the same -- use the "Palestinian State" as a launching point to take over the rest of the land.
THAT is the "moderate" philosophy of Mahmoud Abbas. And that's why the so-called "Two State Solution" is no less fictional than Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
Isn't that so cute and moderate? Don't you just want to pinch his cheek? And oh yeah, he probably personally financed the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre.
But back to the MEMRI article. See, the big difference between the PLO and Hamas is that the PLO recognized (say it with me now) "Israel's Right to Exist." This is the big thing preventing the US from dealing with Hamas -- they won't say those magic words. So yeah, the PLO will recognize the right of us Jews to live in Israel while Hamas won't. Um, not so much, according to a briefing our Peace Prince gave to a Jordanian newspaper at the end of February:
"Abbas stressed that he is opposed to the so-called 'Jewish state,' saying, We already rejected such a proposal at the Annapolis summit, last November in the U.S. [In fact,] the summit almost broke up over this issue. We were asked at the time [to agree] that the summit's concluding statement should refer to the Jewish state – but we categorically objected to this..."
Read that again so it fully sinks in. They will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Of course, this is not very surprising since PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said basically the same thing several weeks ago (with just as little coverage from the media). In January 2001, Faisal Husseini, another "moderate" the Israelis thought they could deal with, told an Egyptian newspaper that the Oslo Accords were a "Trojan Horse" and that the ultimate strategic goal remained the same: all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The goals of the PLO are what they always have been: declare a "Palestinian State" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and deluge Israel proper with millions of Arabs through the so-called "Right of Return" to take over the country demographically and ultimately unite the whole area as "Palestine" with a large Arab majority ruling over the Dhimmi Jews just like old times.
Abbas even has a nice "moderate" attitude when it comes to lobbing missiles at helpless civilians. They're not bad because killing civilians is bad. No, they're bad because they provide a "pretext" for Israel to hit back (note to Radical Islamists: terrorism often does make civilized people want to hit back).
In fairness to Abbas, it's perfectly rational and understandable for him not to be satisfied with a nice cuddly little state next to Israel. His family isn't from the "Occupied Territories." He was born in Safed, from where his family fled the fighting in 1948. So giving back the territory conquered in 1967 doesn't settle the issue for him at all. Nor does it settle the issue for the PLO, most of whom come not from Judea, Samaria or Gaza, but from families who also fled Israel proper from 1947-49.
Under the Palestinian Narrative, which Mahmoud Abbas wholly subscribes to, their land was stolen out from under them by foreign,imperialist, colonialist (insert further pedantic-sounding pejoratives here) Jews, they want it ALL back, and they're willing to fight for it for as long as it takes. Just read the PLO Covenant.
So why this "Palestinian State" business? Why this Trojan Horse? Well, during the Cold War, the PLO was heavily allied with the Soviets, and the Soviets taught them to say things the West wanted to hear. No more driving the Jews into the sea and destroying Israel. Now it's all about the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, about vindicating universally recognized human rights under (drum roll please) International Law (don't worry, we're not going there with this note). So in 1974, the Palestinian National Council passed what is known as the "Phased Plan." Basically, the PLO would take any portion of "Paleistine" it was offered and declare a provisional state. But the endgame remains the same -- use the "Palestinian State" as a launching point to take over the rest of the land.
THAT is the "moderate" philosophy of Mahmoud Abbas. And that's why the so-called "Two State Solution" is no less fictional than Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
I Dare Call It Treason
I expect to see a lot of ineptitude from the Israeli media, but this dropped even my jaw to the floor. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz gave Op-Ed space to Ahmed Yousef, a purported "senior political advisor to the foreign minister in the Hamas government." That sounds all official and statesman-like, doesn't it? I would refer to him as nothing more than a barbaric member of a mass-murdering terror gang, but that's the difference between Ha'aretz and me, I guess. (I can't help but wonder how many junior political advisors there are to the foreign minister in the Hamas government, but we'll save that chuckle for another day).
Nevertheless, the issue is not the veil that Ha'aretz throws over this murderer to make him seem like something other than a barbarian. It's that they gave him any space at all to spew his propaganda and to justify his mass murder. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the specifics of Israeli law when it comes to treason. I do know that the United States Constitution, which has one of the strictest definitions of treason in the world, speaks of providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the state during a time of war.
Nobody can rationally dispute that Israel is at war with Hamas, which denies its right to exist and claims the right to lob missiles and bombs at civilians without even the pretext of a military target. What greater aid and comfort can one provide to an enemy than giving him space in your own newspaper to disseminate his propaganda? I can only imagine what the reaction would have been if the London Times had opened up its editorial page to Joachim Von Ribbentrop in 1943. This is no different. Say what you will about Newsday or the New York Times, but they would never open up their Op-Ed page to Ayman Al-Zawahri.
This is sickening, and it is probably a serious crime at that. In a sane world, the person or people that made this decision to give the enemy space for his propaganda would be immediately arrested. But as I've said, we live in Bizzaro World. And in Bizzaro World, treason is cool, I guess.
Nevertheless, the issue is not the veil that Ha'aretz throws over this murderer to make him seem like something other than a barbarian. It's that they gave him any space at all to spew his propaganda and to justify his mass murder. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the specifics of Israeli law when it comes to treason. I do know that the United States Constitution, which has one of the strictest definitions of treason in the world, speaks of providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the state during a time of war.
Nobody can rationally dispute that Israel is at war with Hamas, which denies its right to exist and claims the right to lob missiles and bombs at civilians without even the pretext of a military target. What greater aid and comfort can one provide to an enemy than giving him space in your own newspaper to disseminate his propaganda? I can only imagine what the reaction would have been if the London Times had opened up its editorial page to Joachim Von Ribbentrop in 1943. This is no different. Say what you will about Newsday or the New York Times, but they would never open up their Op-Ed page to Ayman Al-Zawahri.
This is sickening, and it is probably a serious crime at that. In a sane world, the person or people that made this decision to give the enemy space for his propaganda would be immediately arrested. But as I've said, we live in Bizzaro World. And in Bizzaro World, treason is cool, I guess.
The Hamas "Coup" and Bizzaro World
Here is another article I wrote about the so-called Hamas "coup" in Gaza:
Media coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict often offers us a glimpse into Bizzaro World, and this Reuters article is no exception. You see, in the Bizzaro World of the so-called Palestinian Authority, the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip earlier this year was, in the words of Husni Mubarak, a "coup against legitimacy." Palestinian "President" and Holocaust Denier (we'll deal with that another time) Mahmoud Abbas called on Hamas to "end its coup in Gaza," calling Hamas "an 'illegitimate party.'"
Of course, anybody with short-term memory will surely realize that what Hamas did in Gaza was not a coup -- in fact, it was quite the opposite. While Hamas is an evil, mass-murdering terror gang, the fact of the matter is that they won the PA elections in January 2006 overwhelmingly. No less of an authority than the great Jimmy Carter himself signed off on those elections as legitimate.
The problem was that Abbas's Fatah guys didn't like the results of that election and refused to give up their offices. So after numerous attempts at negotiations and intermittent violence, Hamas basically decided earlier this year to simply seize the power they'd won in the election by force. Whatever that is, it's certainly not a coup since it involves the (apparently) legitimately elected government seizing the very power it had lawfully won.
The problem is that the US and the West in general, having preached the virtues of democracy in the Arab world, were taken aback by this result. They sought to do whatever they could to keep Abbas and his particular terror gang in power since they are the "moderate" good Jew-killers who will bring peace in our time (as opposed to Hamas, who, as everybody knows, are the "radical" bad Jew-killers).
So the US is only too happy to put forth the Bizzaro World scenario where Abbas and Fatah are the "legitimate" rulers of the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas is unlawfully pulling off an insidious coup. It's as if those 2006 elections never happened. That way, you can pretend Abbas is the spirited leader the PA carrying the flag of peace while Hamas is the "fringe" extremist group obstructing peace with their dastardly coup. Quite brilliant, really.
Media coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict often offers us a glimpse into Bizzaro World, and this Reuters article is no exception. You see, in the Bizzaro World of the so-called Palestinian Authority, the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip earlier this year was, in the words of Husni Mubarak, a "coup against legitimacy." Palestinian "President" and Holocaust Denier (we'll deal with that another time) Mahmoud Abbas called on Hamas to "end its coup in Gaza," calling Hamas "an 'illegitimate party.'"
Of course, anybody with short-term memory will surely realize that what Hamas did in Gaza was not a coup -- in fact, it was quite the opposite. While Hamas is an evil, mass-murdering terror gang, the fact of the matter is that they won the PA elections in January 2006 overwhelmingly. No less of an authority than the great Jimmy Carter himself signed off on those elections as legitimate.
The problem was that Abbas's Fatah guys didn't like the results of that election and refused to give up their offices. So after numerous attempts at negotiations and intermittent violence, Hamas basically decided earlier this year to simply seize the power they'd won in the election by force. Whatever that is, it's certainly not a coup since it involves the (apparently) legitimately elected government seizing the very power it had lawfully won.
The problem is that the US and the West in general, having preached the virtues of democracy in the Arab world, were taken aback by this result. They sought to do whatever they could to keep Abbas and his particular terror gang in power since they are the "moderate" good Jew-killers who will bring peace in our time (as opposed to Hamas, who, as everybody knows, are the "radical" bad Jew-killers).
So the US is only too happy to put forth the Bizzaro World scenario where Abbas and Fatah are the "legitimate" rulers of the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas is unlawfully pulling off an insidious coup. It's as if those 2006 elections never happened. That way, you can pretend Abbas is the spirited leader the PA carrying the flag of peace while Hamas is the "fringe" extremist group obstructing peace with their dastardly coup. Quite brilliant, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)